Josh Haiar-South Dakota Searchlight
The South Dakota House of Representatives advanced a bill 49–19 that would ban the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines, sending the legislation to the state Senate.
Eminent domain refers to the power to take private property for public use, with just compensation to the owner determined by a court.
Supporters of the bill attended the House debate Monday at the Capitol and cheered when the vote was displayed. House Speaker Pro Tempore Karla Lems, R-Canton, proposed the legislation and said it does not stop carbon pipelines from being built in the state.
“They just don’t get the supreme power of eminent domain to force their projects down the throats of South Dakota people,” Lems said.
She owns land near the route of the proposed $9 billion Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. That project aims to transport some of the CO2 emitted by 57 ethanol plants in five states, including eastern South Dakota, to an underground storage site in North Dakota. The project would be eligible for billions in climate-change-related federal tax credits, for preventing the release of heat-trapping carbon into the atmosphere.
Summit has voluntary easement agreements with some landowners to cross their land, but needs eminent domain to gain access from landowners who are unwilling to sign easements.
Supporters of the bill said carbon pipelines do not meet the public-use standard required for eminent domain, which has typically been used by projects such as water and oil pipelines and electrical transmission lines.
Opponents of the bill warned of economic repercussions for the ethanol industry.
“It sends a terrible message to the country,” said Rep. Greg Jamison, R-Sioux Falls.
Rep. Drew Peterson, R-Salem, said the bill could make South Dakota an impediment to President Donald Trump’s energy independence goals.
“Trump supports biofuels,” Peterson said. “We don’t get to affect federal policy, whether we want to or not.”
But House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach, R-Spearfish, said Trump is eliminating unwise environmental policies, and tax credits for carbon pipelines could be next. He said there were three reasons to vote in favor of the bill: voters sent a message in November with the defeat of a referred law perceived as helping carbon pipelines; carbon pipelines are hazardous when they leak; and the Legislature has a responsibility to clarify if carbon pipelines have eminent domain authority.
Gov. Larry Rhoden has not yet indicated whether he would sign the bill.
Attempts to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines failed during prior legislative sessions, but supporters of the idea used grassroots efforts last year to get their candidates elected to the Legislature and installed in leadership positions, thereby improving the chances for this year’s legislation.