Referendum set for South Dakota voters on controversial carbon dioxide pipeline law
For years, there has been a push to get approval for a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that would snake through the Midwest. The issue could become even more complicated if voters in South Dakota reject a bill passed by the Legislature. Opponents of the pipeline say it is an attempt to suppress local control and speed up the pipeline’s approval.
State officials this week approved the referendum for the Nov. 5 general election, allowing voters to decide whether to reject a package of regulations approved by the Legislature earlier this year. Pipeline opponents argue that the regulations would strip county officials of the ability to pass strict rules that could all but ban such pipelines, while legislative leaders say they planned to add requirements to help landowners even as they limited the role of county governments.
According to Jim Eschenbaum, president of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, which was formed by landowners and local officials to oppose the project, the law takes away the powers of local governments and places them in the hands of the state’s three-member Public Utilities Commission.
“I truly believe that a majority of South Dakotans think this pipeline is a nonsense. I’m one of them,” he said. “I think it’s just a bunch of nonsense and a huge waste of taxpayers’ money.”
Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions has proposed putting the $5.5 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline network that would transport planet-warming emissions from more than 50 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota deep underground. in North Dakota.
Summit has faced opposition and setbacks across the Midwest. But regulators in North Dakota are reconsidering An previous denial of a permit, and last month the Iowa Utilities Commission gave conditional approval to Summit. Last year, South Dakota supervisors denied Summit has applied for a permit, but company officials have indicated they will reapply this summer.
The pipeline is seen as crucial for a possible future aviation fuel market for the Midwest-based ethanol industry, which buys about a third of the nation’s corn crop. By opposing the pipeline, some landowners are challenging the forced use of their property and raising the risk of ruptures that dangerous CO2 gasThey are also critical of lucrative federal tax credits for carbon capture projects.
House Majority Leader Will Mortenson said he believes the pipeline will eventually be built regardless of whether regulations are in place. That’s why he helped introduce the new law, which adds new requirements such as minimum depth requirements for the pipeline, liability for pipeline operators for damages and disclosure of pipeline plume models. The law also allows counties to impose a $1 per linear foot surcharge on carbon pipelines whose companies claim federal tax credits.
“If this gets shot down, that pipeline will be built without any landowner protections, without any investigation into the plume being released, and without a lot of the other benefits that we fought so hard to get in there,” Mortenson said.
Mortenson, an attorney, says he sees the benefits for the ethanol industry, but he also understands the concerns of farmers and ranchers and the need for the regulations in the law.
While proponents called the bill a “landowners bill of rights,” Republican Rep. Karla Lems opposed the legislation, calling it “the pipeline bill of rights.” She said the bill sets the stage for other companies like Summit and future solar and wind projects to move forward, unhindered by local concerns.
Lems’ family owns land that was in the path of Summit’s proposed pipeline and another pipeline project that was canceled last year.
Asked for comment, Summit spokeswoman Sabrina Ahmed Zenor called the law “pro-farmer, pro-ethanol and pro-business. It protects landowners and provides property tax relief.”
___
Dura reported from Bismarck, North Dakota.