Another wrinkle in South Dakota's ethanol carbon pipeline epic.
From the South Dakota Searchlight.
Ethanol leaders see irony in governor’s ‘Open for Opportunity’ visit after eminent domain ban
by Joshua HaiarSome ethanol leaders think it’s ironic that Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden brought his “Open for Opportunity” tour to an ethanol plant this week, after he signed a bill that negatively impacted a proposed multi-billion-dollar project for the industry.
“The whole industry is very disappointed with how things went in South Dakota,” Walt Wendland, president of the Ringneck Energy ethanol plant in Onida, told South Dakota Searchlight.
Rhoden visited the plant Tuesday, after launching his tour highlighting economic development on Monday in Sioux Falls.
Wendland wants to connect the Onida plant to Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed $9 billion, five-state pipeline that would capture carbon dioxide from more than 50 ethanol plants and transport it to an underground storage site in North Dakota. The project would be eligible for federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
Rhoden signed legislation March 6 barring carbon pipeline companies from using eminent domain. That’s the right to access private property for projects that benefit the public, with just compensation for landowners determined by a court.
Summit has voluntary access agreements, called easements, with some landowners on the route. Other landowners have refused to sign the agreements, citing concerns about private property rights and potential leaks of toxic carbon dioxide plumes. They’ve also alleged unethical behavior by some land agents for Summit.
Without eminent domain, gaining access to the remaining land needed for the project in South Dakota could be difficult or impossible. Wendland said Summit spent millions on easements, “and suddenly, the state pulls the rug out from you, and tells you to go home.”
“That’s not the way we should be doing business,” he said.
Last week, Summit asked South Dakota regulators to pause proceedings in the company’s permit application. The company has permits in North Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa, although some permits are under litigation, while Nebraska lacks a permitting process.
South Dakota ethanol advocates say the project would be a $1.86 billion investment in the state. They also say it would increase demand from markets seeking fuel with lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Rhoden, a longtime advocate for property rights, said the bill does not end the proposed project.
“I encourage Summit and others to view it as an opportunity for a needed reset,” Rhoden said in a statement on March 6. “Voluntary easements for this proposed project will still be able to move forward. In fact, without the threat of eminent domain, the opportunity might finally be available for trust to be rebuilt and for more productive conversations to occur between Summit and South Dakota landowners.”
Wendland said his Tuesday conversation with Rhoden was productive, and he believes the governor tried to find a compromise before signing the eminent domain ban. That proved impossible after several years of political strife caused by the project, including a voter-rejected compromise bill last year and the primary election losses of more than a dozen incumbent Republican legislators after the passage of that bill.
“He said the issue was taking up too much time for everybody, and by signing the bill, that all went away,” Wendland said. “But at our expense, at agriculture’s expense.”
Rhoden and Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen discussed their support of the eminent domain ban when they kicked off their “Open for Opportunity” tour Monday in Sioux Falls. Venhuizen referenced the divisiveness of the issue.
“I hope that these legislators in our state politics can kind of move beyond it,” he said. “Because it was having a very corrosive effect on our state politics.”
Rhoden said the debate “made me just sick to my stomach because there wasn’t a good answer.” He said the narrative about supporters of the project became too negative.
“If you believed in the carbon pipeline, then you were just a tree-hugging, green energy, Green New Deal, Biden Democrat,” Rhoden said.
Eric Baukol is the CEO of Redfield Energy, another ethanol plant hoping to connect to the Summit pipeline. He said he understands the politics of it all, but that doesn’t make it any less disappointing.
“If I were them and I wanted to be elected, it makes total sense,” he said. “But it’s short-sighted. The shift toward carbon sequestration in agriculture is coming, and this will likely be a burden.”
Redfield Energy Board Chairman Jim Klebsch said that while some politicians at the Capitol in Pierre told him they got elected to oppose eminent domain for the project, “they knew in their heart and in their mind that the project was good for South Dakota.”
“It was easier just to shut it down and walk away than it was to fight the real fight,” Klebsch said. “We can’t sustain current corn prices. Land prices will suffer, and local tax revenues along with them. Something will have to happen, and the pipeline project was one solution.”
Lawmakers who supported the eminent domain ban hailed it as a victory for property rights.
Sen. Tom Pischke, R-Dell Rapids, voted for the bill when it passed the Senate on March 4.
“Private companies should not be able to take South Dakotans’ land against their will,” he said at the time.
Photo: South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden speaks with attendees at an event in Sioux Falls on Mar. 17, 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
- Iowa opponents push for a ban on eminent domain for ethanol carbon pipelines
- South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden signed eminent domain ban on carbon pipelines
- South Dakota Legislature passes eminent domain ban for carbon pipelines
- Carbon pipeline eminent domain ban advances to South Dakota House; ‘compromise’ bill gutted
- SD House: carbon capture pipeline moratorium and land-agent regulations advance, while environmental analysis bill fails
- 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