A billboard seen in Sioux Falls on Oct. 24, 2024, urges voters to oppose a ballot measure that would change laws regulating carbon dioxide pipelines. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
A bill regulating carbon dioxide pipelines lost the unofficial election results in South Dakota.
As of 8 a.m. central time Wednesday, 60% were against Referred Law 21 and 40% were in favor, with 90% of counties statewide fully reported.
State lawmakers and Republican Gov. Kristi Noem passed the law last winter. Opponents collected more than 31,000 petition signatures to refer the petition to voters. A yes vote supported the law, while a no vote opposed it.
The law came in response to a controversial proposal from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions. The company is working with ethanol producers to capture some of the carbon dioxide emitted by 57 ethanol plants in several Midwestern states — including eastern South Dakota — and send it through a pipeline to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits that incentivize the prevention of greenhouse gas emissions.
On Wednesday morning, Summit issued a statement saying it would reapply for a permit with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on Nov. 19 after being denied a permit last year. That denial was partly due to the pipeline route’s conflicts with local siting laws.
“Our focus remains on working with landowners and ensuring the long-term viability of ethanol and agriculture in the state,” Summit’s statement said. “Projects like ours have successfully navigated South Dakota’s existing regulatory landscape in the past. We will continue to operate within the current framework, knowing that the future of ethanol and agriculture is essential to our shared success.”
Act 21 would have implemented a list of protections for landowners and counties affected by the pipeline’s construction, but would not have prevented pipeline companies from using a legal process known as “eminent domain” to gain land access from unwilling landowners.
The lack of protection against eminent domain has been a sticking point for the law’s opponents. They also opposed a provision in the law that requires local governments to demonstrate that their restrictions on pipeline locations are reasonable, rather than requiring pipeline companies to prove those regulations are unreasonable. Opponents characterized this provision as a seizure of local government.
One of those opponents, affected landowner Ed Fischbach, issued a statement Wednesday morning.
“South Dakota voters have spoken: South Dakota is not for sale,” he said. “Summit and its deep-pocketed partners thought they could buy the voters as easily as they bought the legislature. They spent more than ten times as much as we did, but the voters saw through their lies.
“As South Dakotans, we value local control and our communities. By defeating Referred Law 21, voters proved that we value people over profits. Hopefully this time the legislature will listen.”
The complicated backstory of the said law contributed to voter confusion. Survey results published last month showed that 24% of respondents were undecided on the voting question.
Kenya Mejia of Sioux Falls said outside her polling place Tuesday that she wasn’t sure how to vote on the pipeline measure, and ultimately voted no.
“I kept reading it and reading it and was so confused,” she said.
Linda Price, also of Sioux Falls, said she endured a similar struggle before voting no.
“I shouldn’t have voted for that at all,” she said. “I just don’t know.”
South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact editor Seth Tupper: info@southdakotasearchlight.com. Follow South Dakota Searchlight on Facebook and X.
