C02 pipeline dealt another setback with Supreme Court decision

While an outcome on the vote of Referred Law 21 this November 5th will further determine the future of any carbon capture pipelines in South Dakota, Summit Carbon Solutions now faces an additional legal challenge.
The South Dakota Supreme Court recently rejected Summits petition for a rehearing about its proposed pipeline.
The court had ruled in August that the company was not considered a common carrier and that captured carbon dioxide should not be considered a commodity the companys stated intended use of the product was crucial in that determination.
The court also ruled in August that Summit did not have the authority to use eminent domain to seize property from landowners in South Dakota for the project as a result.
This is a story that the county and state have been following closely for years as one section of a pipeline previously proposed by Heartland Greenway, another carbon capture company, would have run through Moody County. In an effort to protect local landowners rights, Moody County Commissioners established some of the most strict setback rules in the state.
The Supreme Courts ruling is seen as a victory for opponents, who have been fighting the project for years over concerns of the use of eminent domain to build the lines, the safety of the product being transported, along with concerns over the impact to farmland and the environment.
Summit and its proponents, which include many in the ethanol and biofuels industries, and with some in the farming community, vow to keep fighting for the technology.
The case now returns to a lower court for consideration.
Voters will also have a say.
On the ballot this Nov. 5, you will have a chance to keep or reject a state law that the South Dakota State Legislature passed this year.
Referred Law 21, if it remains in effect, will uphold Senate Bill 201, which allows, should the pipelines be built, counties to impose a tax on carbon pipelines of $1 per foot. The law also imposes requirements for pipeline setbacks, minimum depth, rules for handling drain tiles, potential leaks and indemnities to landowners.
If the law is upheld, counties would have limited authority on setting any tighter restrictions on pipelines.
SB201 this past spring was called a landowner bill of rights. Opponents have loudly disputed that take and quickly gathered more than the necessary 36,000 signatures from every county to ensure RL-21 would be on the ballot this fall.
A vote in favor of RL-21 allows Senate Bill 201 to remain intact. A vote against RL-21 would likely put the issue before state legislators again next spring.