Another update on the Summit Carbon Solutions ethanol carbon saga, from the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
Final arguments for Summit pipeline permit are due in January
By Jared StrongHundreds of pages of written briefs that argue for and against a hazardous liquid pipeline permit for Summit Carbon Solutions in Iowa are due before the end of the year, with written replies to those arguments due Jan. 19, the Iowa Utilities Board recently ordered.
The three-member board will thereafter decide whether to issue or deny a permit to Summit to allow construction of its carbon dioxide pipeline system and whether the company can use eminent domain to obtain land easements for about a quarter of its route.
State law does not set a deadline for that decision, and the board has not estimated when its decision might come.
Summit proposes a five-state pipeline system spanning more than 680 miles to transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to North Dakota for underground sequestration.
The board’s evidentiary hearing for Summit’s proposal in Iowa ended Nov. 8. After the hearing’s conclusion, the board said it would allow a briefing schedule that is longer than normal “due to the voluminous record and the upcoming holiday season,” and would accept atypically long initial briefs of up to 150 pages, with some exceptions for even longer filings. It noted that the case file has tens of thousands of pages of testimony and exhibits.
Pipeline opponents sought to circumvent the laborious briefing process after the hearing concluded with a motion for the board to deny Summit’s permit application.
“From our point of view, Summit clearly has failed to show that this project is in the public convenience and necessity,” said Brian Jorde, an attorney for numerous landowners in several states, in reference to a state requirement for the permit to be issued. “Matter of fact, not a single witness of the public has showed up and said it is convenient. And maybe a handful of — maybe the ethanol plant gentleman or so from Iowa said it maybe was necessary, but no one else has. And they haven’t proven it.”
Bret Dublinske, an attorney for Summit, said Jorde and others can make those arguments in their written briefs and that seeking an abrupt decision from the board after the hearing is “factually and legally incorrect and premature,” according to a hearing transcript.
“This case has significant evidence about the benefits to the ethanol industry, to the corn economy, to the farm economy more broadly and how that supports land values and tax revenues and just generally the fabric of not only Iowa’s economy but Iowa as a while,” Dublinske said.
The board denied Jorde’s motion.
More than half of Iowa’s corn is used to produce ethanol, and Summit has argued that supporting the ethanol industry also supports higher corn prices.
The company has agreements with ethanol plants to share profits from federal tax credits that reward capturing carbon dioxide and producing low-carbon fuels, along with increased profits from selling those fuels in new markets. The specific details of the agreements have not been made public.
Pipeline opponents have argued that those profits will mostly benefit wealthy Summit investors. They further oppose the use of eminent domain to force construction of the pipeline system against landowners’ wishes and worry about damage to farmland and safety threats from potential pipeline breaches.
Summit’s permit application in North Dakota is under reconsideration and has no definitive timeline for completion. The state’s capital city of Bismarck recently sought to intervene in the process because of the pipeline’s proximity, according to documents filed with the state’s Public Service Commission.
Bismarck’s petition said it does not support or oppose the company’s proposal, but that it will be affected by it. Specifically, the city said the pipeline route might affect its future growth and the safety of its residents. The city’s fire department might also lead an emergency response to a pipeline rupture.
South Dakota rejected Summit’s initial route proposal for that state, and the company has said it plans to reapply with a modified route. The company has not indicated when that might happen.
Summit has delayed the projected operational date of its pipeline system by more than a year to 2026.
Strong also reported on Monday that a third ethanol carbon pipeline contender, Wolf asked to withdraw Illinois pipeline request and refile.
This Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Bret Dublinske, an attorney for Summit Carbon Solutions, said the company's pipeline project will benefit all Iowans. Opponents argue it will primarily benefit the company's investors. (Photo by Jared Strong/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
Related posts
- Critics allege CO2 pipelines ‘farm the government’ for climate $$ while helping oil industry; bills fuel debate over ethanol’s environmental impact, with climate implications
- Ethanol carbon pipeline update: Summit permit decision in Iowa not expected until next year
- If first you don't succeed: Summit's new route in North Dakota adds thirteen miles of pipeline
- Defying the odds: Meet the attorney for 1,000 clients who beat two pipeline companies
- Summit Carbon stands to benefit from Navigator's canceled pipeline, but IA opponents sue to block Summit Carbon water permit
- Cancel culture: Navigator withdraws ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Iowa
- Navigator CO2 cancels multistate pipeline project
- Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
- Some Iowa landowners were confused by Summit Carbon Solution eminent domain process
- Navigator CO2 pulls its ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Illinois
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Summit pipeline hearing will resume on Tuesday; Navigator asks Iowa regulators to pause its pipeline permit request
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Local officials in Iowa have potential to block carbon capture projects
- 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
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