A Saturday afternoon digest of news on the Summit Carbon Solutions activity and local reactions in three states.
From the North Dakota Monitor.
Landowners, 2 counties appealing Summit pipeline permit
by Jeff Beach
A group of landowners and two counties are appealing a North Dakota’s agency’s approval of a large carbon dioxide pipeline.
The North Dakota Public Service Commission on Nov. 15 approved a route permit for 333 miles of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline in North Dakota. North Dakota is the planned endpoint of a 2,500 mile pipeline network to carry CO2 from ethanol plants in five states to an underground storage area west of Bismarck.
Attorney Brian Jorde of Domina Law, which represents landowners across the pipeline area, said Friday in an email that there are several problems with the PSC’s findings.
He said the PSC received plume modeling and dispersion risk analysis as prepared by Summit that would show how CO2 might spread if there was a rupture of the hazardous liquid pipeline.
The PSC did not allow the other parties to the case access to the plume information.
“This ‘confidential’ information was also shared with other members of the public, yet potentially directly affected citizens engaged in the routing application process were kept in the dark,” Jorde wrote. He said that constituted a violation of due process rights.
If CO2 leaks from a pipeline, it can sicken or kill people in the immediate area.
“The public of North Dakota deserve transparency before hazardous pipelines are forced upon them,” Jorde said.
Jorde said the landowner appeal will be filed in Burleigh County District Court.
The two counties that are appealing are Burleigh and Emmons, both on the main trunk of the pipeline in central North Dakota.
The counties are appealing the PSC’s February ruling that state rules supersede county ordinances on issues including how close a residence can be to a carbon pipeline.
Emmons County filed an appeal on the ruling in March, but the matter was set aside until the commission voted on the permit application.
Burleigh County filed its appeal this week.
In South Dakota, the Public Utilities Commission ruled that county ordinances preempt state carbon pipeline rules, a main reason Summit was denied a permit there. Summit has since filed a new application.
Summit has a permit in Iowa and for a short segment of its route in Minnesota. Nebraska has no state agency that issues carbon pipeline permits.
The North Dakota Industrial Commission on Thursday approved Summit’s plan for underground storage of the carbon dioxide.
At the Pipeline Fighters Hub, there's press release was shared on Thursday:
Press release: The Pipeline Fight Continues After North Dakota Industrial Commission Permits Summit’s CO2 Wells
by Mark HefflingerThe Pipeline Fight Continues After North Dakota Industrial Commission Permits Summit’s CO2 Wells
Summit still needs a pipeline state permit in South Dakota; meanwhile, several court cases are also pending
Bismarck – Landowners and grassroots advocacy organizations vow to continue fighting after an unsurprising decision from the Industrial Commission. The North Dakota Industrial Commission, comprised of Gov. Doug Burgum, the Attorney General, and the Agricultural Commissioner, approved Summit Carbon Solutions’ permits for Class VI injection wells.
Summit proposes to use these wells to inject carbon dioxide (CO2), captured from 57 ethanol plants across Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and the Dakotas, a mile underground in Oliver and Mercer counties, beneath the homes of residents and the larger communities.
The underground storage of CO2 has been associated with potential hazards due to the nature of the chemical, including its corrosiveness and the risks it may pose to public safety. Recently, an underground breach occurred at an ADM-operated sequestration facility in Decatur, Illinois, the first commercial geologic sequestration operation in the United States. CO2 corroded that equipment, allowing the gas to migrate beyond the defined storage zone, narrowly avoiding the acidification of an aquifer that serves as a source of drinking water. Summit proposes to use the same grade material in North Dakota that was corrupted by carbon dioxide at the Decatur facility.
“While not surprising, given Governor Burgum’s outspoken support for carbon capture and sequestration, this decision will only cause the opposition to Summit’s risky project to dig in their heels. This is a very technical issue, and the decision whether or not to permit this project should have been informed more by engineers, geologists, and other technical experts not by politicians whose loyalty is to a political agenda more so than the science behind these projects,” said Scott Skokos, Dakota Resource Council.
“We never expected any other outcome from this commission, particularly given Governor Burgum’s business and political relationship with Summit’s major investment partner, Continental Resources. At the end of the day, this predictable decision won’t make a difference to the widespread project resistance – we’ll continue doing everything we can to topple this stacked deck in order to protect the property rights and wellbeing of North Dakotans,” said Emma Schmit, Bold Alliance Pipeline Fighters Director.
Summit continues to face significant challenges as it encounters multiple permit appeals and local zoning regulations across the pipeline’s five-state footprint. Separate lawsuits over the Public Service Commission’s permitting decision have been launched by landowners and by Burleigh County. Additionally, the Northwest Landowners Association is suing the state over its amalgamation law (which allows the state to take away landowners’ mineral rights without the usual legal remedies granted by Eminent Domain).
# # #
About the North Dakota Easement Team:
The North Dakota Easement Team works to educate, organize, and support landowners who are opposed to eminent domain for private gain, and pool resources for landowners seeking legal representation in eminent domain battles and pipeline fights. Landowners with the NDET also sponsor a range of advertising and social media outreach and are networking with other state-based Easement Teams and landowners opposing carbon pipelines across the Midwest. The Easement Action Teams are a project of the Bold Education Fund. Read more about the NDET: https://NDeasement.orgAbout Bold Alliance:
The Bold Alliance is a network of “small and mighty” groups in rural states working to protect land and water. We fight fossil fuel projects, protect landowners against eminent domain abuse, and work for clean energy solutions while building an engaged base of citizens who care about the land, water, and climate change. (https://boldalliance.org)About Dakota Resource Council:
Formed in 1978, Dakota Resource Council grew out of existing organizing efforts responding to impacts from coal development. DRC works with communities across the state to organize around the common goals of securing a thriving North Dakota and putting people first. Members take action to create public awareness and shape public policy to ensure safe and responsible development, protect North Dakota’s agricultural economy, and establish a foundation for a just transition to a diverse energy economy. (drcinfo.org)
And from the Monitor's sibling in the States Newsroom network, the Iowa Capital Dispatch. Bluestem is surprised that anyone would attempt to intimidate rural broadcaster and conservative voice Trent Loos, but we live in that sort of times.
Pipeline opponents receive cease and desist letters from Summit
by Cami KoonsSeveral opponents of the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions carbon sequestration pipeline have received letters on behalf of the company threatening lawsuits over perceived defamation, an environmental group representative said.
Jess Mazour, a conservation program associate with the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, said in a press release Thursday she received a letter from the company, “threatening to sue for compensatory or punitive damages if statements were not retracted.”
The letter, dated Nov. 12, 2024, directed Mazour to cease and desist from “interfering” with and making any “further false and defamatory statements” about the pipeline project.
The letter was sent from Jason Torchinsky with Holtzman Vogel law firm in Washington, D.C. and Todd Lantz with Weinhardt Law Firm in Des Moines.
The letter points to a quote from Mazour in a nwestiowa.com article from August 2023, where she said Summit Carbon Solutions was in “in collusion” with the Iowa Utilities Board (now Iowa Utilities Commission) to “take away democracy and people’s rights.”
The letter called the statement “false and defamatory” and said it, combined with Mazour’s “explicitly stated goal” to stop the pipelines, exposes her to “significant legal liability.”
The letter then stated Summit Carbon Solutions and investors have $1 billion invested into the project to date and Mazour should “issue an immediate” public retraction of her statement to avoid legal action.
Mazour said in a call with Iowa Capital Dispatch that she and Sierra Club counsel believe Summit has no “grounds to stand on” with the threatened lawsuit.
“This is clearly an intimidation attempt just to keep us quiet and hamper our free speech rights,” Mazour said.
Representatives from Summit Carbon Solutions did not respond to requests for comment or to verify the letters were sent on the company’s behalf.
According to the press release from Mazour and the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, at least six people have received similar letters.
Trent Loos, who hosts several rural broadcasts, has also publicly stated he received a similar letter about comments he has made. During a Dec. 2 broadcast on X, Loos admitted he was wrong about one of the statements quoted in the letter, but he doubled down on two other statements the letter called false and defamatory.
“In no way, shape, or form did I make a mistake,” Loos said of the two other alleged defamatory statements against him.
Mazour said the intention of the letters is “intimidation” and urged Iowans to “stand strong when companies take this kind of action.”
“It’s just really important that we don’t let this intimidation stop us from doing what’s right,” Mazour said. “It is our responsibility as citizens of the state to protect our land, and our water, and our rights, and our democracy, and no one should stand in the way of that.”
In Minnesota, pipeline opponent, rural grassroots group CURE posted on its blog:
PUC approves first CO2 pipeline permit in MN, with conditions
CURE and community members express anger and disappointment at the decision
On Thursday, December 12th, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) granted the route permit for Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline in Otter Tail and Wilkin Counties. However, the PUC placed a number of conditions on the permit, including prohibiting Summit from building in Minnesota before it has secured all permits and started construction in North Dakota on the pipeline and storage site. Summit’s lawyer stated at the meeting that construction at the storage site would not begin until “sometime” in 2026.
The segment permitted today was for 28-miles of pipeline that will run from the Green Plains Ethanol facility in Fergus Falls to the North Dakota border by Breckenridge. It is part of the much larger 2,500 mile Midwest Carbon Express CO2 pipeline network planned across parts of southern Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota. Along with CURE, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and the Sierra Club argued against the approval at the PUC.
Today’s decision is a dereliction of the PUC’s duty to the public and sets a low bar for this first-of-its-kind project. The record shows clear risks from this project and a lot of unanswered questions by Summit. Minnesotans weighed in against Summit’s pipeline proposal by a 100-to-1 ratio, but instead of listening to community members, the commissioners paved the way for a project that risks our lands, waterways, and public health.
–Sarah Mooradain, Government Relations & Policy Director, CURELandowners and community members who live in the footprint of Summit’s project and attended the PUC meeting expressed dismay at the outcome.
With all due respect to the Commissioners, I was disappointed by the cavalier attitude they showed about the impact to our land and homes. The dismissal of the long-term impacts to crop yields, the lack of discussion about water use–these are the things that people in the area care about. But the PUC doesn’t seem to take them seriously.
–Tony Kramer, landowner and farmer from Redwood CountyIndigenous allies who attended the meeting also pushed back against the arguments made that Summit’s project has climate benefits.
False Solutions are still a form of colonization. Summit’s pipeline directly impacts indigenous people. We need to end the fossil fuel industry with this false perception that carbon capture is a solution.
– Standing Rock Grassroots and Waste Wakpa GrassrootsA number of commissioners did note concerns that Summit’s project could be on shaky ground, relying on “tenuous” federal tax credits that could see substantial changes under a Trump administration and having not secured key permits in a number of states. They also reiterated, and Summit confirmed, that the permit does not give the company eminent domain powers in Minnesota and the company will have to secure voluntary agreements for the entire route before construction can begin.
Summit’s original timeline for building this project is already behind by a number of years and to date they haven’t applied for a permit for the hundreds of other miles of pipeline they say they want to build here in Minnesota. While today’s decision resolves some immediate questions for the company for this 28-mile route, they will not be putting pipeline in the ground in Minnesota anytime soon. A lot can happen in the meantime.
–Maggie Schuppert, Campaigns Director, CUREAfter the PUC issues a written order in the next few weeks codifying today’s decision, parties will have 20 days to formally petition the Commission to reconsider its pipeline approval.
Meanwhile, here in South Dakota, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission has scheduled six public input meetings in January on Summit carbon pipeline application. I'm hoping to attend the Watertown and Aberdeen meetings to document the peasant uprising here in South Dakota.
The North Dakota Monitor and Iowa Capital Dispatch articles are republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Map: The Summit Carbon Solutions proposed ethanol carbon pipeline network.
Related posts
- North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
- Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
- Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
- Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
- Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
- U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
- Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
- North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
- North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
- SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
- In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters
- CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
- Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
- Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question
- 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
- Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
- Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota
- Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
- Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
- South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
- Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
- Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
- Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
- South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
- South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
- 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