SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – Three statewide organizations are banding together for a campaign, looking to change South Dakota’s eminent domain laws.
Dakota Rural Action, Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform, and the South Dakota Farmers Union are the founding organizations of South Dakotans First. The campaign is looking to the 2024 legislative session in Pierre, as they look for lawmakers to address those laws in response to proposed carbon dioxide pipeline projects.
Although both Summit Carbon Solutions and Navigator were denied their permit requests earlier this year, both have indicated that they will try again. South Dakota Farmers Union Doug Sombke said those eminent domain laws need to change sooner rather than later, and this new campaign will be a unifying voice for many.
“The cheap slogan that I use is eminent domain for private gain is no way to go. We want it for public use only,” Sombke said.
By public use, Sombke said, the issue comes down to what commodity would go through landowners’ properties. He gave the example of electricity, transportation, or other public goods or services that can continue to follow the same eminent domain laws. But he said if a company is looking to make a profit, the use of eminent domain should be much stricter.
“We’re not against eminent domain per se. But it has to be limited on it’s use. If it’s done for the public use, it’s one thing. If it’s going to build a new fire department or a new hospital, or a new highway or bridge, that kind of thing it’s a whole other deal,” Sombke said. “There’s a number of businesses that we’re associated with. East River Electric for instance, Basin Electric. Those types of public entity businesses. It’s something that they almost need to have that at certain times. They don’t use it unless they have to.”
Polling provided by South Dakotans First finds that before people were given information about carbon dioxide pipelines, 58 percent of likely South Dakota voters opposed eminent domain for private use, including 42 percent that “strongly opposed” the action. The polling then said that after those polled were given arguments for and against pipelines, that opposition increased to 78 percent overall, including 60 percent who listed “strongly opposed”.
Sombke said the polling also shows that the issue over carbon dioxide pipelines and eminent domain isn’t a political one. He said a majority of both Republicans and Democrats oppose the use of eminent domain for private use.
The campaign wants to see landowners have the right to not allow surveys, soil samples, or other work done on their property without permission, something that the campaign said is currently in a grey area. Ultimately, it’s having the ability to say no to a project that landowners want to have.
“We didn’t have a choice. We did not want Dakota Access or Summit’s pipelines crossing our land. We should have a choice, the choice to agree to a project, or the choice to say,’ No, thank you,’” Joy Hohn with Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform said.
Aaron Johnson, a landowner and member of Dakota Rural Action, said he doesn’t feel safe as one of the proposed carbon dioxide pipelines would sit less than a thousand feet from his home. As an organic producer, he also said there’s little these pipelines would do to financially support his family.
“Thousands of South Dakotans are going to find themselves in a similar situation if this pipeline comes through. That being that there is no benefit to many, many South Dakotans if this comes through,” Johnson said. “They want to socialize the risks, and privatize the profits.”
Sombke said the recent announcement from Summit Carbon Solutions to give grants to county emergency management departments is “a bribe,” and he wondered how long it will take companies to realize that the issue isn’t about money.
“This last Tuesday, [Summit Carbon Solutions] they came to Brown County and to Spink County, and offered them a $50,000 grant to their rescue crews. Bribe money, in my opinion,” Sombke said. “When are they going to get it, that farmers and ranchers, and these communities that they’re affecting, don’t give a damn about the money? That’s not the point, is it? The point is that we want them to listen to us and respect us. That’s it.”
The three organizations said that funding for the campaign is coming from their organizations alone, all made up of South Dakota residents. Coming together as a unified voice helps them all, as it would be much harder for legislators to ignore when voicing their concerns.
“It’s just like they always say. You can break one stick, but if you bundle them together, they’re harder to break. That’s exactly where we’re at today, and plus it gives you respect. These people deserve respect, their legislators deserve to respect them,” Sombke said.
While changing eminent domain laws is the current goal of the campaign, Sombke also said it’s not the only issue they could address. He said after the announcement that a new state penitentiary would be placed in rural Lincoln County, he said they could work together with landowners there to see if their concerns are being addressed in the future.
A new grassroots coalition wants to bring South Dakota’s property rights groups, including those representing landowners affected by carbon dioxide pipelines, under one organizational umbrella.
South Dakotans First, a newly-formed group spearheaded by South Dakota Farmers Union President Doug Sombke, formally launched their organization during a Thursday press conference, which coincided with the release of an eye-opening survey on the support for Summit Carbon Solutions’ controversial carbon dioxide pipeline.
Farmers Union is considered a lead organization in the coalition, which also includes Dakota Rural Action, a family agriculture organizing and advocacy group, and Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform, a property rights advocacy group.
Sombke told Argus Leader the idea to form South Dakotans First came about after the most recent legislative session and the death of House Bill 1133, a bill that aimed to define sequestered carbon dioxide as a non-commodity and essentially block carbon capture pipelines from being built in the state by excluding them from being considered a common carrier.
The purpose of South Dakotans First, Sombke added, is to provide a central resource for the various landowner organizations in the state.
Sombke added groups such as Dakota Rural Action have played a major part in organizing landowners opposed to carbon dioxide pipelines and the exploitation of eminent domain laws, and he wants South Dakotans First to supplement this effort by unifying these groups and providing some levels of funding.
South Dakotans First is mostly isolated in its support, at least initially. Sombke said none of the state’s major agriculture organizations, like South Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, South Dakota Corn and South Dakota Soybean Growers indicated they would join or support the coalition when asked.
This was reflected in the attendance of the Thursday press conference, which saw about 50 people — outside of the three speakers, this number comprised mostly landowners but also a few state legislators and local reporters — none of which were representatives of the aforementioned agriculture leaders.
Sombke criticized their presumed lack of support for landowners.
“They’re all afraid of losing the big corporate dollars from the pipeline companies,” Sombke suggested. “It’s in all their organizational policies to protect landowners from eminent domain. Why aren’t they doing that?”
This same critique was thrown toward the state’s Farm Bureau, whose latest policies do state opposition to the use of eminent domain for private economic gain — pipeline opponents say the proposed projects of Summit Carbon and Navigator CO2 Ventures, another carbon capture company, would not financially benefit most South Dakotans, while supporters argue farmers would benefit from higher demand for corn and therefore higher pay from selling to ethanol facilities connected the pipelines.
However, Sombke partially pulled his punches against his organizational opposite, adding that he believes SDFB is working on their own measure to push for the protection of property rights in the state.
Sombke said he has heard of “two or three” other organizations that have expressed notions of joining South Dakotans First since the first press release was sent out Wednesday.
South Dakotans First, Sombke added, is also meant to drive support for eminent domain-focused legislation this coming legislative session.
“There are probably two or three bills being looked at right now,” Sombke said. “One of them looks really good.”
Sombke did not elaborate on what the “really good” bill would entail. Asked if it might look similar to the commodity-defining, carbon pipeline-excluding HB 1133 brought by Rep. Karla Lems, Sombke said it would be “something different.”
Opinion poll argues South Dakota voters don’t support Summit Carbon pipeline, private use of eminent domain
The Thursday press conference also included the release of a survey commissioned by South Dakotans First and conducted by Embold Research, a non-partisan, San Francisco-based subsidiary of Change Research, a “B-” graded pollster, according to polling analysis website FiveThirtyEight.
Embold’s survey, which was conducted online and through text messages, sampled 1,037 likely South Dakota voters between Sept. 5 and 10 “to gauge support for Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed CO2 pipeline.”
The key findings of the survey indicate the majority of survey respondents do not support the construction of Summit Carbon Solution’s pipeline in South Dakota.
Based on the poll’s methodology, poll takers were asked their opinions about SCS’ project at two distinct times: before “reading arguments for and against the proposed pipeline,” and after.
In terms of initial support, the poll found 58% of those surveyed initially oppose SCS’ pipeline in some form — 42% of that figure being “strongly opposed” — while 29% support the pipeline and 13% were “not sure.”
Additionally, the poll found that a large chunk of surveyed voters — 83% — oppose the use of eminent domain for private use.
However, respondents remained fairly split in terms of eminent domain for public use. 47% of those polled support this form of eminent domain, while 49% expressed opposition and 4% were “not sure.”
The opinion survey found initial support of SCS’ pipeline was highest among men, with 35% supporting, 18 to 34-year-olds, with 36% supporting, and Republicans, with 38% supporting. Initial support, the survey continues, is also high “among those who have favorable views toward the ethanol industry (38%) and those who are not familiar with eminent domain (40%) and Summit Carbon Solutions (36%).
Embold’s survey then presented respondents with a randomized list of arguments for and against the pipeline before they were queried as to the persuasive value of the arguments. Those undergoing the survey were later asked whether they supported or opposed SCS’ pipeline based on the arguments provided.
After being “informed” of the project, the overall majority opposition against SCS grew, with 78% of respondents indicating some level of opposition, 16% of respondents indicating some level of support and 7% remaining unsure.
But out of the 10 arguments put in front of those taking the survey, seven of them were against SCS’ pipeline. The survey only provided three arguments in favor of the pipeline.
Additionally, one of the arguments against SCS, centered around the potential loss of local control over pipeline projects, may no longer be relevant. The argument states “Summit Carbon Solutions is asking state regulators to overturn local ordinances that present obstacles to the development of its pipeline (Brown, Minnehaha, Spink, and McPherson counties).”
Summit Carbon and Navigator initially intended to argue during their respective permit hearings that state regulators could preempt county setback ordinances, or buffer zones around residential and other areas, and that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration could preempt said ordinances on a federal level.
However, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission denied Navigator’s preemption motions outright. Summit Carbon withdrew their preemption motion prior to the start of their September hearing — a move that, at least within the scope of the permit hearing, backfired on the company, as it contributed to their consequential permit denial.
Any momentum on preemption was further stymied when PHMSA, the agency responsible for regulating the safety components of CO2 pipelines, issued a response letter to Summit Carbon, Navigator and Wolf Carbon on Sept. 15, in which a PHMSA official effectively denied the agency has authority over state laws and county ordinances that specifically regulate the siting of carbon capture pipelines.
The official further encouraged the companies to cooperate with local and state authorities for the routing and siting of their pipeline.
The survey itself is specific to South Dakota voters, which represent about a quarter of the five-state pipeline route. It does not take into account opinions on Navigator’s Heartland Greenway System, which is another controversial, proposed pipeline meant to cross through a small portion of South Dakota.
Reached for a comment about the survey, a Summit Carbon spokesperson said the company remains “committed to working with counties and landowners to find a path through the state that works for everyone, as demonstrated by the success to date.”
“75% of landowners have signed voluntary easement agreements,” the unnamed spokesperson said in a statement. “Our goal is 100% voluntary easement agreements, providing fair compensation and respectful land management. This project is about opening new markets for South Dakota ethanol and corn farmers.
The Pipeline Fighters Hub hosted a webinar Thursday, October 12, entitled “Explaining Federal Pipeline Safety Agency PHMSA’s Letter Re: Local Authority Over CO2 Pipelines.”
PHMSA stands for Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The agency’s associate administrator for pipeline safety, Alan K. Mayberry, sent a letter on September 15 to three private companies, informing them that state and local governments dictate location and routing of pipeline projects. According to PHMSA, the agency regulates pipeline safety standards, but Congress never gave it authority over pipeline placement.
Despite the clarity of the letter, “CO2 pipeline companies continue to challenge county ordinances that were passed by elected officials in multiple states, in an effort to protect their communities and lives from these proposed hazardous pipeline projects,” explains the Pipeline Fighters Hub. The private companies argue that, because PHMSA oversees safety standards, no state or county can consider safety measures when deciding whether to approval pipeline permit applications.
Thursday’s webinar featured Paul Blackburn, attorney for Bold Alliance, a grassroots coalition of rural landowners who have banded together to “fight pipelines and Big Corporations that threaten the land and water.” Joining Blackburn was Bill Caram, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a watchdog group formed after a tragic 1999 pipeline accident in which two young boys lost their lives. Mark Hefflinger, communications director of Bold Alliance and the Pipeline Fighters Hub, moderated the discussion.
Caram pointed out that pipeline safety is really a cooperative effort among localities, states, and the federal government. States and counties dictate routing and siting issues, including setback distances and property development. States are not allowed to issue stronger safety regulations than PHMSA’s rules on interstate pipelines, but intrastate pipelines are entirely under the jurisdiction of states.
PHMSA does not have a history of stepping outside its bounds, Caram reported. It has been hamstrung by Congress, with a strict statutory cost-benefit requirement imposed on it. Whenever the agency undertakes any rule-making, the cost to the industry has to be justified by the benefits. That has been a hurdle for them in the past, as has been the fact that there is no significant increase in PHMSA funding despite expansion of pipelines in recent years.
Other points of interest he mentioned were that PHMSA is prohibited from issuing regulations that would apply to existing pipelines. However, new, stricter rules are coming out soon, which will apply to any future CO2 pipelines that are not already approved before publication. In fact, Congressional Democrats recently asked the Biden administration to place a moratorium on carbon-capture pipelines until the new safety regulations are published.
Interestingly, Caram said that it is not illegal to spill out of a pipeline. That amounts, he said, to yet another reason that states and counties should consider safety in routing.
Blackburn’s presentation addressed preemption issues and the “next steps” for counties to take. He pointed out that if a state agency can consider safety — if it is not preempted by federal law — then so can a county. The preemption under the Pipeline Safety Act states that “the State authority may not adopt or continue in force safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities or interstate pipeline transportation.” However, considering safety issues is not the same thing as developing or enforcing safety standards, Blackburn explained.
Significantly, the Act also states, “This chapter does not authorize the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe the location or routing of a pipeline facility.” Blackburn recommends thinking “of ‘safety standards’ as a building code for pipeline companies.” Simply put, this is not an area with any legal ambiguity.
But does PSA preempt state and local authority over all safety considerations? As stated earlier, this is an argument brought by the carbon-capture pipeline companies. However, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission considered a large amount of pipeline safety testimony in its Navigator case. Blackburn cited a Minnesota PUC hearing which did the same in relation to that state’s Line 3 oil pipeline.
He also reviewed three federal cases that have dealt with the specific issue. All three held that consideration of safety as a factor in a location decision is not the same as imposing a safety standard. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the field of pipeline safety is separate from the field of pipeline routing.
Nevertheless, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa recently issued a preliminary decision that found that the Shelby County setbacks were preempted under state law. However, Blackburn pointed out that this is a different situation altogether, as federal law was not involved.
Moreover, said Blackburn, “the Pipeline Safety Act applies only after a route is approved; if a route is not approved, the pipeline would never be constructed and safety standards would not be applied.” If the opposite were true, the practical result is that no agency at any level of government could consider safety in routing, which Blackburn calls “an irrational result.”
Blackburn further emphasized that PHMSA doesn’t regulate states, local agencies, or individual citizens. It only regulates pipeline companies. “Local governments know their needs and territories better than the feds.” He therefore recommended that counties implement protective ordinances now to avoid future ambiguity.
Democratic State Representative Chuck Isenhart represents Iowa House district 72, covering part of Dubuque and nearby areas. He is a member of the Iowa House Economic Growth Committee, the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, and the Natural Resources and Infrastructure Committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures.The Dubuque Telegraph-Herald published a shorter version of this article on October 9.
“No eminent domain for private gain” is the catch phrase of opponents contesting three proposals for carbon dioxide pipelines in Iowa.
The Summit Carbon Solutions project would transport up to 18 million tons of the emissions each year, mainly from Iowa ethanol plants, to be buried deep in porous rock formations in North Dakota.
Why? Arguably, to keep the greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere, where it heats the air, causing climate change and weather disasters. At least that’s why the federal government is offering to pay $85 per ton for projects that capture and sequester carbon. At full capacity, that could be a $1.5 billion annual payday for Summit alone.
Owners of hundreds of parcels of land oppose the pipeline, mainly because they believe the productivity of farm ground will be lost and the integrity of drainage tiles will be damaged. Others question the safety of the pipelines.
According to Iowa law, the power to “take” or use private land may be granted by the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) to a private company if the project has a public “use,” “benefit,” “purpose,” and is justified by a “public convenience or necessity.” So the slogan as applied to hazardous pipelines should be: No eminent domain solely for private gain.
The IUB will rule on whether the projects are necessary or convenient for the public. Whose definitions will be accepted? What evidence will be required? What previous cases will be used as precedents?
“Jobs” and “more taxes” could be used to justify any claim where a private business owner proposes to create more jobs and pay more taxes than the current landowner. If creating jobs and raising taxes were the purpose of government, the state could use eminent domain powers to effectively control all land. Beyond jobs and taxes, what makes the pipeline projects special?
The companies may claim the pipelines benefit the public simply because of the federal subsidies. Why else would taxpayers foot the bill? That circular argument overlooks that federal carbon capture, use and sequestration policy does not include the word “transport.” Do the environmental and economic impacts of moving carbon dioxide hundreds of miles by pipeline for burial lead to a significant climate benefit?
A comment made at a public meeting in Delaware County in December of 2021 suggests that even project proponents aren’t so sure. According to a Elizabeth Burns-Thompson of Navigator CO2 Ventures, their project will have “no meaningful impact” on atmospheric carbon dioxide. The purpose is to “enhance (the) economic competitiveness” of ethanol and fertilizer producers.
That’s one reason I sponsored an amendment to the climate change policy of the National Conference of State Legislatures in 2022, which passed with little dissent:
The federal government shall restrict carbon capture and storage incentives for projects that involve the transfer of carbon dioxide by interstate pipelines to those certified by state public utility commissions or other state regulatory bodies to have demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that a project will:
1) result in a net life-cycle reduction in atmospheric carbon, with financial awards tied to such reductions (my emphasis), pursuant to a state’s climate action plan adopted by the legislature or approved by the governor; and
2) permanently restore damage to wetlands, woodlands, prairie, rivers, streams and other natural resources, as well as the productivity of disturbed farmland, as a result of construction, operation or future abandonment.
Taxpayers should pay for end results that benefit everyone. A “net life-cycle” analysis accounts for the climate impact of everything associated with a project’s development, construction and operation, as well as indirect and secondary impacts, including the economic and environmental risks of dedicating so much land to producing ethanol’s feedstock. Not to mention the possibility that more than a trillion gallons of groundwater would be needed every year to support carbon capture at all of Iowa’s ethanol plants.
Without such net benefit, the pipelines do not serve the public convenience, much less the public necessity of combating climate change or protecting Iowa’s other natural resources.
The Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate is charged with representing the public interest in these cases. Will Lanny Zieman address these issues? Before the books are closed on the Summit public hearing, which has been underway since August, the IUB could seek such evidence or require the pipeline applicants to provide it.
In the meantime, this we do know: Iowa has no articulated climate strategy. Iowa has no public policy supporting the sequestration of industrial carbon emissions. Not even Governor Kim Reynolds’ Carbon Sequestration Task Force report addresses the issue. So what is the public gain from hazardous carbon dioxide pipelines?
P.S.—In March, most members of the Iowa House voted for House File 565, which—according to the floor manager, State Representative Steven Holt—subjects the “sacred, fundamental birthright” of 10 percent of landowners who resist the pipelines to the 90 percent willing to sign easements, without any consideration of public necessity. The bill was incoherent. I voted against it.
I introduced two bills as alternatives. The NCSL policy was turned into House File 682, which also bars carbon dioxide piped out of the state from being used to pump more fossil fuels out of the ground and allows counties to impose setback and related safety requirements.
More important for landowners, House File 684 requires pipeline permit applicants to show that “less costly, less burdensome, or more efficient alternative(s)” do not exist. The bill funds the Iowa Geological Survey to assess the capacity and feasibility of sequestering carbon emissions within the state. Previous research suggests that sequestering carbon dioxide may work within the geological “midcontinent rift” formation that slices through Iowa, without the need for long-distance pipelines.
As an intervenor in the Summit pipeline case, I sponsored testimony by Ryan Clark of the Iowa Geological Survey, after Iowa Utilities Board members Erik Helland and Josh Byrnes asked about such prospects earlier in the hearing. Clark testified that Summit could drill test wells to determine the feasibility of carbon dioxide storage in Iowa for all its contracted ethanol plants for a fraction of the money the company has spent on easement payments to landowners. Indeed, Summit Agricultural Group contacted the Iowa Geological Survey as early as 2020 to inquire about such possibilities, but did not act on the information they received.
If such a scenario proves viable, landowners could profit annually from payments for carbon storage under their land rather than getting one-time payments for pipelines going through and damaging their land, with the associated safety concerns and emergency response capacity requirements.
If nothing else, the IUB should put pipeline permit applications on hold and require the pipeline companies to prove carbon dioxide storage in Iowa is not possible before considering whether pipe dreams can become reality.
Top photo of Chuck Isenhart provided by the author and published with permission.
Utility regulators in North Dakota may hold a hearing no sooner than December to consider oral arguments about county ordinances that would restrict the placement of Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed carbon capture pipeline in that state.
That conflicts with the Ames-based company’s request for the North Dakota Public Service Commission to overrule two county ordinances without soliciting new input from groups that oppose its project.
The commission previously considered arguments about the ordinances in Burleigh and Emmons counties but did not issue a ruling about them when it denied Summit a route permit in August.
The state is crucial to Summit’s proposed five-state pipeline system that would transport captured carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants. The company plans to sequester the greenhouse gas in North Dakota.
When the commission denied the permit application, it said the ordinance issue was moot because it was denying the permit for other reasons. However, commissioners indicated they had differing views about the restrictions.
When the commission later agreed to reconsider the company’s permit application with an altered route, Summit renewed its request to overrule the ordinances because they have the potential to significantly affect the pipeline route.
“The issue is purely one of law, and Summit’s renewal motion does not make any new arguments (legal or otherwise) not already made or set forth in its original preemption motion,” wrote Lawrence Bender, an attorney for Summit, in a filing last week. “Accordingly, it is not proper for the commission to allow the intervenors another opportunity to respond in opposition.”
But the commission unanimously decided this week to hold a hearing on the matter — as requested by intervenors in the case — according to a recording of its Monday meeting.
That decision has the potential to elongate the permit reconsideration process, in part because North Dakota’s governor issued an executive order Tuesday to convene a special session of the state’s legislature.
The session is meant to address the North Dakota Supreme Court’s recent decision to void parts of a budget bill, which could affect government services.
That session is expected to last a week, but there are now restrictions on reserving space for all of November in the North Dakota State Capitol, where the Public Service Commission typically operates, said Victor Schock, director of public utilities for the commission.
He expects the hearing to be held no sooner than December.
A ‘very clear law’
The ordinances set minimum distances a pipeline can be placed from cities, houses, livestock facilities and other sites. Summit has argued that the ordinances are so restrictive that its pipeline system could not pass through the counties, but opponents of Summit’s route say that is an exaggeration.
North Dakota law says a gas or liquid pipeline permit “supersedes and preempts any local land use or zoning regulations,” with an exception for road-use agreements.
Randy Christmann, the chair of the commission, has called it a “very clear law.” But opponents of the pipeline route argue that other parts of the law — and the intent of legislators who adopted them — give counties a right to restrict the pipelines.
Commissioner Sheri Haugen-Hoffart has indicated she wants evidence that Summit has tried to work with counties to comply with their ordinances before ruling on the matter.
It’s unclear when the commission will decide the issue. It’s also unclear when it will schedule further evidentiary hearings for its reconsideration of Summit’s permit request.
Summit had requested a single hearing, but the commissioners have signaled more might be necessary.
Commission asks Summit for info
On Tuesday, the commission issued a formal request to Summit for more information about the changes to its route. The commissioners seek, among other information:
Detailed maps of the pipeline route where it has changed.
What the company has done to address the concerns of landowners.
Evidence that the pipeline does not pass through areas prone to landslides.
A thorough analysis of an alternate route around Bismarck, where there has been resistance to the original route because of its potential to affect urban development.
A list of newly affected landowners and parcels.
The percentage of land easements that have been obtained by the company in each county.
Some of the requested information is due within two weeks. Schock said the information is necessary to decide how the reconsideration process will proceed. State law does not prescribe the process or dictate a deadline for its completion.
Find this story atIowa Capital Dispatch, which is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: kobradovich@iowacapitaldispatch.com.
Carbon capture, also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon sequestration, is a process that captures carbon emissions from industrial processes or power plants and permanently stores it underground.1 The Global CCS Institute, a think tank dedicated to researching and developing the technology behind CCS, calls the technology a “game-changer” that can build a path to a “zero-carbon economy.”2 But it is not without risks.
While proponents of the technology say it can reduce the effects of carbon emissions and play a crucial role in combating climate change, environmental justice organizations are speaking out in Louisiana, one of the states where a number of these sites are being proposed. The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ) says that CCS allows the fossil fuel industry to skirt real responsibility on climate change; moreover, the state’s lack of oversight and accountability will create harmful impacts on communities already affected by environmental disasters.
Illustrating CCS
There are three steps in the CCS process.3 The first step is “capturing” the carbon, often from the air, from places like power plants, by using post-combustion capture technology. After carbon is released from combustion, chemical solvents or adsorbents are often used to trap the carbon, allowing clean exhaust gasses to be released into the atmosphere.
Fossil fuel companies can say that they’re complying with environmental regulations [through carbon capture and storage] without having to fundamentally change their high-emission business practices.
The second part of the CCS process involves transporting the carbon from the capture site to the storage site. The transportation process typically involves pipelines, ships, or trucks. The choice of transportation method depends on the distance between the capture site and the storage site.
Third, the captured carbon is then permanently stored deep underground in geological formations—the most common sites being depleted oil and gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, and un-mineable coal seams. When carbon is injected into these formations, it is trapped and stored securely over geological timescales, preventing its release into the atmosphere.
In the United States, ongoing monitoring and verification of the various sites and pipelines is done by regulatory authorities such as the EPA. Monitoring involves detecting any potential leaks or movement of the stored carbon. While CCS is a proposed climate solution, there is pushback with the belief that the process is another ploy from Big Oil.
Basav Sen, director of the Climate Policy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, says CCS projects are advocated by the business interests of the fossil fuel industry, which continues to make money off of gas.
“The push for carbon capture is really an attempt to reconcile continuing that business model with the imperative of having to cut greenhouse gas emission,” says Sen. In other words, fossil fuel companies can say that they’re complying with environmental regulations without having to fundamentally change their high-emission business practices.
Tax Codes and Fossil Fuel Companies
Monique Harden, director of law and public policy and community engagement program manager for the DSCEJ, says tax codes are another reason behind the sudden push for these sites in Louisiana and elsewhere.
“For every ton of carbon dioxide they put in the ground, they get $85. These projects that they’re proposing begin at five million tons. That’s [just] under half a billion [dollars],” says Harden.
CCS is a money maker for the fossil fuel industry and approved by Congress under tax credit policies. Section 45Q is a tax code originally proposed in 2008 as part of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act that permits a credit for carbon sequestration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.4 This is a giant loophole of which the fossil fuel industry is fully taking advantage.
The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, expanded several provisions under the tax code. The expanded provisions increase the credit amount that emitters can get and reduce eligibility requirements so more power plants could qualify.
Harden believes that the proposed carbon injection sites are stalling efforts to transition away from oil and gas. The injection sites also curtail efforts such as DSCEJ’s “renewable portfolio standard,” which requires electricity supplied to a jurisdiction to come from renewable energy sources. The organization worked with the city of New Orleans to enact a requirement that by the year 2040, all sources of electricity supply into the city of New Orleans come from renewable and non-carbon sources of energy.
“We now have a Public Service Commission for the state of Louisiana that is looking to do more on renewable energy. And also developing a workforce that will have people install and maintain solar panels,” says Harden.
Sign up for our free newsletters
Subscribe to NPQ’s newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.
However, building carbon injection sites across the state creates barriers to fully transitioning away from burning coal, oil, and gas. Fossil fuel companies and state officialsare pushing forward with these sites despite community objections. It’s clear that the fossil fuel industry does not want to give up its business model.
Disproportionate Risk
There are two major factors under consideration in developing CCS projects in Louisiana: building locations and regulations. Fossil fuel companies are pushing for a new wave of gas-burning facilities mostly located in areas where the residents are predominantly Black, Indigenous, and poor.5
At the same time, lobbyists are persuading policymakers that CCS projects are a way to preserve jobs and transition to low-cost models of climate friendly technology. In October of 2021, four oil executives testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to defend their companies’ practices over the years. The executives also attempted to reframe the narrative around burning fossil fuels, calling itself a “carbon management industry.” According to Sen, lobbyists are also persuading policymakers that CCS projects are a way to preserve jobs and transition to low-cost models of climate-friendly technology.
In Louisiana, the state filed an application with the EPA to have regulatory authority over the wells that are used to inject carbon into deep rock formations and store them underground. DSCEJ opposed the state’s application in a public hearing before the EPA pointing to previous environmental failures. DSCEJ cited “a record of failure and mismanagement that resulted in destroying the Bayou Corne community, harming children and adults in Grand Bois [a predominantly Native American community] and leaving the state littered with leaking oil and gas wells,” according to a June 2023 press release. The press release also notes a 2020 carbon pipeline explosion in Satartia, MS, where 200 people were evacuated and 45 were hospitalized.
Exposure to carbon can cause disorientation, heart malfunction, and even death in extreme cases.6 Clouds of carbon dioxide can displace oxygen and can hang in the air for hours. One 911 call obtained by the Climate Investigation Center paints a picture of what happened when the pipeline broke, the caller describing a victim stranded on the side of the highway: “She’s laying on the ground and she’s shaking. She’s kind of drooling out of the mouth. I don’t know if she’s having a seizure or not. Can you send somebody quick!”
The capture of carbon can lead to reduced efficiencies in power and industrial plants, while simultaneously increasing their water consumption. This is a particular challenge for plants operating in regions already grappling with water scarcity.
Questionable Technology
There are clearly risks associated with CCS. The biggest concerns are the potential leakage of stored carbon and induced seismicity, which is earthquake activity caused by humans. Leakage could result from structural failure, geological instability, or poor containment integrity, leading to the release of large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere that can exacerbate climate issues and health problems.
Carbon corrosion can break down metals in pipelines and potentially contaminate the environment, including waterways and drinking water sources.7 Corrosion can also break down rocks and cause catastrophic shifts above ground.8 Penn State researchers point out the number of ways carbon dioxide can escape. 9 This makes CCS a questionable long-term solution for climate change if these sites become unviable.
Organizations like the Climate Justice Alliance see carbon capture as another form of geoengineering that manipulates efforts to stop climate change and continues our dependence on fossil fuels.
The economic viability of CCS projects is also in question. The capture of carbon can lead to reduced efficiencies in power and industrial plants, while simultaneously increasing their water consumption.10 This is a particular challenge for plants operating in regions already grappling with water scarcity. These additional expenses have the potential to render a CCS project economically unfeasible as well as environmentally harmful.
Fossil fuel companies continue to lobby for CCS sites in areas throughout the South. Communities and the surrounding environments face substantial risks with the unprecedented undertaking of permanently storing carbon dioxide underground. Harden says the proposed site locations are intentional: “[The fossil fuel] industry has systematically located those polluting facilities in communities where they thought that people would not have the power to fight back,” says Harden.
Organizations like the Climate Justice Alliance see carbon capture as another form of geoengineering that manipulates efforts to stop climate change and continues our dependence on fossil fuels. In early June, advocates for climate justice and carbon removal met in Wisconsin for the 2023 National Symposium on Climate Justice & Carbon Management. Although full details of the symposium could not be shared, Jean Chemnick reported for E&E News by Politico that participants said there was a realization “[the] US was going all in on carbon capture and carbon removal, with or without the support of the environmental justice community.”
As of now, a holistic consideration for CCS is lacking and these projects come at the expense of already environmentally burdened communities. Environmental justice advocates continue to push back to protect those communities, and are making the case that these proposed “solutions” are anything but.
Notes:
Berend Smit et al., Introduction to carbon capture and sequestration (World Scientific, 2014), https://doi.org/10.1142/p911.
Global CCS Institute, Global Status of CCS Report: 2020, https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/global-status-of-ccs-report-2020/.
José C.M. Pires et al., “Recent developments on carbon capture and storage: An overview,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design 89, no. 9 (2011): 1446–1460, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2011.01.028.
Legal Information Institute, 26 U.S.C § 45Q – Credit for carbon oxide sequestration, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/45Q.
Lara J Cushing et al., “Up in smoke: characterizing the population exposed to flaring from unconventional oil and gas development in the contiguous US,” Environmental Research Letters 16, no. 3 (2021): 34–32, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd3d4.
Michael Drechsler and Jason Morris, Carbon Dioxide Narcosis (Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing, 2023).
Robin L. Newmark, Samuel J. Friedmann, and Susan A. Carroll, “Water Challenges for Geologic Carbon Capture and Sequestration,” Environmental Management 45 (2010): 651–661, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9434-1.
Joel Sminchak and Neeraj Gupta, “Aspects of induced seismic activity and deep-well sequestration of carbon dioxide,” Environmental Geosciences 10, no. 2 (2003): 81–89, https://doi.org/10.1306/eg.04040302009.
Penn State. “Carbon dioxide stored underground can find multiple ways to escape.” ScienceDaily, (2016), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211185935.htm.
Hisham Eldardiry and Emad Habib, “Carbon capture and sequestration in power generation: review of impacts and opportunities for water sustainability,” Energy, Sustainability and Society 8, no. 6 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0146-3.
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.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/X24ETVMOARAD5I4VGO353VW5R4.bmp)
