What they’re thinking: Carbon dioxide pipeline challenges far from over

Summit Carbon Solutions recently gained approval from North Dakota regulators for its sprawling carbon dioxide pipeline system, the second of three route permits it needs to be able to start construction in Iowa.

The company wants to build more than 2,500 miles of pipe in five states to transport carbon dioxide emissions captured from ethanol plants to North Dakota, where it would be sequestered underground.

Iowa regulators said Summit must first obtain route permits in the Dakotas before it begins in the state. For the other two states, an administrative law judge has recommended the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approve a 28-mile pipeline segment in the northwestern part of that state to one of the plants. And in Nebraska, where state officials do not regulate pipeline routes, individual counties must decide whether to grant conditional-use permits.

Summit has estimated the system will cost at least $8 billion, which is being paid by its investors. They expect to benefit — through agreements with more than 50 ethanol producers — from generous federal tax credits for sequestering CO2 and producing low-carbon fuels.

The ethanol facilities are ripe for such a project because their fermentation emissions are almost entirely carbon dioxide. There are no immediate plans to capture other CO2 emissions from the facilities, which would be more costly to process before injection into the pipeline system.

Proponents of the project say it will significantly reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, boost corn prices and sustain the ethanol industry as more drivers switch to electric vehicles.

Opponents say it will cause long-term damage to farmland and is unsafe, and that it's inappropriate for Summit to use eminent domain authority to gain involuntary permission from landowners to host the pipeline. Some also reject that there would be an overall environmental benefit because of the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted for crop production and transportation.

Summit still is in the process of obtaining permission in North Dakota to pump carbon dioxide into the ground.

It also recently applied for a route permit in South Dakota, where state regulators rejected the company's first request last year. The company told the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission that it changed its original proposal to move the pipeline farther south and west in two counties and rerouted near Sioux Falls to lessen its impact on future development in the area.

But it also asked the South Dakota commission to override county ordinances that have the potential to block the new route. The commission declined that request when it rejected the first permit application.

  Buy Photo

Wally Taylor, a longtime attorney for the Sierra Club of Iowa, has been at the forefront of legal challenges to Summit's permit in Iowa.

Q. Why do you think the pipeline system is a bad idea?

A. The pipeline is destructive to farmland and is a safety risk. Most importantly, from the Sierra Club's perspective, capturing carbon dioxide from the fermentation process from ethanol plants and piping it to North Dakota does not mitigate climate change. It is a waste of taxpayer money through a generous tax credit to Summit that would be better used to support real solutions to climate change.

Q. Is there any good that would come from it?

A. No. It is just a moneymaking scheme for Summit and the ethanol industry.

Q. What are the most likely scenarios in Iowa in which pipeline opponents might prevail in their challenges?

A. The Iowa Utilities Commission decision granting Summit a permit is now on appeal to the Iowa district court. The commission made errors of fact and law that should require reversal by the court. Most clearly, Summit is not a common carrier and should not have the power of eminent domain. We will also continue to work for legislation that will at least prohibit the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines. Finally, there are several possible avenues of success in South Dakota and Summit still does not have the right of eminent domain in North Dakota.

Q. How long might it be before the courts decide those issues?

A. The Iowa district court could render a decision by next summer. The case would then certainly be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. That decision would likely come sometime in early 2026. There are also judicial actions in North and South Dakota.

Q. Do you feel that the process has been advantaged toward Summit?

A. Absolutely. When Summit first applied for a permit with the Iowa Utilities Commission, the commission tried to encourage landowners to sign easements to Summit. Then, when the governor appointed two new members to the three-member commission, it was clear that the new commission was on a mission to give Summit what it wanted. Legislatively, Summit has had a team of high-powered lobbyists, as well as the governor, successfully persuading Iowa Senate leaders from bringing any legislation even to a committee vote.

Q. How do you think this project differs from the Dakota Access oil pipeline?

A. Although Sierra Club challenged the Dakota Access pipeline because we felt it would enable further reliance on fossil fuels, an oil pipeline at least had the short-term benefit of providing a product that the public would use. An oil pipeline is defined as a common carrier so it had the right of eminent domain. The Summit pipeline, however, would not benefit the public at all — not even in mitigating climate change. But we still think the damage to farmland, the environmental damage and the extension of reliance on fossil fuels made Dakota Access a bad project.

Q. Is it odd to be in this fight with Republican lawmakers — whom you might normally tangle with — joining you?

A. Yes and no. Initially, we certainly had the same concerns as the Republicans about the use of eminent domain. Even though Sierra Club was opposed to the project itself, many of the Republican lawmakers did not necessarily oppose the pipeline itself, just the use of eminent domain. Over time, though, I sense that many of those lawmakers begin to see the pipeline as simply an example of corporate greed and not a public good.

Q. Might South Dakota be the arena where pipeline opponents prevail?

A. That remains to be seen. At this point, South Dakota has certainly been a significant hurdle for Summit. I applaud the people of South Dakota for that, but I am disappointed that Iowa has not been equally challenging for Summit. The political power structure in Iowa has benefited Summit. But we are not done yet.

Q. How do you think this situation will change future regulation of similar projects?

A. I wonder if there will be any similar projects in the future. If Summit is successful, it will have contracted with almost all of the ethanol plants in Iowa. It will be much more difficult to decarbonize other industries. So future efforts may not be profitable enough.

Comments: (319) 368-8541; jared.strong@thegazette.com