Bluestem Prairie

Commentary: SD Governor Kristi Noem rides back to D.C., possibly eyeing a bigger prize

Sharp commentary from veteran South Dakota newsman Kevin Woster.

Via the South Dakota Searchlight.

Noem rides back to D.C., possibly eyeing a bigger prize
by Kevin Woster

ome obvious questions come to mind in considering Gov. Kristi Noem’s selection to lead the Department of Homeland Security in Donald Trump’s next administration.

Will the ghost of Cricket — the 14-month old German wirehaired pointer Noem shot and killed in an apparent fit of anger over the dog’s behavior — haunt her confirmation process? And will the hapless goat she blasted on the same day she executed Cricket bleat its way into the discussion?

Will Noem’s nomination be troubled by her questionable leadership during flooding last spring at McCook Lake in southeast South Dakota? The Federal Emergency Management Agency is part of Homeland Security, after all. And during the emergency at McCook Lake, Noem managed things by hustling back and forth between South Dakota and national political events in other states.

A former two-term state legislator and four-term member of the U.S. House, Noem seemed to be on a reasonably conservative road to some House leadership spot when she decided to run for governor. After making history as South Dakota’s first female governor, she is halfway through her second term and seems to be on her way to a cabinet-level position that she claims was the one she really wanted.

Who knows? Maybe that’s true. In the last couple of years she has seemed obsessed with what she relentlessly called the “war zone” at the southern border, and she expressed it in Trump-like rhetoric that the supreme leader of her party surely loved and encouraged.

She went to the border. She flew above it in a helicopter. She rode on it in an air boat. She sent Army National Guard soldiers multiple times there to assist in security and border-wall work. And wearing jeans, boots, a work shirt with rolled-up sleeves and a hard hat, she helped Guard members erect some barrier sections herself.

Could she have done all of that with the Homeland Security job in mind? Could she have been that crafty and strategic, possibly with guidance from advisers like Corey Lewandowski? Could she have even made her designs on the Homeland Security job clear to Trump months ago, and reached some quiet understanding?

Or was it just a happy coincidence for Noem that all of that posturing and hyperbolic rhetoric about the border put her in the perfect position for what now seems to be her dream job — as opposed, it seems, to the one South Dakota voters gave her.

When it comes to politics, I never sell Noem short. As for running a 260,000-employee, multi-agency department with a mind-numbing assortment of challenges and life-and-death security duties? Well, I’m not sure about that.

But I am pretty sure that if she gets confirmed, we’ll see her in a video clip on horseback along the southern border by summer.

Photo: South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem visits National Guard troops in May 2024 on the Texas border with Mexico. (Courtesy of the Governor’s Office).

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

Related posts

• Noem Cabinet role could be 'untenable,' former Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson says 
• Good-bye girl: Trump picks Governor Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security
• Update: Nope. With Trump returning to office, is Noem poised for an administration role?
• Victory/History Day meal to be celebrated June 25 in Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Memorial Park
• News digest: Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe to banish Noem; calls for Flute, State-Tribal Relations Committee chairs resignation
• Ihaƞktoƞwaƞ Dakota Oyate: Sixth tribe bans Governor Kristi Noem from reservation 
• Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate bans Governor Kristi Noem from Lake Traverse Reservation
• Tensions continue between Noem, tribes 
• News update on Noem's pairing reservations, tribal leaders with cartels; Rep. St. John's reply
• Noem calls for audit of tribes; ICT News/Rapid City Journal reporter finds the receipts
• Malice: she's on it. Tribal leaders insulted after Governor Noem claims they "are personally benefiting from the cartels being here
• In Winner, Noem links tribal leaders to cartels
• SWO Dakota to Governor Noem: don't single out reservations when drugs are a statewide problem
• Noem banned from Pine Ridge Reservation over remarks in border speech to state legislature

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

 

Federal court case in North Dakota calls national environmental review regime into question

South Dakota is among the 21 Republican-led states that seek to overturn nearly five decades of environmental regulations affecting infrastructure projects.

From the North Dakota Monitor.

Court case in North Dakota calls federal environmental review regime into question
by Mary Steurer

A lawsuit before a North Dakota federal district court could upend nearly five decades of environmental regulations affecting infrastructure projects.

The Council on Environmental Quality was created through an executive order by President Richard Nixon in 1969. It implements the National Environmental Policy Act, which directs federal agencies to assess how projects under their jurisdiction will impact environmental factors like air and water quality.

A coalition of 21 Republican-led states, including North Dakota, seeks to overturn a new regulation adopted by the council that took effect in July. The states argue that the rule introduces unreasonable requirements that will slow or even sink important infrastructure including new highways, airports, bridges and water systems, and unlawfully over-emphasizes climate change and environmental justice in the environmental review process.

In a lawsuit filed in May, the states asked the court to strike down the rule, direct the council to adopt regulations consistent with federal law and reinstate a weaker version the agency enacted during President Donald Trump’s administration in 2020.

A group of 13 other states, plus the District of Columbia, New York City and a handful of advocacy groups, have joined the case on the side of the Council on Environmental Quality. The defendants argue the agency’s work is vital to protect the environment and public health, and that the 2024 rule should be left in place.

It’s possible that neither side will get what it wants. In a hearing earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor said the Council on Environmental Quality’s entire regulatory regime may be unlawful.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found in a November order that the agency does not have rulemaking authority because Congress never explicitly granted it the power to implement the National Environmental Review Act. The appellate court did not strike down any of the council’s regulations, leaving it up to other courts to decide whether the rules should stand.

Traynor questioned how he could leave the regulations intact given the D.C. court’s findings. He said if he were to apply the court’s reasoning to the North Dakota case, he may conclude that all National Environmental Policy Act regulations passed by the council are void. The council issued its first rule implementing the act in 1978.

“If they have no authority, they have no authority,” Traynor said of the council. “It is a paper tiger.”

An attorney representing the Council on Environmental Quality, Gregory Cumming, rebuffed during the hearing the notion that the agency is operating without approval from Congress. The council keeps Congress apprised of its work with annual reports, he noted. If the assembly did not want the agency to pass rules, it could have passed legislation clarifying that stance, Cumming said.

Jan Hasselman — an attorney representing several advocacy groups that joined the case as defendants — said there’s a reason the council’s rulemaking authority has gone unquestioned for almost five decades.

“Nobody benefits when there’s no rules,” he told the judge. “It’s just sort of a mutually assured destruction.”

Traynor voiced skepticism that such a decision would create disarray. Even if the council’s rules disappear, other local and federal regulations would still be intact, he reasoned.

“It’s not like it becomes the wild west,” he said. 

Traynor asked the plaintiffs and defense to prepare legal briefs explaining how they would be impacted if he adopts the D.C. court’s reasoning.

The discussion came as part of a hearing on motions for summary judgment by the plaintiffs and defense. Both sides asked Traynor to decide the case in their favor without going to trial.

James Auslander, an attorney representing the plaintiff states, said the council is unlawfully and arbitrarily infringing on state sovereignty and the new rule will cause them significant economic harm.

“These are critical projects for plaintiff states and our citizens,” Auslander said.

Cumming argued the plaintiff states have not demonstrated that the new rule has actually harmed them, and that many of the components of the rule challenged as cumbersome are guidelines, not requirements.

Traynor took the motions under advisement and has yet to issue a ruling.

The 21 plaintiffs states are Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, South Carolina, Kansas, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Texas and Alaska.

The 13 states that joined the defense as intervenors are California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Colorado, Michigan, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Wisconsin.

This North Dakota Monitor article is reprinted online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Photo: A bridge constructed in North Dakota in 2021.

Related posts

• Update: Congressman Dusty Johnson justifies showing up for infrastructure he voted against
• Dusty Johnson et al sketchy hook-up with Madison rural water earns snarky social media
• MN08 Stauber claims to be proud to advocate for Blatnick Bridge; he voted against its funding

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

Republicans seek Minnesota House majority through two legal challenges

At the Minnesota Reformer, Michelle Griffith takes up on the DFL Trifecta postmortem that Bluestem last noted in Even Mary Franson got one: Minnesota House committee, division co-chairs announced for 2025-26 legislative biennium.

I'll look forward to learning how the legal challenges play out.

From the Minnesota Reformer.

Republicans seek Minnesota House majority through two legal challenges
by Michelle Griffith

Republicans are contesting two general election results with legal action, hoping to tip the tied 67-67 Minnesota House in their favor. 

On Tuesday, House Republicans announced they intend to file a lawsuit over the election results in House District 54A, which encompasses Shakopee. Democratic-Farmer-Labor Rep. Brad Tabke is leading the race over his GOP opponent Aaron Paul by 15 votes after a recount last week.

House Speaker-designate Rep. Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, in a statement said there were “inconsistencies in vote reporting” and “21 missing ballots.” 

“House Republicans are taking action to ensure that every legal vote counts and that the election is decided by the people of District 54A without interference,” Demuth said.

It’s unclear what has caused potential vote count discrepancies. There are a few potential reasons for a discrepancy, and not all of them involve the ballots being missing. For instance, an elections official may have made a mistake on a computer menu option and marked a batch of ballots as “accepted” when they meant to reject them due to signature issues or any of the other reasons a ballot can be rejected. In that case, the ballots would be tallied as “accepted” in the computer system but never actually tabulated as votes because election workers rejected them, creating the discrepancy.

In a statement on Wednesday morning, Scott County Attorney Ron Hocevar said the discrepancy appears to be a result of human error.

“The preliminary investigation into the 21-ballot discrepancy hasn’t been determinative thus far, and it appears likely to be the result of human error that occurred during the collection of early absentee ballots at the City of Shakopee. This unfortunate situation resulted in a level of confusion that should not have occurred,” Hocevar said.

The House will be evenly split after the GOP successfully flipped three DFL seats earlier this month. House leaders are currently negotiating a power-sharing agreement, but Republicans are eager to take full control.

In typically safe DFL House District 40B, which includes Roseville and Shoreview, GOP candidate Paul Wikstrom filed an election contest against DFL opponent Curtis Johnson. Earlier this month, Johnson won the race for the House seat by 30 points, but in court filings Wikstrom alleged that Johnson doesn’t live in the district.

House candidates need to be a resident in the House district for which they are running for at least six months before an election. In an affidavit, Wikstrom alleged that Johnson has a Little Canada home he primarily lives in — not in the House district — and rents a Roseville studio apartment in the district to make it appear like he lives there.

Johnson didn’t immediately respond to the Reformer’s request for comment about the allegations disputing his residency.

Wikstrom in his affidavit stated that his campaign created an “investigative team” to monitor Johnson’s whereabouts and alleged that Johnson would regularly come and go from his Little Canada home. He detailed the measures his campaign took to determine whether Johnson lived in the Roseville apartment.

Wikstrom said his team called Xcel Energy and Comcast to see if the Roseville apartment was hooked up to electricity and internet, and they were “given the impression” that the apartment didn’t have accounts set up for either.

One campaign staffer went to the Roseville apartment and saw that the door “was dusty and lacked evidence of any recent activity or markings indicating dust being wiped away from use,” the affidavit states.

Another campaign staffer in October went to Johnson’s Roseville apartment and took photos underneath the door, which ended about an inch above the ground, according to the affidavit. What was visible was bare and didn’t have furniture, according to the affidavit.

Wikstrom said Johnson should be denied his election certificate based on the residency issue. 

Proving a candidate is not a resident can be difficult. The most recent residency challenge was in 2016, when Republican Rep. Bob Barrett was banned from running because he didn’t live in his district.

Photo: The Minnesota Capitol Building. Courtesy of Minnesota House Public Information Services/ via Minnesota Reformer.

This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• Even Mary Franson got one: Minnesota House committee, division co-chairs announced for 2025-26 legislative biennium
• Dancing in the dark? MNHouse DFL and GOP, tied at 67, locked in a haters’ embrace
• Minnesota Democrats are drawing in the most outside spending, campaign finance data show
• DFL network dominates fundraising in September campaign finance reports

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

Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says

Those who've watched pipeline politics and protests in the Dakotas will clearly see the irony of this. 

Can't make it up, as the old folks say.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, oil pipeline company says
by Joshua Haiar

A company proposing a carbon dioxide pipeline should have conditions on its potential permit after it failed to address concerns about crossings with a crude oil pipeline, said the company that operates the oil pipeline.

Dakota Access LLC, which is controlled by Energy Transfer Partners, operates the Dakota Access Pipeline. It transports crude oil 1,172 miles from North Dakota to Illinois.

Summit Carbon Solutions plans a 2,500-mile pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions.

The routes of the existing and proposed pipeline cross eastern South Dakota. Summit recently reapplied for a permit after being rejected last year by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

In a new filing with the commission, Dakota Access said Summit has not provided sufficient details — such as maps, depths and safety measures — about its proposed crossings of the Dakota Access Pipeline, known by the acronym “DAPL.”

“Summit has largely refused to talk to Dakota Access about pipeline crossing agreements and necessary mitigation measures to prevent damage to DAPL,” Dakota Access attorneys wrote. 

To address the concerns, Dakota Access asked for 12 conditions if Summit receives a permit. The conditions include prohibiting heavy equipment or vehicles from operating directly on DAPL’s right-of-way without protective measures, requiring abrasive-resistant coating to be applied to the carbon pipeline at crossings, and mandating that Summit monitor all crossing locations and notify Dakota Access at least 48 hours in advance of any construction activity near DAPL’s right-of-way in South Dakota.

Alternatively, Dakota Access has requested that state regulators delay Summit’s permit proceedings until an agreement on crossing terms is reached. 

Summit Carbon Solutions did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brian Jorde, an attorney for landowners opposing the carbon pipeline, said in a news release that Summit’s failure to work with Dakota Access is problematic.

“The theme has been clear in South Dakota and across the region – Summit does not respect the law, they don’t respect the will of the people, and they think they can force themselves on and through South Dakota,” Jorde said.

Summit already has permits in Iowa and North Dakota. A decision is pending in Minnesota, and Nebraska has no state permitting processing for carbon pipelines.

Photo:  A sign displays the names of South Dakota’s three elected public utilities commissioners outside of their Pierre office in January 2023. (South Dakota Searchlight/Joshua Haiar)

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

Related posts

• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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

 

 

 

 

Congress may have to ‘put the brakes on’ some uses of presidential power, Thune says

Glad to see Senator Thune showing some grit.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Congress may have to ‘put the brakes on’ some uses of presidential power, Thune says
by Makenzie Huber

BRANDON — Incoming U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, signaled Tuesday he’s willing to push back against potential attempts by President-elect Donald Trump to expand presidential power over federal spending.

“Every president is going to come in and try to do as much as they can by executive action as possible,” Thune said. “Congress, in some cases, is going to be the entity that sometimes will have to put the brakes on.”

Thune spoke Tuesday to the Brandon Valley Area Chamber of Commerce and also took questions from reporters. He said Republicans in Congress will work with Trump to achieve shared policy goals.

“The things we want to achieve at present are by and large the same,” Thune said. “How we get there is another matter, and we’ll have to work through that.”

Trump’s pick for his budget director, Russ Vought, served in the same role during the first Trump administration. Vought has since outlined an aggressive vision for presidential power in Project 2025, a 922-page document from the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation.

“The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government.” Vought wrote. “Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.”

Trump has meanwhile tried to assert greater control over the Cabinet selection process, calling for the Senate to recess the chamber early next year so he can appoint whoever he wants without having to go through the confirmation process.

Thune said Tuesday he plans to immediately begin committee hearings on Cabinet nominees when Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2025.

That’ll give the Senate a head start vetting Trump’s nominees before his inauguration on Jan. 20. After Trump is sworn in, Thune expects some nominations to quickly hit the floor of the Senate. 

“The committees can’t report them out until the president is officially sworn in and they’re officially nominated,” Thune told the audience Tuesday in Brandon. “But they could do hearings.”

Thune told South Dakota reporters after the event that even though some questions have been raised about nominees, they “deserve a fair process” where senators question them on their background, qualifications and whether they “ought to be in these really important positions.”

Thune said he has not taken recess appointments off the table if Democrats try to obstruct or delay the confirmation of nominees when they reach the Senate floor, “particularly if they’re well regarded and they have bipartisan support.”

Top priorities for Republican senators heading into the new session of Congress, Thune said, include extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and securing the nation’s southern border. 

Thune said he plans to begin drafting a budget reconciliation resolution to push an extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, key provisions of which expire at the end of 2025. The reconciliation process allows tax and spending bills to pass the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the 60 needed for most Senate legislation. Republicans will control 53 seats in the new Senate and will also control the House.

Failing to extend the tax cuts would lead to a $4 trillion tax increase, Thune said. 

States Newsroom’s D.C. Bureau contributed to this report.

Photo: U.S. Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, speaks to the Brandon Valley Area Chamber of Commerce on Nov. 26, 2024, in Brandon. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

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

Related posts

• South Dakota's John Thune voted Senate majority leader
• KARE 11 & Post Bulletin: Peters met with Thune before traveling to Rochester

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

 

 

Even Mary Franson got one: Minnesota House committee, division co-chairs announced for 2025-26 legislative biennium

The headline of Mike Cook's article from Session Daily, republished below, is fairly straightforward: House committee, division co-chairs announced for 2025-26 legislative biennium.

It's the nuances of the committee leadership that dazzle me.

For instance, the selection of Alexandria Republican Mary Franson--who's often been the laughing stock on this site--as the co-chair of the Capital Investment committee with the brilliant Minneapolis DFLer Fue Lee? It certainly marks what a loss the retirement of Grove City Republican Dean Urdahl, who sat on various capital investment committees for many sessions, is for the chamber.

And then there's the shift of South St. Paul DFLer Rick Hansen, from chairing the Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee to becoming Co-Chair of the Agriculture Committee.

Could this be a policy portent that could address the bad news delivered Sunday a report by Dan Gunderson on Minnesota Public Radio: Research finds insecticide common in shallow ground water across Minnesota:

New research shows a widely used insecticide is common in shallow groundwater across Minnesota.

Neonicotinoid insecticides are a class of neurotoxic chemicals commonly applied to seeds before they are planted. The chemical is taken up by the plant as it grows and kills insects that feed on the plant.

Numerous studies have found the chemicals harm bees and other pollinators.

Research has shown plants absorb only a small percentage of the chemical. The remaining insecticide moves through the soil with water. . . .

As Wikipedia notes about Hansen's record on neonics:

Hansen supports increased research into sources of pollinator decline, especially due to neonicotinoid chemical pesticides and their use in the agricultural industry.^[32][33][34] In 2019, Hansen authored a bill that designated the native rusty patched bumblebee as Minnesota's state bee, providing it with endangered species protections.^[35] He has called for banning neonics on state lands, the creation of pollinator-safe zones, and alternatives to pesticide-treated seeds.^[12][36] He authored legislation that would give Minnesota's four largest cities the ability to enforce rules on the use of pesticides within city limits and ban the use of certain pesticides.^[37][38] He carried a bill that would allow residents to have native landscapes to promote pollinator habitats and biodiversity.^[39] Hansen supported the Minnesota Department of Agriculture's decision to ban chlorpyrifos pesticides in 2021 after it was found to pose risks to children and fetuses.^[40]

Perhaps he'll have more jurisdiction on pesticide regulation chairing the ag committee, though readers can assume co-chair Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck, will grow quite querulous at the notion of restricting the regulatory capture of the agrichemical industry.

Draw your own conclusions from the assignments,

From the Minnesota House Information Services' Session Daily.

House committee, division co-chairs announced for 2025-26 legislative biennium
by Mike Cook

One week ago, the House committee structure for the next two years was announced.

Now we know who will co-chair the 23 committees and one division.

Caucus speaker-designates — current House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth (R-Cold Spring) and current House Speaker Melissa Hortman (DFL-Brooklyn Park) — jointly released the choices Monday.

Committee and division membership will be equally divided between DFLers and Republicans. Those appointments will be announced later.

As things currently stand, the House will be evenly divided at 67-67, the first membership tie since 1979.

[MORE: Learn more about the incoming Legislature with the Member Guide 2025-2026]

The House is scheduled to convene at noon Jan. 14, 2025. Lawmakers must conclude their work by May 19, 2025.

The committee list, including co-chairs, is as follows (names are alphabetical):

• Agriculture Finance and Policy (Rep. Paul Anderson (R-Starbuck) and Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul))
• Capital Investment (Rep. Mary Franson (R-Alexandria) and Rep. Fue Lee (DFL-Mpls))
• Children and Families Finance and Policy (Rep. Carlie Kotyza-Witthuhn (DFL-Eden Prairie) and Rep. Nolan West (R-Blaine))
• Commerce Finance and Policy (Rep. Kaohly Vang Her (DFL-St. Paul) and Rep. Tim O'Driscoll (R-Sartell))
• Education Finance (Rep. Ron Kresha (R-Little Falls) and Rep. Cheryl Youakim (DFL-Hopkins))
• Education Policy (Rep. Peggy Bennett (R-Albert Lea) and Rep. Sydney Jordan (DFL-Mpls))
• Elections Finance and Government Operations (Rep. Mike Freiberg (DFL-Golden Valley) and Rep. Duane Quam (R-Byron))
• Energy Finance and Policy (Rep. Patty Acomb (DFL-Minnetonka) and Rep. Chris Swedzinski (R-Ghent))
• Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy (Rep. Peter Fischer (DFL-Maplewood) and Rep. Josh Heintzeman (R-Nisswa))
• Ethics (Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston) and Rep. Kelly Moller (DFL-Shoreview))
• Health Finance and Policy (Rep. Jeff Backer (R-Browns Valley) and Rep. Robert Bierman (DFL-Apple Valley))
• Higher Education Finance and Policy (Rep. Marion Rarick (R-Maple Lake) and Rep. Dan Wolgamott (DFL-St. Cloud))
• Housing Finance and Policy (Rep. Michael Howard (DFL-Richfield) and Rep. Spencer Igo (R-Wabana Township))
• Human Services Finance and Policy (Rep. Mohamud Noor (DFL-Mpls) and Rep. Joe Schomacker (R-Luverne))
• Judiciary Finance and Civil Law (Rep. Tina Liebling (DFL-Rochester) and Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover))
• Labor and Workforce Development Finance and Policy (Rep. Dave Baker (R-Willmar) and Rep. Dave Pinto (DFL-St. Paul))
• Legacy Finance (Rep. Joe McDonald (R-Delano) and Rep. Samantha Vang (DFL-Brooklyn Center))
• Public Safety Finance and Policy (Rep. Kelly Moller (DFL-Shoreview) and Rep. Paul Novotny (R-Elk River))
• Rules and Legislative Administration (Rep. Jamie Long (DFL-Mpls) and Rep. Harry Niska (R-Ramsey))
• State Government Finance and Policy (Rep. Ginny Klevorn (DFL-Plymouth) and Rep. Jim Nash (R-Waconia))
• Veterans and Military Affairs Division (Rep. Matt Bliss (R-Pennington) and Rep. Jay Xiong (DFL-St. Paul))
• Taxes (Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston) and Rep. Aisha Gomez (DFL-Mpls))
• Transportation Finance and Policy (Rep. Erin Koegel (DFL-Spring Lake Park) and Rep. Jon Koznick (R-Lakeville))
• Ways and Means (Rep. Zack Stephenson (DFL-Coon Rapids) and Rep. Paul Torkelson (R-Hanska))
• Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement (Rep. Leon Lillie (DFL-North St. Paul) and Rep. Tim O'Driscoll (R-Sartell))

Photo: Co-chairs for the 23 House committees and one division have been named for the 2025-26 session. (House Photography file photo).

Related posts

• Dancing in the dark? MNHouse DFL and GOP, tied at 67, locked in a haters’ embrace.
• State rep Tim Miller: MN state public officials beholden to radical anti-livestock enviro groups
• Commentary: Seeds treated with neonics are bad for bees, the environment and human health 
• MN Pollution Control Agency makes 2nd request for comments on waste treated seed rules
• Omnibus environment bill aims to ‘correct past wrongs, prepare for future,’ committee chair says 
• MNHouse Ag Committee approves proposed rules for disposal of pesticide-treated crop seeds
• Though court strikes down EPA chlorpyrifos ban for farmers, product still illegal on MN state lands 
• See it in the Strib: the silence of Corn Growers about deer exposure to neonicotinoids
• Preliminary results from pesticide study show widespread neonic exposure in wild MN deer.
• Study shows endocrine-disrupting imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid, messes up does and fawns.
• South Dakota News Watch: study shows neonics a danger to deer, pheasant study results soon 
• South Dakota study on neonicotinoids' effects on whitetails prompts MNDNR deer spleen request.
• LCCMR funded scholars studied the impact of neonicotinoids on surface and groundwater
• Large study finds neonicotinoids push honeybee hives over the edge; pesticide makers polish turd  
• EPA cancels registration of 12 neonicotinoid products from Bayer, Syngenta & Valent 

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

It's complicated: unlikely Trump can actually eliminate Education Department, experts say

One of my United States Senators has introduced a bill to eliminate the federal Department of Education, as the South Dakota Searchlight reported last week in Senator Rounds introduces bill to eliminate US Department of Education.

Here's a look at the odds of President-elect Trump having this wish fulfilled, a States Newsroom article republished from the Searchlight.

Unlikely Trump can actually eliminate Education Department, experts say
by Shauneen Miranda

SD’s Sen. Mike Rounds has filed a bill to abolish the agency

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education will be far easier said than done.

As Trump seeks to redefine U.S. education policy, the complex logistics, bipartisan congressional approval and redirection of federal programs required make dismantling the department a challenging — not impossible — feat.

It’s an effort that experts say is unlikely to gain traction in Congress and, if enacted, would create roadblocks for how Trump seeks to implement the rest of his wide-ranging education agenda.

“I struggle to wrap my mind around how you get such a bill through Congress that sort of defunds the agency or eliminates the agency,” Derek Black, an education law and policy expert and law professor at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, told States Newsroom.

“What you can see more easily is that maybe you give the agency less money, maybe you shrink its footprint, maybe we’ve got an (Office for Civil Rights) that still enforces all these laws, but instead of however many employees they have now, they have fewer employees,” Black, who directs the school’s Constitutional Law Center, added.

What does the department do?

Education is decentralized in the United States, and the federal Education Department has no say in the curriculum of public schools. Much of the funding and oversight of schools occurs at the state and local levels.

Still, the department has leverage through funding a variety of programs, such as for low-income school districts and special education, as well as administering federal student aid.

Axing the department would require those programs be unwound or assigned to other federal agencies to administer, according to Rachel Perera, a fellow in Governance Studies in the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Perera, who studies inequality in K-12 education, expressed concern over whether other departments would get additional resources and staffing to take on significantly more portfolios of work if current Education Department programs were transferred to them.

Sen. Mike Rounds introduced a bill last week that seeks to abolish the department and transfer existing programs to other federal agencies.

In a statement, the South Dakota Republican said “the federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic Department that causes more harm than good.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 proposed a detailed plan on how the department could be dismantled through the reorganization of existing programs to other agencies and the elimination of the programs the project deems “ineffective or duplicative.”

Though Trump has repeatedly disavowed the conservative blueprint, some former members of his administration helped write it.

The agenda also calls for restoring state and local control over education funding, and notes that “as Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law.”

Title I, one of the major funding programs the department administers, provides billions of dollars to school districts with high percentages of students who come from low-income families.

Black pointed to an entire “regulatory regime” that’s built around these funds.

“That regime can’t just disappear unless Title I money also disappears, which could happen, but if you think about Title I money — our rural states, our red states — depend on that money just as much, if not more, than the other states,” he said. “The idea that we would take that money away from those schools — I don’t think there’s any actual political appetite for that.”

‘Inherent logical inconsistencies’

Trump recently tapped Linda McMahon — a co-chair of his transition team, Small Business Administration head during his first term and former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO — as his nominee for Education secretary.

If confirmed, she will play a crucial role in carrying out his education plans, which include promoting universal school choice and parental rights, moving education “back to the states” and ending “wokeness” in education.

Trump is threatening to cut federal funding for schools that teach “critical race theory,” “gender ideology” or “other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” according to his plan.

On the flip side, he wants to boost funding for states and school districts that adhere to certain policy directives.

That list includes districts that: adopt a “Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice;” get rid of “teacher tenure” for grades K-12 and adopt “merit pay;” have parents hold the direct elections of school principals; and drastically reduce the number of school administrators.

But basing funding decisions on district-level policy choices would require the kind of federal involvement in education that Trump is pushing against.

Perera described seeing “inherent logical inconsistencies” in Trump’s education plan.

While he is talking about dismantling the department and sending education “back to the states,” he’s “also talking about leveraging the powers of the department to punish school districts for ‘political indoctrination,’” she said.

“He can’t do that if you are unwinding the federal role in K-12 schools,” she said.

Photo: The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom/South Dakota Searchlight)

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

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

South Dakota's Big Sioux River buffer program takes off with higher landowner payments

The Big Sioux River's modest headwaters are very close to Summit, and so Bluestem Prairie has taken an interest in conservation efforts to improve water quality on the river.

An update from South Dakota Searchlight.

Big Sioux River buffer program takes off with higher landowner payments
by Joshua Haiar

A $3 million state effort to help landowners keep their agricultural runoff out of the Big Sioux River has experienced a spike in enrollments since the program began offering higher payments. 

The Legislature authorized the Riparian Buffer Initiative in 2021 with a spending deadline of June 30, 2025.

The river is polluted with dissolved soils, agricultural chemicals and livestock waste beyond levels safe for uses including fishing and swimming. The program pays landowners to leave a vegetated area along the river or a tributary, which helps to filter out pollutants before they enter the water. Buffer strip root systems also prevent erosion along the banks.

However, nobody had signed up for the program by January 2023. 

“The feedback that we got back was that we’re not paying enough to really move the needle,” Hunter Roberts, secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, told lawmakers at the time.

So, the department doubled incentive payments that year.

Under the old rates, a 50-foot wide, half-mile-long buffer under a minimum 10-year contract would have yielded a total payment of about $5,000 for cropland and $1,300 for pastureland. Under the new formula, the rates for the same examples increased to about $13,000 for cropland and $3,400 for pastureland.

Since then, interest in the program has increased. 

According to the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ 2024 progress report, the department had enrolled 35 total projects as of late October, covering 608 acres of buffers along 218,556 linear feet of the river.

The department estimates that will result in annual reductions of 1,593 pounds of nitrogen, 332 pounds of phosphorus and 206 tons of sediment entering the river. 

The project has spent $1.17 million of its $3 million in funding. An additional $800,000 has been earmarked for 26 buffer projects in progress, covering another 382 acres and 143,000 linear feet of the riverbank. The report emphasizes the department’s intent to fully allocate all remaining funds by the program’s deadline of June 30, 2025.

The report notes that partnerships with the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and other conservation organizations have been instrumental in promoting the program.

While the state program has made strides in increasing participation, it has also faced questions regarding its overlap with existing local initiatives. Similar projects established by the East Dakota Water Development District, based in Brookings, also offer buffer zone support along the river. Those projects’ administrators said they had enrolled over 100 landowners and nearly 3,600 acres, totaling almost 89 miles of stream protection, as of November 2023. 

Photo: The Big Sioux River flows under a Highway 34 bridge near Egan in southeastern South Dakota. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

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

Related posts

• Sioux Falls growth forces question: Can Smithfield and Big Sioux River co-exist? 
• South Dakota’s $3 million Big Sioux River cleanup project is slow to catch on 
• EPA data reveals South Dakota industrial chemical releases rise amid national decline
• Commentary: Mention of agricultural causes comes too late in SD water pollution report
• SD Searchlight: 80% of tested surface water in South Dakota fails to meet state standards
• Agency soup: MPCA, DNR, MDH & Ag release "Preventing fish kills in MN driftless region"
• Decline in freshwater mussels an indicator of poor river and stream health in South Dakota
•  More Minnesota lakes and rivers placed on impaired waters list
• WRAPS: erosion, stormwater & ag practices dirty water in Yellow Medicine River watershed

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

Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case

Another development in the Summit Carbon Solutions saga. We'd last left the storyline in a federal court in Omaha, U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties.

From Friday's Iowa Capital Dispatch.

Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
by Cami Koons

Opponents say they’ll go back to court to address survey and examination limits

 

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision that Summit Carbon Solutions is allowed temporary access to properties for surveying, because it is a pipeline company that would be transporting a hazardous liquid. 

The case involved Kent Kasischke, a Hardin County landowner who refused to let Summit surveyors on his land to survey for their proposed pipeline that would transport carbon dioxide, primarily sequestered from ethanol plants, to underground storage in North Dakota. 

The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in early October. 

Kasischke argued Iowa Code section 479B.15, which allows a pipeline company to enter private land to survey, was unconstitutional because the invasion of property required compensation. 

Justice Thomas Waterman, who issued the court’s decision, said Kasischke’s argument “fails.” 

“He has no right to exclude the surveyor because section 479B.15 is a lawful pre-existing limitation on his title to the land,” the decision said. 

According to the decision, this is consistent with rulings in “at least four” district courts, including the Iowa District Court for Hardin County that originally ruled in the case, and with Supreme Court decisions in North Dakota and South Dakota.

The decision in South Dakota, while it upheld the constitutionality of a similar statute in the state, was touted as win by those opposed to the pipeline because it said the company must prove it is a common carrier and said surveying was only constitutional if they were “minimally invasive superficial inspections that, at most, cause minor soil disturbances.”

A press release from the Iowa Easement Team and Bold Alliance, groups opposed to the pipeline that supported Kasischke, and his attorney, Brian Jorde, said the Friday Iowa Supreme Court’s decision “sidesteps” questions around surveying. 

“Right now Iowa has no guardrails as to the level of invasive activity a pipeline company can do to private property as they can claim anything they want to do falls under ‘survey’ or ‘examination,’” the press release said. 

Jorde, who has represented numerous landowners in cases against Summit, said “we will have to go back to the Court” to address the limitations, with a hope that Iowans will be granted the “same protections” as South Dakotans.

As part of its ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision that Summit Carbon Solutions is a pipeline company and fits the definition under Iowa Code by transporting a hazardous liquid. 

Kasischke argued the supercritical carbon dioxide that would be transported in the pipeline was not a liquid. 

Waterman’s written decision said the court relied on testimony from the district court trial for its decision, though he noted that since the district court trial, the Iowa Utilities Commission (then the Iowa Utilities Board) “determined that supercritical carbon dioxide is a liquefied carbon dioxide.” 

The CEO of Summit Carbon Solutions, Lee Blank, said in a statement Friday the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision was a “win for infrastructure projects across the state and the nation.”

“It underscores the importance of balancing landowner rights with the need to advance critical infrastructure that benefits communities, agriculture, and the broader economy,” Blank said. 

The press release said the ruling “confirms” the company has met “all statutory requirements” and it supports infrastructure “vital to enhancing economic competitiveness and ensuring energy and agricultural sustainability.”

Opponents of the pipeline project said in their press release, the ruling “did not conclude” the proposed 2,500 mile pipeline is a public use, nor that the company is a common carrier. 

However, Summit was granted use of eminent domain in August when the Iowa Utilities Commission approved its permit.

A final element of the case was whether or not Kasischke had a tenant on the property who would have impacted Summits’ efforts to provide adequate notice of their plans to survey his property. 

Waterman wrote the court agreed with the district court’s credibility analysis calling Kasischke’s testimony on the issue “evasive and not credible.” 

Jorde and the Iowa Easement Team called this “puzzling and disappointing, but a minor issue to the appeal.” 

The Iowa justices affirmed that Summit complied with notice requirements and the district court’s ruling and injunction. 

Recently in carbon pipeline news:

Summit Carbon Solutions was granted a permit in North Dakota, reapplied for a permit in South Dakota, sued another Iowa County for its pipeline ordinances and gave oral arguments at a U.S. appeals court for a similar lawsuit on county ordinances.

Photo:  The Iowa Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC v. Kent Kasischke on Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2024, at the historic Iowa Supreme Courtroom at the State Capitol. (Pool photo by Cody Scanlan/Des Moines Register/ via Iowa Capital Dispatch).

This Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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

 

Noem Cabinet role could be 'untenable,' former Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson says

In Good-bye girl: Trump picks Governor Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security, I had wondered whether Kristi Noem's experience as governor of South Dakota prepared her for the scale of the Department of Homeland Security, the third largest federal agency.

In the South Dakota News Watch article republished below, Stu Whitney provides a fair analysis of the situation. 

Noem's Cabinet role could be 'untenable’: Former Homeland Security chief
by Stu Whitney, South Dakota News Watch

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem's rise to secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would put her in charge of a sprawling federal network of 22 agencies and 260,000 employees tasked with keeping the United States safe from outside threats.

Whether she's prepared for that position depends on whom you ask, and she still needs to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

But most everyone agrees her potential role in President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet comes at a pivotal time in the country’s approach to illegal immigration and national security.

Jeh Johnson, who served as Homeland Security secretary under President Barack Obama from 2013-17, told News Watch that he wishes the South Dakota Republican success “in promoting the department’s missions and its people.”

But Johnson, former general counsel of the Department of Defense, added a note of caution as Noem prepares to join an administration that has vowed to carry out mass deportations of illegal immigrants in the country, facing likely legislative and legal hurdles along the way.

“I fear she will be placed in the untenable position of having to publicly defend the Trump Administration’s most controversial and harshest immigration enforcement policies,” Johnson told News Watch. “I suspect there will be many days when she wishes she were back in South Dakota.”

Serving as governor is 'training ground'

The Department of Homeland Security, formed in response to the 9/11 attacks of 2001, began operations in 2003 and is the third-largest Cabinet department behind the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs.

Though it is largely associated with immigration oversight through Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security also oversees cybersecurity and disaster response, as well as the Secret Service and Coast Guard.

John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE from 2013-14, said Noem’s experience as governor could help prepare her for coordinating the various agencies and supervising the budget, though DHS has a significantly larger budget and workforce than the state of South Dakota.

Sandweg noted that two other governors, Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania (2003-05) and Janet Napolitano of Arizona (2009-13) have served as Homeland Security secretary, managing a budget that reached $108 billion for fiscal year 2025, of which $62 billion is net discretionary funding.

“Managing an executive function and one that can be highly political (as governor) is a unique background that can serve as training ground to being secretary, dealing with a state Legislature instead of Congress,” said Sandweg, a national security lawyer who also served as acting DHS general counsel.

Texas governor praises Noem choice

Noem, who didn’t respond to interview requests for this story, has said that she asked Trump for the Homeland Security position and looks forward to “discussing our nation’s security challenges and my commitment to addressing them head-on” during Senate confirmation hearings.

In a recent poll conducted by Echelon Insights, 27% of respondents either strongly or somewhat supported Noem as the DHS nominee, compared to 26% who strongly or somewhat oppose the choice.

That net approval of plus-1 was third-lowest of eight high-profile Trump Cabinet picks, ahead of only Matt Gaetz for attorney general (negative-11) and Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense (negative-2).

Noem has deployed South Dakota National Guard troops to the Southern border five times during her administration. In 2021, she drew criticism for accepting a $1 million donation from a Republican donor to help cover the cost of a two-month deployment of 48 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.

Noem has also made several trips to the border to support the enforcement efforts of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who praised her on the social media site X the day she was nominated as a “border hawk who has worked with me to secure the Texas border.”

Sandweg, a lawyer in Washington specializing in DHS compliance and immigration, said that Noem’s new role will likely be an eye-opener compared to her past brushes with border security as an Upper Midwest governor without federal oversight.

“I think she’ll find that she has a lot to learn about border security,” Sandweg told News Watch. “(Homeland Security) is a different type of responsibility in which she’s constrained in ways she wasn’t in the past by federal law, budgetary concerns and international diplomacy.”

Clashes with White House possible

Trump has tapped former ICE director Tom Homan to serve as his “border czar” at the White House, which could free up Noem to focus on other DHS agencies such as the Secret Service and FEMA.

The administration’s immigration strategy will also be shaped by Stephen Miller, who was hired as deputy chief of staff for policy after working on the Muslim travel ban and other hardline initiatives during Trump’s previous White House stint.

But Noem will still oversee the DHS budget, which will have to be ramped up significantly to carry out some of the deportation and enforcement policies being pushed by Trump and his team.

Trump has indicated that he plans to declare a national emergency to carry out his campaign promise of mass deportations of migrants living in the U.S. illegally, of which there are an estimated 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

Finding resources for those plans could put Noem on the firing line of appropriation-based battles with Congress, where Republicans will hold a 53-47 majority in the U.S. Senate but a slimmer advantage in the U.S. House.

“Border and immigration issues tend to dominate the job, and she has the added wrinkle of having more seasoned policy and operational people at the White House,” said Sandweg, referring to Homan and Miller.

“It will be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out. It might work out very well, but you can also have personality conflicts because (Homan and Miller) will be sitting with the president every day, but yet (Noem) is the person who's in charge and responsible for the actual border patrol agents and ICE officers executing the mission.”

She'll also be answering to Trump, a notoriously volatile leader who saw 14 Cabinet members depart during his first four-year White House tenure, compared to three for Obama (eight years) and two for Biden (four years).

"It's something to keep an eye on," said Sandweg. "It's certainly not uncommon for there to be some tension between the White House and DHS."

The Associated Press contributed to this story, which was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit news organization. Read more in-depth stories at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email every few days to get stories as soon as they're published. Contact investigative reporter Stu Whitney at [email protected].

Photo:  Gov. Kristi Noem posted this photo on her Facebook page on Oct. 3, 2024, showing her helping South Dakota National Guard soldiers at the Southern border. In her post, Noem said that the Guard soldiers constructed more than five miles of border wall. It's unlikely she'll be this hands-on administering the DHS. (Photo: Gov. Kristi Noem on Facebook/ via South Dakota News Watch).

This South Dakota News Watch article is republished online under a Creative Commons.

Related posts

• Good-bye girl: Trump picks Governor Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security
• Update: Nope. With Trump returning to office, is Noem poised for an administration role?
• Victory/History Day meal to be celebrated June 25 in Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Memorial Park
• News digest: Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe to banish Noem; calls for Flute, State-Tribal Relations Committee chairs resignation
• Ihaƞktoƞwaƞ Dakota Oyate: Sixth tribe bans Governor Kristi Noem from reservation 
• Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate bans Governor Kristi Noem from Lake Traverse Reservation
• Tensions continue between Noem, tribes 
• News update on Noem's pairing reservations, tribal leaders with cartels; Rep. St. John's reply
• Noem calls for audit of tribes; ICT News/Rapid City Journal reporter finds the receipts
• Malice: she's on it. Tribal leaders insulted after Governor Noem claims they "are personally benefiting from the cartels being here
• In Winner, Noem links tribal leaders to cartels
• SWO Dakota to Governor Noem: don't single out reservations when drugs are a statewide problem
• Noem banned from Pine Ridge Reservation over remarks in border speech to state legislature

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

U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties

After a day having to drive in uncertain winter road conditions, I'm staying out of the wind, while catching up on reading and posting.

First up, an Iowa Capital Dispatch article about the latest development on the Hawkeye State's ethanol carbon pipeline struggle.

U.S. appeals court hears Summit case against Shelby and Story counties
by Cami Koons

Are pipelines subject to local ordinances? 

Judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard oral arguments Wednesday in Omaha for cases between Iowa counties and Summit Carbon Solutions, an Iowa-based company seeking to build a 2,000-mile carbon sequestration pipeline.

Shelby County and Story County had enacted county ordinances stipulating the proximity of hazardous liquid pipelines to residences and on providing emergency response plans in the event of a pipeline rupture. 

Summit sued the counties in 2022, arguing that federal safety standards from the Pipeline Safety Act preempt local ordinances. 

A federal judge in the Southern District of Iowa ruled in favor of Summit in December 2023, and the counties appealed the judge’s decision. 

The counties argued they could make these regulations because the Department of Transportation, under the federal Pipeline Safety Act, was not granted permission to regulate the location or route of a pipeline. 

Sherri Webb traveled to Omaha for the oral arguments from Shelby County, she said, because she felt her county did its job in enacting the ordinance to protect the land, the people and its character.

“Why couldn’t they have done another route?” Webb said and noted she was concerned about erosion to her grandmother’s land. “We’re trying to save her land from being ruined.” 

Does location equal safety?

Jason Craig argued on behalf of the counties on Wednesday at the Roman L. Hruska Federal Courthouse. 

“The district court erred and should be reversed because local land use regulations, zoning regulations, are not preempted safety standards under the Pipeline Safety Act,” Craig argued. 

Judge Duane Benton questioned Craig, and pointed out that the Shelby County ordinance notes safety risk “at length.” 

“Admittedly, safety was one concern – I think safety is part of any zoning decision,” Craig said. “But that doesn’t turn it into a preempted standard.” 

Craig said the thickness of a pipe, or the “actual design and construction of the pipeline” would be safety standards with federal oversight. The county ordinances pertained to the location of the pipeline, not how it would be constructed.

“Summit is asking this court to basically expand the scope of the version of a preemption clause to hold that any local law that’s concerned with safety is preempted,” Craig said.

Ryan Koopmans gave oral arguments on behalf of Summit Carbon Solutions. He argued the ordinances set by the counties were concerned with safety and should be preempted by federal laws. 

“In this case, the setback requirements and other provisions are clearly safety standards,” Koopmans said.

Koopmans argued that the provision in the Pipeline Safety Act that says the U.S. Department of Transportation cannot regulate location and routing, is “not a preemption savings clause.” 

Judge Jane Kelly said Koopmans’ argument “makes sense” and that just because something affects location, “doesn’t necessarily mean” it’s not a safety standard. But she wondered whether there’s a difference between a safety standard and a safety concern from a county.

“It’s difficult to think of a local ordinance, like a zoning ordinance, that doesn’t have safety baked into it,” Kelly said. 

Koopmans said there is no difference between a safety standard and a safety concern, and that the counties “have offered no other justification other than safety” for a 1,000-foot setback of the pipeline. 

He gave an example that if the state made the argument it didn’t want any above-ground pipelines so people could continue farming that land, it would be an economic regulation, not a safety regulation. A safety regulation, Koopmans explained, would be if the state said it wouldn’t allow above-ground pipelines because they were unsafe. 

“Is there any logical justification for 1,000-foot setback from a farmhouse in the middle of the county, other than safety?” Koopmans said. 

Later, Benton questioned that same farmhouse-in-the-middle-of-nowhere example, saying if the resident farmed there, it could be a situation of economic development concerns.

“Farming is economic development in Iowa, isn’t it?” Benton asked.

“It is, and you can farm overtop of the pipeline,” Koopmans replied.

The Shelby County ordinance specifies a 1,000-foot setback from all residences, based on a public health position statement from the county’s board of health.

“They admit it,” Koopmans said when asked if it was necessary to look at the county supervisors’ intent. 

Who can set the standards?

Of interest to the court was an Iowa Supreme Court ruling, Goodell v. Humboldt County, that upheld state preemption over county ordinances. 

Benton said he believes the case “settles that” against Craig’s argument that counties have “broad authority to act” unless “expressly limited” by the Legislature. 

“The statute says the authority to approve location, route of hazardous pipelines is to the Iowa Utilities Board, and … gives them the just and proper discretion as to that,” Benton said.

Craig argued the Goodell ruling pertained to county ordinances that created “direct conflicts” that were “irreconcilable” with state statute, which he said is different from the counties in this case that imposed additional requirements. 

Koopmans argued the Iowa Supreme Court decision shows that a “county permitting scheme that sets any different standards” from state issued permits, would be preempted by the state. 

Kelly asked if Summit had to show the Iowa Utilities Commission (referred to throughout the case as the Iowa Utilities Board, its former name) that its route was in compliance with all of these county ordinances, when the company applied for its permit.

Craig said “that’s exactly what they’re required to do.” 

Koopmans argued, pulling from the Iowa Utilities Commission approval of Summit’s permit application, that the company had to show the commission how the project would “interact with the present and future land use and zoning, not necessarily how it complies.” 

Koopmans pointed again to the commission’s approval of the permit, and said the commission moved some of the company’s proposed routes through Shelby County to locations that “conflict with the ordinance.”

Craig, in his rebuttal, said it was a “fool’s errand” to “inquire into the motives” of state law. 

“The question is: is it a preempted safety standard … or is it a location and routing regulation?” Craig said. “And the zoning ordinances are location routing regulations.”

Judges said a decision would be issued in “due course.” 

Summit is also waiting decisions on other pending lawsuits including one against landowners, heard in October by the Iowa Supreme Court, and it recently filed a similar lawsuit against Bremer County for its ordinances.

Per the Iowa Utilities Commission, Summit cannot begin construction on the pipeline in Iowa until it has received permit approval from North Dakota and South Dakota. The company received approval from North Dakota Nov. 15 and resubmitted its application in South Dakota Tuesday. 

Aaron Sanderford, a reporter for the Nebraska Examiner, contributed to this article.

Photo: A group of Iowa farmers and landowners from Story and Shelby counties exits the federal courthouse in Omaha after a hearing before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. (Photo by Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner).

This Iowa Capital Dispatch article in republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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

Related posts

• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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

Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit

Another chapter in the Summit Carbon Solutions saga just in from Joshua Haiar at the South Dakota Searchlight.

As readers know from posts like Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more! and North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route, Bluestem's been posting about the sprawling ethanol carbon pipeline for a couple of years now.

Earlier this month, a pro-pipeline "Landowners Bill of Rights" ethanol carbon-pipeline law was tossed out by South Dakota voters.

Carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
by Joshua Haiar, South Dakota Searchlight

State regulators rejected earlier application last year

An Iowa company proposing a carbon dioxide pipeline said it resubmitted its permit application to South Dakota regulators Tuesday with what the company described as “major reroutes.”

A new route map was not immediately available from the company or state officials.

The move comes more than a year after the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission rejected Summit Carbon Solution’s initial application. At that time, the commission cited the route’s non-compliance with county laws mandating minimum distances between pipelines and existing features.

Summit’s latest South Dakota route includes 700 miles with connections to 14 ethanol plants in the eastern part of the state, including a proposed sustainable aviation fuel plant, the company said. Overall, the $9 billion pipeline would span 2,500 miles with connections to 57 ethanol plants in five states. 

Summit already has permits in Iowa and North Dakota. A decision is pending in Minnesota, and Nebraska has no state permitting processing for carbon pipelines.

Project details

Summit plans to capture some of the carbon dioxide produced during ethanol production, liquefy it, and transport it via pipeline to North Dakota for injection underground in a process known as “sequestration.” That could qualify the company for billions of dollars in federal tax credits that are intended to incentivize the removal of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

A Tuesday news release from Summit said the pipeline could also make carbon available for uses including green methanol, water treatment, food processing and dry ice production.

The sequestration area is near the oilfields of western North Dakota, and project critics have long alleged that some of the carbon dioxide in the pipeline could be used for enhanced oil recovery. In that process, liquid CO2 is injected into aging oil wells to extract additional crude oil. 

Summit’s website says the pipeline “will not be used for enhanced oil recovery.” Yet during a 2023 permit hearing in Iowa, Summit Chief Operations Officer Jimmy Powell said it’s “a possibility” that Summit could transport CO2 for “another carrier” that might use it for enhanced oil recovery.

The project has faced staunch opposition in South Dakota from landowners who don’t want the pipeline crossing their land, and from landowners and others concerned about potential leaks of toxic carbon dioxide plumes.

A Tuesday press release from Summit mentioned reroutes in Spink, Brown, McPherson and Lincoln counties — areas where local siting laws played a role in state regulators’ denial of Summit’s first permit application. 

Ed Fischbach, a pipeline opponent and Aberdeen-area farmer, said the company previously claimed it could not abide by those local laws. 

“That’s what they were saying under oath,” Fischbach said. “It is just more evidence that this company has not been telling the truth. They said, ‘There’s no way we can make these work, and they’re too restrictive.’” 

The company said Tuesday it incorporated input from landowners and local officials during a yearlong series of negotiations.

“This project represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen South Dakota’s agricultural future while advancing energy innovation,” said Lee Blank, Summit’s CEO, in a statement. He emphasized the company’s commitment to “working hand in hand with landowners and communities” to achieve a balanced solution.

Lawsuits pending, legislation possible

But the proposal is politically fraught in South Dakota. Fourteen incumbent state legislators lost to challengers in the June primary election, and the incumbents’ support of a controversial pipeline law was a factor in many races.

Legislators and Gov. Kristi Noem approved the law last winter, describing it as balanced approach to implement new protections for landowners and county governments while leaving open a regulatory door for the pipeline’s potential approval.

Opponents attacked a portion of the law they said would require counties to prove their siting laws are reasonable, rather than requiring Summit prove them unreasonable. Opponents also gathered petition signatures and forced the law onto the November ballot, where 59% of voters rejected it.

One of the many organizations that joined in the fight against the law was Dakota Rural Action. Chase Jensen, an organizer with the group, said voters sent a message with their rejection of Referred Law 21.

“It shows that South Dakota trusts local governments to regulate these projects,” Jensen said. “Summit’s new route will be telling whether they heard the message or not.”

Summit aims to begin construction in 2026 and start operations in 2027. State regulators will review Summit’s new application in the coming months, which could overlap with legislative action on the proposal. Many of the new South Dakota legislators who will take office in January are opponents of the project’s potential use of eminent domain, a legal process for obtaining access to land from unwilling landowners in exchange for just compensation.

A further complication for the company is a set of lawsuits in South Dakota challenging Summit’s right to use eminent domain.

In August, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that Summit had not yet proven its status as a “common carrier,” a designation necessary to the eminent domain process. The court sent the lawsuits back to lower courts, where Summit said it would try to prove its case.

Photo: Wade Boeshans, executive vice president of Summit Carbon Solutions, testifies April 22, 2024, in Mandan, North Dakota, during a Public Service Commission hearing. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor/ republished at the South Dakota Searchlight.

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

Related posts

• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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

From the MNReformer Topline: MN recounts virtually never change election outcomes

There will be recounts in two close races in the 37-37 deadlocked Minnesota House, a fact that's generating much attention, including some expect election denier anxiety on Minnesota's wingnut side.

The Forum News' capitol reporter Mary Murphy raises the question of a total tie in Minnesota Legislature could find itself in rare ‘double tie', pending the fate of Sen. Nicole Mitchell, DFL-Woodbury, who is facing charges related to a first-degree felony burglary charge for allegedly breaking into her stepmother’s home.

What are the odds the recount will change control of the House?

In Monday's Minnesota Reformer, data journalist Christopher Ingraham looked at the question in The Topline: How often do recounts change election results?

From the section of the Topline exploring that question:

Minnesota recounts virtually never change election outcomes

Two Minnesota House races are headed toward recounts in the coming weeks. In District 54A, provisional counts show DFL Rep. Brad Tabke with a 14-vote lead over GOP opponent Aaron Paul. And in 14B, DFL incumbent Dan Wolgamott is ahead of Republican challenger Sue Ek by 191 votes.

But the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library’s data on previous recounts shows that even a 14-vote margin is unlikely to be overturned.

The library has records of 96 legislative recounts going back to 1849, and says the list is likely incomplete.

Recent years’ recounts typically confirm the provisional counts, with no changes. When vote totals do shift, the number is usually in the single-digit range. 

While the library doesn’t have precise numbers for every single contest, the most recent election in which the tally changed by more than 14 votes (the margin in the Tabke-Paul race) happened in 2002, when a recount added 26 votes to Republican Raymond Cox’s winning margin.

To find an election with initial results overturned by a recount you have to go back to 1986, when Carl Stich was initially declared victor over independent Republican Bernard Omann by 6 votes. The recount reversed that call, with a final margin of 48 votes in Omann’s favor.

Minnesota switched to all-electronic vote counting in 2006. Since then, recounts have typically only shifted totals in single-digit amounts, none of which have been enough to change the outcome of a race.

Photo: An election observer monitors two poll workers processing absentee ballots in the Milwaukee Election Commission warehouse on Aug. 13. Photo by Matt Vasilogambros/Stateline/ Minnesota Reformer.

Read the entire Topline article at the Minnesota Reformer.

Related posts

•  Ahmann and Gardner recount on for Kandiyohi County Commissioner District 2 seat
•  Rochester Post Bulletin: "Is GOP chair making recount too political?

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

 

South Dakota lawmakers look forward to Rhoden, speculate about his lieutenant governor pick

Last week, I posted Good-bye girl: Trump picks Governor Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security. 

Like most of those answering an online poll, Is Kristi Noem qualified to serve as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security?, at the Vermillion Plain Talk--83.3 percent at the time I post this Sunday morning--I'm not sure she's qualified. But at least she won't be governor anymore.

Her immediate replacement looks to be an improvement. Perhaps he can even rebuild the state's relationship with the nine sovereign indigenous nations in South Dakota.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Lawmakers look forward to Rhoden, speculate about his lieutenant governor pick
by Joshua Haiar

Longtime former lawmaker would be elevated to governor if Noem is confirmed as U.S. Homeland Security secretary

State lawmakers from across the political spectrum are expressing confidence in Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden while he prepares to potentially succeed Gov. Kristi Noem early next year. They’re also wondering who Rhoden might choose as his own lieutenant governor.

Meanwhile, Rhoden himself has said little publicly, except to provide a statement congratulating Noem on her recent nomination by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The nomination won’t officially be sent to the U.S. Senate until Trump takes office in January, the same month South Dakota’s Legislature will convene for its annual lawmaking session in Pierre.

State Senator-elect Jamie Smith, D-Sioux Falls, served previously in the Legislature and ran against Noem for governor in 2018. 

“I’ve always had a good working relationship with the lieutenant governor,” Smith said. “I believe this change creates new opportunities to work together for the betterment of South Dakota.”

House Speaker Pro Tempore Karla Lems, R-Canton, believes legislative priorities will remain consistent regardless of who is governor.

“It will not change much in terms of bills proposed,” she said. “I believe the current legislators will strive to work with Lieutenant Governor Rhoden to accomplish legislation on behalf of the people of South Dakota.”

If Rhoden becomes governor, he’ll have to appoint a new lieutenant governor. And one of the lieutenant governor’s roles is serving as president of the state Senate. 

Sen. Randy Deibert, R-Spearfish, said it will be important to have a lieutenant governor with substantial legislative experience. 

“If that’s going to happen, we should get that appointment made as soon as possible, so we can hit the ground running,” Deibert said. “With a significant number of new senators and a fresh leadership team, strong guidance from an experienced Senate president will be crucial.”

Rhoden has not said whether he will run for governor in 2026. 

Sen. Casey Crabtree, R-Madison, was president pro tempore of the Senate for the last Legislature. He said Rhoden’s lieutenant governor will likely be someone familiar with the Senate’s workings, capable of aiding in governance, and strategic on the campaign trail for a potential 2026 gubernatorial run. 

“Rhoden’s team would likely want someone strong along the I-29 corridor given he already has West River credentials,” Crabtree said. 

The transition may lead to a shift in style in the governor’s office. Noem is nationally known and has spent significant time outside the state campaigning for Trump and other Republican candidates. Crabtree highlighted Rhoden’s 16 years as a legislator and described him as a leader focused on “the nuts and bolts” of government.

Rhoden is a lifelong rancher and a custom welder from rural Union Center in western South Dakota. He is married to Sandy Rhoden, and they have four sons and six grandchildren.

Photos: Above:  Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden listens to Gov. Kristi Noem during her 2023 budget address on the House floor of the South Dakota Capitol on Dec. 5, 2023. (Makenzie Huber, South Dakota Searchlight).  Below: Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden speaks during a rally featuring former President Donald Trump on Sept. 8, 2023, at The Monument in Rapid City. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight

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

Related posts

• Good-bye girl: Trump picks Governor Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security
• Update: Nope. With Trump returning to office, is Noem poised for an administration role?
• Victory/History Day meal to be celebrated June 25 in Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Memorial Park
• Not reservation-only thing: cartels linked to every illegal fentanyl pill anywhere in South Dakota
• News digest: Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe to banish Noem; calls for Flute, State-Tribal Relations Committee chairs resignation
• Ihaƞktoƞwaƞ Dakota Oyate: Sixth tribe bans Governor Kristi Noem from reservation 
• Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate bans Governor Kristi Noem from Lake Traverse Reservation
• Tensions continue between Noem, tribes 
• News update on Noem's pairing reservations, tribal leaders with cartels; Rep. St. John's reply
• Noem calls for audit of tribes; ICT News/Rapid City Journal reporter finds the receipts
• Malice: she's on it. Tribal leaders insulted after Governor Noem claims they "are personally benefiting from the cartels being here
• In Winner, Noem links tribal leaders to cartels
• SWO Dakota to Governor Noem: don't single out reservations when drugs are a statewide problem
• Noem banned from Pine Ridge Reservation over remarks in border speech to state legislature

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

Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!

On Friday, I republished North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route from the North Dakota Monitor.

Over at the Monitor's sibling paper, the Iowa Capitol Dispatch, two more stories look at the latest developments in the ethanol carbon pipeline saga in the Upper Midwest.

In Summit sues a third Iowa county over local pipeline ordinances, Clark Kaufmann reports that Summit Carbon Solutions has added  Bremer County to its bullying list:

Another Iowa county is being sued by Summitt Carbon Solutions over attempts to regulate the company’s planned carbon dioxide pipeline across Iowa.

In 2022, Summit sued Story County and Shelby County in U.S. District Court for Southern District of Iowa. Both lawsuits alleged the locally elected county boards of supervisors were attempting to impose on the project siting requirements that are the exclusive province of federal regulators.

In December 2023, a federal judge sided with Summit and permanently barred the two Iowa counties from enforcing their ordinances that restrict the placement of carbon dioxide pipelines.

This week, Summit sued Bremer County over the same issue.

The new lawsuit claims that despite the December 2023 court ruling in the two previous cases, Bremer County has passed and let stand similar – and, in some respects, identical — local regulations of carbon dioxide pipelines and related construction activity. The county is also accused of threatening to fine Summit if it does not comply with those ordinances.

The company says that on Oct. 30, 2024, Bremer County Attorney Darius Robinson wrote a letter to Summit’s legal counsel, stating that Summit was not in compliance with ordinances passed in September 2024, and threatening to fine Summit.

In the letter, Robinson allegedly warned Summit that “that any non-compliance with the Bremer County ordinance can result in all legal remedies being pursued” and formally requested that company representatives attend an upcoming public meeting to discuss the matter.

As a result, the company says in its court filings, Sumit must now seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the Bremer County ordinances.

Bremer County has yet to file a response to the lawsuit.

Summit’s planned pipeline is intended to transport carbon dioxide captured from more than 50 ethanol plants across Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Nebraska. Plans call for the pipeline to utilize a network of more than 2,500 miles of underground pipes across the five states and deliver it to a site in North Dakota.

In Iowa, the pipeline will travel through 39 counties, including Bremer County.

Construction of the pipeline project is already underway, and Summit has been engaged with the Iowa Utilities Commission for more than three years as part of the planning and permitting process.

The commission has granted Summit a permit from the first phase of the project and the company is now in the process of securing the Iowa permit for phase two, which will serve ethanol plants east and west of Bremer County.

Summit says it has already obtained voluntary easements for much of the proposed route across Iowa and has paid more than $159 million to Iowa landowners for access.

On Friday, the Dispatch's Kami Koons took a quick look at the progress of the pipeline as a whole in Summit one step closer to pipeline construction with North Dakota permit:

Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline route was approved Friday morning in North Dakota, bringing the company one step closer to meeting conditions set by the Iowa Utilities Commission to begin construction. 

The carbon pipeline would stretch across five states with over 2,000 miles of pipeline, to transport carbon dioxide from nearly 60 ethanol refineries to underground storage.

The Iowa Utilities Commission approved Summit’s permit in June for over 600 miles of pipeline in the state, and granted the company eminent domain. The commission stipulated the company must secure permits in both North Dakota and South Dakota before it could begin construction in Iowa. 

North Dakota’s Public Service Commission had previously denied Summit’s permits in the state, but after the company made some modifications to the plan, the commission unanimously approved the permit on Friday. 

The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association said, in a statement, it was “encouraged” by the decision. 

“In agriculture, if you’re not growing, you’re dying. On the heels of approval in Iowa, today’s permit approval in North Dakota is a crucial step in making sure this vital project comes to fruition,” the association’s Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a statement. 

Shaw urged all parties to “come together” to move forward with the project. 

“The biggest opportunities to grow corn demand all have one thing in common – super low carbon ethanol,” he said. “Capturing and sequestering CO2 is the ‘easy button’ to lower carbon.” 

Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking an additional permit in its home state of Iowa for a second phase of the project that would connect to 17 more biorefineries in Iowa and bring the total Iowa pipeline footprint to over 1,000 miles. 

Ava Auen-Ryan, an organizer with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, said the longstanding Iowa group that has organized against the pipeline, was disappointed with North Dakota’s decision. 

“It’s disappointing to continue to see state regulators put Summit’s profit driven project before the health and safety of our communities and our environment,” Auen-Ryan said in a statement.

South Dakota, who has not yet approved a permit for the pipeline, voted against a law in the General Election that opponents say would have benefitted carbon pipeline companies. 

Auen-Ryan said South Dakotans’ vote showed that “everyday people do not want this CO2 pipeline.” 

“Sustained public pressure has stalled the project to this point,” Auen-Ryan said. “CCI members and Iowans across the state will continue to fight back against Summit and have no intention of slowing down now.” 

The pipeline would carry liquid carbon-dioxide to underground storage west of Bismarck, North Dakota, for which Summit still needs a storage permit. 

Tom Buis, CEO of American Carbon Alliance, an Iowa-based group advocating for ethanol production and carbon capture pipelines, applauded the North Dakota decision in a statement.

“The project is crucial for America’s energy security, restoring profitability to farmers, creating jobs in rural communities, and producing next-generation biofuels,” Buis said. 

The commission in North Dakota approved the route for the Summit pipeline, but did not grant the company eminent domain. Common carrier status of the pipeline is still being disputed.

Opponents of the pipeline leaned into this fact in their statements about the North Dakota news. 

Brian Jorde, an attorney for North Dakota and Iowa landowners opposed to the pipeline said to “stay tuned,” in a statement with BOLD Alliance. 

“The PSC did not determine Summit is a common carrier and did not determine if Summit is able to use eminent domain,” Jorde said. “Those questions are likely also headed to the courts.”

These Iowa Capital Dispatch articles are republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: Iowa landowners at a rally in opposition to carbon sequestration pipelines outside of the Iowa Capital on Oct. 8. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch).

Related posts

• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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

North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route

On Thursday, I republished the North Dakota Monitor story North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved.

Today, we learned they'll have to implement that plan.

From the North Dakota Monitor.

North Dakota approves Summit carbon pipeline route
by Jeff Beach

 

North Dakota regulators on Friday approved a route permit for the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, a significant win for what the company says is the world’s largest carbon capture project. 

The three-person Public Service Commission voted unanimously to approve the pipeline permit. The commission had denied Summit a route permit in 2023, but changes the company made to its route helped convince the commission to reverse its position. 

Summit plans to put 333 miles of pipeline through North Dakota, part of a 2,500-mile network of pipelines in five states. The pipelines are planned to connect 57 ethanol plants, including Tharaldson Ethanol at Casselton, to an underground carbon storage site west of Bismarck.

“We commend and respect the North Dakota Public Service Commission for their diligence and thoughtful approach in reviewing this project,” Wade Boeshans, executive vice president of Summit Carbon Solutions, said in a news release. “This decision is a testament to North Dakota’s commitment to fostering innovation while working closely with communities and industries.”

Ethanol plants emit carbon dioxide as part of the fermentation process in turning corn into fuel. That carbon can be captured, compressed and put into a hazardous liquid pipeline. 

Summit announced its plans in 2021 and had hoped to begin construction in 2023, but has faced pushback from some landowners and several legal challenges as it has tried to obtain the needed permits. 

Supporters view the project as vital to helping the ethanol industry compete in low-carbon fuel markets. Ethanol is a key market for corn growers.

Opponents cite safety concerns, damage to farmland and property values and an infringement on property rights. Some landowners also have complained about Summit’s business practices. 

Troy Coons is president of the Northwest Landowners Association, a North Dakota property rights group that has challenged Summit over survey access and other issues. 

“I don’t know that the PSC really answered adequately the citizens’ questions, or held the company accountable enough to move forward,” Coons said. 

Brian Jorde of Nebraska-based Domina Law, which represents landowners fighting the pipeline in North Dakota and other states, said the decision was expected based on comments and questions by the PSC during the re-hearing process. 

“We will carefully review the written order for errors and address those accordingly,” Jorde said in an email. “The PSC decision is phase one in a multi-phase process.” 

While Summit has said the plan to capture greenhouse gas emissions is good for the environment, several environmental groups, including the North Dakota-based Dakota Resource Council, have opposed the project as doing more harm than good. 

Summit would benefit from federal tax credits of $85 for every ton of CO2 stored. It would sequester 18 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. 

Commission Chair Randy Christmann emphasized that the PSC approval in North Dakota does not guarantee that Summit has the right to use eminent domain to force landowners to provide easements for the pipeline. A decision on eminent domain would have to be made in the courts. 

“I certainly do encourage the company not to use eminent domain, at least not more than absolutely necessary,” Christmann said before the vote.

Christmann recounted his family’s bad experience with eminent domain when a highway was routed through the family’s ranch. 

“I understand how offensive it is,” Christmann said of eminent domain. “Occasionally, it’s needed. But I damn sure understand it ought never be abused.”

Summit says it is working on obtaining voluntary property easements. A Summit filing with the PSC said as of Oct. 9, it had obtained voluntary easements on about 81.4% of the miles it needs in North Dakota. 

Burleigh County, which includes Bismarck, had the lowest voluntary easement rate at more than 65%.

Christmann also said the ruling does not conclude that the Summit pipeline is a common carrier, an important designation for obtaining the right to use eminent domain. 

“We need to challenge the common carrier status of CO2 pipelines and restore power over zoning for pipelines to our county commissions,” landowner David Moch, a farmer in Emmons County, said in a news release through the Dakota Resource Council. “This is an attack on our property rights. Summit Carbon has shown my community who they are, after threatening the use of eminent domain at an Emmons County Commission meeting.” 

Emmons and Burleigh counties had passed ordinances that would have severely restricted Summit’s ability to site a pipeline through those counties, but the PSC ruled that state law supersedes local ordinances on carbon pipelines. 

Carbon pipeline regulation is of interest to North Dakota’s oil and gas industry. Summit’s plan is for permanent underground storage, but carbon dioxide can be pumped into oil well sites to help extract more oil, a process called enhanced oil recovery. 

Summit CEO Lee Blank told the North Dakota Monitor earlier this year that it had not been approached by oil companies interested in taking CO2 from the pipeline. 

Carbon capture and sequestration is being used by two North Dakota ethanol plants, Red Trail at Richardton and Blue Flint at Underwood. 

Christmann noted that North Dakota has had a CO2 pipeline operating for about 20 years, running from the Dakota Gasification plant near Beulah to an oil field in Canada. It runs about 10 miles from his ranch in western North Dakota. 

Commissioner Sheri Haugen-Hoffart also mentioned that pipeline. 

“North Dakota has managed successfully the CO2 transportation and sequestration projects,” Haugen-Hoffart said. “Our state has a history of reasonable pipeline management, and thousands of miles of pipeline operate under strict state and federal regulations.” 

Summit chose western North Dakota as a permanent storage site because the area has geology to keep the CO2 deep underground with a cap rock keeping it from reaching the surface. 

Iowa-based Summit will need a separate storage permit from the North Dakota Industrial Commission. 

Summit also needs a permit in South Dakota, where it already has been denied once. 

Iowa has granted Summit a permit, and the company says it plans to try again for a permit in South Dakota. Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission is expected to vote Dec. 12 on a 28-mile segment near the North Dakota state line.

The project also includes Nebraska, which has no state agency in charge of issuing permits for CO2 pipelines. 

Photo: Public Service Commissioners, from left, Sheri Haugen-Hoffart, Randy Christmann and Administrative Law Judge Tim Dawson meet Nov.  15, 2024, on the Summit Carbon Solutions Pipeline. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor).

This North Dakota Monitor article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Readers can examine the order at the bottom of the article here.

Related posts

• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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

Trump expected to tap North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to be secretary of Interior

While he's no Deb Haaland--the current Secretary of the Interior and a tribal citizen--outgoing North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum is no Kristi Noem, who is banned from all nine tribal nations here in South Dakota.

The Lake Traverse Reservation, home of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate (my partner's tribe) is located in both North and South Dakota, as is the Standing Rock Reservation.

Read a 2023 press release at Burgum's fifth Strengthening Government to Government Partnerships and Relationships Conference here.

It could be worse--and Bluestem doesn't particularly favor Burgum's aggressive fossil fuel bromances.

From the North Dakota Monitor.

Trump expected to tap North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to be secretary of Interior
by Michael Achterling, Jeff Beach and Mary Steurer

President-elect Donald Trump said Thursday he plans to name North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to lead the Department of Interior. 

“We’re going to do things with energy and with land, Interior that is going to be incredible,” Trump said during a Thursday event at Mar-a-Lago. A clip of the event was captured on CSPAN. 

“I look forward to doing the formal announcement,” Trump said. That announcement is expected Friday. 

Burgum, who has served two terms as governor of North Dakota, was among the field of Republican candidates for president during the primaries before endorsing Trump. 

As governor, Burgum has railed against what he sees as government overreach and bureaucracy under the Biden administration, especially on energy policy. 

“I’m honored and excited to serve and will have more to say after the official announcement,” Burgum said Thursday in a statement through his spokesman.

The $18 billion Interior Department is responsible for managing public lands, protecting wildlife, maintaining national parks and monuments and overseeing most tribal programs, among other things.

A tension point in recent years has been over how much oil and gas development the department’s Bureau of Land Management should allow. President Joe Biden pledged not to offer new leases for oil and gas producers. Trump, during his first term, sought “energy dominance,” and he and allies campaigned this year on a return to that approach.

North Dakota is the nation’s third largest oil producing state, with some of the production coming from federal lands on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. 

North Dakota has filed multiple lawsuits against federal agencies under Burgum’s leadership. A handful of the lawsuits challenge the Department of the Interior, including one against the Bureau of Land Management that seeks to force the agency to hold more oil and gas lease sales.

Burgum, speaking to North Dakota reporters Tuesday, would not comment on a potential Cabinet appointment. But he did speak to the need for a more coordinated approach to national energy policy.

“If any administration wants to change these problems, there needs to be a more coordinated approach at the federal level to energy than what we have right now,” Burgum said after a Tuesday news conference in Bismarck.

Burgum said the Trump administration wants to focus on large-scale changes, not incremental progress.

“They are thinking about significant, substantial change,” Burgum said. “They are thinking about changing the direction of how the federal government works.”

He also said some of the authority given to intervening federal agencies could return to the states.

Burgum, a native of small-town Arthur, North Dakota, made his mark by investing in Great Plains Software, which he later sold to Microsoft. He went on to found real estate development firm Kilbourne Group, which is credited with revitalizing downtown Fargo, before seeking elected office for the first time in 2016.

When Burgum became governor in 2016, he was faced with thousands of demonstrators camping near the Missouri River in North Dakota in support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline. The pipeline was built to transport crude oil out of North Dakota.

Although Burgum and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have opposing stances on the pipeline crossing, many credit the governor with improving relationships between the state and the five Native American tribes that share geography with North Dakota.

Mark Fox, chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, told the North Dakota Monitor earlier this year that Burgum would be a valuable ally to the tribes as a Cabinet member.

“There’s so much he could help facilitate,” said Fox, who also supported Burgum’s bid for the presidency.

As governor, Burgum has championed the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library that’s under construction near Theodore Roosevelt National Park in western North Dakota. Burgum has pushed federal officials to address deferred maintenance at the national park.

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said Burgum’s love of nature and national parks make him well-suited to lead the Interior Department, one of the largest landowners in the world.

“He loves the land. He loves riding horseback. He loves hiking,” Cramer told the North Dakota Monitor. “It’s really a great fit for Doug and he’ll do a great job for all of us, and he’ll do North Dakota proud.”

Photo: Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation Chair Mark Fox, left, speaks with North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum in Memorial Hall during a signing event for an alcohol tax revenue sharing agreement between the state of North Dakota and the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation on March 22, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)

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

Related post

• Good-bye girl: Trump picks Governor Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security

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

Smithfield’s $2M child labor penalty dwarfed by parent company’s annual $26 billion in sales

Before I ran some medical errands this afternoon, the Minnesota Star Tribune published ag reporter Christopher Vondracek's Another  Minnesota meatpacking plant faces child labor claims, will pay $2M and the Associated Press's Steve Karnowski and Josh Funk's Smithfield agrees to pay $2 million to resolve child labor allegations at Minnesota meat plant.

At the Minnesota Reformer, editor J. Patrick Coolican puts the fine in context in the article republished below.

Smithfield’s $2 million child labor penalty dwarfed by parent company’s annual $26 billion in sales
by J. Patrick Coolican

Meat processing giant Smithfield will pay a $2 million penalty to resolve a child labor compliance order with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, the largest child labor enforcement action in DLI history.

The fine will have almost no impact on the company’s bottom line, however, given annual revenue of parent company WH Group Limited tops $26 billion. 

A consent order with the company will also require the Chinese-owned Smithfield to conduct industry outreach related to child labor compliance; require child labor compliance with its labor staffing agencies and sanitation contractors; and take other steps to ensure future child labor compliance, according to a DLI press release.

A DLI investigation found that between 2021 and 2023, the St. James area plant owned by Smithfield employed at least 11 minor children between the ages of 14 and 17. The children were also working late on school nights and performing hazardous jobs like working near chemicals; operating power-driven machinery, including meat grinders, slicers and power-driven conveyor belts; and operating nonautomatic elevators, lifts or hoisting machines, including motorized pallet jacks and lift pallet jacks.

“It is unacceptable for a company to employ minor children to perform hazardous work late at night. This illegal behavior impacts children’s health, safety and well-being and their ability to focus on their education and their future,” said DLI Commissioner Nicole Blissenbach. “Combatting unlawful child labor in Minnesota is a priority for DLI and it will continue to devote resources to addressing and resolving these violations.”

In fall 2023, DLI entered into a consent order with Tony Downs Food Company in Madelia in another child labor law case. 

Also in 2023, Wisconsin-based Packers Sanitation Services paid civil penalties to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division for employing minor children in hazardous occupations at meat processing facilities in eight states, including Minnesota.

In a statement, Smithfield offered an at-times combative response, denying “that we knowingly hired anyone under the age of 18 to work in our St. James facility. We have not admitted liability as part of this settlement; however, in the interest of preventing the distraction of prolonged litigation, we have agreed to settle this matter.”

The company said it uses E-Verify, a federal system that validates employment eligibility based on federal records.  

“Each of the 11 alleged underage individuals passed the E-Verify system by using false identification. Each used a different name to obtain employment with Smithfield than the name by which DLI identified them to Smithfield,” the company said in the statement. 

Smithfield emphasized that the company is opposed to child labor and has “taken proactive steps to enforce our policy prohibiting the employment of minors.” 

The child labor issue has come into focus in recent years, spurred in part by a series of investigative articles in the New York Times that exposed the exploitation of migrant children especially. 

“This shadow work force extends across industries in every state, flouting child labor laws that have been in place for nearly a century. Twelve-year-old roofers in Florida and Tennessee. Underage slaughterhouse workers in Delaware, Mississippi and North Carolina. Children sawing planks of wood on overnight shifts in South Dakota,” the article states.

And child meat processing workers in Minnesota. 

This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: The Smithfield plant in St. James, Minnesota. Via Star Tribune

Related posts

•  Update: Packers Sanitation Services Inc. fined $1.5M for use of child labor at packing plants 
•  DOL investigates JBS & Turkey Valley Farms contractor for hiring minors for cleaning jobs

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

North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved

Another chapter in the resistance to the Summit Carbon Solutions ethanol carbon pipeline project in the upper Midwest.

From the North Dakota Monitor.

North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit pipeline is approved
by Jeff Beach

PSC voting Friday on route permit

ELLENDALE, N.D. — James and Jessica Tiegs are among the holdout landowners who have refused to sign on to the controversial Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project to take carbon emissions from ethanol plants and store it underground in North Dakota.

Summit is offering to pay landowners in exchange for an easement — the right to put the hazardous liquid pipeline through their land — but the couple says they value the land and safety over money. 

“It goes right through some of our best farmland,” James Tiegs said. “I don’t want my family to farm over that.” 

The North Dakota Public Service Commission on Friday will vote on whether to grant a route permit to Summit for 333 miles of pipeline in southeast and south-central North Dakota. The PSC denied Summit a permit in 2023, but the company made changes to its route in North Dakota and appealed the decision. 

Summit will also need a permit for its permanent storage site west of Bismarck, which is under review by the North Dakota Industrial Commission. 

Asked what they might do if the PSC approves the project, James Tiegs said, “We dig in.” 

Digging in would mean bracing for a possible legal battle with Summit over eminent domain, which allows a private business to force landowners to provide an easement. 

Eminent domain is sometimes used for projects when a court determines that the project has a public benefit that outweighs the rights of a landowner — such as building a road, a powerline or flood protection. 

Approval by the Public Service Commission would not guarantee that Summit has the right to use eminent domain; that would have to come from the courts. 

The couple is in the minority as holdouts. A Summit filing with the PSC said as of Oct. 9, it had obtained voluntary easements on about 81.4% of the miles it needs in North Dakota. 

There are proponents of the project, especially among corn growers who say the project is needed to help ethanol plants survive in a world demanding more low-carbon fuel. Summit emphasized economic benefits to the PSC.

Tharaldson Ethanol at Casselton is the only North Dakota ethanol producer among the 57 plants on the five-state pipeline route. 

The project also is being watched closely by the oil and gas industry. While Summit’s plan is for permanent underground storage, carbon dioxide can be used for enhanced oil recovery, potentially extending the life of North Dakota’s oil wells.  

Summit has said it would use eminent domain as a last resort in North Dakota. 

“We’ve taken the stance to work diligently to acquire as much as we can get voluntarily,” Lee Blank, CEO of Iowa-based Summit, told the North Dakota Monitor in April.

He said that if Summit is granted a permit, he expects more voluntary easements to come quickly. 

“We’ll get it to a very small percentage of those folks that we have to work really hard on to find a voluntary arrangement,” Blank said. 

The Tiegs’ property that Summit wants access to is near Ellendale in Dickey County, just north of the South Dakota state line. The family also farms in South Dakota and they are shareholders in Glacial Lakes Energy, which has four ethanol plants in South Dakota along the pipeline route. 

Recent setbacks for Summit in South Dakota give them some hope that they can avoid a court battle because of possible reroutes of the pipeline in that state. 

“Their path is going to be severely altered,” James Tiegs predicted. 

The setbacks in South Dakota also highlight some of the differences in pipeline rules in the two states. 

The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the Summit pipeline is not a “common carrier.” Common carrier status for pipelines is important for establishing the right to use eminent domain. In North Dakota, Summit has claimed common carrier status but attorneys for the PSC and landowners have different opinions on that claim. 

South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission in 2023 denied Summit a permit in part because of local ordinances that would stop the project. The North Dakota PSC has determined that state law supersedes local regulations on pipelines. 

South Dakota voters on Nov. 5 defeated a ballot measure known as Referred Law 21. The vote reverses a law passed by the South Dakota Legislature that would have exempted carbon pipelines in South Dakota from the local zoning regulations, according to the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance.

The ethanol industry campaigned to keep the law passed by the Legislature. 

“I feel betrayed by the ethanol plants a little bit,” James Tiegs said.

Summit said after the vote that it will try again for a permit in South Dakota. 

If North Dakota approves the project, the couple will be supporting their neighbors to the south who also oppose the pipeline. 

“If anything good has come from this it’s the people we’ve met,” Jessica Tiegs said. “We have some new friends in South Dakota.”

Summit would benefit from federal tax credits of $85 per ton of CO2 that it plans to put underground in North Dakota, and would sequester 18 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. 

“If they take the government money away from this, it falls flat on his face,” James Tiegs said.

Photo: Jessica and James Tiegs of Ellendale, North Dakota, look through a folder of information they have compiled on carbon capture pipelines on Nov. 12, 2024. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor).

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

Related posts

• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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

Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday

Two Summit Carbon Solution ethanol carbon pipeline items have come Bluestem's path today. I last posted about the stralling pipeline project in SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12.

A press release from pipeline opponent CURE:

MN greases the wheels for Summit’s CO2 pipeline, SD voters deal a serious blow 

MN PUC will decide on Summit’s permit in December 12th meeting 

Montevideo, MN, November 12, 2024—Last week saw two important if contradictory decisions related to Summit Carbon Solutions LLC's controversial $8.9-billion carbon-capture pipeline project. One moves the CO2 pipeline one step forward in securing the permit for its proposed 28-mile segment in Minnesota. At the same time, the other is a major electoral setback in South Dakota. 

 

In South Dakota, voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that would have made the project easier to approve by allowing the company to override county-level and other local land-use and safety regulations. The ballot referendum known as Referred Law 21 vetoed a law that was passed earlier in the year and supported by ethanol giant POET LLC and Gov. Kristi Noem, among others. But voters in 65 out of 66 counties struck the law down. During this spring's GOP primaries, South Dakotans also ousted a number of incumbents who had supported the bill.

 

"South Dakota's rejection of Referred Law 21 is a repudiation of the bully tactics Summit Carbon Solutions has employed for’ over three years now,” said Chase Jensen, an organizer with South Dakota-based Dakota Rural Action. “This vote shows that citizens are paying attention and will not stand for a false-'compromise' bill that was written by and for industry.” 

 

Meanwhile, Minnesota moved closer to approving a 28-mile segment of Summit’s project in Otter Tail and Wilkin Counties, which would connect to the wider five-state network through North Dakota. On November 4, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued her report finding that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the pipeline segment is “adequate” and recommending that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issue a route permit for RA-South, which is Summit's preferred route. The Judge also concluded that constructing the project along RA-South “is not likely to cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land, or other natural resources located within Minnesota.” CURE brought evidence that showed that alternative routes would have fewer impacts on public health, waterways, productive farmland, and protected species, but the ALJ selected the route favored by Summit. 

 

“The assertion that this pipeline along this route is unlikely to impact the lands, waterways, and communities it cuts through flies in the face of the ample evidence we and many others brought to these proceedings,” said Sarah Mooradian, Government and Policy Director at CURE. “Thankfully, we have a complete record that shows otherwise.” 

 

“The ALJ report repeatedly states that the public’s concerns have been addressed in the FEIS. This is in spite of the fact that Minnesotans showed up 100-to-1 to say the exact opposite at public hearings and in written comments,” added Maggie Schuppert of CURE. “Summit and their supporters try to paint the folks speaking out against the pipeline as a vocal but insignificant minority—looking at the results from South Dakota, it’s pretty obvious that’s not the case.” 

 

The PUC is expected to take up the ALJ’s proposals at its December 12 agenda meeting and decide whether to approve Summit’s permit and preferred route. “It’s important to remember that the ALJ recommendations are just that—recommendations,” said Hudson Kington, CURE’s Legal Director. “The decision to approve the route permit lies with the PUC Commissioners, they are the ones who are accountable.” 

 

Additional info about CO2 pipelines: www.carbonpipelinesmn.org 

 

CURE is rurally based, with staff across Minnesota. CURE knows rural people, lands, and ecosystems are vital to helping solve some of the biggest problems Minnesota and the country face. We help to tell the story of a vibrant rural future, lift-up people to lead, and work for policies and laws to make a better future possible for everyone. 

An article about regulatory action in North Dakota, republished from the North Dakota Monitor.

Summit carbon pipeline decision coming Friday from North Dakota PSC
by Jeff Beach

The North Dakota Public Service Commission will meet Friday to vote on the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project that aims to permanently store carbon emissions underground west of Bismarck. 

The commission will meet at 10 a.m. in the Pioneer Room on the ground floor in the Judicial Wing of the Capitol Building. 

The PSC denied Summit a permit in 2023, but the company made changes to its route in North Dakota and appealed the decision. 

The three-person commission has held multiple public hearings on the $8 billion pipeline network that would gather carbon emissions from ethanol plants in five states, including Tharaldson Ethanol at Casselton, North Dakota. 

Supporters view the project as vital to helping the ethanol industry compete in low-carbon fuel markets. Ethanol is a key market for corn growers.

Opponents cite safety concerns, damage to farmland and property values and an infringement on property rights. Some landowners also have complained about Summit’s business practices. 

Iowa has granted Summit a permit, and the company says it plans to try again for a permit in South Dakota. Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission is expected to vote Dec. 12 on a 28-mile segment near the North Dakota state line.

The project also includes Nebraska, which has no state agency in charge of issuing permits for CO2 pipelines.

Summit would benefit from federal tax credits of $85 per ton of CO2 that it plans to put underground in North Dakota, and would sequester 18 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. 

Iowa-based Summit will need a separate storage permit from the North Dakota Industrial Commission.

Photo: A truck delivers corn to the Tharaldson Ethanol plant near Casselton, North Dakota, on May 15, 2024. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor).

This North Dakota Monitor article is republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• 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