The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission is denying Summit Carbon Solutions' application to build a carbon pipeline through the state.
This comes after Summit requested an indefinite suspension following passage of a bill prohibiting use of eminent domain for the project.
“Let’s find out whether this is possible.”
That’s what Summit’s attorney Brett Koenecke pleaded when asking the PUC to suspend its application Tuesday.
The commission not only refused to act on the suspension, it ended up denying Summit’s entire application for the project, saying it’s not viable.
Commissioner Chris Nelson was the lone vote against. He said he wanted to give Summit another chance because the company stated it won’t take legal action against HB 1052, a law passed banning eminent domain for a carbon dioxide pipeline.
“That is huge. That tells me that many, many, many of those landowners that have been concerned about this are now off the hook. That’s a big deal," Nelson said. "We’ve learned also that the route that Summit ultimately hopes they can go forward with will not be a reroute but will be something less than they have currently filed. Commissioner Fiegen indicated that to do so would be ‘very difficult.’ And, boy, that’s the understatement of the day."
He said if he were in Summit’s shoes, he would start over altogether, but from a legal standpoint he couldn’t deny it.
Kristie Fiegen made the motion to deny. She said the application is incomplete and not ready for the permitting process.
“Summit’s route is uncertain at this point. We really don’t know the route. We don’t know the timeframes. We don’t know their plan. We don’t know their construction timeframes or even cost," Fiegen said. "The application is not ready to go forward. And the PUC’s duty is to make a decision based on a, a route, one route. The current route, in my view, is not viable."
She added that Summit needs to “go back to the drawing board” and come back with a new, singular route.
Following the application’s denial, a Summit spokesperson said the company is disappointed in the decision, adding “We will take the necessary steps to refile an application that reflects a reduced scope and continued engagement with landowners and plant partners.”
