Regulators approve North Dakota section of planned 5-state Midwest carbon dioxide pipeline

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/11/2024 (702 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota utility regulators granted approval on Friday for a span of a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that would cross five Midwestern states — a key victory for the company that has faced vociferous landowner objections and various hurdles and setbacks in its plans.

The state Public Service Commission voted unanimously to approve a siting permit for Summit Carbon Solutions’ modified, 333-mile route in North Dakota. The company’s proposed $8 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline system would carry tons of planet-warming CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in five states for storage deep underground in North Dakota.

No construction has begun anywhere on Summit’s proposed route. Iowa has approved the project, but other hurdles remain in North Dakota as well as South Dakota, Minnesota and Nebraska.

The approval is a win for the company after North Dakota initially denied a permit in 2023, shortly followed by rejection in South Dakota. Another company, Navigator CO2 Ventures, canceled its project around the same time due to the “unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa.”

Supporters cheer carbon capture projects as a way to combat climate change, with lucrative federal tax credits available for such efforts. The ethanol industry sees Summit’s project opening up sustainable aviation fuel markets, a boost for ethanol and No. 1 corn producer Iowa.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, now President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Interior Secretary, a position with wide influence over natural resources, has touted his state’s underground CO2 storage potential as a “geologic jackpot.” Carbon-capture skeptics say the technology is untested at scale and allows the fossil-fuel industry to continue largely unchanged.

Summit opponents, including many landowners across the Midwest, decry the potential of a pipe rupture releasing hazardous, heavy CO2 gas to flow over the land, endangering people’s health and lives. They also fear the taking of their land through eminent domain.

North Dakota Public Service Commission Chairman Randy Christmann urged Summit not to use eminent domain, “at least not more than absolutely necessary.” Eminent domain is not in the panel’s jurisdiction or a part of the siting process, he said.

Summit CEO Lee Blank told reporters the company is pleased with the panel’s decision. He said Summit has worked with landowners on a voluntary basis and will continue to do so.

“Our goal is, again, to acquire as much right of way possible as we can voluntarily, and ultimately at the end of the day, we hope to do 100% of that,” Blank said.

Summit said Friday it has acquired easements for over 82% of its North Dakota route.

Republican state Sen. Jeff Magrum, an opponent whose district the pipeline would cross, said he’d rather see investments in roads, bridges and dams instead of “Green New Deal projects that don’t create any benefit for our state or our country.” He expects the panel’s decision to be challenged.

In a statement, landowner attorney Brian Jorde said, “No surprise on the decision. We need to analyze the written decision. Like in Iowa, the courts will sort this out and ultimately decide if the PSC decision will stand or be reversed.”

In August, the Iowa Utilities Commission issued Summit a hazardous liquid pipeline permit after approving the company’s application in June. The panel also granted Summit the right of eminent domain over numerous parcels of land.

But the company cannot start construction in Iowa until it has route approvals from both Dakotas and approval for underground storage in North Dakota, among other requirements. The Iowa panel’s decision sparked lawsuits in opposition.

Christmann said the North Dakota permit has no restrictions based on what any other states do.

The North Dakota panel had denied Summit a siting permit in August 2023. The regulators said Summit hadn’t sufficiently addressed several issues, including geologic instability, wildlife areas, cultural resource impacts and some landowner concerns.

Soon afterward, the panel agreed to reconsider, beginning more than a year of meetings and document filings.

Summit submitted three storage facility permit applications to North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources, but no decision has been made.

In 2022, Minnkota Power Cooperative and Summit agreed to collaborate on developing CO2 storage in central North Dakota, a pact that also lets Summit use Minnkota’s previously permitted 100-million-ton underground storage.

In September 2023, South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission denied Summit’s permit application after commission staff said the route would violate county ordinances for setback distances. Summit has said it plans to reapply this month for a permit.

In a referendum earlier this month, South Dakota voters rejected a suite of regulations that opponents said would deny local control over such projects and consolidate authority with state regulators. Supporters had promoted it as a “landowner bill of rights.”

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is expected to decide Dec. 12 whether to approve a 28-mile segment of pipeline that would connect an ethanol plant near Fergus Falls to Summit’s network in North Dakota. An administrative law judge recommended that the commissioners find that the environmental review for the Minnesota section met the legal requirements, and issue a route permit to Summit.

In Nebraska, where there is no state regulatory process for CO2 pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance its project. At least one county has denied a permit.

___

AP reporter Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this story.