A billboard seen on Oct. 24, 2024, in Sioux Falls urges voters to oppose a ballot measure that would alter laws regulating carbon dioxide pipelines. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
A proposed law regulating carbon dioxide pipelines was losing in unofficial South Dakota election results.
The tally was 60% against Referred Law 21 and 40% in favor as of 8 a.m. Central time Wednesday, with 90% of statewide precincts fully reported.
State lawmakers and Republican Gov. Kristi Noem adopted the law last winter. Opponents gathered more than 31,000 petition signatures to refer it 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 has partnered 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 via pipeline to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits that incentivize the prevention of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
Wednesday morning, Summit issued a statement saying it will reapply on Nov. 19 to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a permit after being denied a permit last year. That denial was partially due to the pipeline route’s conflicts with local county siting laws.
“Our focus continues to be 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 vital to our shared success.”
Referred Law 21 would have implemented a list of protections for landowners and counties impacted by the construction of the pipeline but would have stopped short of preventing 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 was a sticking point for the law’s opponents. They also opposed a provision in the law requiring local governments to demonstrate their restrictions on pipeline locations are reasonable, rather than requiring pipeline companies to prove those regulations are unreasonable. Opponents labeled that provision a seizure of local authority.
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 big-moneyed partners thought they could buy the voters as easily as they bought the Legislature. They outspent us by over a tenfold, but voters saw through their lies.
“As South Dakotans, we value local control and our communities. By defeating Referred Law 21, the voters have proven that we value people over profits. Hopefully this time the Legislature will listen.”
The referred law’s complicated backstory contributed to voter confusion. Poll results published last month found 24% of respondents undecided on the ballot question.
Kenya Mejia, of Sioux Falls, said Tuesday outside her polling place 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 on that one at all,” she said. “I just don’t know.”