Summit Carbon Solutions has voluntary agreements in hand from scores of landowners as it works to secure a path for the first carbon capture pipeline in the Midwest, but the company is also preparing for a hearing next month to push for the use of eminent domain in Iowa.
The path to obtaining a permit from the Iowa Utilities Board has not been without bumps. Opponents, including many landowners in the state, have raised questions about myriad issues, including the state’s regulatory authority over the materials to be transported, long-term damage to farmland, and what they see as a rushed timeline.
The project is one of three such pipelines planned in the Midwest to slash the carbon score of ethanol produced in the region. As the furthest along, the Summit project could provide a preview of what’s in store for the other two.
The Iowa Utilities Board last week reaffirmed a hearing date of Aug. 22 where landowners who object to the Summit project can make their case. Any witness can be cross-examined, the IUB said, adding it wanted to ensure all interested landowners are heard.
“There's hundreds of Iowans out there that aren't represented here,” Board Chairman Erik Helland said at a prehearing conference. “And we will reach out to them and ask them how they want to participate.”
Helland said at the hearing, the board would ask landowners “a couple of questions,” after which they can be cross-examined by any other party to the proceedings.
“This process will continue until every Exhibit H landowner who would like to testify has done so,” he said, referring to the exhibit containing information on the parcels for which Summit plans to seek eminent domain authority.
Last week, the IUB filed its Exhibit H report identifying 1,035 parcels for which Summit is pursuing eminent domain. The company has continued to try to persuade landowners to accept payments in exchange for allowing Summit access to their property.
In the 28 counties where Summit has not obtained voluntary easements. Clay County led the way with 101 parcels, followed by Wright County (99), Hardin (86), and Sioux (72).
Erik Helland, Iowa Utilities Board
Summit spokesperson Courtney Ryan says it has “partnered with nearly 2,500 landowners across our project footprint who have signed 4,115 voluntary easement agreements accounting for 71.5% of our proposed route,” or about 1,250 miles of the total of about 2,000 miles.
“For context, you may find it helpful to note that Dakota Access, the most recent major multi-state infrastructure project in the region, is 1,172 miles,” Ryan said.
The Biden administration considers carbon capture and storage to be essential to its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50-52% by 2030. The Inflation Reduction Act is providing a tax credit of $85 per ton for carbon dioxide that is permanently stored.
Summit’s project involves 688 miles of pipeline in Iowa and about 1,300 miles in four other states — Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. The company plans to capture carbon from 34 ethanol plants and sequester it in North Dakota.
Ryan said 71% of the Iowa land involved in the project is signed to a voluntary easement. The majority of the land is also under contract in South Dakota (70%), Nebraska (69%), North Dakota (75.3%, plus another 85% of the sequestration site) and Minnesota (76% in what Ryan described as “active counties”).
The company also has shelled out more than $200 million to landowners to secure the portions of property needed for the pipeline.
Navigator CO2's 1,300-mile Heartland Greenway pipeline would hook up with POET facilities in five states: Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, South Dakota and Minnesota. Wolf Carbon Solutions’ 280 miles of pipeline would run from two ADM facilities in Iowa to a sequestration site in Illinois. Wolf has said it does not plan to use eminent domain authority.
Summit’s pipeline would connect with 34 ethanol plants to transport the CO2 to a site in North Dakota. Sequestering the CO2 would reduce the carbon score of the biofuels produced at those plants.
Once completed, the project “will be the largest carbon capture and storage project in the world,” Summit says. “This project will have the capacity to capture and permanently store up to 18 million tons of CO2 every year. That’s the equivalent of removing 3.9 million vehicles from our roads annually.”
An Iowa Renewable Fuels Association study released in February found that without carbon sequestration, Iowa ethanol production by the end of the decade “could contract by 75 percent (nearly 3.5 billion gallons per year) leading many plants to shut down; Iowa farmers would lose local markets for over 1 billion bushels of corn annually, depressing local corn prices, and Iowa would realize an eventual decline in revenues from ethanol plants of more than $10 billion per year.”
Summit still says on its website it plans to begin construction late this year, with operations set to begin in late 2024 or early 2025.
Iowa, which has been considering the proposal since 2021, is home to many landowners who are concerned about the impacts of a pipeline running through their property. In many cases, landowners have filed formal objections to the proposal, citing a broad range of concerns including irreparable damage to farmland.
“It just seems like these proceedings are rushed,” Brian Jorde, an attorney with the Domina Law Group, said at an IUB prehearing conference last week. “This matter clearly should be continued. It's premature to think we can move forward in any fair way on Aug. 22.”
He recommended holding a hearing in spring 2024, “which will go a long way [toward] eliminating a lot of due process arguments that … will be coming in various forms.”
Jorde, who is representing several landowners along the route of the Summit project, said the board first needs to address allegations that the project does not meet the definition of a hazardous liquid pipeline.
He filed a motion to dismiss Summit’s petition for a permit in Iowa based on a reading of the state’s law regulating hazardous liquid transportation. The law says liquefied carbon dioxide is covered, but not CO2 in a “supercritical” state when held at or above critical pressures and temperatures.
“Carbon dioxide in the ‘supercritical’ phase is not a ‘liquid,’” says the motion filed on behalf of Floyd County landowner and former extension agent George Cummins.
“Additionally, ‘supercritical’ carbon dioxide is not the same as or synonymous with ‘liquefied carbon dioxide,’” the motion says. “If the Iowa Legislature intended ‘supercritical’ carbon dioxide be included for purposes of Iowa Code 479B, then it would have added the word ‘supercritical’ to the definition of ‘hazardous liquid.’ The legislature did not do so.”
Summit disagreed, filing a response that cited a state court ruling on July 11 that held “Summit’s proposed pipeline falls squarely within the definitions of hazardous liquid pipelines” regulated by Iowa Code chapter 479B and the federal Pipeline Safety Act.
It’s easy to sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! For the latest on what’s happening in Washington, D.C. and around the country in agriculture, just click here.
The board did not indicate at its meeting last week when it would rule on the motion to dismiss the proceedings and another motion to delay the scheduled August hearing date. Helland promised decisions “in a timely manner.”
Summit attorney Brant Leonard told the IUB the company sees no reason to delay the August hearing.
Numerous landowners have filed formal objections to the proposal, citing a broad range of concerns including irreparable damage to farmland.
The staff report outlined the nature of “hundreds of comments and objections” raised by landowners, ranging from land damage to skepticism about the project’s potential to ameliorate climate change. More than 90% of the proposed route includes land used for farming, mostly row crops, according to Summit.
One landowner in Cherokee County “is concerned about the safety of persons and livestock, post-installation soil quality, liability of pipeline hardware to the farmer, future pipeline/easement ownership, and future land valuation,” the staff report summarized. “The landowner is also skeptical of the project’s ability to fight climate change. The landowner is also concerned about how the pipeline will be installed on their property’s unique geography without significant disruption.”
The property in question has elevation slopes of up to 30% across the pipeline path, the staff report said.
Colleen Frein, Mason City Chamber of Commerce
Another landowner in the same county “has low confidence soil quality and crop yields will be preserved through construction and into the long term,” the staff report said. “The landowner also expresses low confidence in the lifetime of the project, be it due to long-term economic feasibility or short-term political expediency.”
On the other side of the debate, the report said the IUB had received about 100 individual letters of support. Support for corn farms and the ethanol industry, job creation, and addressing climate change were common themes, the staff report said.
“Summit Carbon Solutions’ project will provide an opportunity to produce ethanol sustainably for the next several years and keep Iowa’s ethanol producers viable in their markets,” said Colleen Frein, president & CEO of the Mason City, Iowa, Chamber of Commerce.
“In Mason City, Golden Grain Energy's partnership with Summit will enable the plant to sell into these restricted markets. Golden Grain Energy is a valuable part of our agricultural community here in Cerro Gordo County, and it is important for our local economy that the plant can maintain operations. With their carbon intensity scores lowered, Golden Grain Energy will have a bright future as a competitor in carbon-neutral fuel markets. Summit will ensure these same economic and environmental improvements are seen throughout our state.”
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com
