A South Dakota Supreme Court ruling has added another twist to the Summit Carbon Solutions ethanol pipeline saga on Thursday. Want to use eminent domain to build your project? Prove you're a common carrier.
For additional coverage, read coverage by AgWeek's Kennedy Tesch in South Dakota Supreme Court sides with landowners, says Summit Carbon Solutions cannot use eminent domain.
From the South Dakota Searchlight.
Court ruling complicates carbon pipeline company’s push for land
By Joshua HaiarJustices send matter back to lower courts, saying Summit hasn’t proven it’s a common carrier
The company trying to build a carbon-capture pipeline through South Dakota has not yet proven it should be allowed to take private land for public use, according to a state Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday.
Landowners who oppose the project hailed the decision as a victory, but the company expressed confidence it could go back to lower courts and prove its case.
Summit Carbon Solutions, of Iowa, is developing an $8 billion pipeline project. It would capture carbon dioxide produced by 57 ethanol plants in multiple states and transport it to an underground storage site in North Dakota. The company hopes to capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the removal of heat-trapping carbon from the atmosphere.
The pipeline would pass through 18 counties in eastern South Dakota. Some landowners along the route sued to stop the company from conducting land surveys.
Court decision explained
Summit says the surveys are justified because the company qualifies as a common carrier, and common carriers are allowed to use eminent domain.
A common carrier transports goods for the general public in exchange for a fee, such as electricity in a transmission line or oil in a pipeline. Common carriers are allowed to use eminent domain to gain land access from unwilling landowners, by going to court and asking a judge to determine fair payments.
The state Supreme Court ruled Summit had not yet proven to lower courts that it’s “holding itself out to the general public as transporting a commodity for hire.”
“It is thus premature to conclude that SCS is a common carrier, especially where the record before us suggests that CO2 is being shipped and sequestered underground with no apparent productive use,” the court ruled.
The Supreme Court sent the matter back to South Dakota’s lower courts for further proceedings, adding that the Supreme Court justices “make no judgment as to SCS’s ultimate common carrier status.”
Summit pledges to continue
Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor said in a statement that the company is confident it can provide additional information to lower courts proving its project qualifies as a common carrier.
“The economic impact of carbon capture, utilization, and storage on rural America is significant, and will greatly benefit agriculture and farmers,” Zenor said. “We are committed to ensuring that these benefits reach communities across our project footprint as we continue to be a valuable partner in this growing market.”
Meanwhile, attorney Brian Jorde, representing more than 1,000 landowners affected by the project, told South Dakota Searchlight the ruling validated what he and his clients have argued for three years.
The project has approval from the Iowa Utilities Board, but that approval is conditioned on Summit gaining permits in North Dakota and South Dakota, which have not been granted. Jorde said the South Dakota Supreme Court decision means Summit is now “in a real bind.”
Jorde also alleged broader implications for Summit’s business model. He said the company might try to bolster its argument for being a common carrier by citing the possibility that carbon dioxide could be used for enhanced oil recovery. In that process, carbon dioxide is injected into aging oil wells to make crude oil less thick, help it flow better, and cause it to expand toward wells.
Jorde said that would undermine the project’s purported benefits for the climate.
“So, what they’re now going to do is say they’re going to take that carbon and then produce more carbon-intensive fuels,” he said. “This is just total nonsense, this whole project.”
Lawmakers claim vindication
Multiple legislative attempts to ban the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines failed during the past two legislative sessions in Pierre.
One of the lawmakers who supported those bills, Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton, said the Supreme Court decision is vindication.
“The same arguments that were offered on the House floor are now upheld by the Supreme Court,” she said.
House Majority Leader Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, helped to pass legislation last winter that provides additional financial and legal protections for affected local governments and landowners while retaining the ability of pipeline companies to seek a state permit.
Opponent lawmakers and landowners have since filed petition signatures to refer that legislation to voters in the Nov. 5 general election.
Mortenson said he also feels vindicated after saying last year that carbon sequestration pipelines aren’t common carriers, aren’t carrying commodities, and should not have the ability to use eminent domain.
“For the last two years, I’ve argued that the carbon pipeline is different from other pipelines and should be treated differently,” he said. “They haven’t yet proven they are a common carrier, or that carbon dumped in the ground is a commodity. Maybe they can prove that in the future, but with what we know now, they don’t have eminent domain authority and never have.”
- Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
- Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
- More carbon pipeline news: Summit jumpstarts pipeline efforts with purchase of old land easement agreements in Iowa
- IA Rep. Miller-Meeks says carbon pipelines will help Iowa ethanol industry stay competitive
- VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
- Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
- Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
- Carbon capture news from elsewhere: New Illinois law lays out safety requirements for future carbon sequestration projects
- Broad array of groups object to Summit pipeline permit approval by Iowa Utilities Commission
- Iowa ethanol carbon pipeline opponents poised for Summit Carbon Solutions permit challenges
- Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
- Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
- South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
- News digest: District 1, the edge of the primary election political earthquake in South Dakota
- South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
- Company behind proposed Lake Preston jet fuel plant buoyed by federal carbon credit ruling
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
- ND GOP resolution against CCS pipelines decries "false premise of looming climate apocalypse
- 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!
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