Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!

Another digest of news about proposed ethanol carbon pipelines in the Upper Midwest.

At the Dakota Scout, Scott Waltman reports in Gevo’s $1B aviation fuel investment tied to Summit CO2 pipeline:

Without the Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline, what’s believed to be the largest capital investment in South Dakota’s history might not happen.

That was part of the message from Kent Hartwig, director of state government affairs with Gevo, at Tuesday’s Brown County Commission meeting at the courthouse annex.

Gevo is planning a plant near Lake Preston that would include an ethanol plant and a hydrocarbon plant that converts the ethanol into aviation jet fuel. The plant would be powered by an adjoining wind farm.

The ethanol-hydrocarbon plant is estimated to cost $850 million and the wind farm $150 million, for an overall investment of $1 billion. The wind farm would power the plant. . . .

But the project needs a carbon capture pipeline if it is to succeed, Hartwig told commissions. It needs a place to permanently sequester carbon dioxide emissions underground, he said, adding that he sees Summit as its partner in that quest.

Without the Summit pipeline, the Gevo plant might have to be relocated, he said.

Hartwig said Gevo wants to build more of the plants in the future, and South Dakota is high on the company’s list of potential sites.

Gevo’s plant at Lake Preston would be called Net-Zero 1. The Colorado-based company has bought 240 acres of land. Hopes are the plant will be operational in 2025. . . .

Pipeline opponents skeptical of Gevo’s sudden interest in pipeline

Opponents of the Summit pipeline were suspicious of Gevo suddenly being brought into the fold after the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission rejected an application from Summit for a construction permit. Public Utilities Commissioners said that the company has not worked closely enough with counties through which the pipe could run.

The PUC also said it will not allow Summit to supersede county pipeline regulations such as setbacks. Brown County requires 1,500-foot setbacks for hazardous material pipelines.

As he has in the past, Jared Bossly again noted that he thinks ethanol plants are being duped out of their carbon dioxide emissions, which could be used in other ways, including to create green methane. That wouldn’t require thousands of miles of pipeline, he said.

Another opponent, Dennis Feickert, characterized the information from Gevo as “helping Summit ram this project” through when affected landowners don’t want it. . . .

Read the entire article at the Dakota Scout.

Speaking of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission of Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline permit application, the iowa Capital Dispatch's Jared Strong reports in Summit will make new pipeline permit application in South Dakota. Via the South Dakota Searchlight:

It could take more than a year for Summit Carbon Solutions to get approval for its proposed carbon dioxide pipeline in South Dakota.

That’s because the company, which was denied a pipeline permit by utility regulators in that state last month, will reapply after it identifies a new route that complies with county ordinances.

“Moving forward, we are committed to working with the counties in South Dakota to find a mutually agreeable path through each county,” said Sabrina Zenor, a spokesperson for the company. “This means working within ordinances regarding applicability of waivers, etc. and more dynamic conversations around routing.”

Summit applied for a permit to construct a carbon dioxide transmission pipeline in that state in February 2022. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission denied the application about 19 months later in September, citing the route’s conflicts with ordinances in four counties.

Summit had asked the commission to overrule those ordinances but withdrew that request after the commission upheld the ordinances in regard to another pipeline proposal by Navigator CO2. That company has since suspended its negotiations for land easements in South Dakota and requested to suspend its permit process in Iowa.

Both companies have sought permission to build multistate pipeline systems to transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and other facilities. South Dakota is crucial for Summit’s proposal because it has eight of the 31 ethanol plants that would connect to Summit’s system and because it is a link between North Dakota and most of the remaining plants in Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska. The company plans to sequester the greenhouse gas underground in North Dakota.

South Dakota law allows counties to adopt restrictions on the pipelines, but state regulators can overrule them if they are “unreasonably restrictive.”

The state has four counties — Brown, McPherson, Minnehaha and Spink — that have adopted ordinances that require the pipelines to be certain distances from residences, livestock facilities, nursing homes and other buildings. But they also have exceptions to those restrictions in some cases if county officials and landowners approve of them.

“We issue conditional use permits for lots of things that people don’t like,” said Scott Anderson, director of planning and zoning for Minnehaha County. “I don’t think it was the intent of the county commission to set up an ordinance to block anything. … It is a complicated situation with lots of people having strong emotions.”

Summit has begun discussions with Minnehaha and other counties to plot a new route. A company representative who spoke to county officials in Brown “basically said, ‘We’re starting at ground zero, we have to look at it like we don’t have a route,’” according to Scott Bader, planning and zoning director for Brown County.

Tracey Millar, zoning administrator for Spink County, said the company is seeking the county’s input on its route and has indicated it is moving the pipeline path farther away from people who oppose the project.

A Spink ordinance precludes the pipeline from being built within a half mile of a property line of a residence, but it can be built closer if the owner signs a waiver.

It’s unclear when Summit might reapply for a South Dakota permit.

“We plan to refile our application once we have a path through the state,” Zenor said.

State law requires the Public Utilities Commission to make a decision about permit requests within a year of the application. Summit’s first permit request took longer because the company sought a deadline extension for submitting its evidence and updating its application.

Company takes different approach in North Dakota

Summit has renewed its request with North Dakota utility regulators to nullify the effects of two county ordinances that restrict the placement of its proposed carbon dioxide pipeline.

The company recently filed the motion with that state’s Public Service Commission, which denied its permit request in August. At that time, the commission did not issue a ruling about the county ordinances because it was denying the permit for other reasons.

The commission has since agreed to reconsider the company’s permit request, and Summit wants a ruling on the ordinances before any further hearings are held for the reconsideration.

“This threshold issue will affect the evidence presented in the upcoming hearing by both (Summit) and intervenors, and thus a pre-hearing decision will save both the parties and the commission time and resources,” wrote Lawrence Bender, an attorney for Summit.

The company has argued that the Burleigh County and Emmons County ordinances are so restrictive that they prevent any possible pipeline route through them. It further points to part of state law that says: “Except as provided in this section, a permit for the construction of a gas or liquid transmission facility within a designated corridor supersedes and preempts any local land use or zoning regulations.”

Opponents of the pipeline route argue that other elements of the law — and the intent of legislators who adopted it — give counties a right to restrict the siting of pipelines. They also say Summit is exaggerating the effects of the ordinances.

It’s unclear when state regulators will rule on Summit’s request. They have not yet scheduled a new hearing to reconsider the company’s proposal, which is being modified to allay some of the concerns about the route.

Permit hearing continues in Iowa

An evidentiary hearing for Summit’s hazardous liquid pipeline permit request in Iowa began its seventh week on Tuesday with the Iowa Utilities Board.

Landowners who have declined to give Summit land easements to build its pipeline — and who are subject to eminent domain requests — testified about their concerns about the project. That included safety threats posed by pipeline ruptures, damage to farmland, potential inability to get liability insurance and other concerns.

Their testimony was scheduled to continue Wednesday and Thursday.

Also on Tuesday, the IUB granted Navigator’s request to suspend its permit proceedings. The company wants to pause its process in Iowa until Illinois utility regulators decide whether to approve the project in that state, which is where Navigator plans to sequester carbon dioxide.

The Sierra Club of Iowa resisted Navigator’s request to cancel a meeting next week to discuss the project. The IUB was poised to hold a scheduling conference to help determine a timeline for the remainder of the company’s permit process.

The Sierra Club argued the meeting should be used for a public update on the status of the project.

“The landowners impacted by Navigator’s project, the public, and for that matter, the board, deserve to know the facts surrounding the status of the Navigator project,” wrote Wally Taylor, a Sierra Club attorney. “There has been some indication that Navigator is dropping the portion of its proposed project in South Dakota, and even some portions of the project in northwest Iowa. But Navigator has been less than transparent about the situation.”

The IUB denied Taylor’s request for the meeting because it “would not provide substantive information.”

Those pesky local skeptics on the ground in the Midwest have gained some allies in Congress on safety concerns. Reuters' Leah Douglass reports in Democrats in Congress ask Biden for moratorium on carbon pipeline permits:

WASHINGTON, Oct 3 (Reuters) - The United States should not permit any new carbon dioxide pipelines until updated federal safety regulations are finished, a dozen Democratic members of Congress said in a letter sent to President Joe Biden on Tuesday.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key element of Biden's climate agenda, but landowners along the routes of major CCS pipeline projects proposed in the Midwest are refusing to sign over land to build the pipelines in part due to safety concerns.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is working on new safety regulations for carbon pipelines that it has said will be proposed in 2024.

Biden should issue an executive order halting any federal permitting for new carbon pipelines until then, the members said, led by Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Jesús "Chuy" García of Illinois.

"A moratorium is necessary to protect communities from the construction of pipelines that we know will soon be operated under outdated safety standards," the letter said.

PHMSA moved to strengthen its carbon dioxide pipeline oversight after a 2020 carbon pipeline rupture in Mississippi hospitalized 45 people. Carbon dioxide is odorless and can cause dizziness, confusion, unconsciousness, and even suffocation depending on exposure levels.

"New pipeline infrastructure will invariably put more communities in danger given the complexity of transporting CO2 thousands of miles with what could create dozens of points of entry and exit for CO2," the letter said.

Summit Carbon Solutions, Wolf Carbon Solutions and Navigator CO2 Ventures together hope to run 3,580 miles (5,760 km) of carbon dioxide pipeline across the Midwest, capturing carbon emissions from ethanol and other industrial plants and transporting it to underground storage sites.

The letter was endorsed by environmental organizations that are opposed to the pipeline projects, including Food & Water Watch and the Sierra Club and other progressive groups.

At the Chicago Tribune, Nara Schoenberg reports in Amid battle over proposed carbon pipelines in Illinois and other states, lawmakers call for federal moratorium:

The battle over massive carbon dioxide pipelines proposed for Illinois and other Midwestern states has reached Congress, with 13 House Democrats — including U.S. Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García of Illinois — calling on President Joe Biden to block construction until new federal safety guidelines are released.

In a letter sent to the president Tuesday, the lawmakers cited a 2020 pipeline rupture in Mississippi in which CO2, an invisible gas that displaces oxygen, spread to the nearby town of Satartia. There were reports that victims experienced breathing problems and confusion, and three men were found in a stalled car, unconscious.

No one died but 45 people sought hospital care, and federal regulators started working on updated safety standards, which are expected to be completed and in place in 2024.

. . .Illinois farmers, landowners and environmentalists are in a pitched battle over whether to allow Navigator CO2’s 1,350-mile Heartland Greenway pipeline to cross the state. Opponents say safety is a top concern. . . .

Other proposals for CO2 pipelines include the 260-mile Wolf Carbon Solutions pipeline in Illinois and Iowa and the 2,000-mile Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, which could span Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska.

All are part of an explosion in interest in capturing carbon dioxide, transporting it via pipeline and burying it deep underground. The interest is driven, in part, by generous tax incentives in the federal Inflation Reduction Act.

. . .Among the gaps in current state and federal safety regulations that the Tribune reported in July:

There is no state or federal limit on how close pipelines carrying a potentially suffocating gas can be placed to a home, school or hospital.

There is no requirement that an odorant be added to the CO2 to alert the public to a leak, as is done with natural gas.

There is no limit on the impurities that are allowed in the carbon dioxide, despite the potential for pipeline corrosion and health hazards in the event of a leak.

There is no requirement that pipeline companies use a specific method to map potential accident hazard zones, although one standard approach — which failed in Mississippi — doesn’t take complex topography into account.

In May, more than 150 environmental and advocacy groups — including the Center for Biological Diversity, Eco-Justice Collaborative and Food & Water Watch — signed a letter to Biden calling for a moratorium on new CO2 pipelines.

We'll keep watching and digesting the ethanol carbon pipeline news.

Photo:A carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured near Satartia, Miss., in 2020. The 24-inch high-pressure pipeline containing carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide burst and over 222 barrels escaped into the air. The pipeline, owned by the Texas-based Denbury Gulf Coast Pipelines, failed after heavy rains caused a hillside underneath it to give way. (Yazoo County Office of Emergency Management/ Via Chicago Tribune).

Related posts

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

Bluestem Prairie

News from Greater Minnesota and South Dakota

Oct 04, 2023

Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!

Company takes different approach in North Dakota

Permit hearing continues in Iowa

Comments

Archives

Copyright

Become a Fan

Bluestem Tweets

Recent Posts

Recent Comments