South Dakota residents voted to repeal Senate Bill 201, legislation meant to pave the way for the construction of a major carbon pipeline across the Midwest, a controversial project supported by local corn grower associations but opposed by environmentalists and many local landowners.
Voters favored no on the “Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipelines Referendum,” a referendum on legislation making it easier for carbon pipeline companies and other developers to build projects by superseding local permitting restrictions. The bill was intended specifically to aid the Summit Carbon Solutions proposed pipeline project, which would stretch 2,500 miles, sending carbon emissions from 50 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota to be buried underground in North Dakota.
South Dakota residents were on track to vote about 60% in favor of repealing Senate Bill 201 in the ballot count as of Wednesday morning, meaning that the pipeline would face greater hurdles.
Senate Bill 201 would have limited the ability of counties and towns to set requirements on pipeline construction, giving more power instead to the state Public Utilities Commissions. It would also allow counties to charge $1 per linear foot on related pipeline companies during any tax year, with half of the revenue going toward property tax reduction.
Despite the setback, Summit Carbon Solutions told the Washington Examiner it plans to reapply for a permit in South Dakota on Nov. 19 after being denied last year.
“Our focus continues to be on working with landowners and ensuring the long-term viability of ethanol and agriculture in the state,” Summit Carbon Solutions stated. “Projects like ours have successfully navigated South Dakota’s existing regulatory landscape in the past. We will continue to operate within the current framework, knowing that the future of ethanol and agriculture is vital to our shared success.”
The pipeline would help limit the environmental effects of the greenhouse gases emitted in making ethanol. It is thought that it would help pave the way for ethanol to be used as sustainable aviation fuel, which could receive federal subsidies. Critics, though, argue that it would strip localities of control over what is built in their backyards. Environmentalists also oppose the pipeline.
Proponents of the legislation include Danita Murray, the executive director of the South Dakota Corn Growers Association, who previously told AgWeek that agriculture needs the pipeline and that the law can protect landowners when working with pipeline companies.
“Right now, things aren’t great in agriculture. We’ve got high input prices and not great commodity prices,” Murray said. “This is something that we think is important, it’s timely. And yes, our board has supported and has policies that went through our annual meeting last year that supports the pipeline.”
The bill is referred to as the landowners “Bill of Rights,” but opponents of the legislation said it will not favor landowners when dealing with pipeline companies.
For example, Jim Eschenbaum, chairman of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance and a Hand County commissioner, told SDPB Radio that the bill “passed for the benefit of Summit Carbon Solutions, not for the landowners.”
“They called it a landowner’s Bill of Rights, but we believe that can’t be any further from the truth. A landowner’s Bill of Rights — it’s a Summit’s Bill of Rights if anything,” he added.