Another news digest about the controversial ethanol carbon pipelines sought by two projects in the upper Midwest.
Following Monday's denial of Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline permit, Wren Murphy reported for the Madison [SD] Daily Leader Landowners, ethanol plant reacts to pipeline permit denial.
Bluestem's attention was drawn to these passages:
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) denied a permit for the Summit Carbon Solutions carbon dioxide pipeline Monday.
PUC staff recommended the commissioners deny the permit for the pipeline, which would travel across several midwestern states, including South Dakota, because it did not follow county ordinances in Brown, McPherson, Minnehaha and Spink counties.
Originally, Summit had filed a motion for the PUC to preempt these ordinances, which would allow Summit not to follow them. Before the hearing, however, Summit withdrew its motion after the Navigator Heartland Greenway pipeline project, which travels through South Dakota but not Lake County, failed to get its own preemption motion approved by the PUC. The Navigator pipeline project also had its permit denied. . . .
In a Sept. 11 press release, Summit stated it planned to reapply in response to the PUC’s ruling and county ordinances.
“Some South Dakota counties passed ordinances that require SCS to refine its path through South Dakota. Today, the PUC determined that these ordinances prohibit the PUC from granting a permit right now, but that SCS can reapply after it refines its proposal,” the statement said. “SCS intends to do just that, to refine its proposal and reapply for a permit in a timely manner. SCS remains committed to the South Dakota ethanol industry and the growth of South Dakota’s energy industry.”
Scott Mundt, the CEO of Dakota Ethanol, said the company is “very supportive” of the project. While Dakota Ethanol is not involved in the management or construction of the pipeline, Mundt said the company hopes Summit’s next application is approved.
“It’s a disappointment that we see this (timeline) get turned back,” Mundt said.
For Mundt, this project is an important part of the industry’s, and Dakota Ethanol’s, attempt to reduce its carbon footprint. . . .
Rita Brown and Betty Strom, two Lake County landowners, attended the Sept. 11 PUC hearing in hopes of testifying down the road, but they cut their trip short when the PUC denied the permit on the first day of several weeks of planned hearings. Both women were served eminent domain lawsuits after they refused to sign easement agreements with Summit.
A Chester township resident, Brown primarily cited concerns about the project’s environmental impact, especially with regard to water usage and contamination, as the reason she has held back on signing an agreement. For Brown, attending the PUC hearing was important because it showed her opposition to the project, even if she wouldn’t get the chance to testify.
While she said she’s “relieved” about the denial of the permit, she said it’s only temporary.
“This project has taken over my life,” she said. . . .
Brown's concerns about water use echo those in reported Monday by Bleeding Heartland's Nancy Dugan in Summit Carbon's annual water use in Iowa could be hundreds of millions of gallons:
While testifying before the Iowa Utilities Board on September 5, Summit Carbon Solutions chief operating officer James "Jimmy" Powell outlined the company's need for large amounts of water at each of the sites identified as pipeline “partners” throughout the five-state route proposed for a CO2 pipeline. “We’ll need the water supply at every plant, so we’re working with individual plants,” he said. According to the Summit Carbon website, the pipeline would connect to thirteen ethanol plants in Iowa.
Online records from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office show that twelve Summit-affiliated LLCs filed Certificates of Authority as foreign limited liability companies on the afternoon of August 31. A thirteenth LLC, Saint Ansgar SCS Capture, LLC, filed an application for a Certificate of Authority on July 3, which was approved on the same day.
All are identified as member-managed firms formed in Delaware, and all share an address with Summit Carbon Solutions in Ames. SCS Carbon Removal, LLC is identified as the member or manager firm on all of the applications. Jess Vilsack, general counsel for Summit Carbon Solutions, signed for each of the LLCs. . . .
If that last name seems familiar, it is. At Mother Jones, Tom Philpott reported in January that USDA Secretary Vilsack’s Son Now Works for a Controversial Ethanol Pipeline Project.
Dugan continues:
. . . WATER NEEDED TO COOL CO2
During his September 5 testimony, Powell said water demand for each of the carbon capture projects will depend on the production volume at each facility. “They’ll range from 20 gallons a minute to 120 gallons a minute,” he added.
Powell explained how the water would be used. “As you increase the pressure on the CO2 to reach the dense phase, that product heats up. And so we’ll have a cooling system that circulates through that compression cycle that keeps the product cooler, and then we’ll dehydrate that in the later stages of compression. We’ll pull the water out of the stream in the later stages of compression.”
Powell also indicated that CO2 dehydration would occur at the capture facility, before the CO2 is injected into the pipeline. It is not clear what method will be used to dehydrate the CO2 before it is placed in the pipeline. Some facilities employ triethylene glycol, although other, less common methods may also be used. There are certain health concerns associated with triethylene glycol, including acute toxicity if ingested.
A map provided by the DNR for Goldfield SCS Capture, LLC, which is seeking to construct a well that will be located on or near property owned by Corn, LP in Wright county, indicates that the water will be discharged after use “to unnamed creek to Buttermilk creek." The map also states, “pathway to outfall unknown/to be confirmed.” It is not known whether small amounts of CO2 could also be discharged following dehydration.
When asked if he would agree that this new potential draw on Iowa’s water resources might negatively impact surrounding users, Powell responded that Summit would depend on guidance from the Department of Natural Resources in Iowa and other states to confirm availability. He later stated, “There are other sources of water,” although he did not specify what those were.
Powell was also asked if he had knowledge of any regulations in Iowa that would establish a hierarchy of usage in the event of water shortages. He stated that he did not, indicating that Summit would abide by whatever conditions the DNR imposes on it. Iowa Code Section 455B.266 addresses priority allocations of water in the state after certain events. . . .
This isn't exactly an abstract issue in Iowa. On Monday, Jared Strong reported at the Iowa Capital Dispatch in Conditions of Iowa crops decline as they reach maturity:
. . . Drought conditions that have plagued Iowa for the past three years have worsened in recent weeks and are the worst they’ve been in a decade. More than 91% of the state is suffering from some measure of drought, with the worst dryness in eastern Iowa.
It’s likely that all of the state will have a drought designation by month’s end, according to the federal Climate Prediction Center. . . .
Thursday's Drought Monitor map for Iowa still shows most of the state in various stages of drought. It's not too peachy in Minnesota or the eastern stretches of South Dakota, either.
A Summit executive was coming up dry on testimony in Iowa. On Wednesday, Strong reported in the Iowa Capital Dispatch article, Rastetter resists subpoena request as ‘irrelevant sideshow’ for Summit permit:
A request to compel the testimony of Bruce Rastetter, an influential agriculture executive, during Summit Carbon Solution’s permit hearing in Iowa is merely an attempt to “create an irrelevant sideshow,” Rastetter and his company, Summit Agricultural Group, allege.
Some opponents of Summit Carbon’s proposed carbon dioxide pipeline seek Rastetter’s under-oath testimony for more information about the company’s relationship with Summit Agricultural Group, which he founded. Opponents also want to know who will profit from the project. Rastetter is also co-founder of Summit Carbon.
If the Iowa Utilities Board grants the subpoena request, it could open Rastetter to questions beyond the scope of the companies’ structures. Pipeline opponents have long alleged that Rastetter’s political influence and money have helped accelerate the pipeline project to approval in Iowa and have sought proof of it.
An attorney for Rastetter and Summit Agricultural Group argued Wednesday that Rastetter’s testimony is inappropriate because the two companies are separate entities and that one does not exert unilateral control over the other.
“While Mr. Rastetter is an investor in Summit Carbon Solutions, and serves on the board of Summit Carbon Solutions, Mr. Rastetter is only one of eight board members and does not have the ability to control the corporate strategy of Summit Carbon Solutions,” attorney Spencer Cady wrote.
Cady further argued that the 11th-hour request for Rastetter’s testimony violates state rules that generally require the requests at least a week before the start of an evidentiary hearing for a hazardous liquid pipeline permit.
“The parties had ample opportunity to obtain information, to the extent relevant, regarding any connection between Summit Carbon Solutions and Summit Ag during the discovery period and chose not to do so,” Cady wrote.
Summit Carbon’s hearing started Aug. 22. The subpoena motion was filed Sept. 7 by the daughter of a landowner affected by the project. The Sierra Club of Iowa and a group of state lawmakers have since joined that motion.
They have questioned whether Summit Agricultural Group’s investments abroad might adversely affect Iowa-produced ethanol and want more information about who will profit from the pipeline.
“Even if this pipeline proposal were free of disputes on due process and allegations of the appearance of impropriety, the potential risks to public safety involved in this proposal would merit careful public scrutiny of the pipeline’s ownership,” wrote Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, on behalf of the Republican Legislative Intervenors for Justice.
Summit Agricultural Group is an important investor in Summit Carbon. When a South Korean energy company announced in May 2022 that it would acquire a 10% stake in Summit Carbon, it said it was part of a “dream team with U.S. companies that are the leaders in their industries such as Summit Agricultural Group” and others.
A Summit Carbon spokesperson said they did not know what percentage stake Summit Agricultural has in the company.
Summit Agricultural Group “developed the concept for the project,” according to testimony last week from James Powell, chief operating officer of Summit Carbon. He also agreed with a statement that Summit Carbon was “borne out” of Summit Agricultural Group.
It’s unclear when the IUB will decide the subpoena request.
Summit’s hearing is in its fourth week. The IUB indicated it wants the hearing to conclude by the end of the month, but there are a large number of witnesses who might yet testify.
Summit proposes a five-state pipeline system that would transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to North Dakota for underground sequestration. North and South Dakota have rejected the company’s initial permit requests.
We'll keep digesting the saga of the federal tax credit profiteers as stories hit the virtual news stands.
The Iowa Capital Dispatch article is reprinted under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Carbon dioxide pipeline opponents have argued that rich investors would benefit from the projects, rather than the public. (Photo by Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capital Dispatch).
Related posts
- Iowa utility regulators want to finish Summit pipeline permit hearing by month’s end
- State denies Summit permit; both ethanol carbon pipelines proposed in South Dakota now rejected
- Summit Carbon Solutions forges ahead despite SD PUC staff's motion to deny pipeline permit
- SD PUC staff motion: non-mysterious portents in the air about potential denial of Summit Carbon Solution's pipeline permit application
- South Dakota Navigator pipeline decision might jeopardize Summit Carbon Solutions proposal
- Breaking: South Dakota Public Utilities Commission unanimously denies Navigator ethanol CO2 pipeline project permit
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: permanent sequestration or enhanced oil extraction & more
- Iowa governor denies influence over Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline project process
- SD PUC Navigator CO2 Ventures update: Pipeline permit, overruling counties decision by Sept. 6
- Ethanol carbon pipeline update: Navigator asks SD PUC to shoot down county pipeline rules
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Iowa Utilities Board evidentiary hearing for Summit Carbon Solutions begins in Fort Dodge
- 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
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