Letter: Don't single carbon pipelines out of eminent domain

Ethanol producer says uniform process brings fairness, good for state

Ringneck Ethanol Power Plant President and CEO Walt Wendland points to where carbon emissions are exhausted from the 80-million-gallon ethanol production facility in Onida, S.D. Summit Carbon Solution plans to capture the carbon and transport it to North Dakota, where it would be placed underground as early as 2024. (Joe Sneve / The Dakota Scout)

Dear Editor,

Recently, Representative Mortenson (R-Pierre) wrote an editorial outlining his thoughts regarding eminent domain and carbon pipelines. Rep. Mortenson believes the legislature should look at changing decades old policies to pick and choose which projects should have the right to use eminent domain, despite the harm such changes may bring to our state’s number one industry. While I appreciate the House Majority Leader's self-professed warmth for ethanol, I find his premises don't meet the facts and his conclusions to be missing some accurate considerations.

The proposed Carbon Capture pipelines are common carriers under the law. They are transportation entities which have contracted with others to transport goods for a fee. They conduct open seasons and maintain capacity for walk up shippers with goods to transport, which meet the specifications of the pipeline. In all respects, the proposed pipelines are organized and proposed like the many other pipelines which transport gas and oil for a fee. Why would we apply different rules to these pipelines which compete with them and support our most significant industry? We wouldn't.

LETTER: Are RVers welcome in South Dakota?