BISMARCK, N.D. -- North Dakota regulators are gearing up to make significant decisions as they weigh permits for underground carbon dioxide storage tied to the expansive Midwest pipeline project proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions. This venture aims to transport carbon emissions from around 57 ethanol plants throughout the Midwest, funneling it for storage deep underground, estimated at hundreds of millions of metric tons over two decades.
The three-member Industrial Commission, led by Republican Governor Doug Burgum, is set to deliberate on the storage permits Thursday. This could signify another win for Summit amid controversies surrounding the initiative. Just last month, the company received the green light for its North Dakota route, and Iowa regulators have already granted conditional approval.
Simultaneously, as if to keep the momentum alive, Minnesota’s utility regulators are poised to evaluate permissions for a shorter segment of this behemoth project. Specifically, they’re examining whether to approve the 28-mile leg connecting ethanol facilities around Fergus Falls to the broader network.
Summit’s grand plan consists of a staggering 2,500-mile pipeline with an eye-popping estimated cost of $8 billion, channeling up to 18 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. The ultimate aim? To inject this carbon dioxide approximately one mile underground, hoping to curb the greenhouse gases diverting them from entering the atmosphere.
Governor Burgum, who has touted North Dakota's underground storage capabilities as a geological treasure, has set ambitious state goals, aspiring for carbon neutrality by 2030. Each approval adds another layer to the complex narrative surrounding carbon capture, which federal tax incentives are promoting to transform cleaner-burning ethanol, potentially converting it all the way to jet fuel.
Summit’s ambitions face scrutiny, particularly from local landowners who are concerned about the feasibility and safety of such large-scale carbon transport. Many express worry over the risk of property loss and the hazards associated with pipeline ruptures, which critics argue could release hazardous gases. "The landowners I'm working with aren't necessarily opposed to carbon sequestration itself; they’re against the idea of private companies commandeering their land for such projects without fair negotiations," stated attorney Derrick Braaten.
Interestingly, the environmental narrative surrounding this permit has two sides. While supporters like Jessie Stolark from the Carbon Capture Coalition, claims it can be executed safely, opponents argue the impact of sequestering the greenhouse gases would be negligible. They raise concerns about the potential for this project to encourage increased corn farming, which has its own environmental drawbacks.
Complicated dynamics also arise from conflicting interests at state regulatory levels. The Iowa Utilities Commission's conditional approval for the Summit pipeline has sparked lawsuits—complicators on what seemed to be smooth sailing since South Dakota regulators rebuffed Summit's previous application. It's noteworthy to mention Summit has re-applied and is actively seeking pathways through Nebraska, where approvals are dealt with at the county level.
Meanwhile, regulatory challenges persist especially from environmental groups questioning the judge’s determination underscoring minimal environmental impacts linked to the Minnesota segment of the pipeline. Their skepticism fuels the discourse surrounding the necessity and efficacy of carbon capture initiatives like this one.
Each deliberative turn by authorities across these states exemplifies the broader challenges at hand involving carbon emissions control and the tug-of-war between industrial needs and environmental protections. North Dakota's forthcoming decisions signal just one slice of the larger tape measure drawn across Minnesota and Iowa as this multi-state project evolves.
