South Dakota to vote on controversial CO2 pipeline law
After submitting nearly twice as many signatures as the 17,500 needed for a referendum, opponents have succeeded in putting the fate of a controversial new law tied to a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline before South Dakota voters in November. The 2,500 mile long Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline would carry CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota to an underground depository in North Dakota.
The series of regulations were passed by legislators after the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission denied the company a permit last year. Supporters tout the law as a landowner bill of rights, but opponents claim it undercuts local government control over the pipeline at the same time, according to the Associated Press.
State officials this week validated the referendum for the Nov. 5 general election, enabling voters to decide whether to reject a package of regulations approved by the Legislature earlier this year. Pipeline opponents argue the regulations would strip county officials of the ability to pass stringent rules that can all but ban such pipelines, while legislative leaders say they intended to add requirements to help landowners even as they limited the role of county governments.
The law takes away authority from local governments and consolidates it with the three-member state Public Utilities Commission, said Jim Eschenbaum, chairman of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, formed by landowners and local officials to oppose the project.
“I honestly believe a majority of South Dakotans think this pipeline is foolishness. I’m one of them,” he said. “I think it’s just of bunch of hooey and a big taxpayer boondoggle.”
Iowa regulators recently granted Carbon Summit Solutions a permit for the $5.5 billion project, contingent on gaining regulatory approval in North Dakota and South Dakota. The company plans to resubmit its application for a permit in South Dakota this summer.
The pipeline is seen as crucial for a potential future aviation fuel market for the Midwest-based ethanol industry, which buys roughly one-third of the nation’s corn crop. In opposing the pipeline, some landowners question the forced use of their property and raise the danger of ruptures that could release hazardous CO2 gas. They also are critical of lucrative federal tax credits for carbon capture projects.
House Majority Leader Will Mortenson said he believes the pipeline will ultimately be built whether the regulations are in place or not, so he helped introduce the new law because it adds new requirements, such as minimum depth requirements for the pipeline, liability on pipeline operators for damages and disclosures of pipelines’ plume models. The law also allows counties to impose a surcharge of $1 per linear foot on CO2 pipelines whose companies claim federal tax credits.
Summit still needs to obtain regulatory approval for the pipeline in North Dakota, as well as an underground storage permit. The referendum marks the first state law to be challenged on the ballot since 2016 and will be one of seven ballot questions before South Dakota voters in November.