We're fighting for our homes and our land, and for the safety of South Dakota communities just like yours. But we can't do this alone, we need your help, so if you can, pitch in and let's make some hay.
We're fighting for our homes and our land, and for the safety of South Dakota communities just like yours. But we can't do this alone, we need your help, by being informed and taking action when it matters most.
South Dakota regulators on Monday rejected a permit application for a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline through the state, dealing a fresh setback to the company behind the multistate project after North Dakota refused a siting permit for another leg there.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to turn down Summit Carbon Solutions’ application to build a 469-mile (755-kilometer) in-state route — part of an intended $5.5 billion, 2,000-mile (3,220-kilometer) pipeline network through five states.
The decision complicates an already complex process for Summit Carbon Solutions as it seeks similar authorization in other states amid opposition from landowners and environmental groups. The proposed network would carry planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from more than 30 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota for permanent underground storage in central North Dakota.
After the South Dakota vote, Summit announced it intends “to refine its proposal and reapply for a permit in a timely manner.”
The project would use carbon capture technology, what supporters see as a combatant of climate change, though opponents criticize its effectiveness at scale and the need for potentially huge investments over cheaper renewable energy sources. New federal tax incentives and billions of dollars from Congress toward carbon capture efforts have made such projects lucrative.
The South Dakota panel’s vote came on a motion made Friday by commission staff. They said Summit’s proposed route would violate county ordinances involving setback distances. The panel on Monday was to have begun a weekslong hearing for Summit’s proposal, but the hearing was adjourned and will not continue.
“It makes little sense to go through the motions of a three-week evidentiary hearing and all that would follow without a compliant route that can be permitted,” Commission Staff Attorney Kristen Edwards said.
Summit on Thursday had dropped a motion for preempting county ordinances, regulations which attorney Brett Koenecke wrote “have the intended or unintended effect of hampering projects like this one.” He cited the panel’s unanimous decision Wednesday to deny a similar request by Navigator CO2 Ventures for its proposed pipeline, to which the commission also denied a construction permit.
Commission Vice Chair Gary Hanson said a permit could not be legally issued if the evidenced showed the applicant is currently unable to comply with existing statutes and regulations, adding “that’s the challenge that we’re having here.”
“I believe that the applicant will be able to come back with, eventually, a clean application, and when they do, that is when it is proper to examine it,” Hanson said.
Summit CEO Lee Blank said in a statement, “We respect this initial ruling and remain committed to South Dakota and deeply appreciative of the overwhelming support we have received from landowners and community members. We are hopeful that through collaborative engagement with these counties we can forge a path forward to benefit South Dakota and its citizens.”
Much of Monday’s hearing focused on how the panel would proceed depending on the panel’s action on the motion to deny. The commission also defeated a substitute motion that would have essentially deferred the hearing indefinitely.
Koenecke had asked the commission to delay the proceedings for him to propose a new scheduling order in the near future.
Omaha-based attorney Brian Jorde, who represents hundreds of people Summit has sued in South Dakota to take their land for its pipeline, said Summit’s proposed route in the state presented an “impossibility” to the panel, with a route that “cannot be constructed.”
The decision Monday comes as other states continue to weigh Summit’s project.
The Iowa Utilities Board began its Summit hearing last month, expected to last weeks. The hearing is scheduled to resume Tuesday with Summit witnesses.
North Dakota regulators last month denied Summit a siting permit for its 320-mile (515-kilometer) proposed route through the state. Summit subsequently asked that state’s Public Service Commission to reconsider. The panel held a work session Friday on the request, with a decision yet to come.
Minnesota regulators voted last month to proceed with an environmental review for a small part of the overall project, a 28-mile (45-kilometer) segment in Minnesota that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to the North Dakota line, where it would connect with Summit’s broader network.
FORT DODGE—Anti-pipeliners have taken issue with nearly every point of the hearing process as the Iowa Utilities Board continues to deliberate the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline.
A litany of specific complaints fit into a distrustful state of mind for opponents of the proposed carbon dioxide pipeline.
“There are a lot of people who are angry about this process and in disbelief that our government could be run this way. It’s eye-opening,” Jess Mazour said. “But it’s not turning into hopelessness. It’s turning into anger.”
Mazour is with the Sierra Club and has been a leading voice against Summit and similar projects for two years.
Since Aug. 22, the IUB has been meeting Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at the Cardiff Event Center in Fort Dodge.
According to experts familiar with proceedings like Summit’s, the process has been unusual in format and regulations, leading critics to call the hearing biased in favor of the Ames-based company.
Petition
Some of the issues involve decorum in the hearing itself.
One example was Mazour being told Thursday, Aug. 24, that she could not bring her electronic devices into the room to take notes. Another was outside food or drink were barred from the hearing, although the IUB was selling bottled water for $1.
Anti-pipeline landowners and allies rally Tuesday, Aug. 22, ahead of the Iowa Utilities Board hearing in Fort Dodge on the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. Elijah Helton ehelton@iowainformation.com
The rules were clearly posted from the first day of the hearing, which IUB spokesperson Melissa Myers pointed out.
“The rules of conduct posted in multiple locations at the entrance and in the room have not changed,” Myers said.
Those two rules were rolled back somewhat on Tuesday, Aug. 29. The water is now free and Mazour is allowed to use her laptop without stepping outside.
“They definitely have made some concessions based on our complaints from the first week,” Mazour said.
Those concessions have not been enough, Mazour said, and the most substantial issues still stand. That is why more than 1,000 people signed onto a petition delivered to the IUB Wednesday, Aug. 30.
Several criticisms of the IUB hearing are in the petition. It concludes the board should turn it over to an administrative judge in an effort to promote a more open atmosphere.
Anna Ryon
A lawyer on the anti-pipeline side, Anna Ryon is one of the experts in utilities litigation who said the proceedings are unorthodox.
She used to be an attorney for the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate but left in May because she felt the government agency was not doing enough to protect the public’s interests, especially on CO2 pipelines.
“I feel like the Office of Consumer Advocate is becoming more of an observer and less of an advocate. You can tell just by the way the filings have changed,” Ryon said.
The OCA has a representative at the meeting and moved to have Ryon blocked from the hearing. The argument was someone in her situation usually must wait two years before engaging in private practice on issues she covered in the public sector.
Attorney Anna Ryon (right) speaks with an anti-pipeline landowner during a break in the Iowa Utilities Board hearing on the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline Tuesday, Aug. 22, in Fort Dodge. Ryon is one of several lawyers working against the CO2 project. Elijah Helton ehelton@iowainformation.com
Ryon is working pro bono, and the IUB decided to let her stay in the room.
But outside the Cardiff Event Center, her van got towed. It happened Wednesday, Aug. 23, when she and others still were in the hearing.
“I’m still trying to find out exactly who did what,” Ryon said. “What I can say is that I’m disappointed that it was towed and nobody bothered to check in the hearing room.”
The 2019 Ram ProMaster has served as her mobile office during the hearing. Her documents for anti-pipeline landowners and everything else she needs are in it.
She also has been living out of the van during the hearing. A Des Moines resident, she can’t afford a hotel room in Fort Dodge, so she’s been sleeping at a nearby campsite.
Ryon and her friends were able to call in favors to recover the van from the impound lot after hours, but it still rattled her and Mazour.
Myers acknowledged the tow happened but said it was at the request of the event center.
Timeline
More than her personal issues, Ryon said the hearing’s format has been vague, confusing and unhelpful for landowners fighting the pipeline.
While an exact hearing schedule isn’t set, there is a general order of testimony:
Landowners on the pipeline route, also known as Exhibit H.
Formal argument from Summit Carbon Solutions.
Intervening landowners and other interest groups.
Summit’s closing rebuttal.
Exhibit H’s wrapped Thursday, Aug. 31, although Ryon and other lawyers only found out when it was announced at the end of that day’s proceedings. Summit starts testifying Tuesday, Sept. 5.
“I guess I am now going to have a very busy weekend. I did not know that before. There was no advance warning whatsoever,” Ryon said.
The unknown and seemingly volatile timeline is one of the other complaints cited in the petition Mazour championed.
Brian Jorde — an attorney representing many Exhibit H landowners who fear eminent domain will force the pipeline on their property — concurred with Ryon and Mazour that the hearing’s structure has been haphazard.
“How am I supposed to prepare? We’re just supposed to sit here for weeks on end waiting? It’s crazy. That would never happen in a courthouse. Total nonsense,” Jorde said. “They’re just kind of making it up as they go.”
Forward
Anti-pipeliners have other avenues to scuttle Summit’s plans.
Even if the IUB signs off the project, Mazour said the movement is prepared to go to court.
“Everything leading up to this hearing, how it’s been run, is setting us up for some pretty serious due-process violations. I think this is going to be appealed no matter what happens,” she said.
There also will be pressure on the Iowa Legislature to take action once it’s back in session in January, although Republican leadership there has killed any efforts to mitigate CO2 pipelines.
If nothing else, anti-pipeliners aren’t going down without a fight in Fort Dodge.
“At the end of this, we will have made it very easy for the IUB to do the right thing and vote ‘No,’” Mazour said. “There’s still a lot of hope that we can stop these pipelines.”
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota regulators voted this week to proceed with an environmental review for part of a proposed but disputed pipeline network that would carry planet-warming carbon dioxide from Midwest ethanol plants to a permanent underground storage site.
Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions wants to build a $5.5 billion, 2,000-mile (3,200 kilometer) pipeline network across five states so that carbon dioxide from more than 30 ethanol plants could be permanently locked underground in central North Dakota instead of being released into the atmosphere as it is now.
But the project has run into resistance.
North Dakota regulators on Aug. 5 denied Summit’s application for key permits. Landowners in South Dakota concerned about the risks of a pipeline rupture and property rights have objected to the company’s use of eminent domain along the route. Iowa regulators recently opened a several-week hearing, while South Dakota regulators will open a hearing next month. The network would also cross parts of Nebraska, where counties will be the regulators.
Other similar projects are proposed around the country as industries try to reduce their carbon footprints. Supporters say carbon capture will combat climate change. Governments and companies are making big investments in it. But opponents say the technology isn’t proven at scale and could require huge investments at the expense of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power.
The question before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on Thursday was narrow: whether to approve a draft plan laying out the scope of a formal environmental review for one small part of the proposed project, a 28-mile segment in Minnesota that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to the North Dakota border, where it would connect with Summit’s network. Commissioners approved it unanimously.
The Minnesota-based rural environmental advocacy group CURE had asked the PUC to defer any decision indefinitely because of the decision by the North Dakota Public Service Commission to reject a certificate of need and route permit for the project. North Dakota regulators cited several issues that they said Summit didn’t appropriately address, such as cultural resource impacts, geologic instability and landowner concerns.
CURE said proceeding with the environmental review in Minnesota would be a waste of state resources – that the project would be a “pipeline to nowhere” without the crucial North Dakota approvals.
But Summit recently petitioned North Dakota regulators to reconsider. Company attorney Christina Brusven told the Minnesota regulators that Summit expects it will be able to address North Dakota’s concerns in the coming months, so Minnesota should not wait to start its review process.
PUC staff told commissioners ahead of Thursday’s hearing that they expected the review would lead to completion of a draft environmental impact this winter, followed by a public comment process. If the commission determines that the final review meets the legal requirements, the PUC could decide whether to issue a route permit for the project as early as next summer.
Summit is planning to file additional permit applications in the coming months for a longer and physically separate part of its proposed network that would connect several ethanol plants in southern Minnesota with its proposed main line in Iowa.
Gov. Kim Reynolds “has not influenced” the state permit process for a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that is nearing its conclusion, a spokesperson said this week.
The comment was in response to a landowner’s recent assertion that Reynolds and other elected leaders have favored Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline project over their constituents’ concerns because of the company co-founder’s wealth and influence.
“Follow the money,” said Richard Davis, a Cherokee County landowner who testified in a permit hearing on Tuesday.
Davis opposes the project and has four parcels of land that are subject to the company’s eminent domain requests. He testified that he sought help from state legislators to protect his land but that they said Bruce Rastetter, the co-founder, has donated a lot of money to Reynolds’ campaigns and that “she will not act on this until the pipeline is through.”
Summit Carbon Solutions wants to transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to North Dakota for underground sequestration. (Image courtesy of Summit Carbon Solutions)
Summit’s $5.5 billion pipeline would transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five states to North Dakota for underground sequestration. More than 680 miles of that pipeline system is planned for Iowa.
Rastetter is an agriculture mogul and a major political donor. From 2015 to 2022, he donated more than $160,000 to the Kim Reynolds for Iowa campaign committee, according to state campaign disclosure reports. Those donations preceded her ascent to governor in 2017, when former Gov. Terry Branstad resigned to be the U.S. ambassador to China.
The allegation of Rastetter’s influence over elected officials is not new. In the past two years as legislators struggled — and ultimately failed — to pass new legislation to restrict eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines, some of the legislators publicly said the same.
“How much money did Bruce Rastetter give you?” Rep. Jeff Shipley, R-Birmingham, told people to ask their legislators in March 2022. “There are a lot of people that bend over for money. They bend over so much sometimes I’m surprised they can still walk.”
IUB shakeup
But the allegation gained more traction this summer when the Iowa Utilities Board decided to start Summit’s evidentiary hearing two months earlier than it had previously considered. The move prompted complaints from pipeline opponents and state lawmakers that the permit process was being accelerated toward approval.
Summit has sought a decision on its permit in Iowa by the end of the year, and the company intends to start construction in 2024.
That IUB decision followed Reynolds’ appointment of a new member to the board, Erik Helland, who was a replacement for a member whose term was expiring. Reynolds further named him chairperson.
Geri Huser resigned from the Iowa Utilities Board after the appointment of a new chairperson. (Photo by Jared Strong/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
Former chairperson Geri Huser submitted her letter of resignation from the board less than a week later.
Huser’s term as chairperson was set to expire, but it could have been renewed. And she could have remained as a board member until at least 2027.
“Geri Huser announced her resignation at the expiration of her term as chair of IUB after 8 years of service, and Governor Reynolds greatly appreciated her leadership,” said Kollin Crompton, the deputy communications director for Reynolds. “Across state government, the governor has a longstanding policy of rotating board leadership and refreshing board membership to allow for new voices to be heard.”
However, the decision resulted in two new members on the three-person board, and that happened toward the end of Summit’s permit process, which began in August 2021.
The remaining incumbent board member, Josh Byrnes, had initially resisted a Summit hearing start date in October, primarily because it would conflict with harvest season and might prevent farmers affected by the project from participating.
But Byrnes also questioned whether it was possible to effectively evaluate Summit’s proposal in a shortened timeframe because it is “the most resource-intensive project that has come before the board in 50 years, possibly since the board’s inception,” he wrote in February.
He noted that board staff had initially proposed a hearing start date in May 2024.
Brynes reversed course after the appointment of the two new board members and supported the Aug. 22 start date. In July, he wrote that the board’s decision to have some of the landowners who are subject to eminent domain requests testify at the start of the hearing — rather than at the end — alleviated his worries about harvest. He did not address his previous concerns about ensuring that the project is fully vetted.
Other donations
Rastetter also donated to lawmakers in the Iowa Senate who might have been key to blocking legislation this year that was overwhelmingly approved by the Iowa House and would have limited eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines.
In 2019, 2020 and 2021, Rastetter gave a total of $37,500 to a campaign committee that supports Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader who decides what bills get a vote by the entire chamber.
And last year, Rastetter gave $5,000 to the campaign of Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny. He led a subcommittee to which the House bill was assigned, but the bill was never considered for recommendation.
Bousselot was the subject of an ethics complaint over his handling of that bill, in part, because he formerly worked for Summit Agriculture Group, which owns Summit Carbon Solutions.
Bousselot and Whitver did not immediately respond to requests to comment for this article.
Donations don’t necessarily equate to favorable votes: The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation — which supported the bill — also donated to the senators. The organization’s donations in 2022 to them exceeded Rastetter’s contributions that year. Also, Rastetter has contributed more than $35,000 to a campaign committee that supports Rep. Matt Windschitl, the House majority leader who voted in favor of the bill.
Rastetter also donated $26,000 last year to a campaign committee that supports Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, who won her
Gov. Kim Reynolds speaks at the Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit on Feb. 7, 2023. (Photo by Jared Strong/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
first term in the November election.
Bird’s authority over the Office of Consumer Advocate was strengthened by a governmental reorganization bill that was one of Reynolds’ legislative priorities.
The office is charged with representing the interests of the public in utility proceedings such as Summit’s permit application, and a former attorney for the office said she quit her job there in May because it had become “more of an observer and less of an advocate.”
“The concerns of ‘undue influence’ are completely unfounded and untrue,” Crompton, Reynolds’ spokesman, told Iowa Capital Dispatch. “The governor meets regularly with leaders from a wide variety of industries in Iowa including agriculture, insurance, technology, and health care to help inform policy priorities. Governor Reynolds’ work with the legislature over the last four years to improve Iowa’s economy and business climate has resulted in Iowa being recognized nationally as a top ten state to live in, the number one state to retire in, the number one state for the lowest cost of living, the most fiscally responsible state in the country, the number two state for health care, top three state for opportunity, the number four state for labor participation, and a top five state for first time homebuyers.”
ST. PAUL — An environmental assessment of a carbon capture pipeline in Minnesota will be limited to the two counties where a short segment of the pipeline runs, leaving out the bulk of the proposed project.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on Thursday, Aug. 31, voted unanimously to limit the assessment to impact on Otter Tail and Wilkin counties.
The company behind the pipeline, Summit Carbon Solutions, has so far only filed for a route permit application for a 20 mile stretch in those two counties, running from the Green Plains ethanol plant at Fergus Falls, Minnesota, to the North Dakota state line.
Summit has plans for about 240 miles of pipeline in Minnesota, part of a 2,000 mile network of pipelines connecting ethanol plants in five states to an underground storage site in North Dakota.
Summit Carbon Solutions
If built, the pipeline will take greenhouse gas emissions from the ethanol plants in what Summit calls the world’s largest carbon capture and sequestration project.
ADVERTISEMENT
Some environmental groups had argued that an environmental impact study should encompass all of the planned route through Minnesota.
Commissioner John Tuma asked if North Dakota’s recent decision to deny Summit a route permit would affect the company’s plans to cross into North Dakota. The pipeline route would cross south of Breckenridge, Minnesota, and Wahpeton, North Dakota.
John Satterfield, left, director of regulatory affairs for Summit Carbon Solutions, speaks Tuesday, May 2, at Breckenridge High School during a meeting led by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on the company’s proposed carbon capture pipeline. With Satterfield are attorney Christina Brusven, center, and Scott O’Konek, senior project manager for Summit. Jeff Beach / Agweek
Summit has requested that the North Dakota Public Service Commission reconsider its decision, but even if it has to start the permit process over in that state, it still could have a North Dakota permit before the Minnesota PUC makes its decision.
Part of that is because of the length of time to complete the environmental impact statement in Minnesota — 280 days. Brusven noted that it has already been 11 months since Summit filled for a route permit in Minnesota.
“Even a brand new application, we feel that we could make in North Dakota, very rapidly, based on the information we’ve already gathered and their process, start to finish, is still likely to be completed before yours is,” Brusven said.
The environmental study also will look at two route alternatives suggested by CURE (Clean Up the River Environment).
North Dakota is the first state to make a ruling on a Summit route application. A decision on Summit’s petition to reconsider should come by Sept. 17, 30 days after the petition was filed.
