North Dakota regulators on Thursday approved permits for underground storage of carbon dioxide delivered via a massive pipeline for the Midwest, marking another victory for a project that has drawn fierce opposition from landowners.
The governor-led Industrial Commission voted unanimously to approve permits for Summit Carbon Solutions’ three proposed storage sites in central North Dakota. Summit says construction on the project would begin in 2026 and work would begin in 2027, but it is expected that resistant landowners will file lawsuits to block the storage plans.
“With these permits, we are one step closer to providing vital infrastructure to benefit farmers, ethanol producers and communities across the Midwest,” Summit Executive VP Wade Boeshans said in a statement.
Summit’s proposed $8 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline would transport planet-warming CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska for underground storage. Carbon dioxide would move through the pipeline under pressure and be injected deep underground into a rock formation.
The company has permits for its route in North Dakota and Iowa, but cannot yet begin construction. Also on Thursday, Minnesota regulators approved a permit for a 28-mile leg of the project in western Minnesota.
Summit also recently filed in South Dakota, where regulators rejected the company’s previous application last year.
Last month the company received approval for the North Dakota route, and Iowa regulators have also given conditional approval.
Summit is facing several lawsuits related to the project, including an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court over a property rights law related to the underground storage plan. Further lawsuits are likely.
North Dakota’s Republican Governor, Industrial Commission Chairman Doug Burgum, is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick as Secretary of the Interior and leading a new National Energy Council. Burgum has often touted North Dakota’s underground carbon dioxide storage as a “geologic jackpot.” In 2021, he set a goal for the third oil-producing state to be carbon neutral by 2030. His term ends on Saturday.
Summit’s storage facilities are estimated to hold a maximum of 352 million metric tons of CO2 over 20 years. According to an application fact sheet, the pipeline would transport up to 18 million tons of CO2 per year, which would be injected about a mile underground.
Jessie Stolark, who heads a group supporting the project that includes Summit, said the oil industry has long used similar technology.
“We know this can be done safely in a way that protects human health and underground drinking water sources,” said Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition.
Summit’s project has drawn the ire of landowners across the region. They oppose the possible takeover of their properties for the pipeline and fear a pipeline rupture, releasing a cloud of heavy, dangerous gas over the country.
A North Dakota landowners group is challenging a property rights law related to underground storage, and attorney Derrick Braaten said they will likely challenge the permitting.
“The landowners I work with are not necessarily opposed to carbon sequestration itself,” Braaten said. “They are against the idea that a private company can enter and use their property without having to negotiate with them or pay them just compensation for taking their private property and using it.”
Carbon capture projects like Summit’s are eligible for lucrative federal tax credits intended to encourage cleaner burning of ethanol and potentially lead to corn-based ethanol being refined into jet fuel.
Some opponents argue that the amount of greenhouse gases captured by the process would make little difference and could lead to farmers growing more corn, despite environmental concerns about the crop.
In Minnesota, regulators granted a route permit that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to Summit’s broader network. They attached several conditions, including a requirement that Summit first begin construction in North Dakota.
An administrative law judge who held hearings concluded in November that the Minnesota segment’s environmental impacts would be minimal, noting that Summit has entered into agreements with landowners along most of the recommended route.
Environmental groups opposed to the project challenged the judge’s conclusion that the project would have a net benefit to the environment.
Iowa regulators required Summit to obtain approvals for routes in the Dakotas and underground storage in North Dakota before construction could begin in Iowa. The Iowa Utilities Commission’s approval led to lawsuits related to the project.
In Nebraska, where there is no regulatory process for CO2 pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance its project. At least one province has denied a permit.
