In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters

I'm in Sioux Falls for the first day of my cataract surgery. So far, so good. The fate of one South Dakota referred law is cheering me. 

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters in unofficial results
by Seth Tupper, John Hult and Makenzie Huber

Summit Carbon Solutions says it will reapply this month for a permit

A proposed law regulating carbon dioxide pipelines was losing in unofficial South Dakota election results.

The tally was 60% against Referred Law 21 and 40% in favor as of 8 a.m. Central time Wednesday, with 90% of statewide precincts fully reported.

State lawmakers and Republican Gov. Kristi Noem adopted the law last winter. Opponents gathered more than 31,000 petition signatures to refer it to voters. A yes vote supported the law, while a no vote opposed it.

The law came in response to a controversial proposal from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions. The company has partnered with ethanol producers to capture some of the carbon dioxide emitted by 57 ethanol plants in several midwestern states — including eastern South Dakota — and send it via pipeline to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits that incentivize the prevention of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

Wednesday morning, Summit issued a statement saying it will reapply on Nov. 19 to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a permit after being denied a permit last year. That denial was partially due to the pipeline route’s conflicts with local county siting laws.

“Our focus continues to be on working with landowners and ensuring the long-term viability of ethanol and agriculture in the state,” Summit’s statement said. “Projects like ours have successfully navigated South Dakota’s existing regulatory landscape in the past. We will continue to operate within the current framework, knowing that the future of ethanol and agriculture is vital to our shared success.”

Referred Law 21 would have implemented a list of protections for landowners and counties impacted by the construction of the pipeline but would have stopped short of preventing pipeline companies from using a legal process known as “eminent domain” to gain land access from unwilling landowners.

The lack of protection against eminent domain was a sticking point for the law’s opponents. They also opposed a provision in the law requiring local governments to demonstrate their restrictions on pipeline locations are reasonable, rather than requiring pipeline companies to prove those regulations are unreasonable. Opponents labeled that provision a seizure of local authority.

One of those opponents, affected landowner Ed Fischbach, issued a statement Wednesday morning.

“South Dakota voters have spoken: South Dakota is not for sale,” he said. “Summit and its big-moneyed partners thought they could buy the voters as easily as they bought the Legislature. They outspent us by over a tenfold, but voters saw through their lies.

“As South Dakotans, we value local control and our communities. By defeating Referred Law 21, the voters have proven that we value people over profits. Hopefully this time the Legislature will listen.”

The referred law’s complicated backstory contributed to voter confusion. Poll results published last month found 24% of respondents undecided on the ballot question.

Kenya Mejia, of Sioux Falls, said Tuesday outside her polling place that she wasn’t sure how to vote on the pipeline measure, and ultimately voted no.

“I kept reading it and reading it and was so confused,” she said.

Linda Price, also of Sioux Falls, said she endured a similar struggle before voting no.

“I shouldn’t have voted on that one at all,” she said. “I just don’t know.”

 

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: A billboard seen on Oct. 24, 2024, in Sioux Falls urges voters to oppose a ballot measure that would alter laws regulating carbon dioxide pipelines. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

Related posts

•  CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• 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
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

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