Latest news with #BrettKoenecke
The Independent
22-04-2025
- Business
- The Independent
South Dakota panel rejects permit for an $8.9 billion carbon capture Midwest pipeline
The massive carbon capture pipeline in the Midwest has been thrown into uncertainty after South Dakota's Public Utility Commission denied its route permit application Tuesday. The commission voted 2-1 to deny the application by Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions, with Commissioner Kristie Fiegen saying it was 'incomplete' and lacked 'the form and content required.' South Dakota lawmakers passed an eminent domain ban for carbon capture pipelines in March that makes Summit's planned route difficult, commissioners agreed. Summit said it will refile its application with a reduced route in South Dakota to satisfy landowners and plant partners. 'While we are disappointed in today's decision, we remain committed to South Dakota as without it the ethanol industry, farmers, and land values in the state will all suffer,' the company said in a statement. South Dakota is a crucial part of the 2,500-mile pipeline, which would transport carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP's earlier story follows below. The company behind a planned $8.9 billion carbon capture pipeline in the Midwest has proposed reducing its route through South Dakota to secure the necessary permitting. In a filing with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on Friday, Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions requested a timeline extension on its permit application to rework its route in a way that would satisfy landowners. The commission is expected to decide on this extension request during its meeting Tuesday afternoon. Questions about the pipeline arose after South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on eminent domain for carbon capture projects, in which the government can seize private property with compensation. Without that power, Summit would need to secure voluntary agreements with landowners along the South Dakota route. Instead of pursuing legal action against the state, Summit said in its filing that additional time would allow it to 'roll out new offers to landowners' and identify which branches to ethanol plants it can eliminate that face significant landowner opposition. 'The Applicant believes threatening legal action is counter-productive to attempting to do good-faith business with the state,' Summit attorney Brett Koenecke wrote in the filing. 'Instead, the Applicant intends to make significant efforts and undertake several tasks in the coming weeks and months to advance the project and prepare to proceed with a new scheduling order.' South Dakota is a crucial part of the 2,500-mile pipeline, which would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. The project already has approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, and Summit has invested more than $150 million into its route in South Dakota. The ethanol industry is concentrated in the Midwest, with nearly 40% of the nation's corn used to brew ethanol. Summit's pipeline promises to lower the carbon intensity of ethanol to make it more competitive as a sustainable product.
San Francisco Chronicle
22-04-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Midwest carbon capture pipeline seeks additional time on permitting application in South Dakota
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — The company behind a planned $8.9 billion carbon capture pipeline in the Midwest has proposed reducing its route through South Dakota to secure the necessary permitting. In a filing with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on Friday, Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions requested a timeline extension on its permit application to rework its route in a way that would satisfy landowners. The commission is expected to decide on this extension request during its meeting Tuesday afternoon. Questions about the pipeline arose after South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on eminent domain for carbon capture projects, in which the government can seize private property with compensation. Without that power, Summit would need to secure voluntary agreements with landowners along the South Dakota route. Instead of pursuing legal action against the state, Summit said in its filing that additional time would allow it to 'roll out new offers to landowners' and identify which branches to ethanol plants it can eliminate that face significant landowner opposition. 'The Applicant believes threatening legal action is counter-productive to attempting to do good-faith business with the state,' Summit attorney Brett Koenecke wrote in the filing. 'Instead, the Applicant intends to make significant efforts and undertake several tasks in the coming weeks and months to advance the project and prepare to proceed with a new scheduling order.' South Dakota is a crucial part of the 2,500-mile pipeline, which would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. The project already has approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, and Summit has invested more than $150 million into its route in South Dakota. The ethanol industry is concentrated in the Midwest, with nearly 40% of the nation's corn used to brew ethanol. Summit's pipeline promises to lower the carbon intensity of ethanol to make it more competitive as a sustainable product.
Associated Press
22-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Midwest carbon capture pipeline seeks additional time on permitting application in South Dakota
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — The company behind a planned $8.9 billion carbon capture pipeline in the Midwest has proposed reducing its route through South Dakota to secure the necessary permitting. In a filing with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on Friday, Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions requested a timeline extension on its permit application to rework its route in a way that would satisfy landowners. The commission is expected to decide on this extension request during its meeting Tuesday afternoon. Questions about the pipeline arose after South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on eminent domain for carbon capture projects, in which the government can seize private property with compensation. Without that power, Summit would need to secure voluntary agreements with landowners along the South Dakota route. Instead of pursuing legal action against the state, Summit said in its filing that additional time would allow it to 'roll out new offers to landowners' and identify which branches to ethanol plants it can eliminate that face significant landowner opposition. 'The Applicant believes threatening legal action is counter-productive to attempting to do good-faith business with the state,' Summit attorney Brett Koenecke wrote in the filing. 'Instead, the Applicant intends to make significant efforts and undertake several tasks in the coming weeks and months to advance the project and prepare to proceed with a new scheduling order.' South Dakota is a crucial part of the 2,500-mile pipeline, which would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. The project already has approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, and Summit has invested more than $150 million into its route in South Dakota. The ethanol industry is concentrated in the Midwest, with nearly 40% of the nation's corn used to brew ethanol. Summit's pipeline promises to lower the carbon intensity of ethanol to make it more competitive as a sustainable product.
The Independent
13-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Midwest carbon-capture pipeline could be delayed after eminent domain ban in South Dakota
The company behind an $8.9 billion carbon-capture pipeline proposed for five Midwestern states said Wednesday it wants to indefinitely delay its plans after South Dakota passed a law limiting its ability to acquire land for the project. But even as it filed a motion to suspend its pipeline permit application timeline with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, the Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions said it remains committed to the pipeline. Summit attorney Brett Koenecke said the action was needed because the legislation approved by South Dakota lawmakers and quickly signed into law by the governor changed the company's ability to survey the route. 'The resulting delays in obtaining the surveys mean that the timelines involved in Commission action on this application are unrealistic,' Koenecke wrote in the motion. If the commission approves the motion, they can set a new deadline for the permit application. The proposed 2,500-mile pipeline would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project had approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota. But in South Dakota, a new law banned the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — specifically for carbon-capture projects. The eminent domain bill sponsor Republican Rep. Karla Lems said Summit is 'trying to get their feet back under them' after the eminent domain ban. Summit's move was 'generally good news' for Frank James, director of advocacy group Dakota Rural Action, which opposed allowing eminent domain for the project. 'It means the work that we did at the legislature with our allies was impactful,' he said. 'It clearly shows the citizens of South Dakota really question these false solutions to climate change.' Tad Hepner, vice president of strategy and innovation at the Renewable Fuels Association, disagreed, saying stopping Summit in South Dakota would put ethanol producers in the state at a competitive disadvantage to out-of-state plants connected to the pipeline. 'We don't want to see haves and have-nots,' he said. 'We want as many ethanol producers to be able to sequester their CO2 as possible.' North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong said Tuesday he doesn't know how Summit will get its pipeline into North Dakota given South Dakota's eminent domain ban. Armstrong said he is concerned because officials and industry leaders were hopeful of eventually using carbon dioxide to extract oil. North Dakota is the No. 3 oil-producing state in the country, producing about 1.2 million barrels of oil per month. Summit has already spent more than $1 billion on the project, Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor said. Despite the South Dakota suspension, 'all options' are still on the table, the company said. "Summit Carbon Solutions remains committed to working through this process and advancing the project in states that support energy and innovation," the company said in a statement. ___ Dura reported from Bismarck, North Dakota.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Midwest carbon-capture pipeline could be delayed after eminent domain ban in South Dakota
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — The company behind an $8.9 billion carbon-capture pipeline proposed for five Midwestern states said Wednesday it wants to indefinitely delay its plans after South Dakota passed a law limiting its ability to acquire land for the project. But even as it filed a motion to suspend its pipeline permit application timeline with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, the Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions said it remains committed to the pipeline. Summit attorney Brett Koenecke said the action was needed because the legislation approved by South Dakota lawmakers and quickly signed into law by the governor changed the company's ability to survey the route. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. 'The resulting delays in obtaining the surveys mean that the timelines involved in Commission action on this application are unrealistic,' Koenecke wrote in the motion. If the commission approves the motion, they can set a new deadline for the permit application. The proposed 2,500-mile pipeline would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project had approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota. But in South Dakota, a new law banned the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — specifically for carbon-capture projects. The eminent domain bill sponsor Republican Rep. Karla Lems said Summit is 'trying to get their feet back under them' after the eminent domain ban. Summit's move was 'generally good news' for Frank James, director of advocacy group Dakota Rural Action, which opposed allowing eminent domain for the project. 'It means the work that we did at the legislature with our allies was impactful,' he said. 'It clearly shows the citizens of South Dakota really question these false solutions to climate change.' Tad Hepner, vice president of strategy and innovation at the Renewable Fuels Association, disagreed, saying stopping Summit in South Dakota would put ethanol producers in the state at a competitive disadvantage to out-of-state plants connected to the pipeline. 'We don't want to see haves and have-nots,' he said. 'We want as many ethanol producers to be able to sequester their CO2 as possible.' North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong said Tuesday he doesn't know how Summit will get its pipeline into North Dakota given South Dakota's eminent domain ban. Armstrong said he is concerned because officials and industry leaders were hopeful of eventually using carbon dioxide to extract oil. North Dakota is the No. 3 oil-producing state in the country, producing about 1.2 million barrels of oil per month. Summit has already spent more than $1 billion on the project, Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor said. Despite the South Dakota suspension, 'all options' are still on the table, the company said. "Summit Carbon Solutions remains committed to working through this process and advancing the project in states that support energy and innovation," the company said in a statement. ___ Dura reported from Bismarck, North Dakota.
