On Monday, Bluestem posted Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: action picking up on Summit Carbon Solutions.
Today, the evidentiary hearing for Summit Carbon Solutions conducted by the Iowa Utilities Board began in Fort Dodge.
In the morning op-ed pages of the Des Moines Register, Summit Carbon Solutions CEO Lee Blank started the day off on a cheerful note in Summit Carbon CEO: Our carbon capture investment is earning Iowans' support:
Today, the Iowa Utilities Board will start the hearing for Summit Carbon Solutions’ carbon capture project. My name is Lee Blank, and I am proud to be the CEO of Summit Carbon Solutions. I was raised on a 600-acre farm near Garner, Iowa, and this is a project I truly believe in. It’s been more than two years since this project was announced, and 18 months since we filed our application. During this time, there has been much public debate about carbon capture, including its economic impact, landowner support, and pipeline safety. Today, I want to clarify some facts.
First, a majority of affected landowners support our project. Currently, more than 72% of the proposed pipeline route and about 90% of the proposed carbon dioxide storage area have signed voluntary agreements. This equals 1,260 miles of pipeline, 100 miles more than the Dakota Access pipeline, and covers 135,000 acres of the storage site. Impacted landowners support this project. . . .
So how did things go down in Fort Dodge?
All I know is just what I read in the newspapers. Later that day in the Register, Lily Smith collected a photo gallery in Opponents of carbon pipeline protest Iowa hearing for Summit permit. The Register's Donelle Eller reported in Iowa regulators reject efforts to delay hearing for controversial carbon capture pipeline:
As a hearing got underway here Tuesday on Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed $5.5 billion carbon capture pipeline across Iowa, state regulators denied efforts to postpone the proceedings, citing in part the time and effort spent on preparations.
Erik Helland, chairman of the Iowa Utilities Board, said putting off the hearing on Summit’s request for a permit to build the hazardous liquid pipeline would “adversely impact” a large number of people who have planned their schedules around the hearing, which is expected to last for months.
“Parties have experienced untold costs in anticipation of the hearing,” Helland said, adding that the board “alone has spent half a million dollars to date.” The costs to the state, which include having more than a dozen engineers review the pipeline route, will be recouped from Summit, a utilities board attorney said.
The Sierra Club Iowa Chapter was among organizations seeking a delay in the hearing after North Dakota regulators earlier this month denied Summit a permit for the portion of the pipeline crossing that state. The pipeline would carry liquefied carbon dioxide from ethanol and other industrial agriculture plants in Iowa and four other states, and the North Dakota permit is a key part of the plan because that's where the greenhouse gas would be sequestered deep underground.
Summit last week reapplied for the permit, saying it had made changes in the route in response to criticism from the North Dakota Public Service Commission that it had failed to adequately address property owner and geological issues.
The denial of the North Dakota permit is just one of many controversies surrounding the pipeline plan. Outside Fort Dodge's Cardiff Event Center on Tuesday, about 200 pipeline opponents showed up wearing red shirts to express their concerns about the pipeline's safety and potential damage to farmland that the 700-mile Iowa segment would cross. Above all, they object to Summit's request that the utilities board allow it to use eminent domain to force unwilling landowners to sell it access to their property. . . .
Read the entire story at the Register.
At the Iowa Capital Dispatch, Jared Strong reported in Summit attorney expects pipeline hearing to last six weeks:
A hearing that started Tuesday to determine whether Summit Carbon Solutions should get a permit to build a sprawling carbon dioxide pipeline in Iowa will last about six weeks, according to the company’s lead attorney.
That is significantly shorter than what was envisioned by the Iowa Utilities Board staff early this year. In February — while the board was contemplating an October start to Summit’s evidentiary hearing — a proposed schedule tentatively predicted that the hearing would last more than two months and perhaps end sometime in January 2024.
At the time, board members acknowledged that it could go longer.
The length of the hearing is largely dependent on how long it takes to consider the company’s requests for eminent domain.
There are about 950 parcels subject to Summit’s requests, and company attorney Bret Dublinske sought Tuesday to limit questioning of eminent domain witnesses. . . .
The hearing begins
Helland banged a gavel at 10 a.m. to start Summit’s hearing on Tuesday in Fort Dodge.
He gave a general overview of the project and some basic information about how to participate and spectate: Those who are participating in the hearing — known as intervenors — can tilt their name placards on their sides if they want to speak. Also, the bathrooms are in the back.
More than 150 people came to watch, and most wore red — a color that pipeline opponents have used to signify their unified opposition.
“It is very much like a trial being held by a judge in district court, although there is no jury,” Helland said, describing how the hearing would flow.
The board then ruled on two pending motions that sought to delay the start of the hearing. Both were denied.
One motion by the Sierra Club of Iowa said the hearing should be paused because of a recent decision in North Dakota in which state regulators denied a route permit for Summit.
The company has since modified its proposed route and has asked the North Dakota Public Service Commission to reconsider. That state is the destination of captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants that would connect to Summit’s pipeline system.
Helland said North Dakota’s process doesn’t affect Iowa’s.
The other request to pause the evidentiary hearing pertained to a pending court challenge by landowner George Cummins, who argues that the IUB doesn’t have jurisdiction over Summit’s project.
Cummins asserts that because the carbon dioxide will be transported in a “supercritical fluid” state, it is not a liquid is not regulated by Iowa’s hazardous liquid pipeline permit process.
The IUB rejected the argument, but Cummins appealed to district court, where it is pending.
Helland said that appeal is likely to fail, and the board rejected his motion to stay the proceedings.
He said it is important to hold the hearing early enough to avoid harvest and noted that Summit has already spent several hundred thousand dollars preparing for the hearing.
The first three witnesses
The hearing began in earnest with afternoon testimony from three farmers whose land is affected by Summit’s project, which would span more than 680 miles in Iowa.
Summit wants to use eminent domain to gain land easements for the ten parcels that were considered Tuesday afternoon. There are a total of about 950 parcels that will be considered during the hearing.
Typically, those discussions occur toward the end of the hearing, after a company has made its case for a project. For this hearing, part of the eminent domain requests were moved to the start.
As of Tuesday, there were a total of 44 people who will testify about their land, said Melissa Myers, an IUB spokesperson.
The amount of time each person testifies depends on how many of their parcels are affected, what special considerations their land might have, and on their verbosity.
Jessica Marson, of Floyd County, answered questions about one land parcel, and her testimony went on for about an hour. She attended remotely via an online video conference.
Marcia Langner, of Clay County, had seven parcels. Her in-person testimony took more than 90 minutes.
The last witness, Nelva Huitink of Sioux County, had two parcels that were discussed for about an hour.
They shared concerns about damage to land, damage to their underground drain tiling, and threats to the safety of their livestock and themselves.
Langner, when asked how she would cope with a pipeline leak that killed her cattle, said: “I hate to even think about it. It would be devastating.”
A pipeline break could produce a dense plume of carbon dioxide gas that, under certain circumstances, can travel long distances and threaten to asphyxiate people and livestock. A request for Summit to reveal its safety models that attempt to predict where those plumes might go is pending with the board.
“There’s a lot of risk and a lot of ambiguity,” Marson said. “We are concerned about our safety. We are concerned about our community.”
As planned, the testimony of all three completed Monday, but there was some early disagreement about how much latitude the intervenors have for their questions.
Dublinske sought to limit the so-called “friendly” cross examination of witnesses and to disallow new follow-up inquiries by intervenors after they have had their time to question a witness.
He had a protracted dispute with Brian Jorde, an Omaha attorney who is representing dozens of landowners, over whether Jorde could ask a follow-up question that didn’t fit with standard board protocol.
Jorde noted the lack of precedent for considering eminent domain requests at the start of the hearing and the lack of a schedule for witnesses who must travel long distances to testify, including those who live outside of Iowa: “We’re way beyond the way it always happens,” Jorde said.
The exchange went on for about 10 minutes until Dublinske stopped objecting to the question, and Jorde’s inquiry was finished shortly thereafter.
The hearing ended at about 5 p.m. Tuesday and will resume about 8:30 a.m. Wednesday. There are 10 witnesses scheduled to speak that day, and the testimony is expected to continue until all have finished.
For the foreseeable future, the hearing will resume on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. The Cardiff Event Center, where the hearing is being held, hosts weekend events.
At the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Erin Jordan reported in Landowners share frustrations, fears at Summit pipeline hearing:
Three Iowa landowners — all women — testified Tuesday about their fears and frustrations about a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline being built by their homes, crops and dairy cows.
“We’re challenged in understanding how a carbon pipeline — to nowhere now — has the ability to meet the common good,” said Jessica Marson, of Rockford in Floyd County.
The proposed Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 underground pipeline would cut through 80 acres of Marson’s land, which she said is prime ground yielding of up to 250 bushels of corn per acre. She’s concerned the pipeline would disrupt underground drainage tiles and put her family at risk if the pressurized pipeline ruptures.
Marson, who answered questions for an hour, was the first of dozens of landowners expected to testify during a multiweek evidentiary hearing over Summit’s permit application with the Iowa Utilities Board. The hearing at the Cardiff Event Center in Fort Dodge drew a full house, with some people turned away at the door.
Summit wants to build a 2,000-mile pipeline, with nearly 700 miles of it in Iowa, to transport carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to underground sequestration sites in North Dakota. Marson’s “nowhere” comment referred to North Dakota regulators denying Summit’s first permit attempt earlier this month. The company submitted a new application this week.
Summit has asked the Iowa Utilities Board to grant it eminent domain power so the company may force easements on 973 properties in the state where landowners have not voluntarily agreed to sell access. Summit is one of three companies proposing CO2 pipelines through Iowa and the first to apply for a permit.
Nelva Huitink, of Hospers in Sioux County, said her view on underground pipelines has been soured by their experiences signing an easement for the Dakota Access pipeline, which transports crude oil from North Dakota across Iowa to Illinois. Last month, Huitink was helping chop alfalfa when the tractor she was driving drove over a new sinkhole along the Dakota Access route on their farm, she said.
“Once you dig a hole in the ground, the soil is going to react differently,” she said. “Would we like to be consulted? Yes. But every time with Dakota Access we would have to talk with a different person. With Summit right now we’ve had four different land agents. We always have to start over from square one.”
“It sounds like deja vu this time around,” said Brian Jorde, an attorney representing another landowner opposed to the project. . . .
There's more at the Gazette. At Siouxland Proud, Roger Rily reported in Iowa landowners protest Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline at IUB hearing:
The Iowa Utilities Board began a public evidentiary hearing regarding the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline on Tuesday.
The morning session revolved around procedural motions with the dozens of people who wish to testify. A number of people attended who were in opposition to the project, while there were also some who are in favor of the carbon capture pipeline.
The project would take raw carbon, removed from bio-renewable fuels, and pipe the substance to underground storage in North Dakota. The measure is being promoted as a way to open new markets for Iowa corn and ethanol producers.
“Our association represents Iowa’s ethanol and bio-diesel producers, our fundamental point is that we want everybody to come together and find an equitable path forward for these projects,” said Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. “The future of our industry is providing low-carbon solutions in our markets, so our companies are trying to align themselves with their market demand.”
The audience was filled with people wearing red shirts in opposition to the pipeline. That included Bonnie Ewoldt, who owns land in Crawford County where the pipeline is proposed to run
“My main concern is that it is a violation of our constitutional rights to protection of private property,” said Ewoldt. “They are taking the eminent domain for a private entities, taking it and using eminent domain for profit for no public use.”
The board early this afternoon heard from a landowner in north central Iowa who expressed concern over lack of information about the pipeline, and a mystery of who are the people behind the project.
Marcia Langner farms with her family in Clay County near Ayrshire. She expressed concerns over Summit survey crews scaring her livestock. She also was opposed to the project being forced on landowners.
“Eminent domain is intended for government projects that are undeniably for the public good,” said Langner. “Eminent domain should not apply to projects being for private entities.”
The hearing is expected to last several weeks. To learn more about the hearing visit the Iowa Utilities Board’s website.
At Iowa News Now, Valeree Dunn reported in Pipeline opponents frustrated with Iowa Utilities Board, claim Summit hearing is 'shrouded in secrecy':
Tuesday marked the first day of the Iowa Utilities Board's (IUB) hearing on whether to approve or deny Summit Carbon Solutions' $5.5 billion carbon pipeline plan.
Throughout the hearings, IUB will be hearing from landowners, Summit, ethanol companies, the Iowa Farm Bureau, and the Sierra Club, along with county leaders and other interested parties.
The hearing could last weeks, and many landowners aren't happy with the process or the plans.
Opponents of the project have accused the IUB of trying to fast-track the pipeline, after urging the board to reschedule the hearing for next year, so the process wouldn't interrupt farmers tending their crops. . . .
We Are Iowa's Anna Kutz and Meghan Macpherson reported in Iowa Utilities Board holds first public hearing on Summit pipeline application:
. . .Proponents of carbon capture technology hail the process as a climate change combatant with backing from the Biden administration.
But public reception to the technology has been varied, with landowners, farmers, environmental activists and more opposing the project publicly, typically citing land ownership and environmental concerns as potential qualms.
Jessica Marson, a fourth-generation land owner with 80 acres of cropland, told the board she feared the pipeline could rupture.
"At this point, there is nowhere for this pipeline to go," Marson said. "Pause the threat of eminent domain and provide the citizens in Iowa, and the land owners of Iowa, the necessary safety releases to understand what you're asking."
“We are concerned about our safety. We are concerned about our community," she added.
Clay County land owner Marcia Langner also testified before the board, citing her concern for the livestock and wetlands on her property.
“Keeping the land intact without private entities encroaching on it is a fundamental desire and right,” Langner said.
Proponents of carbon capture technology hail the process as a climate change combatant with backing from the Biden administration.
But public reception to the technology has been varied, with landowners, farmers, environmental activists and more opposing the project publicly, typically citing land ownership and environmental concerns as potential qualms.
Jessica Marson, a fourth-generation land owner with 80 acres of cropland, told the board she feared the pipeline could rupture.
"At this point, there is nowhere for this pipeline to go," Marson said. "Pause the threat of eminent domain and provide the citizens in Iowa, and the land owners of Iowa, the necessary safety releases to understand what you're asking."
“We are concerned about our safety. We are concerned about our community," she added.
Clay County land owner Marcia Langner also testified before the board, citing her concern for the livestock and wetlands on her property.
“Keeping the land intact without private entities encroaching on it is a fundamental desire and right,” Langner said. . . .
AgWeek's Jeff Beach observed in Eminent domain arises quickly in Summit Carbon Solutions hearing in Iowa:
The Iowa Utilities Board got right to the question of eminent domain as it considers the controversial carbon pipeline project from Summit Carbon Solutions.
Property owners who have refused to sign a voluntary easement were on the witness stand on Tuesday, Aug. 22, the first day of what will likely be a months-long trial-like hearing on Summit’s pipeline application.
Marcia Langner who lives in Clay County near Ayrshire, Iowa, testified that Summit representatives “harassed” her 93-year-old mother and went back on promises to notify them when surveyors would be on their property. . . .
Other than that, Iowans appear to be in complete agreement with the CEO of Summit Carbon Solutions about loving on Summit Carbon Solutins. We'll be keeping a eye on how powerful the force of regulatory capture is in this one.
Photo: Landowners hold signs during an opposition press conference in Fort Dodge, Iowa, on Tuesday. Lily Smith, The Des Moines Register.
Related posts
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: action picking up on Summit Carbon Solutions
- After North Dakota's pipeline permit application denial, Summit Carbon Solutions asks again
- Iowa administrative judge: Summit should reveal communities threatened by pipeline leaks
- South Dakota PUC expresses concerns as Navigator CO2 carbon pipeline hearing ends
- ND Public Service Commission denies Summit Carbon Solutions permit for ethanol carbon pipeline
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest, SD edition
- Thanks to federal tax credits, it’s boom time in the Midwest for carbon dioxide pipelines
- South Dakota Governor Noem is investor in ethanol plant partnered with carbon pipeline firm
- Commentary: Governor Noem’s actions speak louder than words on eminent domain
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
- South Dakota Searchlight: Environmental groups seek Biden moratorium on ethanol CO2 pipelines
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Landowner battles against ethanol CO2 pipelines vary by state
- Ethanol CO2 pipeline news digest: PUC hearings in Minnesota; South Dakota lawsuits; IA setbacks
- CURE files appeal with MN PUC on Summit Carbon pipeline environmental review
- News digest: South Dakota and Minnesota PUCs deal with Summit carbon pipeline issues
- 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
The Iowa Capital Dispatch articles is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
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