- New law bars eminent domain for carbon pipelines in South Dakota
- Summit’s 2,500-mile project faces rerouting challenges through Minnesota
- 40% of U.S. corn-based ethanol relies on carbon capture for aviation fuel transition
South Dakota’s controversial legislation prohibiting forced land acquisitions for carbon capture pipelines has thrown Summit Carbon Solutions’ $8.9 billion project into uncertainty. The 2,500-mile network, designed to transport CO2 from 50 ethanol plants across five states to North Dakota storage sites, now faces potential rerouting around resistant South Dakota landowners. Governor Rhoden insists the law creates negotiation opportunities, but ethanol producers warn of competitive disadvantages in emerging sustainable fuel markets.
The pipeline’s proposed path through 700 miles of South Dakota agricultural land has become politically fraught. Summit secured 2,700 easements regionally but requires contiguous routes for viability. Republican Representative Karla Lems suggests diverting through Minnesota, where only 28 miles of pipeline are approved. This logistical hurdle coincides with shifting federal priorities—Biden’s expanded carbon capture tax credits versus Trump’s fossil fuel focus—creating regulatory whiplash for energy infrastructure projects.
Ethanol producers face urgent pressure to reduce emissions as airlines seek sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Current rules require ethanol-to-SAF conversion to demonstrate 50% lower emissions than petroleum, achievable only through carbon capture. Walt Wendland’s Onida, SD ethanol plant exemplifies this crunch: “We operate on thin margins,” he states. “This law handicaps our ability to compete in green markets.”
Industry analysts highlight three critical insights: First, carbon capture infrastructure becomes a lifeline for corn growers as electric vehicles reduce gasoline demand. Second, pipeline companies must balance legal challenges with community trust-building. Third, federal incentives clash with state land rights, creating a patchwork of carbon economies. Summit’s four-year struggle—including abandoned projects by competitors—underscores these complexities.
With Minnesota regulators silent on expansion requests and Iowa facing permit delays, Summit’s promise of “news soon” rings hollow for anxious stakeholders. As climate deadlines loom, the Midwest’s energy transition hangs in the balance between property rights and collective environmental action.