An interesting development in the ethanol carbon pipeline sage, from the Iowa Capital Dispatch. The ruling by comes less than two weeks since the ND Public Service Commission denied Summit Carbon Solutions permit for ethanol carbon pipeline.
The Dispatch's report comes one day after it reported Pipeline opponents seek procedural halt in Iowa after North Dakota decision.
From Iowa Capital Dispatch:
Judge: Summit should reveal communities threatened by pipeline leaks
Jared StrongAn administrative law judge has decided that Summit Carbon Solutions should give documents of its “dispersion modeling” to groups that seek them as evidence for the company’s upcoming pipeline permit hearing.
That modeling attempts to predict whether populated areas near the pipeline route would be at risk if the pipeline is breached and releases carbon dioxide.
The gas is an asphyxiant and is toxic at high concentrations. It’s also heavier than air. Under certain weather and topographic conditions, a dense plume of carbon dioxide can travel significant distances.
In 2020, a pipeline break in Mississippi released a plume of carbon dioxide that traveled about a mile to a nearby town. About 200 people were evacuated from the area, and 45 sought treatment at a hospital. No one died.
Dispersion modeling for that pipeline didn’t predict the town was at risk. Such modeling can be expensive and time-consuming.
Summit has resisted requests for the results of its dispersion modeling in Iowa and has argued that the information pertains to safety issues that are governed by federal regulators.
But the Sierra Club of Iowa, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and several counties said the models are important for deciding the pipeline’s route, which is governed by the Iowa Utilities Board.
“The IUB needs to know how far the carbon dioxide plume from a leak or rupture of the Summit pipeline would disperse in order to properly approve ‘the location and route’ of the pipeline so as to protect persons and property,” Wally Taylor, a Sierra Club attorney, wrote in a motion to compel Summit to provide the documents.
On Monday, Toby Gordon, an administrative law judge for the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals, agreed that the information is likely to be admissible as evidence for the board when it decides whether to issue Summit a pipeline permit.
“I cannot say, as Summit urges, that the dispersion modeling data is irrelevant,” Gordon wrote.
He ordered Summit to provide the documents to the requesters within two days, but the company can appeal.
The final evidentiary hearing for Summit’s project is set to begin in less than a week, and Gordon’s decision was the second in two weeks to compel the company to produce information that might be used as evidence during that hearing. Gordon also said Summit needs to give unredacted copies of its contracts with ethanol plants to attorneys of groups that have sought the information. Summit appealed, and an IUB decision on whether to adopt the order is pending.
There has been a flurry of filings with the IUB as the hearing approaches, along with requests to delay the hearing to allow more time for consideration of the project. Requests for a delay gained new urgency with a recent decision by North Dakota regulators to reject Summit’s proposed route in that state.
It’s unclear how long that might delay Summit’s permit in that state, which is crucial to the company’s project. Its pipeline network would span more than 2,000 miles in five states. It would transport captured carbon dioxide from more than 30 ethanol plants to North Dakota for underground sequestration.
Summit said it will ask the North Dakota State Public Service Commission this week to reconsider its permit application.
“We are one week away,” Jess Mazour, of the Sierra Club, told the IUB at its meeting Tuesday morning. “Just want to remind you that there is still time to delay this hearing and make sure that people have a fair chance in front of the Iowa Utilities Board, because there’s a lot of outstanding things that really should come to a conclusion before we hear Summit’s case and before a decision is made.”
The start date of Summit’s hearing is about nine months earlier than IUB staff initially suggested, according to board documents.
In February, board member Josh Byrnes noted that the board had considered starting in May 2024 and November 2023 before settling on October 2023.
“Trying to rush through this process while maintaining the standard required of the board and board staff is unattainable and could give rise to mistakes and missteps,” he wrote in objection to starting in October. “I understand the desire to keep this case moving and to not cause undue delay; however, that does not mean that we should rush the process.”
But after a change in leadership on the three-person board, Byrnes agreed to an even earlier start date of Aug. 22.
There are pending requests to the board and in court to pause Summit’s permit process. The evidentiary hearing could go for weeks or months.
This Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Image: Emergency responders in Mississippi used a plume model developed by the National Weather Service to respond to a pipeline break in 2020. (Image courtesy of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration).
Related posts
- 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
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