Plans for parts of South Dakota and Minnesota projects in one network of ethanol carbon pipelines in were on the agenda this past week for the Public Utilities Commissions in both states.
South Dakota PUC
Reporting for the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Dominik Dausch reports in PUC moves Summit Carbon pipeline hearing to September:
In a setback to Summit Carbon Solutions, an energy company on a tight schedule to build a $4.5 billion liquid carbon dioxide pipeline, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday at the request of affected landowners to move a April-May evidentiary hearing to September during a meeting in Pierre.
The PUC's 3-0 vote in favor of the landowners comes to the disappointment of Summit, as it would ultimately delay the time frame for the company to receive a permit to start construction on the project, according to the company. The pipeline would allow the company and partnered ethanol plants to benefit from federal tax credits outlined within the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy provisions, but only if construction begins prior to a Jan. 1, 2025 deadline. . . .
Landowners opposed to the project, like Ed Fischbach of Spink County, are praising the outcome, since the initial hearing date would have made it difficult for them to attend the April-May hearings.
"We were very pleased with what the PUC did today. I think they understood that the facts of the issue, on our side, made sense to them," Fischbach told The Argus Leader on Thursday. "At the same time, we feel it's a pretty sad day in our state when the ethanol CEOs side with Summit by insisting the permit hearings occur [in spring], when they know full well the farmers will be out planting."
Chairman Nelson, prior to the motion to move the hearing's date, noted, "This is a big deal. Big deal for the applicant, big deal for the affected landowners."
On the same day as South Dakota regulators met with Summit, Minnesota PUC voted 5-0 to accept the carbon company's permit application on Thursday, according to Minnesota Public Radio, which initiates the permitting process in the state. However, the commission ordered the company to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, the most comprehensive method of reviewing environmental consequences under Minnesota state law. . . .
Read about Summit's response at the Argus Leader.
Minnesota PUC
As the Argus Leader noted, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission delivered a mixed response to ethanol carbon pipelines in the North Star state.
Ag Week's Jeff Beach reports in Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to require environmental impact statement on Summit Carbon pipeline:
In a compromise, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will require Summit Carbon Solutions to prepare a full environmental impact statement as part of the first ever carbon capture pipeline project in the state.
But the environmental impact statement will only be for a short portion of the pipeline project, about 28 miles in northwest Minnesota and will exclude the portion planned for west-central and southern Minnesota.
The scope of environmental review was one of the first key questions before the PUC on Thursday, Jan. 5, as it considers the permit application from Summit.
Summit so far has only filed a permit application in Otter Tail and Wilken counties to connect the Green Plains ethanol plant at Fergus Falls to a larger network of carbon capture pipelines, about 2,000 miles in five states. Summit’s plan is to gather greenhouse gases from ethanol plants and store the liquid carbon dioxide underground in western North Dakota.
Summit officials say the project will benefit ethanol plants and the corn industry, allowing the plants to sell low-carbon ethanol in states with a clean fuel standard, such as California. Summit would be able to benefit from federal tax credits for carbon storage.
Summit plans another five plants in west-central and southern Minnesota, but those plants will need to be part of a separate permit application.
The Minnesota environmental group CURE — Clean Up the River Environment — had petitioned the PUC that all of the planned Summit pipeline in Minnesota be included in the same environmental review.
Summit argued that an environmental impact statement wasn’t necessary to meet the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and a different environment review spelled out for pipeline cases would be sufficient. . . .
Meanwhile, attorney Christina Brusven, representing Summit Carbon Solutions, told commissioners that the company was eyeing the first quarter of 2024 to start construction.
The company had previously said it planned to start construction on the $4.5 billion project in 2023 and be operational in 2024.
Summit has yet to acquire pipeline route permits in any of the five states on the route – Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Ag Week is part of the Forum Communications news network.
Reporting for Minnesota Public Radio (MPR), Hannah Yang reports in PUC requires environmental review for first proposed carbon pipeline in Minnesota:
Members of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 to formally accept Summit Carbon Solution’s route permit application for what could be Minnesota’s first carbon capture pipeline. But even as the PUC launched the permitting process it also ordered an environmental review of the project.
Summit Carbon Solutions filed for a permit in September for a liquid carbon dioxide pipeline stretching 28 miles from Green Plains Ethanol Plant near Fergus Falls to Breckenridge and then into North Dakota. It’s part of a $4.5 billion project collecting carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants in Minnesota and neighboring states, then storing the greenhouse gas deep underground in North Dakota.
Accepting the application as complete starts the permitting process and allows more chances for public engagement. The commission ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is the state’s most comprehensive form of environmental review.
The decision follows months of pressure from landowners, tribal representatives, labor organizations and other stakeholders asking for a more robust environmental analysis of the project’s impacts to water sources, farmland and neighboring communities. . . .
Representatives from groups concerned about the project including Clean Up the River Environment (CURE) and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) welcomed the PUC’s order for an EIS.
“I think the PUC made the right decision, and we think it’s the only legal thing they could have done,” said PEER staff attorney Hudson Kingston. “So, they made a very good move in ordering an [environmental impact study]. That is going to allow people, the public to participate, to understand about these projects and to get their input in the record.”
Sarah Mooradian, CURE’s government relations and policy director expressed disappointment that the commission denied the citizen’s petition calling for a review of the entire project proposal. However, she says the commission could expand the scope of the environmental study. . . .
Check out the entire article at MPR.
At the Star Tribune, Mike Hughlett reported in Minnesota regulators vote to require environmental impact statement for CO2 pipeline:
Minnesota utility regulators on Thursday ruled that a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline should undergo the most thorough environmental review available under state law.
Some sort of environmental review of Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline is required. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 for an environmental impact statement (EIS), which was favored by environmental groups.
An EIS is commonly done on large controversial projects like mines and oil pipelines.
Christina Brusven, an attorney representing Summit, said at the PUC's Thursday meeting that an alternative to an EIS — a comparative environmental analysis (CEA) — would be just as "robust" and would take less time.
PUC Chair Katie Sieben questioned whether an EIS would take longer, and said that if it did: "Taking longer to make sure we get it right, isn't that in everybody's best interest? We have certainly heard a lot of concerns about CO2 pipelines." . . .
Summit plans to file other route permit applications for sections of the pipeline in Minnesota, not for the project as whole. Its first application covers a 4.5-inch diameter pipe that would run from Green Plains' ethanol plant near Fergus Falls, Minn., to the North Dakota border south of Breckenridge, Minn.
Environmental reviews must be done on each section. "It would make more sense to do one EIS for all of the segments," said Amelia Vohs, an attorney representing the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and the Sierra Club in the Summit pipeline proceeding.
Still, she said in an interview that she hoped the PUC's decision Thursday would set a precedent for the other sections.
Ethanol plants are significant CO2 emitters, and carbon capture has become an increasingly popular — though often controversial — concept in recent years. It's aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the root of climate change.
But opponents of carbon capture say it promotes the continued use of fossil fuels, and if CO2 pipelines rupture. they pose threats to rivers, lakes and groundwater — as well as human health.
Summit Carbon Solutions argued that under state law, the PUC should order a CEA rather than an EIS. The Minnesota Department of Commerce, which advises the PUC, suggested modifications to the CEA process to ensure that it would address substantially the same issues as an EIS.
But Vohs, the environmental attorney, told the PUC that even with the Commerce Department's suggestions, a CEA would not be not as complete as an EIS.
Summit has faced fierce opposition in some other states over procuring land for its pipeline under eminent domain. The company does not have eminent domain power in Minnesota.
We'll continue to post about ethanol carbon pipeline projects.
Related posts
- In Iowa, ethanol carbon pipeline opponents want pause until new safety regulations are ready
- Summit Carbon Solutions files permit for risky CO2 pipeline in Otter Tail and Wilkin Counties
- Will ethanol carbon capture pipelines fracture brittle unity of South Dakota Republicans?
- South Dakotans & others get fantods over Summit Carbon Solutions' sketchy 10% owner
- Matt Birk loves the ethanol carbon dioxide pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: from the Guardian to the Aberdeen American News
- Navigator CO2, POET sign letter of intent for carbon capture, utilization, and storage service
- Carbon capture pipeline blues: SD landowners call for dismissal of pipeline permit application
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Group seeks end of ethanol carbon pipeline ‘harassment’
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline digest: farmers, students, greenwashing, safety, law enforcement
- Storm Lake Time Pilot's Art Cullen: Ripping up CRP is a terrible signal for the planet
- Minnesota 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 pipeline
Map: from Summit Carbon Solutions, via Argus Leader.
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