Yesterday was another bad day for ethanol carbon pipelines in Pierre, the South Dakota Searchlight reports. The failure of the environmental analysis bill updates an earlier post, SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain, enviro studies for carbon pipelines.
CO2 pipeline moratorium and land-agent regulations advance, but environmental analysis bill fails
by Joshua HaiarPIERRE – In South Dakota’s ongoing debate over carbon capture pipelines, lawmakers advanced two bills to further regulate those projects Tuesday but rejected one that would have required in-depth environmental assessments.
The bills are among several filed in response to controversy over Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed $9 billion, five-state pipeline that would pass through eastern South Dakota.
The project would transport captured carbon dioxide emissions from more than 50 ethanol plants to an underground storage area in North Dakota. While supporters view it as a critical step toward bolstering the ethanol industry, opponents are concerned about private property rights and safety risks from potential leaks.
Pipeline moratorium
One of the bills that passed the House of Representatives, 40-30, seeks to halt the construction of carbon dioxide pipelines in South Dakota until the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration finalizes new safety regulations.
“This bill simply asks that we take the time to sit back, take a step back, and wait until these rules are finished,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Richard Vasgaard, R-Centerville.
Supporters said the moratorium is essential to safeguard residents and ensure that comprehensive safety standards are in place before proceeding with such projects.
Opponents said existing regulations are sufficient and that delaying pipeline development could hinder economic opportunities and deter investment in the state’s energy sector.
The bill goes to the Senate next.
Land agent accusations
Another bill headed to the Senate empowers landowners to sue for allegedly deceptive practices, fraud, harassment, intimidation or misrepresentation during the acquisition of land access agreements — known as easements — by carbon pipeline land agents. It passed the House 36-34.
Supporters alleged there have been numerous instances when landowners faced aggressive or misleading tactics from CO2 pipeline land agents. They said the bill provides the necessary legal recourse and promotes fair negotiations.
“Why is it OK for these companies to treat us like this?” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kaley Nolz, R-Mitchell.
Opponents said such misconduct is already illegal. They said the bill’s provisions might be overly broad, potentially complicating legitimate infrastructure projects and leading to increased litigation.
“This bill is a lawyer’s dream,” said Rep. Steve Duffy, R-Rapid City.
Environmental impact statements
A bill failed that would have mandated any applicant seeking a permit for a carbon dioxide pipeline to have an environmental impact statement.
Opponents said the requirement could introduce bureaucratic delays, increase project costs and discourage companies from pursuing energy projects in South Dakota.
Supporters emphasized the necessity of thoroughly assessing potential environmental consequences, like the impact on the state’s water resources, before project approval.
“We are literally, in my opinion, walking blind into a huge project that is going to use millions of gallons of water,” said bill sponsor Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls.
However, because the bill also included a permanent application fee increase, the House speaker ruled that the bill required a two-thirds majority. The vote was 37-32, which was short of two-thirds, and the bill failed.
Eminent domain bills pending
The Summit project may ultimately need eminent domain to gain land access from unwilling landowners. Eminent domain is a legal process for obtaining that access with just compensation determined by a court, for a project beneficial to the public — traditionally for projects such as electrical power lines, crude oil pipelines, water pipelines and highways.
A bill to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines passed the House last month and is awaiting action in the Senate.
Another bill approved by the Senate earlier this week would retain eminent domain as an option. But it would require entities using it to first attend mediation with the affected landowner and to also have a state permit before commencing eminent domain proceedings.
Photo: Rep. Richard Vasgaard, R-Centerville, speaks to lawmakers on the South Dakota House floor in Pierre on Feb. 25, 2025. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts
- SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain, enviro studies for carbon pipelines
- CURE action alert: carbon pipelines & CCS not Minnesota's answer to a carbon free future
- 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