The Iowa-based company filed an application in November but requested a pause with its schedule of proceedings and asked for an indefinite extension last month. That was in response to South Dakota passing a law banning eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines in the state.
Eminent domain is a legal process to take private land for projects that benefit the public. Landowners receive compensation determined by a county commission or jury.
Summit said in its filing that it would work with landowners to acquire more voluntary easement agreements rather than challenge the eminent domain ban.
During the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission meeting, commissioners and PUC staff expressed doubts that the proposed route could proceed without significant changes.
“At this point, we really don’t know the route. We don’t know the timeframes,” said commissioner Kristie Fiegen. “The application is not ready to go forward.”
Commissioner Chris Nelson dissented from Fiegen and Gary Hanson.
“If I was in Summit shoes, I'd want to start over with a new application. I think that would be cleaner, but I think from a legal perspective, I'm not at the point today that I can support the motion to deny,” Nelson said.
The commissioners voted 2-1 Tuesday in denying Summit’s request.
Summit said it will refile an application.
“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,” Summit said in a statement.
The Ames-based company wants to build a 2,500-mile pipeline to capture carbon dioxide emissions from nearly 60 ethanol plants that have signed onto the project and store it deep underground in North Dakota.
Supporters say carbon sequestration will open doors to new and emerging fuel markets and boost demand for corn. It could also unlock tax credits worth billions of dollars for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects.
On Earth Day, the Trump administration said CCS is one of the ways "America leads in both energy production and environmental innovation — producing the cleanest energy in the world."
But many landowners across the Midwest have adamantly opposed the project, largely over private property rights and grievances with the company.
Brian Jorde, an attorney representing landowners, said his clients won’t be swayed by higher offers from Summit.
“There’s nothing they can do to change these folks’ minds, who frankly, from their perspective have been abused, disrespected, bullied for the last three-and-a-half years,” Jorde said.
Brett Koenecke, an attorney representing Summit, said Jorde’s clients are not harmed by a pause in the permit application process. But “starting the process over with more application fees is a clear prejudice to my client."
Tuesday marked the second time South Dakota commissioners have denied Summit’s permit application since the company first applied in 2022.
Last year, Iowa regulators granted Summit a permit for phase one of its project. But construction in Iowa cannot begin until South Dakota grants a permit.
North Dakota granted permits for the route and sequestration sites. Minnesota approved one leg of the proposed blueprint.
This story first appeared on Iowa Public Radio. It’s being distributed in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.
