Summit pipeline permit set for court fight

State regulators have effectively denied several requests to reconsider their approval of a massive carbon dioxide pipeline project.

The Iowa Utilities Commission had a statutory deadline of Wednesday to respond to the appeals filed a month ago by conservation groups, landowners, counties and lawmakers, who oppose a pipeline permit for Summit Carbon Solutions.

"As the Commission has not acted on or before August 14, 2024, the requests for reconsideration have been denied by operation of law," wrote Jon Tack, an attorney for the commission, in a notice of denial.

That means that after three years of the commission primarily overseeing the disputes about Summit's permit, the next likely arbiter will be a judge.

Several groups have indicated they will challenge the permit in state district court.

"The whole process was very unfair and the way that the board conducted the proceedings — how everything was skewed in favor of Summit," said Wally Taylor, an attorney for the Sierra Club of Iowa. "You are entitled to a fair hearing and a fair decision-maker, and we didn't get that."

Those who asked for reconsideration and were denied have 30 days to file a lawsuit to challenge the commission's June decision to approve the first phase of Summit's project in Iowa.

The company wants to build a 2,500-mile pipeline network to transport captured carbon dioxide from nearly 60 ethanol plants to North Dakota for underground sequestration.

The first Iowa permit is for about 680 miles of pipe. Summit seeks to expand its Iowa footprint by about 370 miles with a series of other permit requests. Most of those were the result of Summit inking agreements with ethanol plants that had previously committed to the now-defunct Navigator CO2 pipeline.

Taylor confirmed Thursday that the Sierra Club will take the commission to court over the Summit permit. Two other likely litigators — the Republican Legislative Intervenors for Justice and Brian Jorde, the leading attorney for landowners who oppose the project — could not immediately be reached to comment for this article.

Tim Whipple, an attorney who represents seven counties that oppose the permit, said those counties have not yet decided whether to file a lawsuit. Nor has Bold Iowa, its director Ed Fallon said.

"They are disappointed now that the commission refused even to explain why it would not reconsider its decision," Whipple said of the counties.

There is some variance in why each group opposes the permit. The counties, for instance, have sought greater authority to protect their residents from potential pipeline breaches and to ensure future economic development.

But a unifying issue is eminent domain, by which Summit can force unwilling landowners to host the pipeline network on their properties. The groups have argued that the project does not serve a public benefit that is sufficient to trump property rights, but rather that the project's purpose is to enrich those who have invested in the company.

The roughly $8 billion project, if it is built, would benefit from federal tax incentives for sequestering carbon dioxide and for the production of low-carbon fuels.

Summit has argued its system is essential for the ethanol industry, which faces an uncertain future given the rise of electric vehicles. Gasoline-powered passenger cars in the United States are almost entirely fueled by ethanol blends.

Summit has yet to gain approval in North and South Dakota, which are essential for its project.

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