The landscape for ethanol carbon pipeline projects has defied known directions following the denial of permits in North and South Dakota, but while the map may still need to be written, the regulatory journey isn't over
Nonetheless, it's important to be skeptical of rumors, Dominik Dauch pointed out in Navigator pipeline shutdown rumors do not reflect current project status in SD, company says, at the Argus Leader:
Navigator CO2 Ventures is not yet officially pulling the plug on the South Dakota branch of its multi-billion dollar pipeline project, the company confirmed to the Argus Leader.
On Thursday, Iowan landowners received correspondence from former Navigator land agents — a person who negotiates in land sales and easement agreements — who wrote the Nebraska-based carbon capture company intends to shut down their project for good.
Tessa Kostas, one Navigator land agent, was the source of at least one of the messages. According to text messages obtained by The Des Moines Register, Kostas texted Iowa landowner Amy Solsma and a neighbor, saying she was canceling her meetings with the families because the "project is getting shut down permanently.
However, these comments were not official communications from the company, Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, Navigator's vice president of government and public affairs, told the Argus Leader.
Kostas and a number of land agents pursuing easement agreements in South Dakota and northwest Iowa had been released from Navigator following the denial of the company's permit application to build their Heartland Greenway System by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission last week. . . .
Merritt added the former employees' statements "do not reflect the current status of the project" or the company's plans in the Mount Rushmore State.
"I don't think they're done. I don't think they've dropped the ethanol plants, and I don't know if the ethanol plants would let them off that easy after how much they've gone through the dirt for this project," Dakota Rural Action Lobbyist Chase Jensen told the Argus Leader. . . .
Likewise, the story isn't over for the other player in the pipeline debate. Jared Strong reports at the Iowa Capital Dispatch in Summit permit process in North Dakota has reached ‘uncharted waters':
It’s not yet clear how utility regulators in North Dakota will proceed with their reconsideration of a pipeline permit for Summit Carbon Solutions.
The state’s Public Service Commission granted the company’s reconsideration request with a split vote on Friday. It had unanimously denied Summit’s permit application in August because the company didn’t sufficiently show that its carbon dioxide pipeline proposal minimized its effects on the public.
State law allows for such reconsiderations but does not dictate how they should proceed and when they should conclude, said Victor Schock, director of public utilities for the commission. He said the commission has not agreed to reconsider another denial in recent memory and that such denials are themselves rare.
“We’re kind of in uncharted waters to a certain extent,” Schock said.
The state is crucial to Summit’s five-state pipeline system, which would transport captured carbon dioxide from more than 30 ethanol plants to North Dakota for underground sequestration.
The plan has suffered setbacks in North and South Dakota, both of which denied the company’s permit applications. Summit has said it awaits an official denial order in South Dakota before it decides how to proceed in that state.
In North Dakota, Summit could appeal a denial in court or submit a new permit application, but it opted for reconsideration because that will likely be the most expeditious path forward.
Summit has made hundreds of changes to its route to assuage landowners. It has also moved the route farther away from Bismarck over worries that the project might impede urban development.
The company has sought one more public hearing to weigh those changes and to address other concerns of the commission, but the commissioners have yet to determine whether there should be more than one.
There were four public hearings for the project in March, April and May, each with a focus on a group of different counties along the route. There are a total of 10 counties.
“I would expect that, at a minimum, we would issue notices of opportunity for a hearing for every one of those counties,” Schock said.
It’s unclear when those notices will be issued and the hearings scheduled. Schock said commission staff is seeking more details from Summit before the reconsideration proceeds.
“Certainly we’re not going to look to rush this, but we’re not going to drag our feet either,” he said.
In a 2-1 vote on Friday, the commission granted Summit’s reconsideration request because state law calls for a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the issues presented.” Forcing Summit to reapply would cause the commission to recreate a voluminous record of evidence, and the initial permit process took about 10 months.
The dissenting commissioner, Sheri Haugen-Hoffart, said the company doesn’t deserve a reconsideration because it had ample opportunity to submit its evidence earlier. She argued that the proposed changes to the route are so numerous they should require a new application.
Summit has also sought to limit the scope of what can be discussed in a new hearing. Those who oppose the project want the rehearing process to be “reopened to all issues,” which might include pipeline safety, eminent domain and other broad points of contention.
“These tactics are part of the intervenors’ larger goal to delay the project to the point where construction of the project is no longer economically viable,” wrote Lawrence Bender, an attorney for Summit, in a recent commission filing.
In Iowa, a final evidentiary hearing for the company’s permit request is in its fifth week. Summit has sought an Iowa Utilities Board ruling on that request by the end of the year with a hope to start construction next year.
The company has indicated it will not build its pipeline in Iowa if it doesn’t get approval from the Dakotas.
This article from Iowa Capital Dispatch is republished online Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Environmental groups have opposed sprawling carbon dioxide pipelines in Iowa and adjoining states. (Photo by Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capital Dispatch).
Related posts
- North Dakota Public Service Commission votes 2-1 to reopen Summit Carbon pipeline case
- Navigator CO2 has not ‘taken any state off the map’ after SD pipeline permit rejection
- Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: reaction to denial; water use in IA; rich guy resists subpoena
- 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