North Dakota regulators consider underground carbon dioxide storage permits for Midwest pipeline
BISMARCK, N.D. — A North Dakota panel will consider whether to approve permits on Thursday underground storage of hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide that a proposed pipeline would transport from ethanol plants throughout the Midwest.
Approval by the governor-led, three-member Industrial Commission would be another victory for Summit Carbon Solutions’ controversial project, although further litigation is likely. Last month the company posted a profit approval for the route to North Dakotaand Iowa regulators have done so, too conditional approval given.
Also on Thursday, Minnesota utility regulators were set to approve approval for a 45 kilometer long stage of the project of the project.
Summit’s $8 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline would transport planet-warming CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska for underground storage in central North Dakota.
Republican government of North Dakota Doug Burgum chairs the Industrial Commission, which includes the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Agriculture, and oversees a variety of energy issues and state-owned enterprises.
Burgum belongs to newly elected President Donald Trump choice for Minister of the Interior and lead a new one National Energy Council. Burgum supports Summit’s project and has often touted North Dakota’s underground carbon dioxide storage as a “geologic jackpot.” In 2021, he set a goal for the third oil-producing state to be carbon neutral by 2030. His term ends on Saturday.
Summit applied for permits for three storage facilities, which could hold a combined estimated maximum of 352 million tons of CO2 over 20 years. According to an application fact sheet, the pipeline would carry up to 18 million tons of CO2 per year, which would be injected about a mile underground.
Summit’s documents detail the layout of the well site, including a pump/meter building, gas detection stations, inlet valves and an emergency shutoff valve.
Carbon dioxide would move through the pipeline under pressure and be injected deep underground into a rock formation.
Jessie Stolark, who heads a group to which Summit belongs and supports the project, said the oil industry has long used similar technology.
“We know this can be done safely in a way that protects human health and underground drinking water sources,” said Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition.
Summit’s project has aroused anger landowners around the region. They oppose the possible takeover of their properties for the pipeline and fear one pipe breakage releasing a cloud of heavy, dangerous gas over the country.
A North Dakota landowners group is challenging the property rights law regarding the underground storage, and attorney Derrick Braaten said they would likely challenge the permitting of the storage plans.
“The landowners I work with are not necessarily against carbon sequestration itself,” says Braaten. “They are against the idea that a private company can enter and use their property without having to negotiate with them or pay them just compensation for taking their private property and using it.”
Carbon capture projects like Summit’s are eligible for lucrative federal tax credits intended to encourage cleaner burning of ethanol and potentially lead to corn-based ethanol refined into jet fuel.
Some opponents argue that the amount of greenhouse gases captured by the process would make little difference and could lead to farmers growing 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 small portion of the overall project, a 28-mile segment that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to Summit’s broader network.
An administrative law judge who held hearings recommended in November that the Public Utilities Commission grants the permit and says the panel does not have the legal authority to reject it. The judge concluded that the environmental impacts of the Minnesota segment would be minimal, that the environmental analysis met legal requirements, and noted that Summit has secured agreements from landowners along most of the recommended route. Staff from the Commission, the Department of Commerce and Summit largely agreed with these findings.
Environmental groups opposed to the project dispute the judge’s conclusion that the project would have a net benefit to the environment.
In addition to North Dakota, Summit has a permit from Iowa for its route, but regulators for that state required the company to obtain approvals for routes in the Dakotas and underground storage in North Dakota before it could begin construction. The Iowa Utilities Commission’s approval led to lawsuits related to the project.
Last year, South Dakota regulators rejected Summit’s application. The company submitted another permit application last month.
In Nebraska, where there is no regulatory process for CO2 pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance its project. At least one province has denied a permit.
___
Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.