A massive carbon capture pipeline planned across the Midwest has suffered a significant setback after South Dakota’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) denied its route permit application on Tuesday.

The commission voted 2-1 against the proposal by Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions, which is working on a massive carbon capture infrastructure in the Midwest region. Commissioner Kristie Fiegen, who initiated the motion to deny, stated the application was “not ready to go forward” and lacked the necessary “form and content.”

“The PUC’s duty is to make a decision based on a route — one route,” Fiegen said. “The current route, in my view, is not viable.”

Commissioners acknowledged that a recent South Dakota law banning the use of eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines complicated Summit’s planned route. 

The $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline aims to transport carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota for permanent underground storage in North Dakota.

Following the decision, Summit Carbon Solutions announced its intention to refile its application with a revised, shorter route in South Dakota to address concerns from landowners and ethanol plant partners.

“While we are disappointed in today’s decision, we remain committed to South Dakota as without it the ethanol industry, farmers, and land values in the state will all suffer,” the company said in a statement.

South Dakota is considered a crucial link in the pipeline, which has already received approvals in Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota. Summit has reportedly invested over $150 million in its proposed South Dakota route.

The permit denial comes after Summit previously requested an extension to its application timeline to revise its route in response to landowner concerns. 

In its request for an extension, Summit stated it would collaborate with landowners and the state “in good faith” instead of challenging the eminent domain ban. This assurance, however, did not convince a majority of the commissioners, who cited significant landowner opposition to the current route as a key factor in their decision.

Summit indicated in its filing that additional time would allow the company to present “new offers to landowners” and identify segments of the route serving ethanol plants that face substantial landowner opposition and could potentially be eliminated.