While one ethanol carbon pipeline is off the table, Summit Carbon Solutions is regrouping after having its initial permit application turned down by South Dakota Public Utility Commission regulators in September.
That possibility spurs the Lincoln County Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Advisory Committee, South Dakota Searchlight reports.
Lincoln could become sixth county to regulate location of carbon pipelines
By Joshua HaiarCANTON — Lincoln County could become the sixth county in the state to enact regulations on the location of carbon dioxide pipelines.
Brown, McPherson, Minnehaha, Moody and Spink counties already have “setback” ordinances that mandate minimum distances between pipelines and residential areas, livestock facilities, nursing homes and other existing features.
The Lincoln County Commission rejected a setback proposal earlier this year due to concerns about the county’s authority to enact such an ordinance. Since then, state regulators told county officials they do in fact have the authority, according to Eric Scott, who serves on the county’s new Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Advisory Committee, which is tasked with preparing an ordinance recommendation.
In September, the state Public Utilities Commission denied permits for two companies seeking to build carbon pipelines in the state. Commissioners cited conflicts between the pipeline routes and county setback ordinances as a reason for the denials. Commissioners also declined to overrule the county setback ordinances.
One company, Navigator C02, has since withdrawn its plan. The other, Summit Carbon Solutions, plans to resubmit an application after modifying its route. The company aims to capture carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants and transport them in liquefied form for underground storage in North Dakota, thereby making the project eligible for federal tax credits that incentivize the removal of heat-trapping gasses from the atmosphere.
The Lincoln County pipeline committee held its second meeting Tuesday to discuss four proposals ranging from aggressive setback distances favored by pipeline opponents to lesser distances they oppose.
County Commissioner Joel Arends suggested the committee should first hear from out-of-state carbon pipeline operators and regulators. He said that while the current proposals may be informed by other South Dakota county ordinances, he wants to “hear from people who have real-world experience regulating these things.”
From there, the discussion pivoted from discussing the proposals on the table to discussing who should be at the table. Some members suggested South Dakota state and county officials would suffice.
“I don’t know how many outside people we need to come in and tell us how to write our ordinance,” committee member Eric Scott said.
Committee member Anthony Ventura said the listening sessions would only mean kicking discussion of the proposals — two of which he introduced — further down the road.
“I think we’re dragging our heels here,” Ventura said.
The committee will continue discussing the issues at its next meeting.
This South Dakota Searchlight article is published under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Lincoln County residents and members of the county’s newly formed Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Advisory Committee attend a meeting Nov. 28, 2023, in Canton. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).
Related posts
- Final arguments for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline Iowa permit are due in January
- Critics allege CO2 pipelines ‘farm the government’ for climate $$ while helping oil industry; bills fuel debate over ethanol’s environmental impact, with climate implications
- Ethanol carbon pipeline update: Summit permit decision in Iowa not expected until next year
- If first you don't succeed: Summit's new route in North Dakota adds thirteen miles of pipeline
- Defying the odds: Meet the attorney for 1,000 clients who beat two pipeline companies
- Summit Carbon stands to benefit from Navigator's canceled pipeline, but IA opponents sue to block Summit Carbon water permit
- Cancel culture: Navigator withdraws ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Iowa
- Navigator CO2 cancels multistate pipeline project
- Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
- Some Iowa landowners were confused by Summit Carbon Solution eminent domain process
- Navigator CO2 pulls its ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Illinois
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Summit pipeline hearing will resume on Tuesday; Navigator asks Iowa regulators to pause its pipeline permit request
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Local officials in Iowa have potential to block carbon capture projects
- IA Capital Dispatch: Summit permit process in North Dakota has reached ‘uncharted waters
- North Dakota Public Service Commission votes 2-1 to reopen Summit Carbon pipeline case
- Navigator CO2 has not ‘taken any state off the map’ after SD pipeline permit rejection
- Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: reaction to denial; water use in IA; rich guy resists subpoena
- Iowa utility regulators want to finish Summit pipeline permit hearing by month’s end
- State denies Summit permit; both ethanol carbon pipelines proposed in South Dakota now rejected
- Summit Carbon Solutions forges ahead despite SD PUC staff's motion to deny pipeline permit
- SD PUC staff motion: non-mysterious portents in the air about potential denial of Summit Carbon Solution's pipeline permit application
- South Dakota Navigator pipeline decision might jeopardize Summit Carbon Solutions proposal
- Breaking: South Dakota Public Utilities Commission unanimously denies Navigator ethanol CO2 pipeline project permit
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments