Minnesota utility regulators on Thursday unanimously approved what would be the state’s first carbon dioxide pipeline, stretching 28 rural miles from an ethanol plant near Fergus Falls to the North Dakota border.

The decision is the latest victory for Summit Carbon Solutions for its plan to capture planet-warming gases from 57 ethanol plants, transport them through a sprawling network of Midwestern pipelines and bury the carbon in North Dakota.

The “Midwest Carbon Express” has sparked contentious debate in Minnesota over whether this type of carbon capture is actually a benefit for the climate — or worth the health and safety risks of a rupture.

Summit says the project will help ethanol plants earn premium prices in California’s regulated fuel markets by slashing carbon emissions, and possibly open a Midwest market for lower-carbon aviation fuel made of ethanol.

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) voted 5-0 to grant Summit a route permit. In exchange, the company must start construction in North Dakota before it can build the Minnesota pipeline, among other conditions.

“It’s a new concept, we get that,” said Republican commissioner John Tuma. “We’re going to have to try some new things. Some of them will be successful, some of them are going to fail. If we’re really truly about reducing carbon and meeting our 2040 goal, we gotta look at all things.”

The PUC’s vote Thursday marks a continuing turnaround for the five-state, $8.9 billion system, which once looked to be in doubt.

On Thursday, regulators in North Dakota are considering crucial underground storage permits for Summit, one month after approving the company’s route there. Iowa also approved Summit this year.

Still, Summit faces a more uncertain future for a critical stretch of its project through South Dakota, where the company in November reapplied for permission with an altered route after being rejected by the state in 2023.

Tuma also said Republicans under incoming President Donald Trump could eliminate federal tax credits for carbon capture that are important to the project’s viability. Still, Trump’s choice for Interior Secretary, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, supports the Summit project.

To hedge against the possibility the project is abandoned, the PUC required Summit to create a fund to “protect against the failure to complete construction and fund decommissioning.”

Summit wants to build a carbon capture facility at the Green Plains ethanol plant near Fergus Falls that collects the gas produced by fermenting ethanol, and then compress, dehydrate and cool it for transport.

The four-inch carbon steel pipeline would carry about 524 metric tons of carbon dioxide per day. A typical car emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Summit is also planning a much longer pipeline through southern Minnesota to reach ethanol plants there.

The company has had to navigate complex politics to reach this point. In other states, it faces opposition from some conservatives over the potential use of eminent domain along the route.

That’s not an issue in Minnesota, because Summit can’t invoke eminent domain under state law. The company has voluntary easements for 89% length of its path in Minnesota. Summit still needs to strike deals with seven landowners.

Summit has support from some Democrats, Republicans and climate action groups who believe carbon capture is essential to slashing emissions from transportation fuels, as well as those who want the construction and operation jobs from the project such as labor unions. The Minnesota project would create about 200 construction jobs.

An environmental impact statement published by the Minnesota Department of Commerce said the pipeline would still benefit the climate if it captures even 40% of emissions from the ethanol plant. At 10%, the project would be a net polluter.

Yet the pipeline faced local opposition from several environmental nonprofits who argue Summit’s project would push farmers to grow more corn, leading to more emissions and other issues like water pollution. They also fear the captured carbon would be used for oil production.

“We have serious concerns that these broader emissions outweigh the amount of carbon that’s captured and sequestered here,” said Abigail Hencheck, an attorney for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

Summit attorney Christina Brusven said Thursday that using carbon for oil production is possible elsewhere. The pipeline would be a common carrier that can’t choose to deny shippers based on how the gas would be used, she said. Still, Brusven said Summit has a contract with the Green Plains to permanently sequester the carbon transported along this 28-mile route.

Nearby landowners were among those who have raised concerns about the potential health hazard of any leak from the pipeline.

Project skeptics note that a carbon pipeline rupture in 2020 in Mississippi sent 45 people to the hospital and forced the evacuation of 200 people. A rupture can be explosive, and carbon dioxide is toxic at high levels.

In response to that disaster, federal regulators are strengthening pipeline safety rules. The environmental nonprofit CURE argued companies pitching new pipelines should wait until that process is finished before moving ahead.

The state’s environmental assessment notes the pipeline that ruptured in Mississippi was six times larger than what would be built in Minnesota.

Summit says it will exceed current pipeline standards, is following federal recommendations after the Mississippi failure and would have to follow any new rules.

A state contractor modeled a potential rupture, finding it could be life-threatening to people at a maximum of 617 feet away under a worst-case scenario, a distance of roughly two football fields. There are eight homes and one business within that distance of the approved route.

The permit requires Summit to buy carbon dioxide detectors for nearby homes if people want them, as well as to pay for training local emergency preparedness, and to conduct a public safety awareness campaign.

Tuma said environmental groups wanted to make the vote a broader debate about ethanol use in Minnesota rather than focus on how the law applies to this pipeline. The legislature has subsidized these plants and even exempted some from certain environmental regulations, he said.

“Is it 100% sequestering every piece of carbon that hits that ethanol plant in Northern Minnesota? No,” Tuma said. “But it is ... a net benefit.”

_____

©2024 The Minnesota Star Tribune. Visit startribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC