Iowa regulators reject call to consolidate pipeline permits, saying it would delay project

In a 2-1 decision, Iowa regulators Thursday rejected efforts to force Summit Carbon Solutions to consolidate 15 permit requests that make up the Ames company's proposal to build an $8 billion carbon capture pipeline across Iowa and other nearby states.

Summit, a spinoff of Iowa ag millionaire Bruce Rastetter’s Summit Agricultural Group, initially filed a permit in 2021 to build a 690-mile stretch of the pipeline across Iowa. It would be part of a 2,500-mile, five-state project designed to capture carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants and transport them to a site in North Dakota to be sequestered deep underground.

The federal government is offering generous tax subsidies for carbon pipelines, touted as a way of minimizing the climate impact of the renewable fuel. But opponents have raised an array of objections.

Last month, Summit filed 14 additional permit requests to expand the project by 340 miles, picking up 17 POET and Valero ethanol plants that had planned to participate in competitor Navigator CO2 Ventures’ $3.5 billion carbon capture pipeline. Navigator dropped the project last year, citing regulatory barriers.

Opponents moved last month to require Summit to consolidate its hazardous liquid pipeline permit requests, saying the lateral pipelines to POET and Valero ethanol plants involve many of the same participants, are part of the same project, and pose the same legal issues.

The Sierra Club’s Iowa Chapter and the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation also asked the utilities board to reopen the record on Summit’s pipeline proposal, which had been closed after an eight-week hearing last fall. The Farm Bureau raised technical questions about the size of the new pipeline trunks, pressure changes and valve and pump station locations.

Summit argued that opponents primarily sought to delay the project, which already has spanned 31 months.

Board: Adding to already voluminous case record wouldn't help

In an order Thursday written by board members Erik Helland and Sarah Martz, the three-member panel denied the groups’ requests, saying that while there may be overlapping parties in the proceedings, the landowners likely will not be the same.

The order also said the legal questions are different enough to warrant separate dockets.

The board “finds it to be unlikely that consolidation would expedite or simplify consideration of the issues involved. The opposite is true,” Helland and Martz wrote, noting that Summit’s original pipeline permit request is “already one of, if not, the largest records that has been submitted to the board for its consideration."

"Adding an additional 340 miles to the existing record would further add to the complexity of the proceeding,” the order said, adding that that questions the Farm Bureau posed are best answered in the individual permit dockets.

The board said consolidating the permit requests would harm Summit's rights as well as the rights of landowners currently not part of the case.

More: Iowa agribusiness magnate's access to Gov. Kim Reynolds paves way for pipeline, lawyer says

The board also said the individual permit request dockets allow landowners "to more easily find the information they are looking for.”

Dissenting member: Consolidating cases would ensure most efficient pipeline route

In a dissent, board member Joshua Byrnes said he would have granted the request to reopen the record, given the large expansion Summit seeks.

“The board should demand that the route for a project of this size and magnitude be the product of comprehensive planning to ensure the final route is the most efficient to accomplish the project’s objectives and to minimize the impact on Iowa landowners,” Byrnes wrote.

“Had a comprehensive evaluation been performed, perhaps the route proposed in this case makes the most sense without alteration. However, I believe that discussion should at least occur as the exercise is worth the time and effort."

The projects have been controversial across the region. Critics have voiced concerns about pipeline safety and the project’s impact on farmland and drainage tiles under fields and have objected to Summit's proposed use of eminent domain to force unwilling landowners to sell the company access to their property.

“How dare the IUB say ‘Summit Carbon’s substantial rights would be impacted?'" Kim Junker, a landowner who opposes the pipeline, said in a statement. "This is a slap in the face to every Iowan (whose) constitutional property rights have been violated for the last three years."

Summit’s 2021 permit request seeks to build a pipeline across 29 Iowa counties, serving 12 ethanol plants. The additional 14 permit requests would cross 23 counties. Public information meetings for the new permits have not yet been set.

Last year, Summit filed a permit to build a 31-mile lateral pipeline in Mitchell and Floyd counties, serving another ethanol plant. The board also denied a request to consolidate that permit with the original project.

In addition, the board on Thursday denied the Sierra Club's request to stay action on the additional permit requests until the original permit is decided.

More: Iowa politics, ag heavyweight Bruce Rastetter sets sights on $4.5 billion carbon capture pipeline

Altogether, Summit proposes connecting 57 ethanol plants in Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota to its pipeline, as well as those in Iowa and North Dakota.

Donnelle Eller covers agriculture, the environment and energy for the Register. Reach her at deller@registermedia.com or 515-284-8457.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Request to consolidate Iowa carbon pipeline permit requests denied