SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A heated debate intensified on Wednesday evening as hundreds of South Dakotans congregated at the Southeast Technical College auditorium. The focus was on the contentious 2,500-mile carbon dioxide pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions, a project valued at $9 billion, aimed at capturing emissions from 57 ethanol plants and transporting them across state lines to North Dakota for underground storage.
“We know this is an incredibly important issue to you,” remarked Commissioner Gary Hanson, overseeing the state Public Utilities Commission hearing, as he addressed the assembly for a session that spanned three hours.
The proposed pipeline seeks to capitalize on federal tax credits designed to incentivize carbon emission reductions. However, the plan hit a stumbling block last year when the commission denied Summit’s initial permit application due to conflicts with local ordinances regarding pipeline routes. Summit’s current attempt to secure a permit in South Dakota is pivotal for the project that already received route permits in North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, as well as a storage permit in North Dakota.
At the heart of the opposition are concerns about safety, environmental impact, and the potential infringement on property rights. Residents from Minnehaha, Lincoln, Turner, and Union counties voiced their fears over the pipeline’s safety and its intrusion into valuable farmland. Their resistance was palpable, echoing through the auditorium with fervent applause after each critical statement.
“Summit is in it for the tax credits,” argued local resident Betty Strom, whose land would be affected by the pipeline. “They don’t care about property rights, safety, the damage to property, its value, or the long-term consequences. Please deny this permit again.”
Summit, however, argues that the pipeline will bring substantial economic benefits to the region, including $1.9 billion in capital expenditures and the creation of 3,000 construction jobs, with an additional 260 jobs supported annually once the project is operational.
Al Giese, an Iowa farmer and board member of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, expressed his support, emphasizing the broader economic implications. “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 noted. “There’s no other way to go about it.”
The pipeline also faces legal challenges, as the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled last year that Summit must first prove its public utility status before utilizing eminent domain to acquire private land. This ongoing legal battle only adds to the uncertainty surrounding the project’s future.
As debates continue, further public hearings are scheduled across South Dakota in De Smet, Watertown, Aberdeen, and Redfield, gathering more public input on a project that’s become a central issue in state politics.
With some state lawmakers proposing legislation to prevent the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines, the outcome of these proceedings could set a precedent for future infrastructure projects in South Dakota and beyond.
South Dakota’s rich agricultural landscape and its people stand at a crossroad, balancing environmental responsibilities with economic opportunities, all under the watchful eyes of those invested in the state’s future.
For more information, contact Editor Seth Tupper via email.