North Dakota regulators consider underground carbon dioxide storage permit for Midwest pipeline

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota panel will consider Thursday whether to approve permits to store hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide underground in a proposed pipeline that would transport it from ethanol plants across the Midwest.

Although further court challenges are likely, approval by the three-member industrial commission led by the governor would be another victory for Summit Carbon Solutions’ controversial project. Last month, the company received approval for its North Dakota route and conditional approval from Iowa regulators.

Also Thursday, Minnesota utility regulators are scheduled to consider approving a 28-mile section of the project.

Summit’s 2,500-mile, $8 billion pipeline would transport planet-warming carbon dioxide emitted by 57 ethanol plants in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska. Underground storage facilities in central Dakota.

North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum chairs the Industry Committee, which includes the state attorney general and agriculture commissioner and oversees a variety of energy topics and state-owned enterprises.

President-elect Donald Trump selected Burgum to serve as Interior secretary and lead the new National Energy Council. Burgum supports the summit’s projects and often calls North Dakota’s underground carbon dioxide storage a “geological jackpot.” In 2021, he set a goal of making the third-largest oil-producing state carbon neutral by 2030.

Summit has applied for permits for three storage facilities that are expected to store up to 352 million tons of carbon dioxide over 20 years. The pipeline would transport up to 18 million tons of carbon dioxide per year and inject it about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) underground, according to the application fact sheet.

Summit’s document details the wellsite layout, including the pump/instrumentation building, gas detection stations, inlet valves and emergency shutdown valves.

The carbon dioxide will be injected in pressurized form through pipes into rock formations deep underground.

Jessie Stolark, who leads a team that includes Summit 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 Storak, executive director of the Carbon Capture Alliance.

Summit’s project has drawn the ire of landowners across the region. They objected to using their property for pipeline construction and worried that a ruptured pipeline would release large amounts of dangerous gases on the land.

A North Dakota landowner group is challenging property rights laws related to underground storage, and attorney Derrick Braaten said they may challenge the permit for the storage plan.

“The landowners I work with are not necessarily opposed to carbon sequestration per se,” Braaten said. “They object to private companies being able to come in and use their property without having to negotiate with them or simply pay them compensation to take and use their private property.”

Carbon capture projects like Summit qualify for lucrative federal tax credits designed to encourage cleaner burning of ethanol and potentially refine corn ethanol into jet fuel.

Some opponents argue that the amount of greenhouse gases sequestered through the process will have little impact and could lead farmers to plant more corn, despite environmental concerns about the crop.

In Minnesota, utility regulators are expected to decide Thursday whether to grant route approval for a small portion of the overall project, a 28-mile (45-kilometer) stretch that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to the broader Summit. network.

An administrative law judge presiding over the hearing recommended last November that the Public Utilities Commission grant the permit, saying the panel did not have the legal authority to deny it. The judge concluded that the Minnesota segment would have minimal environmental impact and that the environmental review complied with legal requirements, noting that Summit had obtained agreements from most landowners along the proposed route. Commission staff, the state Department of Commerce and Summit largely agree with those findings.

Environmental groups opposed to the plan challenged the judge’s ruling that the plan would bring a net benefit to the environment.

In addition to North Dakota, Summit has permits for the Iowa route, but state regulators require the company to get approval for the Dakota route and North Dakota underground storage before it can begin construction. The Iowa Public Utilities Commission’s approval prompted litigation related to the project.

Last year, South Dakota regulators rejected Summit’s application. The company submitted another license application last month.

In Nebraska, where there is no state regulatory process for carbon dioxide pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance their plans. At least one county has refused to issue a permit.

___

Karnofsky reported from Minneapolis.