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.
(The Center Square) – As the hearing for one carbon dioxide pipeline goes into its seventh week on Tuesday, hearings for a second one won’t happen for now at least.
The Iowa Utilities Board will continue to hear from residents in the path of a proposed pipeline from Summit Carbon Solutions. Traversing through five states, South Dakota and North Dakota regulators have rejected the pipeline. The North Dakota Public Utilities Commission said Summit can reapply.
A company representing a second CO2 pipeline asked the Iowa Utilities Board to cancel hearings on its proposed 1,300-mile pipeline that would also run through Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois and South Dakota.
Navigator Heartland Greenway said in a filing in Iowa’s Polk County County District Court that it shares an issue over the release of its mailing list. The company asked to continue its case until the Summit case is settled, which will likely not happen until next summer, according to documents filed with the Iowa Utilities Board.
South Dakota regulators denied Navigator’s request on September 6.
Nebraska-based attorney Brian Jorde of Domina Law Group represents hundreds of residents affected by the pipelines. He told The Center Square he expects the Iowa hearings on the Summit pipeline to go past this week.
“There are more miles in Iowa, more affected people in Iowa, so consequently the pool of people that are outraged is larger and therefore more people that want to testify,” Jorde said.
About 720 miles of the $5.5 billion, 2,000-mile pipeline would run through Iowa.
Navigator CO2 Ventures has announced its decision to suspend the permit process for its proposed carbon capture pipeline project in Iowa.
The planned pipeline project would transport CO2 emissions captured from large emitters, predominantly ethanol plants, to permanent storage sites.
The carbon capture pipeline set to cross five Midwest states was already denied a permit in South Dakota last month, which poses a significant setback in the company’s plans, which it said it would be adjusting in connection with the permit denial.
Now, Navigator CO2 is reviewing the carbon pipeline’s route through Iowa and has already filed a motion with the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) to cancel a scheduling conference for the permit bid.
“Navigator is currently reviewing its Iowa route and technical specifications in light of decisions from regulatory authorities in neighboring states and individual landowner requests, which may lead to necessary revisions in Iowa,” the pipeline operator said in an official statement.
Meanwhile, the company is waiting to receive a final decision from regulators in Illinois by the end of February 2024, after which it hopes to file an update on the pipeline project again in Iowa.
Summit Carbon Solutions is trying to rebound from the Public Utilities Commission’s stunning rejection of Summit’s carbon-sequestration pipeline with a redoubled charm campaign. Summit CEO Lee Blank and COO James Powell took to SDPB yesterday to peddle their corporate propaganda.
Among other things, the Summit honchos claimed that carbon sequestration will reduce carbon emissions more effectively than using renewable energy. It may be that if you are committed to burning corn to make ethanol, capturing the carbon and piping it to caves in North Dakota is the surest way to cut down your contribution to global warming.
But if you are committed to reducing carbon emissions, hooking a CO2 pipeline up to your ethanol plant won’t do as much to fight global warming as shutting down your ethanol plant and putting up solar panels to power electric cars. Not only do solar panels, and electric cars emit zero carbon dioxide, but solar power produces more power per acre than corn ethanol:
A comparison of the energy yield of corn vs. solar shows why displacing ethanol with solar energy would be a welcome change. An acre of corn yields 328 gallons of ethanol, which is one-third less efficient than gasoline. If you could run an internal combustion automobile entirely on ethanol (you can’t), a car averaging 40 miles per gallon could go 8,738 miles on an acre of corn.
It’s also easier and often more profitable for farmers to grow sunshine than corn:
Solar is also a more reliable crop, and a better one for small farmers. The profitability of corn growing varies by state and by year, but it is never exactly a lucrative business for any but the largest farm operations. In a good year, such as 2022, corn might return a profit of $450 per acre, minus land rents (or taxes). In a down year, returns can be negative once land costs are accounted for. (Rents vary considerably, averaging about $325 per acre.)
Meanwhile, solar lease rates range from $250 to $2000 per acre, depending on location and suitability. A guaranteed payment for 20 or 30 years with no work involved is a pretty attractive deal. Even putting just a portion of a farm into solar provides a form of insurance, guaranteeing a steady income flow regardless of weather and commodity price swings [Main, 2023.09.30].
Summit’s chiefs are stumping for a pipeline that would only reduce carbon emissions at the fuel-processing facility, not in corn production or at the tailpipes of all those vehicles burning ethanol. Their pipeline itself, like corn ethanol production, takes up more land and more water than solar installations able to yield comparable power.
Don’t fall for Summit’s snake-charmers. Capturing carbon dioxide isn’t a bad idea, but it’s far from the best idea for using South Dakota resources to power America and save the planet.
On Friday, Navigator Heartland Greenway filed the request with the Iowa Utilities Board. It also asked the board to cancel an October 9th scheduling conference.
The Heartland Greenway project includes the capture, transport, and storage of emissions from facilities in five states, including Iowa and Illinois. One leg of the pipeline would collect CO2 from an ethanol plant in Galva. And it would cross the Mississippi River north of Keokuk.
In asking the Iowa regulators to “pause” its application, Navigator says it’s reviewing the proposed pipeline route in Iowa. And it wants to wait for a decision next winter on its permit application before the Illinois Commerce Commission.
The Illinois agency will hold evidentiary hearings on the Heartland Greenway proposal October 17th through the 19th in Springfield. (Here are the details from the ICC website:
So-called “carbon sequestration” takes carbon dioxide produced by industrial processes like ethanol plants, compresses it to a liquid form, pipes it across the Midwest, and injects it deep under bedrock layers in places like Decatur, and potentially McLean County. There are tax benefits, and the technology is supposed to help combat climate change.
But Normal Mayor Chris Koos said it’s a potential water quality issue, too.
“I’m very much concerned about drilling wells through the aquifer. Their idea is it will go below the aquifer, but we know from pipelines that currently exist they fail sometimes,” said Koos.
And if they do, Koos worries about leakage upward into the Mahomet Aquifer that supplies drinking water to numerous municipalities in the region, including residents of the Town of Normal.
“A huge discharge of carbon dioxide into the aquifer would acidify the water. I don’t know that it would make it undrinkable, but it would certainly make it more expensive to process into potable water,” said Koos.
Koos said he is in early talks with regional mayors and might pursue a coalition to intervene in carbon capture cases before the Illinois Commerce Commission.
“I think things are moving faster than our ability to react. The onus is on us to get going as fast as we can,” said Koos.
Such a coalition would be modeled on the Mahomet Aquifer Coalition that fought against a hazardous materials landfill near Clinton some years ago.
“The Mahomet Aquifer provides water for over a million people and the idea of threatening that aquifer gives me concern. Yeah, we need to act,” said Koos.
A petition to intervene means the town could file papers and statements with the commerce commission and present expert testimony on carbon pipeline cases.
The ICC will consider a pipeline proposal in Januarythat does not run through McLean County. But a potential well site for another carbon company is within the county borders. The McLean County Board is likely to consider a rules change regulating the placement of carbon injection well sites.
The federal government is still writing rules that will govern high-pressure carbon dioxide pipelines.
