Hundreds of people, many of them opponents of a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline, filled the Southeast Technical College auditorium Wednesday, Jan. 15 for a state Public Utilities Commissionhearing regarding a second attempt by Summit Carbon Solutions to gain a permit for the project.

It was a preview to meetings scheduled in Aberdeen and Redfield on Friday, Jan. 17.

“We know this is an incredibly important issue to you,” said Commissioner Gary Hanson at the start of the three-hour meeting. “We are here today to learn and listen, and we appreciate each of you being with us today to give us your input.”

The Iowa-based company plans a 2,500-mile, $9 billion pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states, including eastern South Dakota, and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions.

The commission rejected Summit’s first permit application in 2023, in part due to the pipeline route’s conflicts with local ordinances mandating minimum distances between pipelines and existing features.

The project has a storage permit in North Dakota and route permits in North Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota, while Nebraska has no state permitting process for carbon pipelines. The project also faces litigation from opponents in multiple states.

The Sioux Falls meeting focused on residents in Minnehaha, Lincoln, Turner and Union counties. The commission held another meeting in Mitchell earlier in the day.

Opponents also spoke against efforts to designate the pipeline as a common carrier, which would allow the use of eminent domain to push the project through. The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled last year that the pipeline has not yet proven it should be allowed to take private land for public use. The high court sent the case back to a lower court, where the company is trying to prove its case.

Meanwhile, some state lawmakers have proposed legislation to ban carbon pipelines from using eminent domain.

Betty Strom, whose property would be crossed by the pipeline, said it would be a “forever hazard across my land.”

“Summit is in it for the tax credits. They don’t care about property rights, safety, the damage to property, its value or the long-term consequences,” Strom said. “Please deny this permit again.”

Representatives from Summit explained why the route was selected and reviewed safety regulations and standards for the pipeline.

In a handout, Summit said the project would include $1.9 billion in capital expenditures in South Dakota, add 3,000 construction jobs while the pipeline is being built and support 260 jobs annually.