A massive and controversial carbon capture pipeline project was dealt a significant blow this week when South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) rejected its permit application — a move that underscores the state’s growing commitment to landowner rights and local control over federal-style land grabs.
The 2-1 decision denied Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions the green light for its proposed pipeline route, with Commissioner Kristie Fiegen stating the application lacked necessary details and failed to meet regulatory standards. “The current route, in my view, is not viable,” she said.
Summit’s $8.9 billion project would stretch 2,500 miles across the Midwest, transporting carbon emissions from ethanol plants in several states — including Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota — for underground storage in North Dakota. While the project has already been approved in other states, South Dakota’s firm stance has thrown a wrench into its progress.
The decision follows a March law passed by South Dakota lawmakers that bans the use of eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines — a major win for private property rights. Without the ability to forcibly take land, Summit must now negotiate directly with landowners, many of whom are skeptical of surrendering their property for what some view as a “green energy” boondoggle with little benefit to the public.
“Today is a victory for South Dakota landowners and local control,” said Ed Fischbach of Dakota Rural Action, praising the PUC’s decision to prioritize common sense and constitutional values over corporate interests.
Summit, in response, said it would revise and refile a smaller route that they claim would be more agreeable to local landowners and ethanol plant partners. Still, their statement made clear that they are disappointed with the setback, suggesting economic harm to the ethanol industry and land values without South Dakota’s cooperation.
The ethanol industry, long propped up by taxpayer subsidies, uses nearly 40% of America’s corn. Summit argues that the pipeline would lower ethanol’s carbon footprint, making it more competitive globally. But for many in rural South Dakota, that’s no justification for trampling private property rights.
Rather than challenge the state’s new law in court, Summit says it will work “in good faith” with landowners — a move that, if sincere, marks a significant shift from the coercive tactics typically associated with large energy and environmental infrastructure projects.
With South Dakota standing firm, the fight over carbon pipelines now becomes a broader debate over how far green energy interests should be allowed to go — especially when it comes to seizing land from hardworking Americans for dubious environmental gains.
