Minnesota regulators will require environmental impact statement for CO2 pipeline

Minnesota utility regulators on Thursday ruled that a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline should undergo the most thorough environmental review available under state law.

Some sort of environmental review of Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline is required. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) voted 5-0 for an environmental impact statement (EIS), which was favored by environmental groups.

An EIS is commonly done on large controversial projects like mines and oil pipelines.

Christina Brusven, an attorney representing Summit, said at the PUC's Thursday meeting that an alternative to an EIS — a comparative environmental analysis (CEA) — would be just as "robust" and would take less time.

Katie Sieben, the PUC's chair, questioned whether an EIS would take longer, and said that if it did: "Taking longer to make sure we get it right, isn't that in everybody's best interest? We have certainly heard a lot of concerns about CO2 pipelines."

Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline would run for 150 miles in Minnesota, transporting carbon dioxide captured at seven ethanol plants. The $4.5 billion pipeline also would ship CO2 from 25 other ethanol plants and also would run through Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota, depositing the waste underground in North Dakota.

The Iowa Utilities Board ruled in October that Summit Carbon Solutions does not have to conduct a state-level environmental impact study for its project, which is planned to cross 29 Iowa counties.

“There is no explicit legal requirement, in statute or in rule, for an independent environmental impact report as a part of this proceeding,” the Iowa board wrote. It issued the same ruling in November for a second planned carbon sequestration pipeline, this one proposed by Navigator Heartland Greenway.

In September, Summit applied for a route permit for 28 miles of pipeline in Minnesota. The PUC on Thursday approved Summit's application for that stretch — a formality. The pipeline's merits will be debated in a PUC proceeding over the coming year.

Summit plans to file other route permit applications for sections of the pipeline in Minnesota, not for the project as whole. Its first application covers a 4.5-inch diameter pipe that would run from Green Plains' ethanol plant near Fergus Falls to the North Dakota border south of Breckenridge.

Environmental reviews must be done on each section. "It would make more sense to do one EIS for all of the segments," said Amelia Vohs, an attorney representing the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and the Sierra Club in the Summit pipeline proceeding.

Still, she said in an interview that she hoped the PUC's decision Thursday would set a precedent for the other sections.

Ethanol plants are significant CO2 emitters, and carbon capture has become an increasingly popular — though often controversial — concept in recent years. It's aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the root of climate change.

But opponents of carbon capture say it promotes the continued use of fossil fuels; and if CO2 pipelines rupture, they pose threats to rivers, lakes and groundwater — as well as human health.

Summit Carbon Solutions argued that under state law, the PUC should order a CEA rather than an EIS. The Minnesota Department of Commerce, which advises the PUC, suggested modifications to the CEA process to ensure it would address substantially the same issues as an EIS.

But Vohs, the environmental attorney, told the PUC that even with the Commerce Department's suggestions, a CEA would not be as complete as an EIS.

Summit has faced fierce opposition in some other states over procuring land for its pipeline under eminent domain. The company does not have eminent domain power in Minnesota.

"I understand there is some pushback in neighboring states," PUC Commissioner John Tuma said to Summit representatives Thursday. "I see a lot of unhappy farmers in South Dakota [concerned] about eminent domain, and it's the same in Iowa."

Tuma asked Summit if the opposition would affect the company's pipeline timeline. The answer from Summit was "no": The company still expects to begin construction in 2024's first quarter.