Two news reports on PUC meetings over the ethanol carbon pipelines in South Dakota. I'll be attending tomorrow's meeting in Aberdeen.
For the Mitchell Republic, Marcus Traxler reports in PUC public input meetings for Summit Carbon pipeline begins in Mitchell:
More than 250 people were on hand to hear from company officials about the plan at the Mitchell High School Performing Arts Center . . .
The PUC held a public input session at the Mitchell High School Performing Arts Center, with more than 250 members of the public in attendance for the three-hour-plus session. It was the first in a series of six public meetings held between Wednesday and Friday on the eastern half of South Dakota. In addition to a Wednesday night meeting in Sioux Falls, meetings in De Smet and Watertown are scheduled for Thursday, while Aberdeen and Redfield will be sites for Friday’s meetings. . . .
Those in attendance heard from ag industry advocates and construction industry professionals who spoke about the benefits of the project to farmers and to the workforce. Opponents to the plan spoke about potential concerns if the pipeline were to burst, and the issues that it would cause for health, environment and communities along the pipeline's route, along with taking aim at Summit Carbon's hope to use eminent domain against landowners who don't want to use the pipeline. In August 2024, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled against Summit, saying it cannot use eminent domain because it is not a common carrier and carbon dioxide is not a commodity. . . .
An informal tally of proponent and opponent speakers during the meeting included 16 individuals speaking in favor of the project and 19 against the project, with two speaking and indicating they were neutral. . . .
Read the entire article at the Mitchell Republic.
Sounds like it was a bigger and more raucous crown down in Sioux Falls. From the South Dakota Searchlight.
Hundreds crowd public hearing on second attempt at a carbon pipeline permit
by Makenzie HuberSIOUX FALLS — Hundreds of people, many of them opponents of a carbon dioxide pipeline, filled the Southeast Technical College auditorium Wednesday evening for a state Public Utilities Commission hearing regarding a second attempt by Summit Carbon Solutions to gain a permit for the project.
“We know this is an incredibly important issue to you,” said Commissioner Gary Hanson at the start of the three-hour meeting. “We are here today to learn and listen, and we appreciate each of you being with us today to give us your input.”
The Iowa-based company plans a 2,500-mile, $9 billion pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states, including eastern South Dakota, 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 commission rejected Summit’s first permit application in 2023, in part due to the pipeline route’s conflicts with local ordinances mandating minimum distances between pipelines and existing features.
The project has a storage permit in North Dakota and route permits in North Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota, while Nebraska has no state permitting process for carbon pipelines. The project also faces litigation from opponents in multiple states.
The Sioux Falls meeting focused on residents in Minnehaha, Lincoln, Turner and Union counties. The commission held another meeting in Mitchell earlier in the day.
Most of Wednesday’s attendees opposed the pipeline — evident by applause often filling the room after opponents spoke. The opponents who spoke primarily reiterated concerns about safety and impacts to farmland affected by the pipeline’s planned route, which were raised during the company’s initial attempt at a permit.
Opponents also spoke against efforts to designate the pipeline as a common carrier, which would allow the use of eminent domain to push the project through. The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled last year that the pipeline has not yet proven it should be allowed to take private land for public use. The high court sent the case back to a lower court, where the company is trying to prove its case.
Meanwhile, some state lawmakers have proposed legislation to ban carbon pipelines from using eminent domain.
Betty Strom, whose property would be crossed by the pipeline, said it would be a “forever hazard across my land.”
“Summit is in it for the tax credits. They don’t care about property rights, safety, the damage to property, its value or the long-term consequences,” Strom said. “Please deny this permit again.”
Representatives from Summit explained why the route was selected and reviewed safety regulations and standards for the pipeline.
In a handout, Summit said the project would include $1.9 billion in capital expenditures in South Dakota, add 3,000 construction jobs while the pipeline is being built and support 260 jobs annually.
Project supporters said it would provide economic opportunities to South Dakota if implemented.
Al Giese, an Iowa farmer, board member for the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and owner of a feed and trucking company doing business in South Dakota, told the commission that the “carbon sequestration train, locally and nationally, has left the station.”
“Yes, it is a South Dakota issue. It is a Midwestern issue. But we must move forward with sequestering carbon not only for the vitality of the ag sector but for all the economies in the Midwestern states,” Giese said. “There’s no other way to go about it.”
The next public hearings will be in De Smet and Watertown on Thursday, and in Aberdeen and Redfield on Friday.
Photo: Hundreds of people fill the Southeast Technical College auditorium in Sioux Falls for a Public Utilities Commission hearing about a carbon dioxide pipeline proposal on Jan. 15, 2025. (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
- Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
- Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
- North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
- Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
- Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
- North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
- Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
- Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
- Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
- 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
Comments