CARBON CAPTURE

Summit Carbon Solutions indefinitely pauses permit application with South Dakota Public Utilities Commission

Kennedy Tesch — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:47:13 GMT

PIERRE, S.D. — Summit Carbon Solutions on Wednesday, March 12, filed a motion asking the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to suspend its current timeline and extend the deadline on its pending pipeline permit application with the agency indefinitely.

This move from Summit comes just days after Gov. Larry Rhoden on March 6, 2025, signed a bill into law that prohibits carbon pipelines from using eminent domain. House Bill 1052 will stop Summit Carbon Solutions from using eminent domain for its Midwest Carbon Express Pipeline, a five-state, $8 billion project that would capture carbon dioxide emissions from 57 ethanol plants and pipe them to west-central North Dakota for permanent storage underground.

Summit Carbon Solutions said in a statement that they are asking for changes to the timeline of their permit.

“With the passage of HB 1052, the ability to conduct necessary route surveys has changed, impacting the timeline for our South Dakota permit application. These surveys are critical to demonstrating the feasibility of construction and operation along the proposed route,” the statement said. “Given these challenges, we have requested a review and adjustment of the schedule accordingly. Summit Carbon Solutions remains committed to working through this process and advancing the project in states that support energy and innovation.”

Brian Jorde, an attorney for Domina Law Group, who has represented South Dakota landowners with the South Dakota Easement Team at state-based regulatory agency proceedings as well as against eminent domain threats from pipeline companies, said in a press release that this is a wise move for Summit.

“Given Summit’s proposed route does not respect County rules, regulations, and ordinances, is not supported by even a simple majority of directly affected landowners, and therefore, cannot be constructed,” Jorde said. “If Summit can find a path through South Dakota, they are free to do so, but the current application should be returned and dismissed, to let the landowners who have been tormented for nearly four years get back to their lives.”

In the motion to the PUC, Summit attorneys asked that the proceedings be paused for review and adjustment of the schedule, citing the current timeline as “unrealistic” given their ability to obtain survey permission has changed due to HB 1052.

"This request for extension is a clear sign that Summit knows they have lost the trust of South Dakota, and will be unable to proceed on their original timeline without being able to force surveys on unwilling landowners. As our new governor said so well, that trust is hard to earn back again once it is lost,” said Chase Jensen, senior organizer with Dakota Rural Action, a group that has played a role in organizing opposition against the carbon pipeline.

Dennis Feickert, chairman of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, said this move is just a continuation of Summit’s ongoing stall tactics.

“I think that it's kind of a wait and see kind of thing. I don't know what their tactics are,” Feickert said. “It's like a chess game. I don't know what their next move is.”

Feickert, who is the newly appointed chairman for the group, took over in February for Jim Eschenbaum, who was recently appointed as the new chair for the South Dakota Republican Party.

“I'm proud and humbled to be asked to be the chairman of a wonderful, wonderful group of people that have gotten up and stood up and fought for property rights, fought for freedom,” Feickert said. “My hope is that we can hold the group together, and that there'll be other issues that will come up, that we'll be able to organize and work on.”

While Feickert said is thankful that South Dakota voted to protect private property rights with the passage of HB 1052, he does have concerns that Summit’s lobbyists in D.C. may be working closely with the new administration.

“They've got people out in Washington, D.C., and I'm sure that they'd love to see an executive order by the President, or they'd like to see some type of quick legislation that would eliminate, or do away with county ordinances and the state's PUC guidelines and regulations,” Feickert said.

]]>

South Dakota governor signs bill prohibiting the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines

Ariana Schumacher — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 18:23:00 GMT

PIERRE, S.D. — Gov. Larry Rhoden on March 6, 2025, signed a bill into law that prohibits carbon pipelines from using eminent domain.

House Bill 1052 will stop Summit Carbon Solutions from using eminent domain for its Midwest Carbon Express Pipeline, a five-state, $8 billion project that would capture carbon dioxide emissions from 57 ethanol plants and pipe them to west-central North Dakota for permanent storage underground.

In a letter to the legislature and the people of South Dakota, Rhoden outlined his reasons for signing the bill into law.

“I am no stranger to discussion about eminent domain and property rights,” Rhoden wrote. “I’ve fought for private property rights in this Capitol for over 20 years. When I was a legislator, I was the prime sponsor of legislation that reformed eminent domain to protect property rights. I don’t just care about landowners — I am a landowner.”

Rhoden said the ethanol industry will remain an important part of South Dakota’s economy and a key asset as we implement an “all-of-the above energy approach to restore American energy dominance.” He wants to keep South Dakota open for opportunity, for every family, business own and farmer or rancher.

“But those dreams should not be pursued at the expense of others. Freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another,” he wrote. “And when those situations arise, ‘governments are instituted among men’ to protect the rights of the people.”

Summit Carbon Solutions continues to seek approval for its project.

"It's very unfortunate that, despite our approvals in Iowa, North Dakota and Minnesota, South Dakota changed the rules in the middle of the game," Summit Carbon Solutions said in a statement to Agweek. "This kind of regulatory uncertainty creates real challenges — not just for our project, but for the ethanol plants in South Dakota that now face competitive disadvantage compared to their counterparts in neighboring states."

Summit Carbon Solutions says the company will continue moving forward.

"While this presents obstacles, our project moves forward in states that support investment and innovation, and we will have more news on that soon," the statement said.

The American Carbon Alliance also expressed disappointment in the bill becoming law.

“This ill-advised legislation comes at a time when South Dakota farmers and ethanol producers desperately need new markets to restore profitability,” said Tom Buis, CEO of the American Carbon Alliance, in a statement. “Instead of supporting economic growth, this decision creates unnecessary roadblocks and sends the wrong message to agriculture and rural communities.”

Buis indicated South Dakota would lose opportunity to capitalize on growing markets for low-carbon biofuels, including sustainable aviation fuel.

“Other states are moving forward, and it’s unfortunate to see South Dakota take a step back,” he said.

Rhoden said over the past few years, he has become familiar with the details of the pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions.

“I’ve had hundreds of conversations about this issue. I’ve met with all sides and heard all the arguments,” Rhoden wrote. “I made my decision based on my own consideration of the facts, the policy arguments, legislative history, my own opinions and experience, and my judgment about what is best for South Dakota.”

He said Summit Carbon Solutions needs to regain the trust of the South Dakota landowners. House Bill 1052 does not kill the proposed pipeline project.

“Rather than viewing this legislation as an obstacle to the proposed project, I encourage Summit and others to view it as an opportunity for a need to reset,” Rhoden wrote. “Voluntary easements for this proposed project will still be able to move forward and are not impacted by HB 1052. In fact, without the threat of eminent domain, the opportunity might finally be available for trust to be rebuilt for more productive conversations to occur between Summit and South Dakota landowners.”

]]>

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approves Summit’s CO2 pipeline permit

Michael Johnson — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:34:07 GMT

ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on Thursday, Dec. 12, approved a route permit for Summit Carbon Solutions’ CO2 pipeline.

The 28-mile pipeline would be the first in the state of its kind. It would be a small part of Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions’ planned 2,500-mile, $9 billion pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage.

The Minnesota portion of the so-called Midwest Carbon Express pipeline is meant to capture the gas from the Green Plains ethanol plant in Fergus Falls. Summit confirmed Thursday that the CO2 coming from the Green Plains plant was to be permanently stored underground rather than used in other applications.

The approval is contingent upon the pipeline not only receiving the necessary permits but also beginning construction in other states along the proposed route before construction can begin in Minnesota.

The PUC took comments and answered questions on Thursday concerning their decision on Summit Carbon Solutions’ application for a routing permit for a CO2 pipeline to be installed in Otter Tail and Wilkin counties. The approved plan included a series of amendments that sought to give further protections to Minnesota landowners along the route.

The pipeline is proposed as 4.5 inches in diameter and would be placed about 54 inches underground. Summit stated they have gained landowner agreements for 89% of the route, leaving just seven landowners left to reach the full route. The majority of the pipeline would be placed on farmland.

When asked what would happen if their proposed route was not achieved, Christina Brusven, Minnesota counsel to Summit Carbon Solutions LLC, said Summit would come back to the commission with a revised route plan and seek to gain access to property along that new route. Eminent domain may only be used for a public use or public purpose in Minnesota.

Prior to the meeting, commissioners offered amendments. Those were then debated by the commission, Summit, environmental activist groups, the Minnesota Department of Commerce and a labor union.

Commissioner John Tuma asked numerous questions pointed at the intentions of Summit to provide assurances in case of a project failure. He mentioned concerns about other states not approving a route permit or that the tax credits making this project financially viable may go away. He repeatedly shared concerns of approving a project with a company dependent on tax credits.

Brusven shared that they will not begin construction without being financially secure.

“Before we start, we know we’re going to be able to finish,” she said.

Seeking to address his concerns, Tuma’s amendment was that Summit must provide a fund sufficient to ensure that, prior to construction, there is financial security in place to protect against the failure to complete construction and decommissioning, and acquire and maintain general liability and environmental liability insurance policies.

Another amendment placed on Summit the requirement to secure all land use agreements before construction and that they shall notify the Commission when all agreements have been secured.

Repeatedly asked about when construction might begin and where, Brusven shared that construction would likely begin in 2026. Rather than be tied to specific locations and time frames, one crew would be working on the entire Minnesota pipeline in one phase, with a plan to be completed in one growing season.

The project is making ground now with approval of a route in Minnesota, North Dakota and Iowa. A new route application has been submitted in South Dakota recently. That begins likely a year-long process in South Dakota that previously was denied in September 2023. Public meetings begin in South Dakota in January.

Commissioner Ham Hwikwon asked about the likelihood of the project moving forward without approval in South Dakota. He wondered if it would be viable with only Minnesota and North Dakota projects. That was not a question that could be easily answered at the moment, according to Brusven. Ideally, all routes would be approved.

As part of the project approval the Commission included the following permit conditions:

Provide CO2 monitors for residences within 1,000 feet of the project if a landowner requests. Provide funding for training and equipment to first responders. Require the permit holder to have general liability insurance. Require the Department of Commerce to review the pipeline’s decommissioning costs, type of financial security instrument, terms and conditions for the security instrument, and insurance requirements. Obtain voluntary landowner agreements along the entire route before the start of construction and compensate landowners for damage to crops and reduction in yields.

Following the approval, Summit thanked the PUC for helping them move forward.

“This decision underscores the importance of balancing economic opportunities for local communities with environmental stewardship,” Lee Blank, CEO of Summit Carbon Solutions, said in a news release. “We remain committed to working collaboratively with landowners and stakeholders to ensure the successful and responsible development of this project.”

The PUC's decision comes after an administrative law judge recommended its approval in November 2024. Also in November, the North Dakota Public Service Commission approved Summit’s pipeline permit.

]]>

Could green methanol technology provide an alternative to carbon pipelines?

Kennedy Tesch — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:00:00 GMT

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — As carbon pipeline projects face growing opposition, some are exploring green methanol as a cleaner, more profitable alternative for the region's ethanol industry. The renewable fuel, made from captured CO2, could reduce emissions and create new economic opportunities without the environmental and legal hurdles of pipeline development.

Results of the Nov. 5 election showed that South Dakota voters opposed by a margin of 60% to 40% Referred Law 21, a measure that attempted to eliminate local control over carbon dioxide pipeline zoning laws and provide protections for landowners. The South Dakota Supreme Court also ruled Aug. 22 that Summit Carbon Solutions is not a common carrier, and that CO2 is not a commodity, unlike what many proponents of the pipeline have long argued.

Despite setbacks in the state, Summit Carbon Solutions plans to reapply for a permit from the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Nov. 19, and continue on with their proposed carbon pipeline project that would capture CO2 from 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota and carry it to North Dakota, where it would be stored underground.

Doyle Turner, a retired farmer, feeder, and banker from Moville, Iowa, said carbon pipelines are an outdated idea, and he is suggesting alternative technology for the corn and ethanol industries — green methanol.

He says green methanol is a climate-friendly alternative to the conventional process for producing methanol, which uses fossil fuels like coal or natural gas. Methanol is used in many industries, including chemicals, construction, and plastics.

While ethanol plants do not directly produce methanol as a primary product during the standard ethanol fermentation process, some technologies offer to capture carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol plants and convert it to green methanol.

“There is a bigger opportunity. We have the opportunity to produce a whole other industry, and the government is willing to subsidize producing that industry,” Turner said. “Why would we not take that money and build an industry rather than just creating a landfill? Because sequestration is just a landfill, and to believe that you're going to build economic viability and stability off a landfill is about as third-world a notion as you're ever going to get.”

Turner has been advocating for companies such as CarbonLink and CapCO2 Solutions, who have the technology to build out ethanol to green methanol technology right next to partner ethanol companies.

“If they build a methanol plant next to the ethanol plant, it would give our ethanol plants the ability to sell multiple products,” Turner said. “They can sell methanol, if that makes the most sense, or they can add value to both the methanol and the ethanol to sell aviation fuel for both.”

According to CapCO2 Solutions, green methanol can deliver $60 billion in annual revenues to the region and an annual reduction of 50 million metric tons of CO2. It aims to reduce the carbon intensity scores of ethanol plants by 25 points, although that result may vary between each plant.

Jeff Bonar, chief executive officer of CapCO2 Solutions, believes that ethanol plants are “sitting on a gold mine.”

“They have no idea of the opportunity that they haven't yet embraced,” Bonar said. “Green methanol is a green fuel. So no new carbon is released into the atmosphere when you burn it, and it's a great alternate fuel to petroleum. The shipping industry, in particular, has standardized on green methanol as their next generation fuel.”

Bonar said that while conventional methanol technology can take up many acres of land, CapCO2 offers solutions for ethanol plants to build out the technology right next to them.

“Our technology is compact. It fits into shipping containers, and you can easily put them at an ethanol plant,” Bonar said. “We're kind of right-sized for the kind of land that's available in an ethanol plant. Now they have an attractive way to reduce their carbon footprint by capturing and upgrading the CO2 as well as adding a new revenue stream.”

While carbon pipelines have generated the most discussion when it comes to helping ethanol plants reduce their carbon emissions, Bonar said his company is different in almost every dimension.

“We're not planning to throw the CO2 away. We're not taking anyone's farmland. We don't cost $8 billion to build, and we're not based on government subsidies,” Bonar said. “Our business is based on selling green methanol to a world that's very anxious to buy it.”

Although CapCO2 does not have an operating plant yet, they plan to announce the finalists for their first plant within the next month.

]]>

Iowa Utilities Commission issues pipeline permit to Summit Carbon Solutions

Kennedy Tesch — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 16:00:00 GMT

DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Utilities Commission on Aug. 28 issued a pipeline permit to Summit Carbon Solutions for their proposed 688-mile carbon dioxide pipeline that is slated to cut through 29 Iowa counties to transport liquefied carbon dioxide en route to North Dakota, where it will be permanently sequestered underground.

The IUC found that Summit Carbon Solutions “has substantially complied with the requirements of the IUC’s June 25, 2024, order regarding the company's application for a hazardous liquid pipeline permit.”

In June, the IUC approved Summit’s application for a permit but required the company to submit numerous revised exhibits as compliance filings for the board’s review, prior to the board issuing the permit or Summit Carbon commencing construction. Summit was also granted the right to use eminent domain because the Board found that the public benefits of the pipeline outweigh the public and private costs of the project.

However, several conditions were established during the approval of the application and will be attached to the permit as well, including but not limited to requiring Summit to obtain and maintain at least a $100 million insurance policy, complying with certain construction methods, and ensuring landowners and tenants are compensated for damages that may result from the construction of Summit Carbon’s hazardous liquid pipeline.

As part of another stipulation upon issuing the permit, the project cannot begin construction in the state until it has obtained agency-level approval for a route and sequestration site in North Dakota and a route in South Dakota.

On Aug. 5, Summit Carbon Solutions submitted the compliance filings required by the IUC. The Board said “issuing the permit does not modify the conditions Summit Carbon must establish in order to start construction.”

“The Iowa Utilities Commission issued Summit Carbon Solutions’ base pipeline permit, marking a major milestone for Summit along with farmers and ethanol producers as we seek access to new markets like sustainable aviation fuel by lowering ethanol’s carbon intensity score,” said a spokesperson from Summit Carbon Solutions. “With corn prices below production costs, farmers are facing tough times. This pipeline will grow markets and work with ethanol partners to drive economic growth, supporting the long-term viability of our farmers and rural communities.”

Status of Summit in other states

In 2021, Summit announced proposal plans for their Midwest Carbon Express, a pipeline that would capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota and carry it to North Dakota, where it would be stored underground.

While Summit is making headway on their proposed pipeline project in Iowa, the South Dakota Supreme Court issued a ruling on Aug. 22 which determined that Summit Carbon Solutions has not proven that it is a common carrier and cannot at this time use eminent domain to survey land. Additionally, the Court ruled that CO2 is not a commodity, unlike what many proponents of the pipeline have long argued.

A spokesperson from Summit told Agweek they will evaluate the South Dakota Supreme Court's decision and "look forward to providing the information requested to the District Court that reaffirms their role as a common carrier, and that CO2 is a commodity."

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is taking comments on a route through Wilkin and Otter Tail counties in Minnesota through Sept. 11. Comments may also be submitted online at https://mn.gov/puc/consumers/public-comments or by email at consumer.puc@state.mn.us. Comments can be mailed to the Consumer Affairs Office Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, MN 55101.

Briefs in the route case were due July 22, and the PSC has not yet released its decision. The North Dakota Industrial Commission will decide on the permit for the sequestration sites.

The state of Nebraska in February 2024 denied Summit's application there, and the company has not begun the reapplication process.

]]>

South Dakota Supreme Court sides with landowners, says Summit Carbon Solutions cannot use eminent domain

Kennedy Tesch — Thu, 22 Aug 2024 21:17:05 GMT

PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously issued a ruling which determined that Summit Carbon Solutions is not a common carrier and cannot use eminent domain to survey land.

This decision, released on Thursday, Aug. 22, is considered a major victory for landowners and those opposed to the proposed pipeline project. The court ruled that Summit is not a common carrier and did not provide evidence to prove that they are a common carrier, and furthermore, that CO2 is not a commodity, unlike what many proponents of the pipeline have long argued.

Ed Fischbach, a farmer near Mellette, South Dakota, and an impacted landowner, helped lead the opposition against Summit and said that without the ability for the company to use eminent domain, the entire project could be off the table considering contingencies surrounding South Dakota put in place by states such as Iowa and North Dakota.

“This validates everything we have been saying since we started this fight over three and a half years ago,” Fischbach said. “The Supreme Court upheld every one of our arguments, totally rejecting all the arguments that all the proponents of this pipeline have been making for the last three and a half years.”

The proposed pipeline would run through 18 counties across South Dakota, and when Summit began surveying on private land without consent, a group of landowners began to push back and filed a lawsuit saying that the company had overstepped its legal abilities on surveys of private land.

The Supreme Court’s ruling also overturns a previous circuit court summary judgment on common carrier issues, saying it was “premature to conclude that SCS is a common carrier, especially where the record before us suggests that CO2 is being shipped and sequestered underground with no apparent productive use.”

Fischbach believes the new ruling will now give grounds for affected landowners to seek justice.

“This decision now opens the door for any landowner that was violated in any invasive surveys they did, to now come back and go after Summit for damages, if they wish,” Fischbach said.

Although the ruling proves a big win for opponents of the pipeline, Jim Eschenbaum, chairman of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance and a Hand County commissioner, said the group will continue to advocate against Referred Law 21, or more commonly known as Senate Bill 201, which would regulate carbon pipelines and require payments to landowners and counties but also would allow South Dakota Public Utilities Commission decisions in pipeline permits to automatically overrule local setback rules.

"Our goal has not changed. Referred Law 21 is still bad legislation that could have future ramifications, no matter how this Supreme Court decision affects Summit Carbon Solutions,” Eschenbaum said. “We are still asking South Dakotans to learn about Referred Law 21, and vote 'no' in November."

Summit Carbon Solutions said they will evaluate the South Dakota Supreme Court's decision and "look forward to providing the information requested to the District Court that reaffirms their role as a common carrier, and that CO2 is a commodity."

“The economic impact of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) on rural America is significant, and will greatly benefit agriculture and farmers,” said a spokesperson for Summit Carbon Solutions in a statement. “We are committed to ensuring that these benefits reach communities across our project footprint as we continue to be a valuable partner in this growing market, and look forward to progressing this project.”

Status of Summit in other states

South Dakota is not the only state for which Summit Carbon Solutions is working to secure permits.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is taking comments on a route through Wilkin and Otter Tail counties in Minnesota through Sept. 11. Comments may also be submitted online at https://mn.gov/puc/consumers/public-comments or by email at consumer.puc@state.mn.us. Comments can be mailed to Consumer Affairs Office Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, MN 55101.

The Iowa Utilities Board on June 25 unanimously approved Summit Carbon Solutions' application to construct, maintain and operate a carbon dioxide pipeline in Iowa. However, the ruling also said Summit cannot begin construction in Iowa until the necessary permits are secured in South Dakota and North Dakota.

In North Dakota, two types of permits are required — one for the construction of the pipeline and the other for the sequestration facility. The state Public Service Commission in August 2023 denied Summit's first attempt at a route permit. The company applied again with a new route and also applied for the sequestration permit. The hearing process is complete for both permits. Briefs in the route case were due July 22, and the PSC has not yet released its decision. The North Dakota Industrial Commission will decide on the permit for the sequestration sites.

The state of Nebraska in February 2024 denied Summit's application there , and the company has not begun the reapplication process.

]]>

There's still time to comment on the Summit carbon pipeline route

Michael Johnson — Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:59:57 GMT

FERGUS FALLS, Minn. — An administrative law judge heard mostly concerns about a proposed 28-mile segment of the Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline between Wilkin and Otter Tail counties during a two-hour hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 20.

About 60 attended the public comment hearing held by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, to hear updates and share comments on the portion of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline that is proposed to extend a 4.5-inch CO2 pipeline from Green Plains Ethanol Plant in Fergus Falls west to the Minnesota-North Dakota border near Breckenridge.

The project would also include a carbon capture facility at the ethanol plant and access roads. The project is part of the larger Midwest Carbon Express Project, where a pipeline network would send CO2 to injection wells for sequestration in underground formations in central North Dakota.

Members of the Public Utilities Commission were not present. Instead, Administrative Law Judge Christa Moseng presided over the meeting and will provide a report to the commission with findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation.

Summit filed a route permit application for the project nearly two years ago, in September 2022. Residents of the area have been involved in the process since then. With the final Environmental Impact Statement released on July 31, 2024, this was the first chance for public comment on the final EIS.

The final EIS shared three alternate route options. While opposition was heard about the general project, no suggestions were made about any one route being better or worse than another.

Health concerns

A strong majority of those commenting on Aug. 20 spoke in opposition to the project, emphasizing health and safety risks. Brought up numerous times was the concern of a CO2 leak that could cause serious health implications to those nearby.

Also brought up numerous times from those sharing opposition to the project was the risk to water in the area as well as the increase of water use. One drastic difference in thought was the amount of water this project would use. Wade Mathiowetz, or Wabasso, Minnesota, feared if CO2 leaked into the ground it would cause long-term contamination of groundwater. He also commented that the project would result in a doubling of water usage. In contrast, the final EIS shared that there would be a 7% increase in water use at the ethanol plant once the line is in service. Summit estimates the capture facility would require about 13 million gallons of water per year. That’s compared to the 174 million gallons that the ethanol plant used in 2022. Summit also estimates about 125,000 gallons of water would be needed during construction for hydrostatic testing and dust control.

Molly Stoddard, a 19-year resident of Fergus Falls and retired US Fish and Wildlife Service staff member, brought numerous concerns, chiefly that the only ones supportive of the project were those interested in making profits. She also suggested that the idea of 100% carbon capture was not a reality and that the end goal was not to store carbon dioxide, but rather find another way to use it for profit.

“Climate capture and storage is not a solution to the current climate emergency,” Stoddard said.

Stoddard further brought up concerns of increased electricity use and stated that electricity use would double at the ethanol plant. The final EIS states that electricity usage for the capture facility would be approximately 38.5 million kilowatt hours per year. Summit shared that Lake County Electric Co-op, which will serve the capture facility, has indicated that it has the capacity to handle this load without any issues.

Sue Briese, a Fergus Falls resident, commented that job creation should have no influence on an environmental impact statement. The EIS, which is put together by the Commerce Department and presented to the PUC, does speak to the impact on the economy including agriculture, tourism and industry.

In favor

Scott Lankow, a farmer and landowner, was the only directly impacted landowner whose property is crossed by the Summit pipeline, to comment at the meeting. He spoke in favor of the project.

“This section of the pipeline project is the least environmentally invasive part of the whole project,” Lankow commented. He added that the pipeline was strong and over-engineered. Upon hearing that the pipeline was 4.5 inches nominal diameter and would be buried 6-7 feet underground, he had no concerns about the project.

He commented that the installation of this pipeline would be less invasive than the installation of drainage tile that was also installed in his farm fields. He feared that if foreign countries failed to import grain from the U.S., the U.S. must have improved domestic use of their commodities and that this was one way to boost that.

Also speaking in favor of the project were several labor union representatives addressing the importance of job creation that the project would support. Glenn Peterson from Green Plains Ethanol Plant in Fergus Falls shared that the pipeline capture project that Summit expects will annually “capture and permanently store 190,000 MTPA (million tons per annum) of CO2,” would give security to the agriculture sector and the ethanol plant as they seek to become more environmentally friendly and sustainable.

“The proposed Summit carbon pipeline is a major component to the continued success of our plant by reducing its carbon footprint,” Peterson said. “In turn, it will give us the ability to compete in premium markets that require lower carbon intensity scores. If we cannot participate in these markets, the plant will struggle and eventually go away.”

He said the pipeline was necessary for the future of the plant and would help provide cleaner air once operational.

The final EIS listed three route alternatives. Summit’s preferred route was the south route, which would travel to the south of Wahpeton. If the final EIS is determined sufficient and a route is approved, construction is expected soon after. A timeline from Summit indicated commissioning and startup would be in 2026 and they would hope to have it operational later in 2026. A pipeline routing permit decision for this project is anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2024.

Summit Carbon Solutions in 2021 announced the Midwest Carbon Express project. Now, three years later, Summit remains committed to the pipeline project.

Further comment options

A similar public comment meeting will be held online Wednesday. Access that 6 p.m. hearing here.

Those not in attendance can still provide comment on the final EIS, and on the routing permit for the project until 4:30 p.m., Sept. 11, 2024.

Comments may also be submitted online at https://mn.gov/puc/consumers/public-comments or by email at consumer.puc@state.mn.us. Comments can be mailed to Consumer Affairs Office Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, MN 55101.

Summit movement in other states

South Dakota Public Utilities Commission in September 2023 denied Summit’s permit application because it would be in non-compliance with county ordinances already set in place. South Dakota Senate Bill 201 would, to an extent, take away the PUC's need to consider local ordinances, giving Summit a potentially clearer path to a permit. That bill question will be on the November general election ballot for South Dakota voters to decide.

The state of Nebraska in February 2024 denied Summit's application there, and the company has not begun the reapplication process.

]]>

South Dakotans will vote on carbon pipeline bill that could determine future of Summit pipeline

Kennedy Tesch — Mon, 22 Jul 2024 13:00:00 GMT

MELLETTE, S.D. — Ed Fischbach and other South Dakota landowners opposed to the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project have described South Dakota Senate Bill 201 as the “Summit Bill of Rights.”

“They put a misleading title on it to fool people, calling it the 'Landowner Bill of Rights,' which is the furthest thing from the truth,” said Fischbach, a fourth-generation farmer in northern Spink County, who played a pivotal role in organizing the movement in opposition to the carbon pipeline.

Now, voters in South Dakota will decide whether the bill — one of three bills that made up the "Landowner Bill of Rights" — will become law. SB201 would regulate carbon pipelines and require payments to landowners and counties but also would allow South Dakota Public Utilities Commission decisions in pipeline permits to automatically overrule local setback rules.

South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson announced July 10 that the petition to refer SB201 was validated to a statewide vote. The law was slated to go into effect July 1 but now will instead be added as the seventh question on South Dakota's general election ballot in November.

The other two bills considered part of the "Landowner Bill of Rights" — House Bills 1185 and 1186, which set out rules for surveys and easements — will not be on the ballot and instead went into effect on July 1.

The vote on SB201 could be a determining factor in the future of Summit's Midwest Carbon Express, a pipeline that would capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota and carry it to North Dakota, where it would be stored underground.

South Dakota Public Utilities Commission in September 2023 denied the company’s permit application because it would be in non-compliance with county ordinances already set in place. SB201 would, to an extent, take away the PUC's need to consider local ordinances, giving Summit a potentially clearer path to a permit.

Lee Blank, chief executive officer for Summit Carbon Solutions, said the company plans to reapply for a permit in South Dakota in the “near future” and has remained committed to working with and being as transparent as possible with landowners, even planning to reroute the pipeline throughout the state to only work with voluntary landowners.

A growing low-carbon market and growing opposition

Summit Carbon Solutions in 2021 announced the Midwest Carbon Express project. Now, three years later, Blank said Summit remains committed to the pipeline project as an investment to United States agriculture.

“We have to find ways to open new markets to United States farmers, South Dakota included, to consume this corn crop, whether that be through export markets that have been opened up for years previously or now through a growing and increasing ethanol marketplace that can deliver more value to the United States farmer,” Blank said. “That's really, really the the impetus behind what we're trying to accomplish at Summit Carbon.”

The idea behind the pipeline is to remove carbon from the atmosphere, thus giving the ethanol coming out of the involved plants a lower carbon score, which could open up ethanol plants to new markets and higher prices. Those markets could include countries like Canada or states like California that require lower carbon fuel products or could include relatively new markets like sustainable aviation fuel.

Fischbach initially entered the conversation about the pipeline when he received a letter in the mail in July 2021 from the company stating that they would be surveying his property for an easement. At a meeting held by Summit in Aberdeen, South Dakota, that year, he learned the company planned to use eminent domain to secure the land needed to build the pipeline, something he says should not be allowed for private companies to use.

"Eminent domain is the main issue here — the abuse of eminent domain and allowing a private, for-profit individual or company to take our land to so they can make more money and put it in their pockets," he said. "Eminent domain has a place as a purpose for public-use projects like water systems, electrical lines and highways."

Safety is another key point for opponents. Summit has said it will ensure the safety of the pipeline through monitoring and using only highly rated materials. Opponents say there can be no guarantee the pipeline won't leak or destruct.

"This is a toxic material, and if it leaks, it's going to endanger people's lives, and you're going to transport that 2,000 miles up in North Dakota just to bury it in the ground," Fischbach said. "It serves no public purpose for anybody other than the people that are behind this project that's coming out of Iowa, and now they've got the ethanol industry conned into thinking this is going to be lifesaving for them."

Spink, Brown, McPherson and Minnehaha counties passed ordinances to keep the Summit and now-defunct Navigator carbon pipeline projects out of their counties due to safety concerns for people living along pipeline routes.

Another issue opponents of the pipeline argue is that Summit and those involved will receive billions of dollars in federal tax credits.

"Taxpayers should be really concerned about this," Fischbach said. "We're giving our tax dollars away to private individuals and letting them make millions and billions off the backs of our United States taxpayers."

Groups in opposition to the pipeline hosted rallies and met with representatives in Pierre during the 2024 legislative session. Despite the resistance, which included ranchers and the farmers who Summit has courted as potentially benefiting from the pipeline, the Legislature passed the "Landowner Bill of Rights" package of bills, all three of which were signed by Gov. Kristi Noem.

Under SB201, Summit Carbon Solutions would be required to pay landowners 50 cents per linear foot of pipeline through their property in the form of property tax relief and would allow counties to collect $1 per linear foot of pipeline that runs through their county. At least 50% of the surcharge must be used for property tax relief for landowners on the route. The remaining revenue can be spent by counties at their discretion.

The new legislation would also give the state’s Public Utilities Commission more power to automatically overrule counties' pipeline rules. Opponents see it as an infringement on their right to local control.

“Our Legislature changed this law for this one company because they didn't get their way, and that's what angered people,” Fischbach said.

The opposition to the pipeline didn't stop once the Legislature wrapped up. The grassroots efforts about SB201 banded together to collect 35,000 signatures — well over the requirement of 17,500 signatures — in 90 days to get the referendum on the Nov. 5 ballot. Johnson, the secretary of state, said a random sample found 92% of the signatures were valid, deeming 31,432 valid signatures.

Although getting the vote on the ballot was the goal of the groups organizing against the pipeline, Fischbach said the battle is not over yet as they want to ensure South Dakota voters know exactly what they are voting for or against come November.

The South Dakota Attorney General’s Office released July 10 the final explanation of what will now be called “Referred Bill 21.” State law requires the attorney general to draft titles and explanations for measures and amendments that appear on election ballots. The explanations are meant to provide an “objective, clear and simple summary” intended to “educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed” measure, as well as identify the “legal consequences” of each measure.”

But Fischbach said the Referred Bill 21 explanation falls short of the requirement, because it does not include wording about the law's changes to the power the PUC has to overrule local ordinances.

“The Attorney General's opinion came out and completely eliminated the whole objection of the bill — didn't mention anything at all about removing local control,” Fischbach said. “You're taking away local control from our governing local bodies and putting it in the hands of state bureaucrats, but he mentioned nothing about that.”

South Dakota voters will have the option of voting “yes” to allow the legislation to become law on Jan. 1 or to vote “no” to reject the legislation from becoming law.

Summit continues plans to build

Despite some setbacks, including permit denials in some states, Summit has continued planning and working toward building the pipeline, including in South Dakota.

“We want to accommodate landowners, county stakeholders throughout the state of South Dakota to the best of our ability. Ultimately, we will never make everyone happy with the route, but we are working really hard to find the most accommodating route that we can have and we can use,” Blank said. “We will then establish a more confident route in South Dakota and then go ahead and file that route with the Public Utilities Commission.”

As has been the case in South Dakota, Summit has received mixed reactions in other states.

The Board decided “the service to be provided by Summit Carbon will promote the public convenience and necessity,” allowing the company to obtain a pipeline permit and be vested in the power of eminent domain. Blank said the company will need to reapply for a second round of permits in Iowa because of “the additional volumes brought on to the project” since the company's previous filings. Blank said this process is already underway.

In North Dakota, two types of permits are required — one for the construction of the pipeline and the other for the sequestration facility. The state Public Service Commission in August 2023 denied Summit's first attempt at a route permit. The company applied again with a new route and also applied for the sequestration permit. The hearing process is complete for both permits. Blank said briefs in the route case are due July 22, and the PSC will make its decision sometime after that. The North Dakota Industrial Commission will decide on the permit for the sequestration sites.

Summit has filed an application in Minnesota to build a 28.1 mile pipeline from the North Dakota border to the Green Plains Ethanol Plant in Otter Tail County. A Minnesota Public Utilities Commission filing lists public hearing dates of Aug. 20 and 21, followed by evidentiary hearing dates of Aug. 22 and 23 for that application.

Summit also has potential plans to build approximately 200 additional miles of carbon pipelines in southern Minnesota, in the counties of Chippewa, Cottonwood, Jackson, Kandiyohi, Martin, Redwood, Renville, and Yellow Medicine. The company has not applied for a permit in those counties.

The state of Nebraska in February 2024 denied Summit's application there, and the company has not begun the reapplication process.

]]>

Evolution Ag Summit takes on the value of reducing carbon emissions in agriculture

Jenny Schlecht — Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:41:28 GMT

JAMESTOWN, N.D. — Government regulators across the globe, along with business leaders and investors, have made the case for lowering the carbon intensity of products coming from farms and ranches. But getting the value of those practices to trickle down to the farm and ranch level remains the challenge, panelists at North Dakota Farmers Union’s second annual Evolution Ag Summit discussed.

Research has shown the impact that varying ways of handling tillage, fertilizer and conservation practices like incorporating cover crops can have on reducing carbon emissions, said Courtney Hall, senior director of sustainability at CHS Inc. What remains to be seen is what those changes are worth and what kind of incentives are needed to get farmers and ranchers on board.

“How do we make it worthwhile?” Hall said during a panel on food and agribusiness perspectives.

The Evolution Ag Summit — this year entitled “The Carbon Conundrum 2.0” in a repeat of last year’s main topic — was born out of a desire to bring people together on market opportunities and changes, said Matt Perdue, North Dakota Farmers Union government relations director. Carbon itself was not the only subject considered but has remained an enduring topic in the industry about which people have questions and concerns, he said.

The event drew a larger-than-expected crowd, with Farmers Union staff throughout the day adding more seating to accomodate several hundred farmers, ranchers and representatives of agribusiness.

Panels on food and agribusiness, sustainability, the price of carbon, incentives for carbon management and what farmers and ranchers think about the topic largely came back to what practices to reduce carbon emissions cost to farmers and what their implementation should be worth.

Hall said CHS doesn’t have any farmer-facing carbon sequestration programs yet but is doing a lot of listening and learning. Finding ways to provide incentives that work for everyone remains part of the problem.

“We don’t know what the reward is for that yet,” she said.

That incentive portion and determining what the reward is will be important in getting people to change the way they do things, other panelists agreed.

“Conservation without compensation is only a conversation,” said Chad Ellis, CEO of Texas Agricultural Land Trust and chair of U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef and of Ecosystem Service Market Consortium and founding chair of Trust in Food’s Trust in Beef program.

Adam Dunlop, executive vice president of Harvestone Low Carbon Partners, which owns Blue Flint Ethanol and Dakota Spirit AgEnergy in North Dakota as well as a biorefinery in Indiana, said the Inflation Reduction Act appears to mean to provide some tax incentives for farmers to provide low-carbon corn for use in ethanol; however, the rules aren’t clear around what will be required. He said farmers should keep a paper trail on how they produce their crop so that if the programs get implemented they can see an improved price for their crops.

But reducing carbon emissions is the only way ethanol or renewable diesel can stand out against other low-carbon fuels.

“We have to continue to drive toward lower carbon intensity because that’s the only thing that really differentiates one molecule … from another,” he said.

David Ripplinger, North Dakota State University professor and bioenergy economist, gave a talk about the price of carbon. The crux of the conversation was that there is no agreed upon price for carbon at this point. Various systems involved now, including carbon offsets — often big companies that pay farmers for practices so that the companies can get credit — carbon insets — where farmers are paid more for their practices in the supply chain — and in government programs, all value practices differently. And though he does believe the systems will mature and “converge” on a similar value, that’s nowhere near the case now.

“I don’t think anytime soon we’ll have a single price,” he said.

A panel on incentivizing on-farm carbon management discussed how farmers and ranchers are being paid and whether it’s practice-based — meaning, given as an incentive to try a practice — or outcome-based — meaning paid out on whether carbon actually is sequestered by the practice.

Matt Rohlik, managing director of sales and strategic partnerships at Arva Intelligence, advised farmers and ranchers to sign only one-year contracts, make sure there are no “clawbacks” on anything — eluding to farmers having to repay money initially paid out — and to pick a good partner.

While financial incentives may be necessary to get some producers on board, the practices themselves can have positive impacts on profitability or on the durability of the land. Miranda Meehan, North Dakota State University associate professor and livestock environmental stewardship specialist, and Lindsay Malone, NDSU associate professor for climate smart approaches in ag, looked at ways conservation practices can improve the bottom line for farms and ranches.

On the pasture and forage side, Meehan explained how properly maintained grazing lands can both sequester more carbon and also provide more resilience against things like drought. She explained how “gold standard” practices — like “take half, leave half,” grazing pastures to a moderate level and carefully maintaining native species like big bluestem that provide deep roots — keep pastures healthy even in the common years of drought in the region. Proper grazing management can keep producers from having to sell down herds and thus lose years of herd genetics, she said.

Malone addressed more from the row crop side and showed how practices minimum tillage and using cover crops can increase yields in the long run. Challenges exist, like managing disease, pests and weeds, she said. Another big challenge is the cost of putting in and managing cover crops.

Malone and Meehan are working together on research that might help change the outlook on the cost of cover crops. Integrating livestock into crops systems can not only provide a value for the cover crops but also fulfill a soil health principle of having livestock onto the land.

A panel of three farmers and ranchers, which was the last presentation of the event, stressed that the kind of improvements that Malone and Meehan talked about — the enhanced soil health and the increasing ability to withstand drought and heavy moisture — were as important to focus on as monetary payments, though they said the payments were a nice addition if the practices incentivized fit into an operation.

As an example, Dawn Martin, a Beulah, North Dakota, rancher, told the audience she and her husband tried to grow cover crops for a few years, in part for soil health benefits and in part for more grazing. But drought kept the crops from taking off in the fall, meaning the investment in the seed and planting were neither helping the soil nor providing forage for their cattle. Though they have implemented some cover crop usage over time, initially, cover crops did not fit into their operation.

“Obviously, incentives are always a benefit. I mean, to get more dollars for an operation is a huge help. But I think you have to make sure that that practice is going to work for your operation and it’s going to be a benefit for you, because otherwise you’re not going to want to keep it implemented,” Martin said.

]]>

Navigator CO2 Ventures cancels carbon pipeline project

Jeff Beach — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:33:55 GMT

OMAHA, Neb. — Navigator CO2 Ventures, the developer of a multi-state carbon capture pipeline, is canceling the project.

The company, which has faced setbacks on permitting, announced Friday, Oct. 20, that it would scrap its project to collect carbon emissions from ethanol plants in five states.

In its announcement, the company cited “the unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa.”

In addition to South Dakota and Iowa, the project was to include one plant in Minnesota and plants in Nebraska and Illinois. The storage area was planned for Illinois, where Navigator recently withdrew a permit application.

Navigator’s Heartland Greenway project and other carbon capture pipelines intended to benefit the ethanol industry and corn growers by helping the ethanol plants lower their carbon intensity score. Doing so would help open up potential markets for low-carbon fuel, such as California.

But the project encountered resistance from some landowners and county governments that passed ordinances to make siting the pipeline more difficult.

South Dakota had recently denied Navigator a route permit, citing local ordinances.

Tom Buis of the American Carbon Alliance called the decision “incredibly disappointing.”

“Just as bioethanol doubled farm income in the last two decades, carbon capture projects are the next step in bringing even more value to farmers nationwide. These projects will create higher corn and land values and bolster our nation’s energy security,” Buis said in a news release.

The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association issued this comment:

“Over the last year, we have been disappointed with the amount of disinformation that has been spread among the public and the regulators across multiple states. That does not happen by accident. Rather, it is being pushed by groups who oppose modern agriculture and whose stated mission is to destroy farming as we know it. While we respect Navigator’s decision, IRFA will continue to support multiple other CCS projects and we expect ultimate success.”

Opponents celebrate

Opponents have questioned the safety of the projects and their effectiveness at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There also was pushback against the possible use of eminent domain to force landowners to provide a property easement for the pipeline.

In an emailed statement, Kim Junker, a Butler County, Iowa, farmer impacted by the Navigator pipeline, said, “It’s very rare for people of so many different backgrounds and beliefs to stand together against something. We did and we won. It was clear from the start that despite their billions of dollars the power of everyday people would overcome these pipeline scams. But the fight isn’t over, we need to remain vigilant and pass laws to make sure no other private corporation can threaten our land and our legacy again.”

Dakota Rural Action, a South Dakota group opposed to the pipeline, issued this statement:

"A HUGE congratulations goes out to all the landowners who have worked tirelessly over the last two years to get to this point — from holding public meetings to lobbying for local ordinances to joining the South Dakota Easement Team in hiring Brian Jorde for legal representation. This victory is a culmination and testament to the power of local grassroots organizing, where impacted people have a say in the issues that affect their lives. And a tremendous victory for people over profits on the prairie today!"

The projects would be funded in part by federal tax credits that provide incentives for carbon capture and storage.

Emily Wurth of Food and Water Watch, an environmental group, released this statement:

“While the federal government keeps trying to waste billions of dollars to promote these massive carbon pipelines, grassroots organizing is winning the fight to stop these egregious handouts to corporate polluters. These carbon pipelines will not reduce emissions – they are dangerous, wasteful schemes to prolong and expand polluting industries. Instead of throwing away money supporting polluters, the government should invest in proven clean energy solutions, not carbon capture pipe dreams.”

Summit Carbon Solutions

Summit Carbon Solutions, which calls itself the world's biggest carbon capture project, with a planned underground storage site in western North Dakota, released a statement indicating that ethanol plants that were part of the Navigator pipeline could join its project.

“Summit Carbon Solutions welcomes and is well positioned to add additional plants and communities to our project footprint. We remain as committed to our project as the day we announced it. It’s not often you get the opportunity to positively impact an industry that touches every farmer and rural community across the Midwest."

Summit also had been denied a route permit in South Dakota, as well as in North Dakota. It has indicated it plans to refile in South Dakota and has appealed the decision in North Dakota. The appeal with the North Dakota Public Service Commission is awaiting a hearing.

]]>