When denying Navigator CO2 Ventures a permit this week for the part of its multistate pipeline proposed for South Dakota, that state’s regulators declined to overrule county ordinances there that restrict carbon dioxide pipelines.
Another pipeline developer, Summit Carbon Solutions, also has asked that state’s Public Utilities Commission to give it a permit despite the local restrictions — including in Minnehaha County, S.D., where the restrictions were upheld.
A final evidentiary hearing for Summit’s permit in South Dakota is poised to start Monday. Summit’s pipeline system would transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five states — including Iowa — to North Dakota for underground sequestration.
James Powell, the company’s chief operating officer, testified this week during its evidentiary hearing in Iowa that the pipeline would not be built here without permits in the Dakotas.
Opponents sit Aug. 22 in the gallery of the Iowa Utilities Board meeting on the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline at the Cardiff Events Center in Fort Dodge. Public utility regulators in Iowa are holding hearings on the company’s proposal for a carbon dioxide pipeline for transporting emissions of the climate-warming greenhouse gas for storage underground. (Lily Smith/Des Moines Register via AP)
“Given they declined to strike down the Minnehaha ordinance, I see no reason why they would change that decision,” said Brian Jorde, an attorney who represents more than 100 landowners affected by the pipeline projects in multiple states. “It would be wise for Summit to either pull its application or state they are suspending their request for application — which they can do at any time — until they come up with a route that can comply with all applicable laws and ordinances.”
A Summit spokesperson declined to comment on the potential effects of the Navigator decision on the Summit proposal.
“Summit Carbon Solutions looks forward to our hearing with the South Dakota PUC starting on September 11,” said Sabrina Zenor, the company’s director of community relations.
County powers vary by state
Some Iowa counties enacted restrictions that would force carbon dioxide pipelines to be placed certain distances from cities, livestock facilities, electric transmission lines, homes and other sites. But a federal judge decided in July that state law does not grant counties the authority over the siting of the pipelines, which is the jurisdiction of the Iowa Utilities Board.
That ruling was the result of a Summit lawsuit against Shelby County.
“Common sense suggests these restrictions would eliminate all or almost all land in Shelby County on which an (Iowa Utilities Board) approved pipeline could be built,” Chief Judge Stephanie Rose wrote. “This creates a serious possibility the IUB would approve the construction of the pipeline but Summit would be unable to build because it could not comply with the requirements of the ordinance.”
The situation is different in South Dakota. Counties are allowed to adopt their own restrictions, but state regulators can overrule them if they are “unreasonably restrictive.”
In August, Summit asked commissioners to use their authority to “preempt” ordinances in four South Dakota counties: Brown, McPherson, Minnehaha and Spink.
All of them lie in the path of the primary pipe that would take carbon dioxide from Iowa to North Dakota. The company’s project would span about 475 miles in South Dakota, compared with more than 680 in Iowa.
“These are no ordinary county ordinances,” wrote Brett Koenecke, a Summit attorney. “Each one was enacted as a reaction and to expressly target (and likely stop) carbon dioxide pipelines.”
The ordinances are typically borne of safety concerns about the pipelines. Under certain circumstances, a major breach can form a plume of carbon dioxide gas that can travel long distances and suffocate people and animals. Summit says its pipeline would be one of the safest ever built.
Ordinances might block Summit
Navigator was unsuccessful in arguing to override ordinances in two counties, in part, because the company acknowledged it could build its pipeline in at least one of the counties despite the restrictions, the South Dakota Searchlight reported.
Summit argues that the restrictions are so severe its project would be blocked, including in Minnehaha.
“These counties have established setback requirements and permitting schemes that make the counties, not this commission, the primary siting authority for the State of South Dakota,” Koenecke wrote. “And they’ve done that by effectively banning hazardous liquid pipelines. That is unreasonably restrictive. And it goes against the policy set by the legislature.”
Erik Schovanec, Summit’s director of pipeline and facilities, testified in Iowa this week that the company has sought to assuage residents’ concerns when possible by adjusting its route. He noted that landowner feedback has resulted in more than 200 adjustments.
Navigator has not publicly indicated how it might proceed in South Dakota. Its roughly 1,300-mile system would transport carbon dioxide from ethanol and fertilizer plants in five states to Illinois.
The route in South Dakota is not physically necessary for the routes in other states, including Iowa. A Navigator spokesperson declined to say whether the project would proceed in the other states without South Dakota.
Status in Iowa
Summit is in the third week of its final evidentiary hearing with the Iowa Utilities Board.
The company began presenting its witnesses this week for cross examination. An initial schedule showed that its 15 witnesses would be called this week, but there have been delays. Just one of the four planned witnesses for Tuesday testified that day. On Thursday, the hearing stopped early because another witness wasn’t available. The company’s witness testimony is expected to continue into next week.
Much of the testimony Wednesday and Thursday focused on financial aspects of the project, and some of the most important details — the contracts between Summit and ethanol plants — were discussed in private because they are subject to a protective order.
The first two weeks of the hearing featured some of the landowners who are subject to eminent domain requests because they declined to sign easement agreements. Those easements allow Summit to build its pipeline on property it doesn’t own.
Zenor recently noted that the number of land parcels for which it seeks eminent domain has declined to about 900. That is down from about 950 at the start of the hearing. Zenor said that decline is the result of landowners signing voluntary easements.
Most of the eminent domain requests are scheduled for consideration later in the hearing, which has the potential to extend for weeks or months.
An evidentiary hearing for Navigator has not been set. Iowa regulators plan to hold a scheduling conference Oct. 9 to help determine a start date.
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) -After the recent decisions by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to deny both the CO2 pipeline applications, some may be asking what’s next for CO2 capture.
Although both Navigator and Summit Carbon Solutions may re-apply for a CO2 pipeline in the state, the process could take time. Our I-team is looking at other alternatives that could remove CO2 to benefit ethanol plants without the use of a CO2 pipeline.
The recent PUC meetings reviewing CO2 pipelines captured the attention of landowners, those in the ethanol industry, and scientist Jeff Bonar, CEO of Cap CO2 Solutions.
“You know, I think the pipelines are starting to be exposed as other than a good financial engineering job,” said Bonar.
He developed a new way to allow ethanol plants to make money from the CO2 produced and help the environment. Bonar believes the answer is Green Methanol, used in the shipping industry.
“There are 40 ports around the world that are going to be putting green methanol refueling facilities. Disney Cruises has announced their next cruise ship will be a green methanol-fueled ship.
The process of converting the CO2 to green methanol can be done on-site at the plant, using electricity coming from an environmentally friendly source. The CO2 is electrically converted, cooled, and exits as non-compressed methanol, less flammable than ethanol.
“You have to supply electricity, more than the ethanol plant is using now. You have to supply the CO2, and you have to supply the railroad car to fill up as you’re making it,” added Bonar.
The green methanol could be delivered via rail to buyers on the Gulf Coast.
“You have an instant, very big market,” said Bonar. “So why are you throwing away the CO2 and burying it, leaving aside all the other problems of the pipelines? Why would you do that when you can add new revenue from the green methanol?”
Bonar believes the government’s 45Q financial incentives are the same as the CO2 pipelines. He’s also proud that the company is locally owned.
“No investors out of the country. And at this point, there’s no investors outside of the Midwest,” said Bonar.
Bonar is in conversations with local ethanol plants interested in signing up upon proving the process with his first client. Construction is underway for that first client in Illinois at Atkins Energy, an ethanol refinery.
Another CO2 capture option is already underway in Europe. The Biden administration injected $1.2 billion to launch two U.S. plants to remove CO2 from the air.
“We’re excited to build a U.S. direct air capture industry,” says Daniel Yawitz with the Department of Energy.
The first two plants in Louisiana and Texas, are part of a network of 21 Direct Air Capture plants to be built, many storing the captured CO2 on-site underground.
“It’s part of the regional direct air capture hubs program,” says Yawitz.
Without utilizing a CO2 pipeline, the first two plants can make a big difference in meeting environmental goals.
“Once they reach capacity at one million tons per year each, it would be the equivalent of taking one-half million cars off the road each year,” said Yawitz.
There are currently 18 Direct Air capture projects globally, but these would be the first two commercial-scale ones in the U.S.
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.
A new phase of Summit Carbon Solutions’ evidentiary hearing for its pipeline permit is poised to begin Tuesday.
The company plans to call its 15 witnesses to testify over the course of four days, according to the Iowa Utilities Board.
The hearing is a final component of the IUB’s process for weighing the company’s application for a hazardous liquid pipeline permit. Summit intends to construct more than 2,000 miles of pipe to transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five state to North Dakota for underground sequestration. More than 680 miles of the system would be in Iowa.
The hearing began Aug. 22, and its first two weeks featured testimony from some of the landowners who are subject to the company’s eminent domain requests to get land easements for the project.
There were a few landowners who had anticipated testifying in the past two weeks but were unable because of schedule conflicts, said Melissa Myers, an IUB spokesperson. They can testify later this month.
Witnesses testify about evidence the board will consider from the company and others as it weighs Summit’s permit request. They are subject to cross-examination.
The landowners who have already testified object to the project on numerous grounds. They are convinced construction of the pipeline will cause irreparable damage to their farmland. They worry about having to repay money they have received by setting aside the land for federal conservation programs, which require the land to go untouched. They are concerned about the wellbeing of people and livestock should the pipeline break and release carbon dioxide, which under certain circumstances and form a dense plume of gas that can asphyxiate them. Some have future commercial or residential projects that could be impeded by the project.
Most of them decry the use of eminent domain to get the easements, which would allow Summit to construct and operate the pipeline on property it doesn’t own. Opponents argue the project doesn’t fit an eminent domain requirement that it promotes “the public convenience and necessity” in the same way of a natural gas pipeline.
There are about 950 parcels of land in Iowa for which Summit seeks the forced easements.
The project hit a roadblock last month in North Dakota, where state regulators rejected its proposed route. The company has retooled its proposal to move the pipeline farther away from Bismarck and asked the North Dakota Public Service Commission to reconsider. A decision on the request is pending.
Summit has argued that its $5.5 billion pipeline system would be a boon to the ethanol industry, ensuring its long-term viability and increasing producers’ profits. That is also important for the income of farmers because the industry is a major market for them — more than half of Iowa’s corn is used to produce ethanol.
Ethanol producers who capture and sequester their carbon are eligible for generous federal tax credits, and they also have the ability to earn more money in low-carbon fuel markets. Summit has tentative profit-sharing agreements with 13 ethanol plants in Iowa.
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.
