By Seth Boyes,
A recent decision from South Dakota’s highest court may be the determining factor in whether portions of an $8 million carbon pipeline extend through northern Iowa.
Summit Carbon Solutions aims to construct its pipeline across five Midwest states to transport highly pressurized carbon dioxide to a site in North Dakota, where the gas would be stored deep underground — the project was pitched as a way to bolster Iowa’s ethanol industry by capturing carbon emissions from refineries to lower the fuel’s carbon intensity score to ultimately access low-carbon fuel markets.
Now, I don’t know how often the topic has been brought up here in northeast Iowa — though the eastern portions of Summit’s pipelines would extend to within about 25 miles of Decorah, somewhere between New Hampton and Lawler — but it was a major topic of discussion for Iowa’s county-level officials farther west.
Folks were worried over several things, but perhaps the most prominent concerns were the potential for a pipeline rupture and the possibility state officials would grant Summit the ability to use eminent domain to complete the project — that is to say, allow the construction of the pipeline across private property without the owner’s consent. Of course, still others felt the company — and others like the now failed pipeline previously proposed by Navigator CO2 Ventures — was simply trying to cash in on federal tax credits without taking any meaningful action on climate change.
Iowans wrote their lawmakers, they attended hearings, they submitted testimony — some counties even passed local-level zoning ordinances related to such pipelines, which resulted in law suits being filed.
And it wasn’t too long ago that some Iowans were lamenting a decision from the Iowa Utilities Board, granting Summit’s pipeline a construction permit.
But the IUB included a condition on that permit — Summit can’t begin building its pipeline until it gets approval from state officials in both the Dakotas. And at that point, North Dakota had already denied the proposed project. And as of last week, it’s not looking good in South Dakota either — Summit’s proposing to carry privately produced carbon for underground sequestration, rather than a public utility like electricity or water, and that state’s supreme court said Summit needs to prove it’s carrying something for the public before it can invoke eminent domain on anyone.
Now, I’m not that surprised that a project of this magnitude ended up in court.
What I’m surprised about is that the fate of Iowans landowners across the northern and western portions of the state may be in the hands of a neighboring state’s justices, rather than their own lawmakers.
At least two bills were proposed in the Iowa legislature last year, aimed at potentially limiting the use of eminent domain, but neither made it to the governor’s desk. In fact, the more successful bill passed through the Iowa House on a 73-20 vote in March of 2023, but the Iowa Senate’s Commerce Subcommittee simply didn’t take action on the bill the following month, and the bill didn’t make the cut during that session’s funnel week.
Iowa could have dealt with this on its own, but we left it contingent on what two other states decided. Iowa could have passed a state law last year to specify carbon pipelines couldn’t use eminent domain, but lawmakers said it wasn’t fair to change the rules mid-game per say — that said, the South Dakota court would evidently say the rules were already set.
Now, I’ve told folks in the past, I’m probably the last one you want telling you whether to support this pipeline or not, let alone whether you should allow it to cross your farmland, but I feel Iowa has deferred to the judgement of the Dakotas on a matter which has likely kept many Iowans up at night. And now South Dakota’s Supreme Court is sending the matter back to the lower courts and, if Summit can successfully argue that transporting CO2 for the benefit of ethanol fuel is sufficient reason to use eminent domain, Iowan’s may end up turning to the one remaining state with a say in the matter.
And unfortunately, it wouldn’t be their own.
Agree with Seth? Think he’s got it completely backwards or he’s missed the point entirely? Let your voice be heard. Letters to the editor may be emailed to editor@decorahleader.com or dropped off at 110 Washington St. Suite 4 in Decorah.
Submit A Comment
Fill out the form to submit a comment. All comments require approval by our staff before it is displayed on the website.