Are ethanol carbon pipeline proposals hitting obstacles in the Rushmore state?
On Wednesday, Bluestem posted Breaking: South Dakota Public Utilities Commission unanimously denies Navigator ethanol CO2 pipeline project permit.
On Thursday afternoon, Iowa Capital Dispatch's Jared Strong looked at the potential consequences of this ruling on the other federal tax break profiteer in the mix, Summit Carbon Solutions.
South Dakota’s Navigator pipeline decision might jeopardize Summit proposal
By Jared Strong, Iowa Capital DispatchUtility regulators in South Dakota declined this week to overrule county ordinances that restrict carbon dioxide pipelines when they denied Navigator CO2 a permit for its project.
Summit Carbon Solutions has also asked that state’s Public Utilities Commission to give it a permit despite local restrictions, including in Minnehaha County, where the restrictions were upheld.
A final evidentiary hearing for Summit’s permit in South Dakota is poised to start Monday.
Its pipeline system would transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five states to North Dakota for underground sequestration.
James Powell, the company’s chief operating officer, testified this week that the pipeline would not be built in Iowa without permits in the Dakotas.
“Given they declined to strike down the Minnehaha ordinance, I see no reason why they would change that decision,” said Brian Jorde, an attorney who represents more than 100 landowners affected by the pipeline projects in multiple states. “It would be wise for Summit to either pull its application or state they are suspending their request for application — which they can do at any time — until they come up with a route that can comply with all applicable laws and ordinances.”
A Summit spokesperson declined to comment on the potential effects of the Navigator decision on the Summit proposal.
“Summit Carbon Solutions looks forward to our hearing with the South Dakota PUC starting on September 11,” said Sabrina Zenor, the company’s director of community relations.
County powers vary by state
Some Iowa counties enacted restrictions that would force carbon dioxide pipelines to be placed certain distances from cities, livestock facilities, electric transmission lines, homes and others. But a federal judge decided in July that state law does not grant counties the authority over the siting of the pipelines, which is the jurisdiction of the Iowa Utilities Board.
That ruling was the result of a Summit lawsuit against Shelby County.
“Common sense suggests these restrictions would eliminate all or almost all land in Shelby County on which an (Iowa Utilities Board) approved pipeline could be built,” Chief Judge Stephanie Rose wrote. “This creates a serious possibility the IUB would approve the construction of the pipeline but Summit would be unable to build because it could not comply with the requirements of the ordinance.”
The situation is different in South Dakota. Counties are allowed to adopt their own restrictions, but state regulators can overrule them if they are “unreasonably restrictive.”
In August, Summit asked commissioners to use their authority to “preempt” ordinances in four South Dakota counties: Brown, McPherson, Minnehaha and Spink.
All of them lie in the path of the primary pipe that would take carbon dioxide from Iowa to North Dakota. The company’s project would span about 475 miles in South Dakota, compared with more than 680 in Iowa.
“These are no ordinary county ordinances,” wrote Brett Koenecke, a Summit attorney. “Each one was enacted as a reaction and to expressly target (and likely stop) carbon dioxide pipelines.”
The ordinances are typically borne of safety concerns about the pipelines. Under certain circumstances, a major breach can form a plume of carbon dioxide gas that can travel long distances and suffocate people and animals. Summit says its pipeline would be one of the safest ever built.
Ordinances might block Summit
Navigator was unsuccessful in arguing to override ordinances in two counties, in part, because the company acknowledged it could build its pipeline in at least one of the counties despite the restrictions, the South Dakota Searchlight reported.
Summit argues that the restrictions are so severe its project would be blocked, including in Minnehaha.
“These counties have established setback requirements and permitting schemes that make the counties, not this commission, the primary siting authority for the State of South Dakota,” Koenecke wrote. “And they’ve done that by effectively banning hazardous liquid pipelines. That is unreasonably restrictive. And it goes against the policy set by the legislature.”
Erik Schovanec, Summit’s director of pipeline and facilities, testified in Iowa this week that the company has sought to assuage residents’ concerns when possible by adjusting its route. He noted that landowner feedback has resulted in more than 200 adjustments.
Navigator has not publicly indicated how it might proceed in South Dakota. Its roughly 1,300-mile system would transport carbon dioxide from ethanol and fertilizer plants in five states to Illinois.
The route in South Dakota is not physically necessary for the routes in other states, including Iowa. A Navigator spokesperson declined to say whether the project would proceed in the other states without South Dakota.
Status in Iowa
Summit is in the third week of its final evidentiary hearing with the Iowa Utilities Board.
The company began presenting its witnesses this week for cross examination. An initial schedule showed that its 15 witnesses would be called this week from Tuesday to Friday, but there have been delays. Just one of the four planned witnesses for Tuesday testified that day. On Thursday, the hearing stopped early because another witness wasn’t available. The company’s witness testimony is expected to continue into next week.
Much of the testimony on Wednesday and Thursday focused on financial aspects of the project, and some of the most important details — the contracts between Summit and ethanol plants — were discussed in private on Wednesday because they are subject to a protective order.
The first two weeks of the hearing featured some of the landowners who are subject to eminent domain requests because they declined to sign easement agreements with the company.
Those easements allow Summit to build its pipeline on property it doesn’t own.
Zenor recently noted that the number of land parcels for which it seeks eminent domain has declined to about 900. That is down from about 950 at the start of the hearing. Zenor said that decline is the result of landowners signing voluntary easements.
Most of the eminent domain requests are scheduled for consideration later in the hearing, which has the potential to extend for weeks or months.
An evidentiary hearing for Navigator has not been set. The IUB plans to hold a scheduling conference Oct. 9 to help determine a start date.
This article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Brian Jorde, who represents landowners who oppose carbon dioxide pipelines, said Summit Carbon Solutions should change its route in light of a recent South Dakota ruling. (Photo by Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).
Related posts
- 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