Another moment in the carbon capture pipeline saga in the upper Midwest.
Bluestem's been posting about the resistance to carbon pipelines here in South Dakota--in blog entries like Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic--a state in which there's board popular and legislative opposition to the proposed pipeline system.
The Republicans in the Minnesota legislature seem to be taking a different position.
Grassroots rural environmental and energy policy organization CURE is warning about a bill making its way in the Minnesota House that would “support the development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies in Minnesota.”
HF9 will be heard on Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 10:15 AM in the Taxes Committee, so Minnesotans who take CURE's warning seriously, should contact your state representatives with your concerns.
From CURE's Facebook page:
There's a link on the post that leads to this copy on the organization's webpage:
HF 9 is a bill authored by Rep. Chris Swedzinski (R-Ghent) and it will make changes to Minnesota’s 100% Carbon Free Energy Standard. One big change is to add language to make it Minnesota law to “support the development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies in Minnesota.”
So-called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a failed climate “solution” favored by the oil and gas companies and other industries that emit CO2 to keep making lots of money in a decarbonizing future. Even with huge taxpayer subsidies, CCS hasn’t reduced CO2 emissions and can be very dangerous for people living near CO2 pipelines. CO2 pipelines at grave risk.
Learn more about the problems with CCS and CO2 pipelines and the risks they pose for Minnesota’s communities: https://curemn.org/carbon-pipelines-mn/resources/
In January, the House Energy Finance and Policy Committee approved HF 9 and sent it to the House Taxes Committee. This bill could be voted on by the House soon. It’s critical for lawmakers to hear from people who will be affected by these projects.
👉 Your Minnesota Legislator needs to know about the concerns, risks, and problems these projects could bring to our lands, waters, and communities.
👉 Write to your representative to tell them who you are, why you care, and what concerns you have about a policy that would advance Carbon Capture and CO2 pipelines.
ACT NOW
Let your Rep know that CCS ≠ MN’s Carbon Free Future
👉 Make it Personal
Your story makes a big impact on decision-makers.
Please add a note about why this issue matters to you!
There's also a form on the page where visitors can sign up for future notices on the issue.
Photo: An ethanol plant.
Related posts
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic
- Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements
- State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
- Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
- Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
- Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
- Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
- Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
- Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week
- Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
- Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
- 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
- Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
- 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
- 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
- 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