It’s heartwarming to see a team of ragtag underdogs win the big game.
That’s what happened Tuesday when the Iowa Utilities Board approved an application by Summit Carbon Solutions to build a nearly 700-mile carbon pipeline in the state. The pipeline will carry liquified carbon dioxide generated by ethanol plants to deep storage under North Dakota.
The board also gave Summit permission to use eminent domain authority to obtain more than 800 remaining land parcels owned by people who won’t sell.
Summit’s team is led by Bruce “Republican megadonor” Rastetter. It includes former governor and U.S. ambassador to China Terry Branstad, former Branstad aide and Reynolds chief of staff Jake Ketzner and Jess Vilsack, son of the former governor and current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
All three members of the utilities board were appointed by Gov. Kim Reynolds, who clearly supports the project but didn’t admit that publicly.
Nobody thought they could do it. OK, I’m being snarky.
Everyone thought they would do it.
ADVERTISING
After all, according to Inside Climate News, the project could be eligible for $18 billion in federal tax credits over 12 years. The credits are part of the Biden administration’s effort to fight climate change.
“Summit does not take a position on climate change,” said Summit Carbon COO Jimmy Powell, during hearings on the company’s application.
OK, well, at least the sequestered carbon won’t be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery, where more oil is squeezed out of wells using carbon. That would not be climate friendly.
"Today, we don’t have any shippers who want to ship CO2 for EOR. When that changes, we will likely move it for that purpose," said Wade Boeshans, Summit's executive vice president, at a December 20 event held by Friends of Ag and Energy in Bismarck, North Dakota, according to reporting by Reuters back in March.
But of course, the main thrust of all this is saving the ethanol industry, again. By sequestering carbon from plants, ethanol can be marketed as a low-carbon fuel. That allows it to sustain its market and possibly expand into aviation fuel and other uses.
It’s good for ethanol producers and pipeline investors. But boy is it costly for Iowans.
More than half the corn grown in Iowa goes for fuel, meaning we’re vastly overproducing corn to meet that demand. More corn means more nitrogen fertilizer. And more fertilizer means more nitrates end up in our waterways.
Ethanol might be more palatable if farmers agreed to meet even minimum requirements to keep nitrates out of our water. Nope. No regulations ever, is the reply.
According to an analysis from the Sierra Club, the Summit pipeline would require 3.36 billion gallons of water each year, drawn from our aquifers. The renewable fuel industry disputes that estimate.
Our political leaders fight common-sense technologies such as electric vehicles because they would hurt ethanol demand. We must keep the future from coming.
The utilities board is just one more example of a regulator structure in Iowa that just can’t say no, leaving us in a terrible fix. The common good is no match for what’s good for King Corn in Iowa.
Yes, it’s not over. Summit’s permit isn’t valid until it gets permits in Nebraska and South Dakota. An appeal is coming. There will no doubt be legal action. Public opposition will continue.
Can Summit’s team overcome those obstacles? What do you think?
www.thegazette.com
That’s what happened Tuesday when the Iowa Utilities Board approved an application by Summit Carbon Solutions to build a nearly 700-mile carbon pipeline in the state. The pipeline will carry liquified carbon dioxide generated by ethanol plants to deep storage under North Dakota.
The board also gave Summit permission to use eminent domain authority to obtain more than 800 remaining land parcels owned by people who won’t sell.
Summit’s team is led by Bruce “Republican megadonor” Rastetter. It includes former governor and U.S. ambassador to China Terry Branstad, former Branstad aide and Reynolds chief of staff Jake Ketzner and Jess Vilsack, son of the former governor and current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
All three members of the utilities board were appointed by Gov. Kim Reynolds, who clearly supports the project but didn’t admit that publicly.
Nobody thought they could do it. OK, I’m being snarky.
Everyone thought they would do it.
ADVERTISING
After all, according to Inside Climate News, the project could be eligible for $18 billion in federal tax credits over 12 years. The credits are part of the Biden administration’s effort to fight climate change.
“Summit does not take a position on climate change,” said Summit Carbon COO Jimmy Powell, during hearings on the company’s application.
OK, well, at least the sequestered carbon won’t be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery, where more oil is squeezed out of wells using carbon. That would not be climate friendly.
"Today, we don’t have any shippers who want to ship CO2 for EOR. When that changes, we will likely move it for that purpose," said Wade Boeshans, Summit's executive vice president, at a December 20 event held by Friends of Ag and Energy in Bismarck, North Dakota, according to reporting by Reuters back in March.
But of course, the main thrust of all this is saving the ethanol industry, again. By sequestering carbon from plants, ethanol can be marketed as a low-carbon fuel. That allows it to sustain its market and possibly expand into aviation fuel and other uses.
It’s good for ethanol producers and pipeline investors. But boy is it costly for Iowans.
More than half the corn grown in Iowa goes for fuel, meaning we’re vastly overproducing corn to meet that demand. More corn means more nitrogen fertilizer. And more fertilizer means more nitrates end up in our waterways.
Ethanol might be more palatable if farmers agreed to meet even minimum requirements to keep nitrates out of our water. Nope. No regulations ever, is the reply.
According to an analysis from the Sierra Club, the Summit pipeline would require 3.36 billion gallons of water each year, drawn from our aquifers. The renewable fuel industry disputes that estimate.
Our political leaders fight common-sense technologies such as electric vehicles because they would hurt ethanol demand. We must keep the future from coming.
The utilities board is just one more example of a regulator structure in Iowa that just can’t say no, leaving us in a terrible fix. The common good is no match for what’s good for King Corn in Iowa.
Yes, it’s not over. Summit’s permit isn’t valid until it gets permits in Nebraska and South Dakota. An appeal is coming. There will no doubt be legal action. Public opposition will continue.
Can Summit’s team overcome those obstacles? What do you think?
Opinion: Summit, ethanol and King Corn win, again
Summit gets permission to use eminent domain
www.thegazette.com
