Iowa Landowners and Regulatory Scrutiny Surround Proposed Carbon Dioxide Pipeline
Public utility regulators in Iowa have initiated a hearing on a proposed carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline, which has been met with resistance from landowners concerned about potential land seizures and the risks associated with pipeline ruptures. The $5.5 billion project, developed by Summit Carbon Solutions, aims to construct a 2,000-mile network of pipelines to transport CO2 emissions from 34 ethanol plants in five states to underground storage facilities in North Dakota.
However, North Dakota regulators recently denied a sitting permit for Summit’s proposed route in the state, citing various unresolved issues such as cultural impact, geological instability, and concerns from landowners. In response, Summit has requested regulators to reconsider their decision. Similar CO2 pipeline projects are being proposed in other states, including Iowa.
Carbon capture technology, which involves collecting and removing CO2 emissions from industrial plants to be stored underground permanently, has gained attention and raised both support and scrutiny in the United States. Proponents of the technology believe it can contribute to mitigating climate change. However, opponents argue that carbon capture and storage has not been proven at scale and could divert significant investments away from more cost-effective alternatives like solar and wind power. Some also view carbon capture as a strategy for fossil fuel companies to appear proactive in addressing climate change without making substantial changes to their operations.
The new federal tax incentives for carbon capture have made it a lucrative enterprise, with support from the Biden administration and billions of dollars allocated for various carbon capture initiatives. As the evidentiary hearing for Summit’s project begins in Iowa, and with hearings scheduled in Minnesota and South Dakota, the final decisions regarding permits and environmental reviews will shape the future of these pipeline projects.
Landowners have expressed concerns about pipeline ruptures and the use of eminent domain, which allows private land to be acquired for public use with compensation. The laws regarding eminent domain vary from state to state. Critics argue that the power of eminent domain can pressure landowners into signing easements, giving the impression of voluntary support for the projects.
Summit has faced legal challenges in South Dakota, where landowners are opposing the acquisition of their land for the pipeline. The company has submitted eminent domain requests in Iowa, but their intentions regarding this matter were not explicitly addressed. Additionally, Summit has submitted a draft application for underground storage in North Dakota, awaiting a hearing and decision by a state panel.
The collaboration between Summit and Minnkota Power Cooperative in North Dakota is seen by some as a backup plan. Minnkota aims to install carbon capture technology at a coal-fired power plant known as Project Tundra. However, a group of North Dakota landowners has filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s process for allowing CO2 and gas storage on private land, as well as land survey laws.
As the hearings and legal battles unfold, the future of these proposed CO2 pipeline projects remains uncertain. Balancing the interests of landowners, regulatory scrutiny, and the potential benefits of carbon capture technology will be essential in determining the viability and implementation of these initiatives.
