by Makenzie Huber (South Dakota Searchlight) A seventh ballot question has been validated by the Secretary of State’s Office for the Nov. 5 general election. The referendum asks voters to consider a recently adopted state law concerning carbon dioxide pipeline restrictions and landowner rights.
Based on a random sample of signatures, the office estimated that 92% percent of the more than 34,000 signatures on the petition are from South Dakota registered voters, which means the estimated number of valid signatures is 31,432. The petition needed 17,508 to qualify for the election.
Opponents of the law want voters to reject Senate Bill 201, which the Legislature and Gov. Kristi Noem approved last winter. Supporters said the legislation will implement new protections for local governments and landowners while preserving a path forward for pipeline projects. Opponents view it as a capitulation to pipeline companies.
A 30-day window is now open for challenges to the validity of the petition.
The bill came in response to an $8.5 billion pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions, which is headquartered in Iowa. The pipeline would collect carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants in South Dakota and neighboring states and pipe it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project could benefit from federal tax credits that incentivize carbon sequestration to fight climate change.
The Iowa Utilities Board approved Summit’s project in June. The company announced shortly afterward that it plans to apply again for a permit in South Dakota this month, after the Public Utilities Commission denied its initial application last year. The company’s pipeline application in North Dakota is under consideration, and it still needs an underground storage permit in North Dakota.
The South Dakota denial was partly due to conflicts with county ordinances that require minimum distances known as “setbacks” between pipelines and other features. The project has also faced opposition from some landowners concerned about property rights and safety, including health risks associated with potential leaks. READ MORE
Related articles
- Petitions filed to refer carbon pipeline law to ballot; Summit plans to reapply for SD permit (South Dakota Searchlight)
- Carbon Pipeline Law Faces SD Vote -- Landowners vs. Carbon Pipeline: South Dakota Ballot Measure Sparks Debate (DTN Progressive Farmer)
- Polarizing Pipeline Law Is on the Ballot in Major Corn State: Critics say a ‘no’ vote to repeal could be the end of project; Summit plans to apply for a South Dakota permit either way (Bloomberg)
- Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure (South Dakota Searchlight)
- Referred Law 21: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control (South Dakota Searchlight)
- Ethanol cooperative kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question (South Dakota Searchlight)
- Ethanol companies invest in passing South Dakota pipeline ballot measure (Agri-Pulse)
- US ELECTIONS: South Dakota on track to veto CO2 pipe law backed by Summit, ethanol producers (S&P Global)
- Ethanol Blog: South Dakota Voters Reject New Law for Regulating Carbon Pipeline Siting (DTN Progressive Farmer)
- A Win for Private Property Rights, Voters Reject Carbon Pipeline Measure in South Dakota: A “no” vote means the state law in question would be rejected, and that raises fresh questions about the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline and similar projects. (AgWeb)
- South Dakota Is Set to Pull Pipeline Law in Blow for US Ethanol (Bloomberg)
- Summit Carbon Vows to Move Forward Despite SD Loss (Energy.AgWired.com)
- South Dakota Denies Carbon Capture Pipeline Law (Carbon Herald)
Excerpt from DTN Progressive Farmer: A voter referendum on the regulation of carbon pipelines in South Dakota is pitting landowners against a pipeline project considered a key cog in helping ethanol plants lower their carbon emissions.
Along with everything else on the ballot Nov. 5, voters in South Dakota will vote on Referred Law 21 -- whether to keep or reject a state law, Senate Bill 201, that passed the State Legislature earlier this year.
RL-21 is being closely followed as permit battles over a 2,000-mile carbon pipeline are also tied up in courts and state commissions across five states.
The South Dakota law, if it remains in effect, allows counties to impose a tax on carbon pipelines of $1 per foot. The law also imposes requirements for pipeline setbacks, minimum depth, rules for handling drain tiles, potential leaks and indemnities to landowners. The law also requires the state's Public Utilities Commission to limit counties' authority to set tighter restrictions on pipelines. The law was dubbed by lawmakers as a "landowner bill of rights," but critics dispute that take.
"Our issue is it really strips away the ability for individual landowners to go to their county commissions and plead their case for setbacks and siting and routing plans," said Amanda Radke, a rancher, farmer and writer in Mitchell, South Dakota, who has become a social media advocate for opponents of RL-21 and Senate Bill 201. "The 300 county commissioners in the state of South Dakota would no longer have a voice. It creates a blanket easement for this one company that can be applied county-by-county."
After being passed and signed by Gov. Kristi Noem in March, opponents got 36,000 signatures across every county to put RL-21 on the ballot. A vote in favor of RL-21 would allow Senate Bill 201 to remain enforced. A vote against RL-21 would likely spur the South Dakota Legislature to consider other options.
The driver behind the ballot measure is Summit Carbon Solutions, which has been working for three-plus years to line up construction permits in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Summit has 57 ethanol plants across the five states lined up to send as much as 12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to a geological formation in North Dakota where the carbon would be injected into the ground.
Sinking the carbon in the ground could generate as much as $85 a ton for Summit under the 45Q tax credit. For ethanol producers, piping away the carbon rather than emitting it would dramatically lower their carbon intensity scores for producing Sustainable Aviation Fuel or selling biofuels into states that have low-carbon fuel standards.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in September 2023 denied Summit's first permit application, stating it would violate state and county ordinances. The PUC at the time indicated Summit could not proceed without overriding county setbacks. Summit immediately announced it would refile, and the PUC is expected to take up the permit sometime next spring. Senate Bill 201 sets standards but also offers a path forward for the project.
CRITICS ORGANIZE
Opponents of Summit's project in multiple states are closely watching the campaign around RL-21. In Iowa last week, landowners waiting for their own Supreme Court hearing were calling South Dakota voters to urge them to vote "no" on the measure. READ MORE
Excerpt from Bloomberg: Summit firmly denies it would throw in the towel on the roughly 2,500-mile pipeline expected to run through Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and the Dakotas if voters throw out the South Dakota law. Proponents of the measure say the long-delayed pipeline is crucial for ensuring corn remains America’s biggest and most profitable farm crop by keeping ethanol in the political conversation as other fuel sources get cleaner.
“If we can add value to our 800 million bushels of corn, the potential impact is massive,” said former South Dakota Agriculture Secretary Walt Bones, who is engaged in talks with Summit for access to his land. “This is a huge opportunity for South Dakota; we need to make it happen.”
The division around the upcoming referendum mirrors wider disagreement over the pipeline itself, which seeks to capture and store carbon spewed from factories making corn-based ethanol. The project is billed as a lifeline for an industry racing to become more climate friendly so it can benefit from new markets like sustainable aviation fuel. That’s especially important with the rise of battery-powered cars expected to slash demand for the corn-based fuel. But a slice of landowners has balked at the project, including a spattering of corn farmers who the pipeline pledges to benefit.
The law up for referendum, known as Referred Law 21, is so divisive that its supporters and critics don’t even call it the same name. Opponents dub it a “Pipeline Bill of Rights,” arguing the measure allows for easier approval. Backers, who want to keep what they’ve dubbed a “Landowner Bill of Rights” on the books, claim it offers valuable protection for residents who end up in negotiations for access to their property, like ensuring they won’t be on the hook if there’s damage to the land.
“It ensures carbon pipeline projects respect landowners while securing the future of ethanol and agriculture in South Dakota,” Summit spokeswoman Sabrina Zenor said in an emailed statement. Whether or not the law is repealed, Summit plans to re-apply for a permit in South Dakota after the state rejected the pipeline’s previous application last year, she said. Iowa announced its initial approval over the summer.
Summit says it continues to talk with landowners and is confident in its ability to work toward more voluntary agreements with property owners. It says about 75% of landowners along the previous route through South Dakota had already signed on, many of whom will also be part of any redrawn pipeline map. Summit has said before that it cannot move forward with the five-state pipeline plan if South Dakota isn’t on board. READ MORE
Excerpt from South Dakota Searchlight: Money from ethanol producers is clashing with contributions from individuals and farm-and-ranch corporations — plus some funding from national climate activists — in the fight over a carbon-dioxide pipeline law on South Dakota’s Nov. 5 ballot.
Committees supporting the law have raised at least $2.3 million, all from ethanol companies, since their last reports in May, and they’ve spent $1.5 million. Committees opposing the law have raised at least $224,000 and spent over $160,000. Individuals and farm-and-ranch corporations put forth about $150,000 to defeat the bill, making up a majority of the money raised on the vote-no side.
...
State lawmakers and Gov. Kristi Noem adopted Senate Bill 201 during the last legislative session. Opponents collected over 31,000 petition signatures to put the legislation on the ballot as Referred Law 21. A yes vote supports the law, while a no vote opposes it.
The law includes financial and other protections for landowners and counties affected by pipelines. It also shifts a burden to local governments, requiring them to prove their restrictions on pipelines are reasonable, instead of pipeline companies having to prove them unreasonable.
Proponent finances
A ballot question committee backing the law, Protect South Dakota’s Ag Future, is chaired by former South Dakota Agriculture Secretary Walt Bones. The committee spent $167,000 on advertising using a contribution of that amount from Gevo, a company that hopes to produce ethanol-based aviation fuel in South Dakota. Gevo is backing the law as part of its plans to use carbon capture technology in its production process.
Another ballot question committee, Vote Yes for a Strong South Dakota, raised $2.2 million from ethanol producers, including $1 million from POET, the Sioux Falls-based world’s largest ethanol company, and $400,000 from Glacial Lakes Energy, an ethanol producer with multiple locations in South Dakota. Another $200,000 came from Gevo. The committee has spent $1.4 million, mostly on ads.
Opponent finances
Opponents of the law, through the SD Property Rights and Local Control Alliance ballot question committee, raised $189,000. Aside from the individual donations and farm-and-ranch corporation contributions, an additional $27,500 was raised through fundraising events such as silent auctions.
South Dakota Searchlight questioned the committee’s treasurer, Rep. Tina Mulally, R-Rapid City, about the legality of reporting only the amount of the silent auction proceeds without the names of auction buyers. South Dakota requires individual campaign contributions above $100 to be disclosed with the contributor’s name.
“Those silent auctions were for a yard sign, a pie, a print,” Mulally said. “They were all little items. Mostly signs.”
Several county Republican parties donated a combined $4,400. South Dakotans for Safe and Responsible Renewable Energy is one of two political action committees listed as contributing, totaling $2,800; however, no committee by that name is listed on the state campaign finance website.
Jane Fonda and other national money
Another opponent group, a ballot question committee affiliated with Dakota Rural Action, received its $35,000 in funding from the South Dakota Rural Voters political action committee. It received its funding from two national groups – New World Foundation and Jane Fonda Climate PAC – which support social and climate justice efforts.
Referred Law 21 arose from controversy surrounding Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions, which has partnered with ethanol plants in the Midwest — including in eastern South Dakota — to capture CO2 and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage.
The project aims to benefit from federal tax credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some landowners along the route oppose the pipeline due to concerns about eminent domain — a legal process for gaining access to land from unwilling owners — and potentially hazardous leaks.
Referred Law 21, described as a compromise bill by Republican legislative leaders, does not address eminent domain but includes landowner protections. It requires pipeline companies to cover damages, mandates CO2 pipelines be buried at least 4 feet deep, and compels companies to share rupture modeling data. The law says counties can also collect up to $1 per linear foot of pipeline for property tax relief and road repairs. READ MORE
Excerpt from South Dakota Searchlight: The measure on South Dakota’s Nov. 5 ballot that addresses carbon dioxide pipelines is either a bill of rights for landowners or a seizure of authority from local governments, depending on the person describing it.
...
The law would implement a list of protections and incentives for landowners and counties impacted by the construction of carbon dioxide pipelines. That’s the “bill of rights” part, according to the law’s supporters.
But it would also require local governments to demonstrate to state regulators that their restrictions on pipeline locations are reasonable, rather than the pipeline company having to prove those regulations are unreasonable. That’s the seizure of local authority, according to the law’s opponents.
The path to the ballot
The genesis of the debate over carbon pipelines is a proposal from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions. It has partnered with ethanol producers, including Sioux Falls-based Poet, to capture some of the CO2 emitted by 57 ethanol plants in several midwestern states — including eastern South Dakota — and send it via pipeline for underground storage in North Dakota. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits that incentivize the prevention of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
...
Some landowners along the pipeline route oppose the project because they don’t want the pipeline under their land. They oppose Summit’s attempted use of eminent domain to gain court-ordered access to their land and are concerned about potentially deadly leaks of carbon dioxide plumes. Similar debates are occurring in other states on the proposed route. Iowa has granted the project a permit, but it’s contingent on approval in the Dakotas, where Summit has not yet obtained permits.
Legislative sponsors of what became Referred Law 21 described it as a compromise between pipeline opponents and supporters, guaranteeing protections and incentives for landowners while maintaining a regulatory path for pipelines. The compromise effort arose after some legislators failed in their efforts to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines. Referred Law 21 does not address eminent domain.
Another factor in the debate over the legislation was the role of counties. Some county commissions, prodded by pipeline opponents, have passed local ordinances with strict restrictions on the locations of pipelines.
Under existing law, those local ordinances apply unless the state Public Utilities Commission decides to declare them unreasonably restrictive. If Referred Law 21 takes effect, the burden would flip. Counties would have to prove to the state commission that their ordinances are reasonable.
The proposed law says that once the state issues a permit for a transmission project such as a pipeline, it automatically overrides any local rules. Local regulations would no longer be applicable unless state regulators require compliance with local laws as part of the permit.
Some proponents of Referred Law 21 say current state law makes it too easy for a local body opposed to a multi-state pipeline project to hold up construction. They say if local officials are confident their regulations are reasonable, they can rest easy knowing state regulators will uphold them. READ MORE
Excerpt from DTN Progressive Farmer: Voters in South Dakota overwhelmingly rejected a state law that would have dictated how counties regulate carbon pipelines in the state.
The vote, which is not finalized was nearly 60% opposed to the law and defeated in all but one county in the state. The referendum, known as Referred Law 21, challenged a law passed by legislators' earlier this year, Senate Bill 201.
That will set back efforts for Summit Carbon Solutions and its plans to build a 2,000-mile carbon pipeline that would capture and ship carbon dioxide emissions from 57 ethanol plants. The plan is to sink the carbon in North Dakota so the pipeline needs to navigate regulations in South Dakota to operate.
Summit issued a statement early Wednesday making it clear the company will re-submit its permit application. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission had rejected Summit's first permit application in September 2023.
"Summit Carbon Solutions will apply for a permit in South Dakota on Nov. 19, 2024," the company stated. "Our focus continues to be on working with landowners and ensuring the long-term viability of ethanol and agriculture in the state. 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."
Landowner groups in South Dakota had organized aggressively against Referred Law 21. The law allowed counties to impose a tax on carbon pipelines of $1 per foot. The law also imposes requirements for pipeline setbacks, minimum depth, rules for handling drain tiles, potential leaks and indemnities to landowners. The law also requires the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to limit counties' authority to set tighter restrictions on pipelines. The law was dubbed by lawmakers as a "landowner bill of rights" but critics disputed that take.
Sinking the carbon in the ground could generate as much as $85 a ton for Summit under the 45Q tax credit. For ethanol producers, piping away the carbon rather than emitting it would dramatically lower their carbon-intensity scores for producing sustainable aviation fuel or selling biofuels into states that have low-carbon fuel standards. READ MORE
Excerpt from AgWeb: 90% of votes were in as of mid-morning Wednesday, and 60% voted no and 40% voted yes. A “no” vote means the state law in question would be rejected, and that raises fresh questions about the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline and similar projects.
Proponents of the law argued it would create a revenue stream for counties with a a $1-per-foot surcharge of pipeline projects. They also argued it would serve as a compromise between landowners and pipeline companies.
However, landowners didn’t agree and fought against he bill saying the law would take power out of the hands of the counties and infringe on personal property rights.
...
The company said the goal is to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the exhaust stream of 57 ethanol plants in a five-state region in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, according to Jimmy Powell, chief operating officer for the Ames, Iowa-based company.
On June 25, the Iowa Utilities Board approved the permit for the pipeline. For construction on the pipeline to begin, permits must be secured in North Dakota and South Dakota.
Referred Law 21 was originally passed by legislators and signed by Gov. Kristi Noem (R). The law was meant to ease the path of carbon dioxide pipeline construction. But after garnering enough signatures, the law was put on the November ballot.
According to legal expert John Dillard, state governments have the primary authority to approve the siting and construction of CO2 pipelines as well as the eminent domain authority of the pipeline companies. These laws vary state-to-state, but they generally require pipeline companies to address safety and environmental concerns, provide notice to potentially impacted landowners, and minimize damage to landowner property. Some states preempt or restrict the authority of local governments to restrict pipelines while others allow zoning laws that would make construction difficult or impossible. READ MORE
More than 50,000 articles in our online library!
Use the categories and tags listed below to access the nearly 50,000 articles indexed on this website.
Advanced Biofuels USA Policy Statements and Handouts!
- For Kids: Carbon Cycle Puzzle Page
- Why Ethanol? Why E85?
- Just A Minute 3-5 Minute Educational Videos
- 30/30 Online Presentations
- “Disappearing” Carbon Tax for Non-Renewable Fuels
- What’s the Difference between Biodiesel and Renewable (Green) Diesel? 2020 revision
- How to De-Fossilize Your Fleet: Suggestions for Fleet Managers Working on Sustainability Programs
- New Engine Technologies Could Produce Similar Mileage for All Ethanol Fuel Mixtures
- Action Plan for a Sustainable Advanced Biofuel Economy
- The Interaction of the Clean Air Act, California’s CAA Waiver, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Renewable Fuel Standards and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard
- Latest Data on Fuel Mileage and GHG Benefits of E30
- What Can I Do?
Donate
DonateARCHIVES
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- October 2006
- April 2006
- January 2006
- April 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- December 1987
CATEGORIES
- About Us
- Advanced Biofuels Call to Action
- Aviation Fuel/Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)
- BioChemicals/Renewable Chemicals
- BioRefineries/Renewable Fuel Production
- Business News/Analysis
- Cooking Fuel
- Education
- 30/30 Online Presentations
- Competitions, Contests
- Earth Day 2021
- Earth Day 2022
- Earth Day 2023
- Earth Day 2024
- Executive Training
- Featured Study Programs
- Instagram TikTok Short Videos
- Internships
- Just a Minute
- K-12 Activities
- Mechanics training
- Online Courses
- Podcasts
- Scholarships/Fellowships
- Teacher Resources
- Technical Training
- Technician Training
- University/College Programs
- Events
- Coming Events
- Completed Events
- More Coming Events
- Requests for Speakers, Presentations, Posters
- Requests for Speakers, Presentations, Posters Completed
- Webinars/Online
- Webinars/Online Completed; often available on-demand
- Federal Agency/Executive Branch
- Agency for International Development (USAID)
- Agriculture (USDA)
- Commerce Department
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Congressional Budget Office
- Defense (DOD)
- Air Force
- Army
- DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency)
- Defense Logistics Agency
- Marines
- Navy
- Education Department
- Energy (DOE)
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
- Federal Reserve System
- Federal Trade Commission
- Food and Drug Administration
- General Services Administration
- Government Accountability Office (GAO)
- Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Homeland Security
- Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- Interior Department
- International Trade Commission
- Joint Office of Energy and Transportation
- Justice (DOJ)
- Labor Department
- National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National Research Council
- National Science Foundation
- National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Overseas Private Investment Corporation
- Patent and Trademark Office
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- State Department
- Surface Transportation Board
- Transportation (DOT)
- Federal Aviation Administration
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin (PHMSA)
- Treasury Department
- U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
- White House
- Federal Legislation
- Federal Litigation
- Federal Regulation
- Feedstocks
- Agriculture/Food Processing Residues nonfield crop
- Alcohol/Ethanol/Isobutanol
- Algae/Other Aquatic Organisms/Seaweed
- Atmosphere
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Field/Orchard/Plantation Crops/Residues
- Forestry/Wood/Residues/Waste
- hydrogen
- Manure
- Methane/Biogas
- methanol/bio-/renewable methanol
- Not Agriculture
- RFNBO (Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin)
- Seawater
- Sugars
- water
- Funding/Financing/Investing
- grants
- Green Jobs
- Green Racing
- Health Concerns/Benefits
- Heating Oil/Fuel
- History of Advanced Biofuels
- Infrastructure
- Aggregation
- Biofuels Engine Design
- Biorefinery/Fuel Production Infrastructure
- Carbon Capture/Storage/Use
- certification
- Deliver Dispense
- Farming/Growing
- Precursors/Biointermediates
- Preprocessing
- Pretreatment
- Terminals Transport Pipelines
- International
- Abu Dhabi
- Afghanistan
- Africa
- Albania
- Algeria
- Angola
- Antarctica
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Aruba
- Asia
- Asia Pacific
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Bahamas
- Bahrain
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Belize
- Benin
- Bermuda
- Bhutan
- Bolivia
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Botswana
- Brazil
- Brunei
- Bulgaria
- Burkina Faso
- Burundi
- Cambodia
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Caribbean
- Central African Republic
- Central America
- Chad
- Chile
- China
- Colombia
- Congo, Democratic Republic of
- Costa Rica
- Croatia
- Cuba
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Dominican Republic
- Dubai
- Ecuador
- El Salvador
- Equatorial Guinea
- Eqypt
- Estonia
- Ethiopia
- European Union (EU)
- Fiji
- Finland
- France
- French Guiana
- Gabon
- Georgia
- Germany
- Ghana
- Global South
- Greece
- Greenland
- Guatemala
- Guinea
- Guyana
- Haiti
- Honduras
- Hong Kong
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Ivory Coast
- Jamaica
- Japan
- Jersey
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kenya
- Korea
- Kosovo
- Kuwait
- Laos
- Latin America
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Liberia
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Macedonia
- Madagascar
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Mali
- Malta
- Marshall Islands
- Mauritania
- Mauritius
- Mexico
- Middle East
- Monaco
- Mongolia
- Morocco
- Mozambique
- Myanmar/Burma
- Namibia
- Nepal
- Netherlands
- New Guinea
- New Zealand
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Nigeria
- North Africa
- North Korea
- Northern Ireland
- Norway
- Oman
- Pakistan
- Panama
- Papua New Guinea
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Russia
- Rwanda
- Saudi Arabia
- Scotland
- Senegal
- Serbia
- Sierra Leone
- Singapore
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Solomon Islands
- South Africa
- South America
- South Korea
- South Sudan
- Southeast Asia
- Spain
- Sri Lanka
- Sudan
- Suriname
- Swaziland
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Tanzania
- Thailand
- Timor-Leste
- Togo
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- Uganda
- UK (United Kingdom)
- Ukraine
- United Arab Emirates UAE
- Uruguay
- Uzbekistan
- Vatican
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
- Wales
- Zambia
- Zanzibar
- Zimbabwe
- Marine/Boat Bio and Renewable Fuel/MGO/MDO/SMF
- Marketing/Market Forces and Sales
- Opinions
- Organizations
- Original Writing, Opinions Advanced Biofuels USA
- Policy
- Presentations
- Biofuels Digest Conferences
- DOE Conferences
- Bioeconomy 2017
- Bioenergy2015
- Biomass2008
- Biomass2009
- Biomass2010
- Biomass2011
- Biomass2012
- Biomass2013
- Biomass2014
- DOE Project Peer Review
- Other Conferences/Events
- R & D Focus
- Carbon Capture/Storage/Use
- Co-Products
- Feedstock
- Logistics
- Performance
- Process
- Vehicle/Engine/Motor/Aircraft/Boiler
- Yeast
- Railroad/Train/Locomotive Fuel
- Resources
- Books Web Sites etc
- Business
- Definition of Advanced Biofuels
- Find Stuff
- Government Resources
- Scientific Resources
- Technical Resources
- Tools/Decision-Making
- Rocket/Missile Fuel
- Sponsors
- States
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawai'i
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Midwest
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Native American tribal nation lands
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Puerto Rico
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Washington DC
- West Coast
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Sustainability
- Uncategorized
- What You Can Do
tags
© 2008-2023 Copyright Advanced BioFuels USA. All Rights reserved.
Comments are closed.