North Dakota regulators deny siting permit for Summit pipeline

BISMARCK, N.D. — In the first test of a proposal to build a carbon dioxide capture pipeline connecting ethanol plants across five states, North Dakota regulators Friday unanimously denied granting a siting permit to Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions.

The North Dakota Public Service Commission was the first state board to consider the request, which was planned to cross 320 miles in that state. Summit proposed the underground pipeline to capture CO2 from more than 30 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, and to store it deep underground in North Dakota.

Evidentiary hearings on its proposal to build 687 miles of the route in Iowa, crossing 29 counties, are set to start Aug. 22 in Fort Dodge and last several days. Summit has indicated it wants a decision by the Iowa Utilities Board on its hazardous pipeline permit by the end of the year.

In a statement, Summit said it “respects the decision by the North Dakota Public Service Commission, and we will revisit our proposal and reapply for our permit. We’re committed to understanding and incorporating the considerations outlined in the decision. We are confident that our project supports state policies designed to boost key economic sectors: agriculture, ethanol, and energy.”

Summit is one of three companies to propose CO2 pipelines in Iowa, including Wolf Carbon Solutions, whose route includes Linn County. Evidentiary hearings for these two proposals have not been set, although one — Navigator CO2 Ventures — has requested a hearing next summer.

The projects are intended to lower greenhouse gases and make ethanol more attractive to states, like California, that have strict emission controls. Nationwide, CO2 pipelines could qualify for tax credits that could surpass $100 billion over 10 years.

The North Dakota Public Service Commission held public hearings throughout the state this year, during which landowners expressed concerns including about eminent domain, safety and requests for reroutes around their property.

“The Commission felt that Summit has not taken steps to address outstanding legitimate impacts and concerns expressed by landowners or demonstrated why a reroute is not feasible," the regulators said in a statement. “The Commission also requested additional information on a number of issues that came up during the hearings. Summit either did not adequately address these requests or did not tender a witness to answer the questions.”

Summit has “legal options" it can take, North Dakota commission spokesperson Stacy Eberl said. The regulators do not have jurisdiction over injection sites, she said. Summit proposed an underground injection site in central North Dakota to sequester the captured CO2 underground.

Summit has asked Iowa regulators for the authority to use eminent domain to force unwilling landowners — who would be compensated — to grant it easements for its route. About 950 parcels have not accepted offers for easements and could be subject to eminent domain proceedings, Jesse Harris, a spokesperson for Summit, told the Iowa Capital Dispatch earlier this month, but he expects it will decline further before the evidentiary hearing.

North Dakota’s denial was cited as a reason to postpone Iowa’s hearings, which opponents had already been seeking without avail.

“Summit’s hearing in Iowa needs to be delayed because this decision means Summit no longer has a way to sequester the CO2,” said a statement from Dan Wahl, a Dickinson County farmer impacted by the Summit proposal. “We’ve been fighting the same fight here in Iowa as North Dakota. If Summit failed to meet the burden of proof there, they have failed to meet it here too.”

Bold Alliance, a coalition of pipeline protesters, after the denial called the proposed CO2 pipelines a “boondoggle for corporations leaving rural people with all of the risks.”

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, a Republican presidential candidate, has been a supporter of the Summit project, including the potential use of eminent domain, AgWeek reported.

"This is a matter between the PSC and the company, and we’ll continue to monitor it as the process plays out," Mike Nowatzki, a spokesperson for Burgum, said in an email to AgWeek.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.