Ag groups support 67% threshold for CO2 easements
The South Dakota Farm Bureau (SDFB) and the South Dakota Corn Growers Association (SDCGA) said they support a legislative proposal that would require CO2 pipeline companies secure voluntary easements for at least 67% of the pipeline before invoking eminent domain.
Those provisions are now proposed in an amended version of Senate Bill 198, whose prime sponsor now is Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff. He chairs the Senate State Affairs Committee, which recommended on a 5-3 vote this week that the full Senate approve SB 198.
A key piece of Mehlhaff's bill is that it would apply to any party seeking to use eminent domain to route a project across someone else's property. The full Senate is scheduled to debate SB 198 today.
SD Senate votes to maintain child marriage
A news release from both agriculture organizations cites House Bill 1052 which passed 49 to 19 in the House on Jan. 27. HB1052 would prohibit the use of eminent domain for a pipeline that carries carbon oxide.
Senate passage of SB 198 this afternoon would mean each legislative chamber has its own version of how to reform eminent domain.
Landowner rights and eminent domain as it relates to CO2 pipelines have been the subject of much discussion for several years as originally, two companies proposed CO2 pipelines that would travel through the state.
As of Friday, Summit Carbon Solutions is the only company that has proposed a CO2 pipeline in the state. A few hundred miles of a CO2 pipeline would travel through the state as it gathers CO2 from partner ethanol plants for planned burial in North Dakota.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission will hold evidentiary hearings on the proposed project in August.
On Wednesday, Senate Bill 49 which would have prohibited the exercise of the right of eminent domain for the construction of certain facilities and address the preemption of zoning requirement failed in the Senate State Affairs.
The legislative list of bills for 2025 also included several other eminent domain or pipeline-related bills.
Discussions on HB1052 on Jan. 27 included comments about the safety concerns of CO2 pipelines, how the federal government doesn't have money to support tax credits and similar for projects like CO2 sequestration.
Those against HB1052 said the pipeline will have a positive economic impact, it will protect the ethanol industry because it will reduce the industry's carbon footprint and allow it to sell more fuel in carbon-restrictive markets.
The summit will use 45Q for its proposed pipeline. The 45Q program is a tax credit program for carbon sequestration or carbon capture.
Not only are those in the ethanol industry interested in 45Q, oil industry companies are also interested. Within industry media, there is discussion about oil industry investment in carbon capture. Other discussion includes states pursuing permits for CO2 sequestration wells.
A version of this credit has been in place since George W. Bush's presidency and in 2025, it has billions of dollars attached to it.
Some early indications are that the Trump Administration favors carbon capture. Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum mentioned carbon capture in his confirmation testimony. Burgum is the former governor of North Dakota. President Donald Trump expanded use of 45Q during his first term in office.
Capitol Bureau reporter Bob Mercer contributed to this story.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Ukraine Responds to Putin's Reported Demands to Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. It would be "totally unacceptable" for Kyiv to give up its eastern regions for a peace deal, a senior Ukrainian politician has said, as Ukrainian officials prepare to meet President Donald Trump and European leaders in Washington on Monday. Reuters reported on Sunday that Russia had said it would offer slivers of land it currently controls in Ukraine in exchange for Kyiv ceding chunks of land in the east that Russia does not currently control, citing sources briefed on the Kremlin's thinking. Under the proposal, Ukraine would fully withdraw from Donetsk and Luhansk, with the current front lines in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions to the south frozen in place, according to the report. For Ukraine, it is politically and militarily off the table to consent to losing the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Oleksandr Merezhko, the chair of Ukraine's parliamentary foreign affairs committee and a member of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's party, previously told Newsweek. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Kremlin declared in fall 2022 that Ukraine's Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions were now part of Russia after referendums widely condemned as a sham. Russia had seized Crimea, to the south of the mainland, from Ukraine in 2014. Moscow does not control all of the four mainland Ukrainian regions, but has long focused on asserting its grip on Donetsk and Luhansk. They are collectively known as the Donbas, and form much of Ukraine's industrial heartland. The current proposal is a "provocation" from the Kremlin chief, and one to which Ukraine can never agree, Merezhko said. Kyiv has repeatedly said it is against the country's constitution to give land away to Moscow. The Russian and Ukrainian positions on what the Kremlin would control in any ceasefire agreement or peace deal have always been far apart, and there is little hint that this has changed on either side. But what may have shifted is President Donald Trump's patience to entertain steadfast Russian demands. The Republican had in recent months expressed increasing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but said off the back of the two leaders' first meeting of Trump's second term that the summit was "useful." No deal was announced, and Trump pivoted his position on a ceasefire, saying he would move straight to a permanent peace deal. Zelensky said on Saturday Russia's refusal to sign a ceasefire "complicates the situation." Russia is not in a position to seize Donetsk through military means, and, for Ukraine, the region has huge strategic importance, Merezhko said. Close to three-and-years of full-scale war has seen Russia gain control of large areas of Luhansk and Donetsk, but much of the latter still remains in Ukrainian control. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a U.S.-based think tank that tracks the daily changes to the front lines in the conflict, said earlier this month Ukraine still controls roughly 6,500 square kilometers of territory in Donetsk—equivalent to a quarter of the region. Russia's slow but steady gains, concentrated in Donetsk, have come at an eyewatering human cost, according to Ukrainian and Western assessments. Crucially, west of the front lines, in Ukrainian-held Donetsk, are several cities known as "fortress settlements" that are vital to Ukraine's defenses. The region is a "bulwark" for Ukraine to shield its other regions, Merezhko said. After the Anchorage summit, Trump told European leaders that he backed a plan in which Ukraine would cede territory it still controlled to Russia, The New York Times reported, citing two senior European officials. Several European leaders will travel to participate in Zelensky's meeting at the White House on Monday, including British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
We know who funded Supreme Court legal fight. But a new law may make money secret
When Judge Jefferson Griffin unsuccessfully attempted to overturn his loss in the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election, the number that stuck out was 65,000 — the number of ballots he sought to disqualify, potentially flipping his 734-vote loss to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs. However, another less-reported number is key to understanding the chaotic and unprecedented six-month legal battle: $2 million. That's the amount of money Griffin and Riggs brought in from donors across the country to support their efforts in court. These donations came from California megadonors, local attorneys, concerned citizens and, in one case, a sitting Republican judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals who could have ruled on the case. But under a new law enacted last month by the Republican-controlled legislature, all of that money could become secret — leaving voters in the dark about where the money comes from to litigate high-profile contested elections or fend off ethical and criminal allegations. Senate Bill 416, the Personal Privacy Protection Act, prohibits state agencies from disclosing donors to nonprofit organizations. Critics say this includes legal expense funds, like the ones Griffin and Riggs set up to fund their courtroom battle, and warn it could open the door to 'dark money in our politics,' according to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who vetoed the bill last month. Republicans, joined by three Democrats in the House, overrode Stein's veto, with Sen. Warren Daniel, the bill's sponsor, saying it was necessary to protect donor privacy. 'Ultimately, the bill impacts both sides of the aisle equally,' said Daniel, a Morganton Republican, noting that Alabama, Colorado and Alaska have each passed similar bills. 'It prevents the elected officials in red states from targeting left-wing groups and, vice versa, blue states targeting conservative organizations.' The bill does not mention legal expense funds by name, but Aaron McKean, a lawyer with the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said its broad application to nonprofits creates a loophole that could shield disclosure. 'There's a chance that some enterprising person might create a 501(c)4 as their legal expense fund vehicle, and then be able to claim that they don't have to disclose any of their donors under this law,' he said. He also noted that when Republicans unsuccessfully tried to pass a similar bill in 2021, they specifically included an exemption for legal expense funds 'that ensured they would remain fully transparent.' That exemption does not appear in SB 416. Asked whether the bill applies to legal expense funds, a spokesperson for the State Board of Elections said that agency staff are 'still evaluating' SB 416 'including whether it affects reporting and disclosure provisions for legal expense funds.' Sen. Daniel and the two other sponsors of SB 416 did not respond to questions from The News & Observer about the intended scope of their bill. McKean said the possibility of further reducing donor transparency is 'particularly egregious' given all of the chaos surrounding the 2024 Supreme Court election. 'People in North Carolina, people across the U.S., want more information about who is spending money to influence their government or their elected officials,' he said. 'And bills like this go the wrong direction.' Where do these disclosure rules come from? Disclosure rules for legal expense funds emerged in the mid-2000s following a string of scandals, including former Democratic House Speaker Jim Black pleading guilty to a federal corruption charge. Black fought his charges using an unregulated legal fund that did not disclose its donors. Republican Senate leader Phil Berger, who at the time served in the minority in the state legislature, said the funds should be transparent. 'The public is entitled to know who is paying the bill for public officials when they get in trouble,' he wrote in a 2006 news release. Last month, Berger voted in favor of SB 416. Republicans have pursued consequential changes to other financing rules in recent years. Earlier this week, The Assembly reported that Duke Energy donated $100,000 to the NC GOP's building fund, which was the account used to pay Griffin's legal fees. Previously, these building funds were largely restricted to spending on expenses related to a party's headquarters. But a law enacted last year by the Republican supermajority allows those accounts — which draw donations from corporations, business entities and labor unions — to be used for legal actions. A party spokesperson told The Assembly that Duke's contribution was 'was not connected to the North Carolina Supreme Court election, nor any specific candidate.' What do Griffin and Riggs' finance reports show? While SB 416 could affect future litigation, the finance reports for Griffin and Riggs are still available and shed valuable insight into the contested election that upended North Carolina politics. The largest donor to each candidate, by far, was their respective political parties. The North Carolina Republican Party gave Griffin over $340,000 worth of legal services, and Democrats gave Riggs $325,000. But, past those contributions there was a striking disparity in donations between the two candidates. Riggs reported raising over $1.6 million, whereas Griffin reported raising about $362,000. And where Riggs reported receiving over 12,000 individual donations to her legal fund, Griffin reported only 13 — three of which were from the NC GOP. Judge Tom Murry made a $5,000 contribution to Griffin's legal fund — a donation critics called a 'textbook conflict of interest' given that, as a sitting judge on the Court of Appeals, Murry could have been asked to rule on Griffin's challenge to the election results. 'It is law school lesson number 101, and let it sink in: one judge donated to help another judge change the outcome of an election in cases that he could conceivably sit on in judgment,' Rep. Deb Butler, a New Hanover County Democrat, said during the veto override vote. '… If Senate Bill 416, had been the law, then we would never have known that.' Murry did not formally recuse himself from the case, but nevertheless he did not end up sitting on the panel that heard it. As for Riggs, her finance reports show a wide variety of donations from donors large and small. Unlike regular campaign finance committees, legal expense funds don't have the same limits on individual contributions. That led to some eye-popping contributions from across the country, including $250,000 from Elizabeth Simons, a California-based megadonor, and $20,000 from the chair of Capitol Broadcasting, which owns WRAL, the Raleigh-based TV station. However, nearly 95% of Riggs' individual donations came from small-dollar donors who gave $100 or less. When totaled up, those small donations accounted for about 22% of her total haul. Large donations over $5,000 accounted for about 53% of Riggs' overall contributions. One final data point in the two candidates' disclosures presents further questions. Riggs reported spending over $1 million of her donations on legal fees to Womble Bond Dickinson, the law firm that represented her throughout the case. However, Griffin's records only show the $340,000 for in-kind legal fees from the NC GOP and another $14,000 to Dowling PLLC, a law firm that represented him. The North Carolina Republican Party, which joined Griffin as a co-plaintiff at some points in the case, also reported a roughly $48,500 expenditure to Dowling in February, but did not specify if it was for his challenge. Asked how Griffin and the party could have spent roughly a third of what Riggs did on lawyers for a complicated case that ping-ponged between state and federal courts, a spokesperson for the Republican Party did not respond, nor did the treasurer of Griffin's legal expense fund.
an hour ago
Redistricting debate continues in Texas and California
Former Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum and Former New York Republican Congressman John Katko join ABC News Live to discuss Texas' redistricting fight.
