BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota regulators gave approval Friday to a section of a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that would traverse five Midwestern states, a major victory for the company that overcame vociferous objections from landowners as well as various Plans faced hurdles and setbacks.
The state Public Service Commission voted unanimously to approve a site permit for Summit Carbon Solutions’ modified 333-mile route in North Dakota. The company’s proposed $8 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline system would transport tons of planet-warming CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in five states and store them deep underground in North Dakota.
Construction has not 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 victory for the company after North Dakota initially denied a permit in 2023, followed shortly thereafter by a denial in South Dakota. Another company, Navigator CO2 Ventures, canceled its project around the same time due to the “unpredictable nature of the associated regulatory and governmental processes, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa.”
Advocates welcome 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 as opening sustainable aviation fuel markets, a boost for ethanol and Iowa’s No. 1 corn producer.
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, now selected by President-elect Donald Trump to be Interior secretary, a position with broad influence over natural resources, has touted his state’s underground carbon storage potential as a “geologic jackpot.”
Opponents of the summit, including many landowners in the Midwest, decry the possibility that a pipe burst could release hazardous, massive CO2 gas that would flow across the land and endanger people’s health and lives. They also fear the appropriation of their land by eminent domain.
Randy Christmann, chairman of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, urged Summit not to apply eminent domain, “at least not more than absolutely necessary.” He said the eminent domain does not fall under the board’s jurisdiction and is not part of the site selection process.
Summit CEO Lee Blank told reporters the company was 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, again, is to voluntarily gain as much right-of-way as possible, and in the end we hope we can do that 100%,” Blank said.
Summit announced Friday that it has acquired easements for more than 82% of its North Dakota track.
Republican Sen. Jeff Magrum, an opponent whose district the pipeline would pass through, said he would rather see investments in roads, bridges and dams than “Green New Deal projects that do not benefit our state or our country.” ” He assumes that the panel’s decision will be appealed.
Carbon capture skeptics say the technology has not yet been tested on a enormous scale and allows the fossil fuel industry to carry on largely unchanged.
In August, the Iowa Utilities Commission granted Summit a permit for the hazardous liquids pipeline after approving the company’s application in June. The board also granted Summit the right of eminent domain over numerous properties.
But the company can’t begin construction in Iowa until it has route permits from both Dakotas and approval for underground storage in North Dakota, among other requirements. The Iowa panel’s decision sparked lawsuits from the opposition.
Christmann said the permit has no restrictions based on what other states are doing.
The North Dakota board denied Summit a site permit in August 2023. Regulators said Summit failed to adequately address several issues, including geological instability, wildlife refuges, impacts on cultural resources and some landowner concerns.
Soon after, the board agreed to reconsider, beginning more than a year of meetings and filings.
Summit submitted three deposit permit applications to the North Dakota Department of Natural Resources, but no decision has been made.
In 2022, Minnkota Power Cooperative and Summit agreed to work together to develop carbon storage in central North Dakota, a pact that also allows Summit to apply Minnkota’s previously approved 100 million tons of underground storage.
In September 2023, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission rejected Summit’s permit application after commission staff said the route would violate county regulations on setback distances. Summit said it will reapply for a permit this month.
In a referendum earlier this month, South Dakota voters rejected a series of regulations that opponents say would deny local control over such projects and consolidate authority with state regulators. Proponents had promoted it as a “landowners’ bill of rights.”
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is expected to decide Dec. 12 whether to approve a 28-mile stretch of pipeline that would connect an ethanol plant near Fergus Falls to Summit’s network in North Dakota. An administrative law judge recommended that commissioners find that the environmental review for the Minnesota section met legal requirements and grant Summit a route permit.
Critics had raised concerns with the judge about the impact on farms and water resources and suggested there were better ways to reduce carbon emissions. They also argued that the environmental review should have been expanded to examine the impacts of the broader proposed Midwest Carbon Express pipeline network, to which Summit would be connected.
In Nebraska, where there is no state regulatory process for carbon pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance its project. At least one district has refused a permit.
___
AP reporter Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this story.
