We last posted about pipelines proposed across the upper Midwest to transport carbon from ethanol plants to North Dakota in South Dakotans, Iowans don't hug CO2 pipeline.
Reading around, we're still finding skepticism in corn country for this one.
Iowa
Just today, the Sunday editorial in the Des Moines Register seems overcast. In Editorial: Carbon pipelines have a long way to go to earn Iowans' trust, we read:
Three companies propose burying carbon dioxide pipelines underneath hundreds of miles of Iowa soil in order to keep planet-warming gas from entering the atmosphere. It's tempting to judge their plans solely on some prominent red flags:
- Bruce Rastetter, the Iowa agriculture magnate whose company is planning the furthest along of the projects, is quite open about his intent to help secure longer-lasting relevance for biofuels — when instead we should be working on what comes after ethanol.
- The cheerleaders for these plans include former Gov. Terry Branstad, Gov. Kim Reynolds and Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig, three elected officials with abysmal records on water quality. Their hollow assurances about water inspire no confidence that mitigation of global warming is anywhere near top of mind. Too much of the advocacy for the pipelines has zeroed in on profitability.
- Iowa is only about six years removed from bitter clashes over an oil pipeline that secured permission to knife through the state, and now familiar battles over public use and eminent domain are surfacing.
Many environmental activists oppose the carbon pipelines, whose business model at the outset rests heavily on generous federal tax credits. Spending tens of billions of dollars on climate mitigation is a great idea, groups such as Food and Water Watch argue, but why not put that sort of money toward a quicker pivot away from fossil fuels? Why invest in catching dangerous emissions when that helps perpetuate the creation of those emissions? Or participate in carbon offset markets where fuzzy accounting can mean illusory achievements? Why not focus on a wholesale rethinking of animal and plant agriculture? . . .
Even without broaching the subject of the pipeline companies' negotiations with the property owners whose land they need, it's not a slam dunk that the pipelines would benefit the average person.
The red flags are substantial, but they are not the end of the story. Carbon sequestration has real-world virtues, not least of which is that the technology to do it on a non-trivial scale already exists. Iowa's geology is not suitable for sequestration, which is why carbon captured at our biofuels plants would have to be piped out of state. John Thompson, technology and markets director for the Clean Air Task Force, told this editorial writer that the amount of carbon dioxide emissions the pipelines could eventually displace in one year is comparable to the amount of CO2 emissions from coal that Iowa's solar and wind energy production has averted in a three-year period. . . .
The latest United Nations climate report, issued last week, warns that dramatic, immediate mitigation measures are required to avert an "unlivable world."
The decision on whether and how these pipelines will move forward rests with the Iowa Utilities Board and, in all likelihood, the courts and their interpretation of eminent domain law. The Iowa Constitution allows private land to be taken by eminent domain "for public use." Another law says that for the utilities board to grant approval for a hazardous pipeline, it must "promote the public convenience and necessity."
. . .If companies want buy-in from Iowans along with government approval of their projects, they should concentrate on proving that the pipelines can indeed be an effective tool in saving the planet from catastrophic warming — truly a public "necessity."
To meet that high standard and earn Iowans' trust, the entrepreneurs behind the projects must do much more in coming months to support and publicize independent assessments of the technology, its financing and its effectiveness. And Iowa's regulators and lawmakers must insist on it.
On Sunday at the Cedar Rapids Gazette, James Q. Lynch reports in Democratic Senate hopefuls voice qualms over Iowa CO2 pipelines:
Democratic U.S. Senate hopefuls say they have reservations about the use of eminent domain to help route underground carbon dioxide pipelines across Iowa, as well as doubts whether the proposed projects make economic and environmental sense for the state.
The candidates — former U.S. Rep. Abby Finkenauer of Cedar Rapids, retired Admiral Michael Franken of Sioux City and physician Glenn Hurst of Minden — agree that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is important, but question proposals to move the greenhouse gas through pipelines from Iowa ethanol plants to sequestration sites in other states.
“The science is poor,” Hurst said during an April 4 virtual forum with the Iowa Democratic Party Rural Caucus. “As a matter of fact, it might actually add greenhouse gases with the effort to build the pipeline and move the CO2.”
The issue of using pipelines to move CO2 is “thoroughly flawed from top to bottom,” Hurst added.
The candidates are competing in the June 7 primary election for the Democratic nomination for the seat held by Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley in the November elections. Republican voters are suing in Polk County District Court over a decision to allow Finkenauer on the ballot, arguing that some signatures required for her to be on it are not valid. A judge had not ruled in the case by Saturday morning. On the GOP side, Grassley also faces a primary against state Sen. Jim Carlin of Sioux City.
Eminent domain — the power of the government to take private land for public use or benefit — is a flashpoint in proposals by three companies to build pipelines across the state to move CO2. So far, only one of the pipeline developers, Summit Carbon Solutions of Iowa, has filed an application with the Iowa Utilities Board and is asking for permission to use eminent domain, but said it is uncertain it will be needed. . . .
Supporters argue the pipelines are vital to Iowa’s ethanol industry, which produces CO2. While there is a future for ethanol, Franken believes it “includes carbon extraction, not running pipelines.”
Franken supported an amendment filed in the Iowa House that would delay regulatory hearings on the use of eminent domain until after Feb. 1, 2023.
Capturing CO2 is important in addressing climate change, Finkenauer said, “but the way that this is impacting Iowans across the state, and very specifically in rural America and rural Iowa, in particular, is very, very concerning.”
As opposed to Grassley, who listens to “high-paid lobbyists to tell him what to think and what to say and what to support and what not to,” Finkenauer said, she wants to hear from Iowans who will be impacted by pipeline construction.
“That's not how this legislation or any decisions should be made on it,” she said.
The decision whether to allow private pipeline companies to use eminent domain is an issue for state government, not Congress, according to Grassley. He has voiced support for carbon sequestration as “one of the ways to hit at global warming.”
In an October interview with the Mason City Globe-Gazette, Grassley said he assumes moving it underground is safer than above ground by truck or train.
“Whether it’s done by a pipeline, it's collected and stored someplace or whether it's done by carbon sequestration by farmers farming according to where you can sequester the most carbon, all of those things are justified under global warming,” Grassley said.
Last week, Donnelle Eller reported for the Des Moines Register in Advocacy group estimates carbon capture pipelines crossing Iowa will get $23 billion at public expense:
Three proposed carbon capture pipelines in Iowa could receive $23 billion in federal tax credits over a dozen years, a national environmental group estimates, while local communities are left to "foot the bill should anything go wrong."
“Carbon capture and its associated pipelines are designed to funnel wealth from communities to corporations," Emma Schmit, an organizer for advocacy group Food & Water Watch in Iowa, said in a statement. "But Iowans see these schemes for what they are — greenwashing and corporate profiteering at our expense."
Summit Carbon Solution, Navigator CO2 Ventures and Archer-Daniels-Midland have proposed building underground pipelines to capture carbon dioxide from ethanol plants, liquefy it under pressure, then transport it to locations in North Dakota and Illinois, where it would be sequestered a mile underground.
The companies say the projects will help ethanol and other energy-intensive agricultural industries remain viable as the nation seeks to cut net greenhouse emissions in half by 2030 to address climate change.
Countries will not get to their climate change goals "without carbon management technologies," said Madelyn Morrison, a spokeswoman for the Carbon Capture Coalition, a group that includes utilities, coal producers and other industries, as well as some environmental groups and unions.
But other environmental groups, including Food & Water Watch, say early carbon capture projects have failed to deliver significant climate benefits, and that any leak from a pipeline could pose a safety threat. High carbon dioxide concentrations can cause illness and asphyxiation.
The groups say the federal carbon capture tax incentives should be spent on development of wind, solar and other non-carbon energy sources. . . .
Read the rest at the Register. On April 4, National Public Radio reported These companies say their carbon pipelines would curb climate change. Farmers object. Listen:
North Dakota
At Fargo's KFGO, Tasha Carvell reported on April 7 in Landowners organizing around carbon pipeline concerns:
Area landowners gathered in Casselton Thursday night to learn more about the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, a 2,000-mile proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that would cut through much of the upper Midwest, including North and South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The meeting was the latest in a series of informational sessions the Dakota Resource Council has been hosting around the state. Organizers say they have a number of safety concerns about the project, which would be by far the largest of its kind in the U.S.
A coalition of concerned landowners on the proposed route say Summit is poised to make up to $1 billion annually off the project once it’s complete, while landowners are being asked to sign easements for a 99-year lease for a one time payment in order to allow the pipeline to travel through their land without any assurances of indemnification.
They want the ability to negotiate for better easement terms. Todd McMichael, a spokesperson for the coalition, says they want some assurances from Governor Doug Burgum that they will have that option, calling on Burgum to reiterate his earlier statements that eminent domain cannot be used for the Summit project.
Burgum has been major proponent of the pipeline. Last year he called for North Dakota to become carbon neutral by 2030, and Summit project is a critical step toward achieving that goal.
South Dakota
In the Aberdeen American News, Elisa Sand reported on April 6 in Brown County seeks party status for Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline application:
Brown County has joined a long list of people and communities who have applied for party status in connection to the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline application with the Public Utilities Commission.
County commissioners unanimously approved the motion Tuesday at the board's regular meeting, after once again hearing multiple comments from residents who are opposed to the project. Friday is the deadline to be added as a party.
Commissioners join Edmunds, Spink and Hand counties, each of which have already submitted applications for party status, as well as McPherson County, which also approved a motion to file for party status on Tuesday, according to McPherson County Auditor Lindley Howard. The city of Leola has also applied for party status. All of those applications are pending approval by the PUC.
Party status gives people and government entities more say in the permitting process though testimony and depositions.
The 2,000-mile pipeline would pump liquefied carbon dioxide from 31 ethanol plants in South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska so it could be stored a mile underground in western North Dakota.
In all, 469 miles of the pipeline route would go through South Dakota and 29 miles of pipeline are planned in Brown County. The current route runs through Beadle, Brown, Clark, Codington, Edmunds, Hamlin, Hand, Hyde, Kingsbury, Lake, Lincoln, McCook, McPherson, Minnehaha, Miner, Spink, Sully and Turner counties.
Residents expressed a variety of concerns. Former Emergency Management Director Freddie Robinson asked commissioners how emergency responders are expected to prepare for the potential of a line break, when that break will release a cloud of gas that could kill people and animals in the immediate area.
Others expressed concern about:
- The potential for contamination of the Missouri River, which is the source of water for WEB water.
- That approval of this project through the Public Utilities Commission will give Summit Carbon Solutions, a private, for-profit company, the ability to seize land through eminent domain.
- That cutting through farmland for the construction of this pipeline will cause permanent damage to cropland.
More:Brown County officials question Summit Carbon Solutions representatives during commission meeting
While commissioners approved the motion, it wasn't without caution.
Deputy State's Attorney Ross Aldentaler said this action commits Brown County to devoting resources and allows the county to state its concerns, but the county also has limited power, which means the county doesn't have a say about whether eminent domain can be used, nor can the state's attorney provide legal services about eminent domain.
To intervene, he said, the county has to have an interest that isn't adequately protected. . . .
In approving the request for party status, commissioners also signed a letter outlining the commission concerns and requesting the PUC not to grant the permit.
Check out the entire article at the News.
Related posts:
- South Dakotans, Iowans don't hug CO2 pipeline
- 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
Photo: More than 100 farmers gathered in the rotunda of the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines to protest three carbon pipelines proposed in Iowa. Clay Masters/Iowa Public Radio.
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 sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments