South Dakota regulators have once again denied Summit Carbon Solutions’ permit for its proposed carbon pipeline, further delaying construction plans in Iowa. The state’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) voted 2-1 to reject Summit's application, ruling that the proposed pipeline route “is not viable.” In response, the company pledged to reapply with a “reduced scope.”

This marks the second time Summit’s application has been denied in South Dakota. The company had first applied in 2022 but faced rejection in 2023. After modifying its route, it reapplied in 2024, only to be denied again. Summit plans to adjust its proposal and continue engaging with landowners and plant partners.

The project would transport carbon dioxide captured from ethanol plants across five states to an underground storage facility in North Dakota, with potential federal tax incentives for carbon sequestration. However, the passage of a state law banning the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines has complicated Summit’s efforts, as the company had relied on this authority to access land from property owners unwilling to sign voluntary easements.

“We will refile an application for the project that reflects a reduced scope and continued engagement with landowners and plant partners,” said a Summit spokeswoman.

Summit’s denial in South Dakota delays progress in Iowa, where construction cannot proceed without permits in the Dakotas. Many landowners along the pipeline’s proposed route have expressed opposition, with some vowing never to sign easements. Commissioner Kristie Fiegen stated, “Summit’s route is uncertain at this point,” further complicating the application.

Attorney Brian Jorde, representing opposing landowners, argued, “There’s nothing they can do to change these folks’ minds,” as 79 landowners have declared they would never agree to the project.

Ed Fischbach, a critic of the pipeline, welcomed the PUC’s decision, claiming it frees landowners to focus on their businesses. However, Rep. Karla Lems from Canton, who sponsored the eminent domain ban, believes the project may continue if federal tax credits remain available, adding, “South Dakota is open for business, but not for sale.”

Summit remains committed to the project despite the setbacks, with company officials stating they are “disappointed” by the decision but “remain committed” to moving forward in South Dakota. A spokeswoman emphasized the negative impacts the delay would have on the state’s ethanol industry, farmers, and land values.

Summit’s attorney, Brett Koenecke, criticized the decision, suggesting it was influenced by opposition forces. Commissioner Chris Nelson dissented, believing that Summit's proposed route changes and commitment to working with the new eminent domain law were sufficient to move forward.

With permits in other states such as Iowa, North Dakota, and Minnesota, the project faces ongoing legal challenges in some areas, including Nebraska, which lacks a formal permitting process.

Originally reported by Makenzie Huber in Iowa"s News.