Broad array of groups object to Summit pipeline permit in Iowa

By Jared Strong

Legislators, counties, conservation groups and landowners have asked state regulators to reconsider their permit approval for an expansive carbon dioxide pipeline system in Iowa.

A total of eight requests were filed with the Iowa Utilities Commission in the past week before a procedural deadline on Monday, and they are likely precursors to lawsuits in state court.

The commission last month approved a proposal by Summit Carbon Solutions to construct about 690 miles of pipe in Iowa to transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants. The company has already sought to expand its footprint by more than 300 feet to connect to more of the facilities.

The reconsideration requests were filed by:

— Sierra Club of Iowa, a conservation group that has been key to organizing opposition to the project.
— Republican Legislative Intervenors for Justice, a group of 26 state representatives and 11 state senators who oppose the use of eminent domain for the project.
— Brian Jorde, an attorney who is the leading representative of affected landowners who oppose the project.
— Tim Whipple, an attorney who represents Dickinson, Emmet, Floyd, Kossuth, Shelby, Woodbury and Wright counties.
— Hardin County
— Gordon Garrison, a landowner in Emmet County.
— Gregory and Erica Kracht, landowners in Lyon County.
— Bold Iowa, which was originally formed to oppose the Dakota Access oil pipeline. It advocates for climate change solutions and opposes eminent domain for the pipelines.

Opposition to the use of eminent domain — in which Summit will be able to force unwilling landowners to host its pipeline network — is a common thread of the objections. A Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll last year showed that 78% of Iowans oppose it.

“The bottom line is that a private entity like Summit cannot be granted the power of eminent domain unless it is a common carrier,” the Sierra Club wrote in its Monday reconsideration request. “But the evidence showed that Summit is not a common carrier. It will be contracting individually with ethanol plants, not the public generally, and it will own the carbon dioxide, so it will be carrying its own product, not carrying a product for hire.”

The IUC used a self-designed “balancing test” that considered a number of factors to determine whether the project benefits the public. That test overwhelmingly favored a permit for Summit, and those who oppose the project say its conclusions were flawed.

The group of Republican lawmakers further said the IUC’s process precluded input from many people who might be affected by the project, including those who live close enough to the pipeline route to be threatened by a potential pipeline breach but far enough away to not be in the pipeline’s direct path.

Catastrophic pipeline failures have the potential to release a plume of carbon dioxide that, under certain atmospheric conditions, can travel long distances and asphyxiate people and animals.

“A significant number of Iowans – those who are in the kill zone but who are not yet aware of their status – have been excluded from even rudimentary due process in the IUC’s consideration of the Summit application,” the lawmakers wrote.

The three-member IUC has 30 days to respond to the requests, after which the groups can take their objections to court.

Summit wants to lay about 2,500 miles of pipe in five states to transport the greenhouse gas to North Dakota for underground storage. It has not yet obtained permits in North and South Dakota, which is a requirement for the company to start construction in Iowa.

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter.