In a dramatic display of public opposition, hundreds of residents packed the Southeast Technical College auditorium on January 15, 2025, to voice their concerns against a $9 billion carbon dioxide pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions. The pipeline, spanning 2,500 miles across five states, including eastern South Dakota, aims to capture CO2 from 57 ethanol plants and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project, which is seeking a permit from the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), has sparked intense debate, with critics questioning its safety, economic implications, and its so-called environmental benefits.

Key Points:

• Hundreds of residents attended a PUC hearing to oppose the Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline.
• The project spans 2,500 miles and aims to capture CO2 from 57 ethanol plants across five states.
• The pipeline project has faced multiple rejections and legal challenges.
• Opponents cite safety concerns, property rights, and environmental skepticism.
• Some state lawmakers propose legislation to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines.

Safety and property rights concerns at the forefront of public outcry

The auditorium was abuzz with tension as Commissioner Gary Hanson opened the meeting, acknowledging the significance of the issue. “We know this is an incredibly important issue to you,” Hanson said. “We are here today to learn and listen, and we appreciate each of you being with us today to give us your input.”

Throughout the three-hour meeting, the majority of attendees expressed stringent opposition to the pipeline. Betty Strom, whose property would be crossed by the pipeline, voiced her concerns. “Summit is in it for the tax credits. They don’t care about property rights, safety, the damage to property, its value, or the long-term consequences,” Strom said. “Please deny this permit again.”

Opponents reiterated fears about the safety of the pipeline, the potential for environmental hazards, and the use of eminent domain to force the project through. The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled last year that Summit had not yet proven its status as a “common carrier,” a designation necessary to exercise eminent domain. The case has been sent back to a lower court for further proceedings, leaving the company’s right to eminent domain unsettled.

Economic and environmental arguments

Despite the overwhelming opposition, some supporters of the project highlighted its potential economic benefits. Al Giese, an Iowa farmer and board member of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, emphasized the importance of carbon sequestration. “The carbon sequestration train, locally and nationally, has left the station,” Giese said. “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.”

Summit representatives presented the project as a significant economic opportunity, citing $1.9 billion in capital expenditures in South Dakota, 3,000 construction jobs, and 260 annual jobs. The company also reviewed safety regulations and standards, but these arguments did little to quell the persistent concerns of many landowners and environmental advocates.

Banning eminent domain and protecting property rights

The public opposition extends beyond the PUC hearings. On January 14, 2025, a rally at the South Dakota Capitol brought together landowners, property rights advocates, and critics of carbon pipeline development. Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton, introduced a bill to ban the use of eminent domain for carbon pipeline projects, describing it as a “building block” toward protecting property rights.

“This bill will bring legislative certainty, and constitutional certainty, to the people of South Dakota,” Lems told the crowd. The bill, which will be introduced in the upcoming legislative session, is gaining traction among Republican legislators, many of whom lost their re-election bids after supporting pipeline legislation without an eminent domain ban.

The South Dakota PUC will continue its series of public input meetings in cities across eastern South Dakota, including De Smet, Watertown, Aberdeen, and Redfield. These meetings will play a crucial role in shaping the commission’s decision on Summit’s permit application.

As the debate over the CO2 pipeline intensifies, the project stands at a crossroads, balancing the promise of economic development and environmental stewardship against the rights and concerns of local communities. The outcome of these hearings and the legislative efforts will not only determine the fate of the pipeline but also set a precedent for future infrastructure projects in the region.

Sources include:

Whatsupwiththat.com

SouthDakotaSearchlight.com

SouthDakotaSearchlight.com