In recent weeks, Summit Carbon Solutions has filed formal petitions for permits seeking to expand its proposed carbon dioxide pipeline system to include 13 more ethanol plants in Iowa, according to documents filed with the Iowa Utilities Commission.

The company’s original proposal spanned about 690 miles and included a dozen Iowa ethanol producers. The commission approved a hazardous liquid pipeline permit for that proposal — along with eminent domain authority for about a quarter of the route — earlier this year.

The extensions would add about 370 miles of pipeline, including about 64 miles in Bremer, Buchanan, Butler, Fayette and Floyd counties. Bremer recently filed a motion to dismiss the petition affecting her because Summit obtained land easements too early.

Background

Ames-based Summit is one of three companies that have proposed pipeline networks in Iowa to transport carbon dioxide captured from ethanol plants to sites outside the state for underground storage or other commercial purposes.

Navigator CO2 abandoned its project last year. Summit’s expansions are largely the result of that dropout — the ethanol producers who originally signed on with Navigator.bewitched at Summit.

A third company, Wolf Carbon Solutions, has an application pending for a much smaller project in eastern Iowa that would connect to ethanol plants in Cedar Rapids and Clinton, but the project blocked amid regulatory failures in Illinois, which also instituted a moratorium on the projects.

Summit was the first to announce its project in February 2021, which will be placed in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and North and South Dakota. It is now poised to stretch about 2,500 miles and connect to 57 ethanol plants. Summit said it would cost about $8 billion to build.

Iowa and Dakota are the most vital. Iowa and South Dakota contain the vast majority of the plants, and North Dakota is where Summit wants to inject the greenhouse gas into the ground.

Summit has entered into profit-sharing agreements with ethanol producers, the details of which it has not publicly disclosed. The additional revenue expected to be generated for the plants would come from federal tax credits for the production of low-carbon fuels and for the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions and sales of those fuels in low-carbon markets.

Supporters of the project say it’s crucial to the future of Iowa’s ethanol industry, which in turn is crucial to corn farmers. More than half of the state’s corn is used to produce ethanol.

“As yields continue to rise and prices fluctuate, it is critical that we have markets that keep our local ethanol plants sustainable and provide a stable income for future generations of farmers,” Bill Couser, farmer near Nevada and leader of Lincolnway Energy ethanol. plant, recently wrote the Iowa Utilities Commission.

But opponents of the project believe it is unsafe and should not be eligible for eminent domain, a government power that forces unwilling landowners to house it in exchange for compensation.

Many of the counties through which the Summit system would pass have passed resolutions opposing the use of eminent domain for the project.

“The Bremer County Board of Supervisors opposes the use of eminent domain for private economic gain,” the county’s May 2024 resolution reads.

the county contested as well Summit’s acquisition of land easements that had first been obtained by Navigator and then sold to Summit after the Navigator project ceased. The county successfully argued that Summit violated state law by obtaining easements before holding informational meetings about the project. commission fined Summit $10,000.

What happened since then

Bremer County recently asked the commission to reconsider the sanction and deny Summit’s petition for a permit that was filed Oct. 17. This would, in effect, force the company to renegotiate land easements for the expansion route that runs through the county.

“If the informational meeting requirements, which are a prerequisite to petitioning, have not been met, then approval of the route proposed in the petition is also not appropriate under Iowa law,” wrote County Attorney Tim Whipple .

It is unclear when the commission might rule on Bremer’s motion for reconsideration.

But the fate of the overall project could depend on what happens in South Dakota. Last year, utility regulators in that state rejected Summit’s permit application because its route violated county ordinances that require pipelines to be located certain distances from homes and other places.

A law passed this year by South Dakota lawmakers would have weakened those county ordinances, but voters repealed the law in a referendum this month.

Also, the Supreme Court of South Dakota question it if the Summit project is eligible for eminent domain but the subject matter is still in dispute.

Summit said it will reapply for a permit in South Dakota. The company must obtain permits in both Dakotas before it can begin construction in Iowa.

“Projects like ours have successfully navigated South Dakota’s existing regulatory landscape in the past,” the company said. “We will continue to operate within the current framework, knowing that the future of ethanol and agriculture is vital to our shared success.”

Comments: (319) 368-8541; [email protected]