Yet another installment in the ethanol carbon pipeline saga in the Mount Rushmore State from the South Dakota Searchlight.
CO2 pipeline debate has resulted in divisions among ethanol proponents
By Joshua HaiarA carbon pipeline project aimed at reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from the Midwest ethanol industry is irritating some within that very industry.
Summit Carbon Solutions aims to transport carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to an underground storage site in North Dakota. Its CEO, Lee Blank, recently emphasized the importance of the pipeline for the ethanol industry in an interview with South Dakota Searchlight.
“Electric vehicles are continuing to grow,” he said. “They are, and maybe not here, but in cities. Our gas consumption is going down. So how do we open up other markets so ethanol consumption goes up?”
Iowa-based Summit wants to collect carbon dioxide emissions from 32 ethanol plants, including some in South Dakota. Doing so would make the project eligible for federal tax credits that incentivize greenhouse gas sequestration and could create access to new markets. Those include states demanding cleaner ethanol, and new ventures like ethanol-based jet fuel.
Company spokesperson Sabrina Zenor said not having the pipeline would break the Midwest ethanol industry. Some opponents are anti-ethanol, she said.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission denied Summit a building permit earlier this year, citing violations of county setback ordinances. Summit plans to resubmit an application.
Meanwhile, some corn farmers who have long supported the ethanol industry were alarmed by Summit’s use of eminent domain to acquire private land for the pipeline, against the will of about 160 South Dakota landowners. That happened before the pipeline project’s permit hearing with state regulators.
South Dakota Farmers Union President Doug Sombke said members feel betrayed. They supported the growth of the ethanol industry, only to face what they perceived as an infringement on their property rights.
“You, the farmers, made this industry,” Sombke said during a panel discussion on property rights at the organization’s 108th annual convention in Huron in November.
Sombke is furious over Summit’s allegation that pipeline opponents are anti-ethanol.
“There is nobody in this state that’s worked harder for ethanol than me or this organization,” he said. “You should all be damn proud of that.”
There are other ways to ensure ethanol has a steady future, Sombke said, like blending more of it into the nation’s fuel supply. Plus, he said using sustainable agricultural practices that sequester more carbon on land that’s used to grow corn for ethanol would accomplish the same goal.
Ed Fischbach farms corn in Spink County and sells it to the ethanol industry. Today he leads South Dakotans First, a coalition of landowners and others opposed to the pipeline.
“Never in my wildest dreams, with all we’ve done for ethanol and these companies, did I think they were going to come back and ask me to give up my land, and you to give up your land so that they could improve their bottom line,” Fischbach said at the Farmer’s Union Convention.
He said the coalition of opponents will support legislation during the upcoming legislative session that would ban the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines. Similar legislation failed last winter.
State ag politicos call it vital
Pipeline proponents in the state’s agriculture industry recently formed a coalition of their own.
The group wants to “raise public awareness about the potential negative impacts on the state and its rural communities if we allow a small minority of objectors to continue blocking proposals like the carbon pipeline project,” according to a press release from the group, called Protect South Dakota’s Future.
Summit last reported having access agreements with enough landowners to give the company access to about 70% of the land required to complete the project.
The coalition’s site says a $1.2 billion investment, $99 million in local tax revenue during construction, and $53 million in annual expenditures are on the line.
The coalition’s board is made up of six influential ag development voices.
“Whether you agree or disagree with carbon sequestration, it is here, it is not going away, and will determine market access moving forward indefinitely,” Walt Bones, former South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture and Noem’s 2022 Ag Ambassador said in the press release.
Lake Preston area farmer, national soybean lobbyist, and Noem’s 2019 Ag Ambassador Paul Casper called the project vital to the industry’s future.
“We’ve been working to create value-added ag opportunities in the state for more than 25 years and we know the carbon pipeline is more than just an infrastructure project; it’s a lifeline for our state’s economic and agricultural future,” Casper said in the release.
Protect South Dakota’s Future wasn’t the only group of politically connected proponents to recently join the conversation.
South Dakota Ag Alliance, co-founded by Rob Skjonsberg and Jason Glodt, prominent political figures in the state, will advocate for policies to complete the pipeline while trying to ensure opponent landowners do not feel cheated.
DC lobbyists: “Ethanol going nowhere”
Meanwhile, some D.C. ethanol lobbyists are irritated by Summit’s claim that the industry faces a bleak future without its carbon-capture project.
“The ethanol industry isn’t going anywhere,” said David Hallberg, an ethanol lobbyist and founder of the Renewable Fuels Association. “They should stop saying that.”
Fellow ethanol lobbyist Doug Durante said the industry is aware of how electric vehicles and greater fuel efficiency will eat into demand for ethanol, but it has another pathway for keeping demand up.
“If the pipeline can add some value, that’s great, but we’ve also got an opportunity right now,” Durante said. “And it’s higher blends.”
Hallberg agreed.
Like Doug Sombke, Durante and Hallberg said more ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply would maintain its demand, even if liquid fuel consumption was halved.
“We have an immediate market opportunity that requires no federal subsidies,” Hallberg said.
All three leaders want to see E30 (30% ethanol, 70% gasoline) at as many gas pumps as there are currently pumping E15 (15% ethanol, 85% gasoline).
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: An ethanol plant near Aberdeen. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).
Related posts
- Republican presidential field generally opposes eminent domain for ethanol carbon pipelines
- Poor beleaguered ethanol carbon operatives organize to escape chains of oppression
- Ethanol carbon capture update: Lincoln could become 6th county to regulate carbon pipelines
- South Dakotans First: property rights coalition plans to lobby for eminent domain restrictions.
- 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