South Dakota Regulators Deny Summit Carbon Pipeline Application for Second Time
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has once again denied Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposal to construct a major carbon dioxide pipeline through the state. This recent decision, determined by a close 2-1 commission vote, cited significant issues concerning the viability of the proposed route. Commissioner Chris Nelson, the sole dissenting voice, argued to allow Summit another opportunity, particularly as the company has committed not to challenge the state’s newly passed eminent domain legislation.
Highlighting the project’s complexity, the pipeline aims to capture and transport CO2 emissions from around 60 ethanol facilities spread across five Midwestern states—Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota—to storage locations underground in North Dakota. Estimated to cost approximately $8.9 billion, the ambitious project would extend roughly 2,500 miles.
Property owners in South Dakota, however, expressed significant relief following the decision, having repeatedly raised concerns about the pipeline’s potential impacts. These concerns include disruptions and distress related to property rights, economic stability, and physical and mental health.
“The landowners have endured incredible physical, mental, and financial strain from this ongoing uncertainty,” noted one attendee at the commission hearing, underscoring widespread sentiment among local communities.
With the latest denial, Summit’s current investment—amounting to over $150 million in the South Dakota route segment—faces uncertainty. Responding to the commission’s ruling, Summit immediately communicated that it intends to refile its application with a redesigned route aimed at addressing landowner concerns and meeting regulatory requirements.
Project’s Future Dependent on Revised Proposals and Regulatory Approvals
The latest setback in South Dakota is another challenge in the series of regulatory hurdles Summit Carbon Solutions has encountered since initially proposing the project. Although the company has secured route approvals in Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota, South Dakota’s approval remains integral, especially as regulators in Iowa have conditioned their approval on successful permit acquisitions in neighboring states.
Additionally complicating matters, the South Dakota Legislature passed new legislation in March, House Bill 1052, prohibiting the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines. Eminent domain allows government entities or certain companies to acquire private land for projects deemed in public interest. Summit relied significantly on this mechanism for securing needed land access; thus, the new legislation represents a major restrictive factor for the project’s feasibility.
Commissioner Chris Nelson’s dissent largely revolved around his concern for fairness toward Summit. He emphasized that the company had promised not to legally contest the eminent domain change, suggesting the potential to find common ground through further negotiations and route adjustments.
“Summit deserves another opportunity to present a viable project that complies fully with the commission’s detailed regulatory framework,” Nelson argued, advocating for continued dialogue and compromise.
Summit officials have indicated a willingness to further refine their project. Company representatives have highlighted ongoing negotiations with local landowners and ethanol plant operators, aiming to revise the pipeline route, potentially shortening it or circumventing areas of significant opposition.
Historical and Policy Context Highlight Pipeline Controversy
Carbon capture pipelines, such as the one proposed by Summit, are part of broader initiatives aimed at addressing climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The process involves capturing carbon dioxide produced by industrial sources and transporting it via pipelines either to underground storage facilities or for utilization in enhanced oil recovery, a practice Summit acknowledges could be part of their broader operational scope.
The technology, though considered essential by various policymakers and industry figures to meet national and international climate objectives, has faced notable resistance, chiefly from landowners and environmental groups. Concerns typically relate to the safety of carbon dioxide transport, potential environmental impacts along routes, and debates about the best methods for reducing emissions.
Historically, the Midwest has seen multiple pipeline projects either approved or fiercely contested over recent decades, reflecting a broader trend of disputes over energy infrastructure within the region. The Keystone XL pipeline, which spurred notable national controversy before its federal cancellation, also crossed through South Dakota, similarly facing significant resistance from local communities and indigenous groups.
South Dakota’s stance, reflected in the recent denial of Summit’s permit, highlights growing caution and regulatory scrutiny surrounding major infrastructural projects, particularly those requiring extensive use of private lands. The commission’s rigorous application of state law and regulatory conditions underscores an increasing preference for explicit landowner consent and tangible community benefits in such complex undertakings.
“South Dakota’s regulatory position sends a clear message,” said a representative of a regional environmental advocacy group, “emphasizing a careful approach to energy infrastructure, demanding meaningful engagement with local stakeholders and stringent compliance with regulatory guidelines.”
As Summit Carbon Solutions recalibrates plans following this latest regulatory setback, the project’s future remains uncertain. Further developments hinge on the company’s ability to present a substantially revised and broadly agreeable route, with critical approvals still pending. Meanwhile, local landowners and environmental groups continue watching closely, prepared to respond to future proposals and maintain stringent oversight over pipeline developments in South Dakota.