We last posted about Summit Carbon Solutions' plan for a sprawling ethanol CO2 project in Keloland: mostly negative public comments to SD Public Utilities Commission on CO2 pipeline.
There's more bad news for the project in the Forum News Service article Crowd at Sioux Falls meeting expresses skepticism about proposed carbon pipeline. Christopher Vondracek reports:
At one point on Wednesday, March 23, Jimmy Powell, the leader of a proposed carbon pipeline , held the microphone closely to his mouth so everyone in the packed hotel ballroom could hear him.
"Is this better?"
The ensuing applause was about the warmest reception he and leadership of Midwest Carbon Express Project would receive all night.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday held a public meeting about a proposed 2,000-mile pipeline that would, if approved, ferry carbon from more than 30 ethanol plants across the Upper Midwest to a sequestration dig in northwestern North Dakota.
But many of the hundreds who gathered had already made up their mind they were opposed to the project.
Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions have said in their 129-page permit application that the project would be the "largest and single most meaningful technology-based" clean energy carbon-reducer in the world.
But even those members of the public who said they'd considered the project with an open mind wcere, by Wednesday, now in opposition.
"I've evolved into not being in favor of this project," said Minnehaha County Commissioner Jeff Barth, who stepped up first to the temperamental microphone. . . .
Summit Carbon also says the pipeline will help over 30 ethanol plants from the Dakotas to Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois become carbon neutral. Environmentally, they suggest the pipeline is the equivalent of removing the emissions of 2.5 million cars from highways annually.
A growing body of research has darkened the cloud of ethanol's future. A new study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that ethanol is 24% more carbon-intensive than traditional gasoline, and Summit Carbon's representatives on Wednesday suggested sequestering the emissions kicked out by the corn-to-fuel plants could be necessary to maintain the industry's viability in the future. . . .
[Chris Hall, Summit Carbon's director of environmental and permitting,] said the carbon pipeline will help keep ethanol plants competitive, saying a "do nothing alternative" is not a viable solution for an industry that eats up over half of every bushel of corn grown in South Dakota.
But the public, many of whom have been contacted by the company as early as last August about a pipeline potentially running through their property, seemed skeptical that they'd receive a fair monetary value for their easement from the company. And they doubted the goals of the project. . . .
Oran Sorenson, of Garretson, South Dakota, said he suspected that Summit Carbon actually sought federal tax credits for carbon sequestration.
"I don't believe we should be altering our lifestyle even a little bit to line some people's pockets," Sorenson said to more applause.
The PUC has until February 2023 to accept or deny the pipeline application. State Treasurer Josh Haeder is sitting in for commissioner Kristie Fiegen who has recused herself.
If the PUC accepts the pipeline, eminent domain will become a legal tool for Summit Carbon to obtain land from unwilling property owners.
Powell, however, tried to assure the crowd they preferred what he termed "voluntary easement acquisition."
"We're striving for 100%," Powell said. "And that's a difficult chore because we know we're buying something that's not for sale."
Once again, the crowd and the pipeline company seemed on the same page.
According to our Twitter feed, Vondracek has just been hired as the Star Tribune's new agriculture reporter.
Down in Iowa, the project is also facing complications. On March 21, Donnelle Eller reported Iowa regulators want your opinions about where Summit pipeline hearing should be held:
This may be one of those situations with no right answer.
The Iowa Utilities Board wants Iowans' opinions about where it should hold a public hearing on Summit Carbon Solutions' request to build a $4.5 billion carbon capture pipeline.
State code requires the board to hold pipeline hearing in the county seat closest to the midpoint of the proposed route. The board said in an order Friday that the hearing's location should provide "all landowners an approximate equal opportunity to attend the hearing.”
But the Iowa midpoint of the proposed 680-mile Summit pipeline is difficult to determine, the board said, since it would have one primary line and several trunks crossing 29 counties in Iowa. . . .
The board, didn't indicate a county where it thought the hearing should be held, saying it wanted to hear arguments for a location.
Summit intends to capture carbon dioxide from ethanol, fertilizer and other industrial agricultural plants in Iowa and four other states, use pressure to liquefy it and then transport it through the pipeline to North Dakota, where it would be sequestered more than a mile underground.
The board plans to hold a hearing on the hearing location following its monthly meeting 9 a.m. April 12 in Des Moines. The board will accept comments online until March 31.
The Register's Ian Richardson reported on Friday, Iowa would delay eminent domain process for carbon pipelines until next year, under bill passed by House:
Companies requesting to use eminent domain for carbon sequestration pipeline projects couldn't receive a state hearing until early next year, under a bill that the Iowa House passed Thursday.
The legislation is an attempt to ease Iowa landowners' concerns about the potential use of eminent domain by companies that have proposed multiple major pipeline projects that would cut across the state. Supporters said the measure would encourage the negotiation of voluntary agreements between companies and landowners while the Legislature is not in session.
"A negotiation being had with the threat of eminent domain hanging over a landowner’s head is not a negotiation," Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, said from the House floor Thursday. "What this does is provide certainty for landowners while we’re gone, that the playing field for negotiations is fair." . . .
Read the whole hot mess at the Register.
Related posts:
- Keloland: mostly negative public comments to SD Public Utilities Commission on CO2 pipeline
- Strib: Ethanol's per-gallon carbon output shrinks, but greenhouse gas from plants remains high
- We agree: It's time to move on from ethanol
- Another IA newspaper editorial board questions ethanol industry, carbon capture pipelines
- Ethanol CCS pipeline update: Reuters & Agweek
- Not a lot of easements for Midwest carbon pipeline, but plenty of political connections
- 2 ethanol CO2 headlines that make us go hmmm
- CO2 pipelines: who wins & who loses?
- Coming soon from a cornfield near you: mammoth carbon capture pipeline system
- Mother Jones: USDA Secretary Vilsack’s son works for a controversial ethanol pipeline project
- Iowa county boards scorn construction of CO2 pipelines, use of eminent domain to build them
- Digest of news about carbon dioxide pipelines
Screengrab: The proposed Summit CO2 pipeline, which could capture CO2 from ethanol plants, such Granite Falls Energy LLC in Granite Falls, Minnesota, which would help reduce the ethanol plants' overall carbon footprint. West Central Tribune, via Summit CO2 project.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments