A Major Setback for Summit Carbon Solutions: The Delay of an Ambitious Carbon-Capture Pipeline Project

The Pipeline Project and Its Purpose

In a significant development, Summit Carbon Solutions, the company behind an $8.9 billion carbon-capture pipeline project spanning five Midwestern states, has requested an indefinite delay in its plans. The pipeline, which stretches over 2,500 miles, was designed to transport carbon emissions from ethanol plants across Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota to an underground storage site in North Dakota. This ambitious project aimed to reduce the carbon footprint of ethanol production, enabling these plants to compete more effectively in the renewable fuels market by lowering their carbon intensity scores.

However, the road to realizing this vision has hit a major roadblock in South Dakota. A new state law, passed by South Dakota lawmakers and swiftly signed into effect by the governor, has severely limited Summit’s ability to acquire land for the project. The law specifically bans the use of eminent domain for carbon-capture initiatives, a critical tool for companies to secure land for large-scale infrastructure projects. This legislative hurdle has forced Summit to file a motion with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to suspend the timeline for its pipeline permit application, citing the challenges in conducting necessary land surveys under the new restrictions.

The Legislative Challenge and Its Impact

The South Dakota law targeting eminent domain for carbon-capture projects has dealt a significant blow to Summit’s plans. Eminent domain allows companies to acquire private land for public or economic development projects, provided fair compensation is offered to landowners. By stripping this authority specifically for carbon-capture projects, the law effectively creates a major barrier for Summit to proceed in the state. While the company remains committed to the pipeline project, the delays caused by the legislation have made the original timeline for securing permits and approvals unrealistic.

Summit’s attorney, Brett Koenecke, emphasized that the inability to conduct timely land surveys under the new law has disrupted the entire process. If the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission approves the motion to suspend the permit application timeline, Summit will have an opportunity to reassess its strategy and potentially set a new deadline for moving forward. However, the uncertainty caused by this setback has raised concerns about the project’s viability in South Dakota and its broader implications for the region.

Reactions to the Delay: A Mix of Relief and Concern

The news of Summit’s request to delay its pipeline plans has elicited mixed reactions from stakeholders and advocacy groups. On one hand, opponents of the project, such as Dakota Rural Action, an advocacy group that has long opposed the use of eminent domain for carbon-capture initiatives, have welcomed the development as a victory. Frank James, the group’s director of advocacy, described the delay as “generally good news,” highlighting that the grassroots efforts to challenge the project have had a tangible impact. He also criticized carbon-capture projects as “false solutions to climate change,” reflecting a broader skepticism among some environmental activists about the effectiveness of such initiatives in addressing the climate crisis.

On the other hand, supporters of the pipeline have expressed concern about the potential consequences of the delay. Tad Hepner, vice president of strategy and innovation at the Renewable Fuels Association, warned that halting the project in South Dakota could place the state’s ethanol producers at a competitive disadvantage. He stressed the importance of enabling as many ethanol plants as possible to sequester their carbon emissions, arguing that failure to do so could create a divide between states with access to carbon-capture infrastructure and those without. Hepner’s comments underscore the economic stakes involved in this project and the delicate balance between environmental concerns and industrial competitiveness.

The Broader Implications for North Dakota and the Oil Industry

The delay in South Dakota has also raised questions about the pipeline’s future in neighboring North Dakota, where the stored carbon emissions were intended to play a dual role. In addition to reducing the carbon footprint of ethanol plants, the captured carbon dioxide was expected to be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a process that involves injecting CO2 into aging oil wells to extract remaining reserves. North Dakota, the third-largest oil-producing state in the country, had high hopes for this technology as a way to extend the life of its oil fields.

However, North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong has expressed doubts about how Summit will proceed with the pipeline in light of South Dakota’s eminent domain ban. He acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the project and the potential challenges it poses for achieving the state’s economic and environmental goals. The governor’s concerns reflect the interconnected nature of regional energy policies and the ripple effects of legislative decisions in one state on neighboring states.

Summit Carbon Solutions: Still Committed, but All Options on the Table

Despite the setback in South Dakota, Summit Carbon Solutions has reaffirmed its commitment to the pipeline project. The company has already invested over $1 billion in the venture and continues to explore all available avenues to move forward. In a statement, Summit emphasized its dedication to advancing the project in states that remain supportive of energy innovation and carbon reduction initiatives.

While the suspension of the permit application timeline in South Dakota marks a significant pause, it does not signal the end of the project. Summit has made it clear that “all options” are still on the table, leaving room for potential adjustments in strategy or future negotiations with state lawmakers. However, the delay has undoubtedly introduced new challenges, and the company must now navigate a complex landscape of regional politics, landowner concerns, and shifting regulatory environments.

As the situation unfolds, one thing is clear: the fate of Summit’s carbon-capture pipeline will depend on its ability to adapt to changing circumstances and build consensus among stakeholders. Whether through legislative compromise, technological innovation, or strategic partnerships, the company will need to chart a course that balances its ambitious goals with the concerns of local communities and the broader imperatives of addressing climate change.