Much of Bluestem's recent posting about ethanol carbon pipelines has focused on next Tuesday's vote on Referred Law 21 here in South Dakota.
However, as I noted in my late August post, Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11:
On Tuesday night, I attended the public hearing on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline in Fergus Falls. Most of the people speaking shared concerns about the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
A OAH judge listened to the comments.
I was struck by the civility of the gathering, despite the strong opinions held by those who oppose or support this relatively tiny spur of the Summit Carbon Solutions' ethanol carbon pipeline, as well as by testimony of the local ethanol plant operator that 70 percent of the corn harvest in Otter Tail County goes to feeding the ethanol plant, rather than the world. .
A news release from Montevideo-based rural grassroots group CURE notes that the Administrative Law Judge’s report on the project is expected to be released on Monday, November 5. From CURE:
Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected just before the election
Parties in Public Utilities Commission proceeding have completed briefing and await a decision
Montevideo, MN, October 31, 2024 — While everyone is focused on the election, people in Minnesota are also waiting for another important result. On November 4th, a Minnesota Administrative Law Judge is expected share her findings and recommendations about the first-ever carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) pipeline permit applied for in Minnesota. This Judge’s report will go to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which will decide if the Summit Carbon Solutions (Summit) CO 2 pipeline in Otter Tail and Wilkin Counties can be permitted, and if so, which route it should follow and what safety measures are needed during construction. The Judge’s report on the CO 2 pipeline will be based on her assessment of the arguments from Summit and other concerned parties, including CURE, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy with the Sierra Club (aka the Clean Energy Organizations), and the Minnesota Department of Commerce.
Summit proposes to build this pipeline to take CO 2 from the Green Plains ethanol plant in Fergus Falls for disposal in North Dakota. It hopes to access California and federal subsidies for burying CO 2 by marketing it as “lower carbon” ethanol. The PUC will make its permitting decision late this year or early in 2025, setting a precedent for any future CO 2 pipelines proposed for Minnesota.
Two Sides of the CO2 Pipeline Debate
In August 2024, the Department of Commerce released an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Summit’s pipeline proposal, a required step in the permitting process which is supposed to provide state agencies like the PUC the information they need to make an informed decision before approving the project or not. But CURE and the Clean Energy Organizations believe this environmental review failed to assess the real impacts and possible dangers of Minnesota’s first-ever CO2 pipeline. They argue that the EIS missed important details and included several mistakes, making the EIS misleading and inadequate under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. The groups are asking the Judge to recommend a more thorough review so the PUC could legally rely on it when deciding whether and where the pipeline could safely be routed.
Throughout the permitting process, CURE and hundreds of community members have raised concerns about the safety of people living near the pipeline in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture. Although the EIS included the results of a study that modeled the release of CO 2 from the pipeline, the model did not reflect real-world circumstances or local conditions. This is a major concern due to the potential for human health impacts from a CO 2 plume. It’s also why these groups argue that any CO 2 pipeline must be routed a safe distance from houses, farms, and towns.
Regarding where it could pose the least danger, CURE has offered two alternative pipeline routes which would minimize the project’s potential human and environmental harms, even if those routes would not be the most economical option for Summit. The EIS looked at these routes but did not analyze them to the same extent as Summit’s preferred route. But CURE has also argued that the option with the fewest human and environmental impacts is the “No Action Alternative,” in which the project is not built. The EIS showed that the CO 2 emissions from the ethanol plant could be lowered more from better efficiency and farming practices than it could with the pipeline project, making the No Action Alternative a viable way to get the same supposed benefit without any need for a dangerous new piece of infrastructure though rural farmlands and waterways.
On the other side of the argument, Summit and the Department of Commerce contend that the EIS was good enough for the PUC to proceed with a permit. They believe the inaccuracies and omissions in the review are not significant enough to require major changes, and that the EIS satisfies the requirements of Minnesota law, urging the Judge to find the EIS adequate and largely approve Summit’s preferred pipeline route.
What’s Next?
The Judge’s report is a key part of the permitting process. Since the report is supposed to come out the day before the presidential election, only the most affected landowners and community members might know to look for it. Ultimately, the PUC will review the Judge's report and decide if the EIS is good enough, and if so, whether to approve Summit’s Otter Tail to Wilkin pipeline, which route to approve, and whether any additional conditions or safety measures should be implemented. The PUC’s decision will be made by early 2025.
Additional info about CO2 pipelines: www.carbonpipelinesmn.org
CURE is rurally based, with staff across Minnesota. CURE knows rural people, lands, and ecosystems are vital to helping solve some of the biggest problems Minnesota and the country face. We help to tell the story of a vibrant rural future, lift-up people to lead, and work for policies and laws to make a better future possible for everyone.
Map: A final EIS report offered three alternative route options for a carbon dioxide pipeline traveling from Otter Tail County to Wilkin County in Minnesota. Source> Minnesota Department of Commerce
Related posts
- Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
- Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
- Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
- VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
- Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
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