North Dakota officials on Aug. 4 voted to block a proposed pipeline, finding in favor of landowners and others who oppose the project.
Summit Carbon Solutions (SCS) is seeking to build about 320 miles of carbon dioxide pipeline in the state, funneling ethanol plant greenhouse gases to an underground storage site.
But the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) voted 3-0 on Friday to deny a requested siting permit.
“SCS has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the project will produce minimum adverse impacts on the welfare of the citizens of North Dakota with the existing record,” Randy Christmann, chairman of the commission, told a meeting.
The request and all related motions were denied, Mr. Christmann said.
Commissioner Sheri Haugen-Hoffart and Administrative Law Judge Tim Dawson joined in the unanimous vote.
Commissioner Julie Fedorchak recused herself from the case because she and her husband signed a contract with Summit to store carbon dioxide on land they own, leading to Judge Dawson replacing her for the matter.
The company can start the process over and reapply for a permit or take the matter to the courts, according to the commission.
“My decision on this case is not indicative of my opinions regarding CO2 sequestration or importation of CO2 via pipeline at all,” Mr. Christmann said. “This is only about this project in this location under these circumstances.”
In a statement, Summit said it “respects the decision by the North Dakota Public Service Commission, and we will revisit our proposal and reapply for our permit.”
It also said, “We’re committed to understanding and incorporating the considerations outlined in the decision.”
The Dakota Resource Council, one of the groups opposed to the project, said that the vote was a “historic victory” and served as “a powerful reminder that ‘We the People’ have the power to bring about meaningful change when we stand together.”
Some landowners support the project. More than 375 have signed agreements with Summit to run a pipeline through or near their properties, according to the company.
The proposed pipeline would run some 2,000 miles through multiple states, including South Dakota and Minnesota, with an estimated cost of more than $5 billion. None of the states have approved permits as of yet.
The North Dakota portion was proposed to cost nearly $900 million and run through 10 counties, delivering the greenhouse gas emissions from dozens of ethanol plants to storage areas in western North Dakota. Summit said the project would send approximately 18 million tons of carbon dioxide to the storage areas each year.
While PSC decides on siting permits, the Industrial Commission, which includes North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, can approve the proposed storage area. The decision on the permits could delay a move from the commission, said Derrick Braatan, an attorney who represents some landowners.
Mr. Burgum, a Republican running for president, has been among the project’s backers.
“By capitalizing on our geologic jackpot of enormous underground storage capacity, we can safely store not only our own carbon dioxide but also our neighbors’ CO2 while creating jobs, generating income for North Dakota landowners and strengthening our economy,” he said in 2022.
“This is a matter between the PSC and the company, and we’ll continue to monitor it as the process plays out,” a spokesperson for the governor said in a statement to news outlets.
No Alternate Routes
Commissioners said that Summit failed to adequately look into running the pipeline south of Bismarck, the state’s capital, rather than north of the city.According to the commissioners, there was a similar failure pertaining to running a pipeline through some of the plots of land.
Among the other problems: a greater estimated impact than acceptable on wildlife areas, including waterfowl production areas and other sensitive areas, such as geologically unstable areas.
“The company has not taken steps to address some outstanding legitimate impacts expressed by some individual landowners during public comment or demonstrated why a reason why a reroute is not feasible in most instances,” Mr. Christmann said.
In a written statement, the commission “requested additional information on a number of issues that came up during the hearings” and that Summit “either did not adequately address these requests or did not tender a witness to answer the questions.”
Summit did meet some requirements, including on liability, the commission ruled.
Some landowners had told the commission they were concerned they would not be able to buy liability insurance if the project goes through. Summit said it would cover liability for a rupture unless it was caused by a third-party striking the pipeline. That was sufficient, according to the commission.
