BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota panel will consider Thursday whether to approve permits for underground storage of hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide that a proposed pipeline would transport from ethanol plants across the Midwest.
Approval by the governor-led, three-member Industrial Commission would be another victory for Summit Carbon Solutions’ controversial project, although further legal challenges are likely. Last month, the company received approval for its route to North Dakota, and Iowa regulators also granted conditional approval.
Also Thursday, Minnesota utility regulators were scheduled to consider approval for a 28-mile section of the project.
Summit’s 2,500-mile, $8 billion pipeline would transport CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska to underground storage in central North Dakota.
North Dakota’s Republican Gov. Doug Burgum is chairman of the Industrial Commission, which includes the attorney general and agriculture commissioner and oversees a variety of energy issues and state-owned companies.
Burgum is President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to be Interior secretary and to lead a recent National Energy Council. Burgum supports Summit’s project and has frequently touted underground carbon storage in North Dakota as a “geological jackpot.” In 2021, he set the goal of the third largest oil producing state being CO2 neutral by 2030. His term ends on Saturday.
Summit applied for permits for three storage facilities that would collectively store an estimated maximum of 352 million tons of CO2 over a 20-year period. According to an application fact sheet, the pipeline would transport up to 18 million tons of CO2 per year and inject it about 1.6 kilometers underground.
Summit’s documents detail the construction of the drilling site, which includes a pump/meter building, gas detection stations, inlet valves and an emergency shut-off valve.
Carbon dioxide would move through the pipeline under pressure and be injected into a rock formation deep underground.
Jessie Stolark, who leads a group that includes Summit and is supporting the project, said the oil industry has long used similar technologies.
“We know this can be done safely and in a way that protects human health and underground sources of drinking water,” said Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition.
Summit’s project has drawn the ire of area landowners. They oppose the possible apply of their land for the pipeline and fear that a burst pipe would release a cloud of bulky, risky gas across the country.
A North Dakota landowner group is challenging a property rights law related to underground storage, and attorney Derrick Braaten said they would likely challenge the issuance of permits for the storage plans.
“The landowners I work with are not necessarily against carbon sequestration per se,” Braaten said. “They are against the idea that a private company can come in and use their property without having to negotiate with them or simply pay them compensation for taking and using their private property.”
Carbon capture projects like Summit’s are eligible for lucrative federal tax credits designed to encourage cleaner burning of ethanol and potentially result in corn-based ethanol being refined into jet fuel.
Some opponents argue that the amount of greenhouse gases sequestered by the process would make little difference and could encourage farmers to grow more corn despite environmental concerns about the crop.
In Minnesota, utility regulators were expected to decide Thursday whether to grant a route permit for a diminutive portion of the overall project, a 28-mile (45-kilometer) section that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to Summit’s broader network.
An administrative law judge who conducted hearings recommended in November that the Public Utilities Commission grant the permit because the panel did not have the legal authority to reject it. The judge concluded that the environmental impacts of the Minnesota section would be minimal, that the environmental review met legal requirements, and noted that Summit received agreements from landowners along most of the recommended route. Staff at the commission, the state Department of Commerce and Summit largely agreed with those findings.
Environmental groups opposing the project dispute the judge’s finding that the project would have a net environmental benefit.
In addition to North Dakota, Summit also has a permit from Iowa for its route. But regulators in that state required the company to obtain permits for routes in the Dakotas and for underground storage in North Dakota before construction could begin. The Iowa Utilities Commission’s approval sparked lawsuits related to the project.
Last year, South Dakota regulators rejected Summit’s application. The company filed another permit application last month.
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.
___
Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.
