We last posted about pipelines proposed for transporting CO2 captured from ethanol in Ethanol carbon capture pipeline digest: farmers, students, greenwashing, safety, law enforcement.
We're not the only ones skeptical about the Summit Carbon Solutions project.
On Thursday, Alexandra Hartle reported at the Aberdeen News in Landowners call for the dismissal of Summit Carbon Solutions permit application:
A group of landowners is calling for the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to dismiss Summit Carbon Solutions’ request to the Public Utilities Commission for an application extension.
Brian Jorde of Omaha-based Domina Law Group filed the motion on behalf of a group of South Dakota landowners opposing the pipeline. Summit Carbon Solutions, an Iowa-based company, applied for a permit to construct a multibillion-dollar carbon sequestration pipeline. The pipeline would connect several ethanol plants throughout the region as a way to reduce carbon emissions, allowing the ethanol plants to sell their product at a premium in states with low carbon fuel standards.
The PUC meets to discuss both motions on June 8.
The pipeline has been met with controversy, with many landowners along the route voicing concerns over the safety issues of the pipeline, as well as the potential damage the pipeline could cause to agricultural land.
Summit filed its initial application on Feb. 9. The PUC has one year from the date of the application to make a decision regarding the permit, but applicants are allowed to ask for more time.
In a motion filed May 9, Summit asked to extend the decision deadline to June 15, 2023. In that request is a timeline that would allow for the submission of an updated application, supporting testimony and route by Oct. 13, plus a variety of other procedural deadlines. . . .
But Jorde's motion, filed on May 17, disagrees with the proposed timeline and seeks a dismissal of the permit application or an alternately proposed timeline.
According to Jorde's motion, Summit has admitted to numerous application deficiencies, including various changes in the pipeline route. Additionally, Summit has admitted to the fact that 156 people were not notified of the fact that their land is along the pipeline route.
Kristen Edwards, staff attorney for the Public Utilities Commission, said she was unable to speak on behalf of the commissioners, but confirmed that all landowners within a half-mile of the permit must be notified within 30 days of the permit application. On March 11, Summit notified the PUC about the landowners that hadn't received notice, Edwards said, and also provided notice to the landowners.
Edwards also said minor route adjustments are not unusual because pipeline companies are expected to work with landowners along the route.
But Jorde said the application should be dismissed entirely because protocol hasn’t been completely followed, which would require Summit to submit a new application. And if the PUC isn’t on board with that, Jorde said the deadlines should at the least be altered in a way that is more fair to the landowners.
"What the PUC shouldn't allow is this musical chairs process where every day or every week we've got new people that are like, 'Wait now I'm potentially affected here?'" said Jorde. . . .
Read the story at the Aberdeen News for the details.
A friend forwarded a May 24 email from the Pipeline Fighters Hub, a project of the Bold Alliance, which revealed the Hastings, Nebraska's group's focus on following the money. From the email:
In case you missed it, here is a link to view the recording of last night's Pipeline Fighters Hub webinar: "Counties & States Can Regulate Pipelines."
The discussion included two elected county officials, from Iowa and South Dakota respectively, who have already worked in recent months with their fellow commissioners to consider and pass new ordinances that govern proposed carbon pipelines.
We encourage landowners and community members impacted by potential pipelines to share this webinar with their local elected county officials, to help inform and guide them with enacting protections for their communities.
Our next Pipeline Fighters Hub webinar will focus on two questions we've been hearing from landowners: "Understanding Pipeline Easements + Tax Issues." We'll first provide an in-depth examination of the "easement" contract, and then dig into the bewildering tax-related issues with pipelines -- from the taxes that pipeline companies pay to counties, to the tax incentives they get from states and the federal government -- like the "45Q" tax credit that is the lynchpin for the new wave of proposed carbon pipelines. Stay tuned for date and time!. . .
Our resident Pipeline Fighters Hub expert and attorney Paul Blackburn has published the first blog in a new series examining the "45Q tax credit" free-money-bonanza that this new wave of carbon pipeline projects are looking to cash in on:
No doubt, you’re all dying to meet the piggies who are lining up at the federal 45Q tax credit trough, and to learn how Congress is planning to slop their trough with billions in federal tax credits to help fatten them up (even more). Since the 45Q tax credit is perhaps the primary driving financial force behind the proposed carbon pipelines, it’s important to understand. Your tour will explore the tax credit farm in what I hope are a series of manageable blog posts, because it’s hard to endure the stench of the place. So, hold your nose and follow me!
Continue reading Paul B's latest blog: "Welcome to the 45Q Tax Credit Piggie Farm!"
Be sure to follow the Easement Action Team landowners' legal co-ops, which are continuing to sign up landowners and grow their numbers across Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska.
We've signed up to further educate ourselves about the group's take and action, wondering why we hadn't come across this group earlier.
Related posts:
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline digest: farmers, students, greenwashing, safety, law enforcement
- Public Utility Commission claims regulatory authority for carbon pipelines
- CO2 pipelines could affect the land, lives and livelihoods of South Dakota property owners
- SD News Watch: Proposed CO2 pipelines thrust SD into billion-dollar climate change debate
- About that permanent carbon storage by the Summit ethanol pipeline & Project Tundra
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: political power and big money edition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: trust & protest
- 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
Map: The proposed route of the 2,000-mile Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline that will carry pressurized carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to a sequestration site a mile underground in central North Dakota. About 470 miles of the pipeline would be located in South Dakota.
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