More news from Iowa about ethanol carbon capture and pipeline projects.
Bluestem recommends reading E & E News Energywire's piece by Mike Soraghan, CO2 pipelines: The new populist Republican target.
It's a lovely companion to Jared Strong' latest installation at Iowa Capital Dispatch, Local officials have potential to block carbon dioxide projects:
Iowa cities and counties have the authority to restrict building permits for the carbon-capture facilities that would feed proposed carbon dioxide pipelines in the state, the Hardin County attorney argues in a recent state regulatory filing.
That has the potential to empower local elected officials to restrict or block the controversial pipeline projects by depriving them of their sources of the greenhouse gas. Some counties that are wary of the projects have sought to limit where the pipelines can be built, which a federal judge rebuffed.
Summit Carbon Solutions seeks to build a five-state pipeline system that would transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants — 13 of which are in Iowa — to North Dakota for underground sequestration.
The company would install and operate equipment at each of those facilities to capture, process and compress the gas into a supercritical fluid to inject into the pipeline system.
Summit’s permit was recently denied in South Dakota because it didn’t comply with ordinances that several counties adopted in response to pipeline proposals. That state allows the ordinances, but state regulators can overrule them.
An Iowa county has tried to restrict pipeline routes but has been unsuccessful in the courts. A federal judge said in July that a new Shelby County ordinance that dictates how close a pipeline can be to cities, homes and other facilities overstepped the county’s authority. But counties and cities have jurisdiction over building permits.
Hardin County Attorney Darrell Meyer on Thursday asked state regulators to publicly clarify that the capture facilities are not part of the pipeline and are subject to local ordinances and permitting requirements.
“I know not what impact this motion will have, but raising local awareness and transparency are always positive supports of good government,” Meyer told the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
The revelation opens a new avenue for pipeline opponents to attempt to block the three projects currently proposed in Iowa, but would likely require a concerted effort by the cities and counties where the ethanol plants are located.
“If they can’t get the capture facilities, Summit’s project is dead,” said Wally Taylor, an attorney for the Sierra Club of Iowa. “It’s clear that counties or cities have the ability to require the capture facility to comply with the local zoning and land use requirements.”
It’s unclear whether that strategy is palatable, even among elected leaders who have decried Summit’s proposal. Supervisors in several counties either declined to comment or did not respond to requests to comment for this article.
Dean Kluss, a Wright County supervisor who has been a frequent critic of Summit’s pipeline permit process, said he is unsure whether he would support blocking building permits for the capture facilities.
Further, the ethanol plant that is part of Summit’s system in his county is within the city limits of Goldfield and would be subject to that town’s requirements, Kluss said. Goldfield Mayor Gabe Fiscus declined to comment for this article.
Summit objection spurred idea
In August, Summit applied for a building permit in Hardin County to construct a capture facility at the Pine Lake Corn Processors ethanol plant near Steamboat Rock.
The county has participated heavily in an ongoing evidentiary hearing for Summit’s hazardous liquid pipeline permit request with the Iowa Utilities Board. Hardin County officials have sought to preserve their permitting authority and other local powers, said Meyer, the county attorney.
To that end, the county submitted the building permit application as evidence during the hearing to show Summit must still seek some permission from counties for its project despite the federal court ruling about siting ordinances.
A Summit attorney objected to the evidence, in part arguing that it is irrelevant to the company’s permit request with the IUB.
“That objection lingered in my mind, causing me to give closer attention to the permitting of and jurisdiction over this capture facility and such facilities in general,” Meyer said. “Safe to say, local authority over the actual CO2 capture facilities appears to have been overlooked until now.”
He said it’s unclear yet whether his county’s supervisors would use that authority to block a capture facility. Hardin is in the path of two carbon dioxide proposals — by Summit and by Navigator CO2 — and some of its landowners have been among the most vocal opponents of the projects.
The county is also the home of Summit Agricultural Group, which spawned Summit Carbon Solutions and its project.
A Summit spokesperson did not respond to a request to comment for this article.
Hearing status
Summit’s permit hearing before the utilities board recently finished its fifth week, which focused on landowners who are subject to eminent domain requests.
The company is seeking forced easements from unwilling landowners for about a quarter of its route in Iowa, which includes more than 900 separate parcels of land. The easements would allow Summit to build and operate its pipeline system on land it doesn’t own.
The board had said it hoped to conclude hearing testimony by the end of next week, but a significant number of landowners have yet to testify.
On Thursday, there was time for just nine of the 20 scheduled witnesses. Next week, more than 50 landowners are scheduled to testify over the course of three days, and the schedule doesn’t include all of the remaining landowners.
The hearing is set to resume at 8 a.m. on Tuesday.
This Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: City and county officials have jurisdiction over building permits for carbon capture facilities near ethanol plants. (Photo by Jared Strong/Iowa Capital Dispatch).
Related posts
- IA Capital Dispatch: Summit permit process in North Dakota has reached ‘uncharted waters
- 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