The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Spotlight

The Summit Carbon Pipeline Is Having a Great Trump Transition

And what renewables can learn from it.

The Summit Carbon Pipeline Is Having a Great Trump Transition

A sprawling multi-state carbon pipeline appears easier to permit and build than wind and solar farms in red states, despite comments the president-elect or his team may have said on the campaign trail. And the answer has to do with more than just the potential benefits for oil and gas.

The Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline network would criss-cross five states – Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas – connecting dozens of ethanol “biorefinery” plants to carbon sequestration sites for storing CO2 captured while producing the agri-fuel. On paper Summit has its work cut out for it in ways not dissimilar to the troubles facing solar and wind. Land use issues, ecological concerns, the whole lot. And its work has become controversial amongst a myriad of opposition groups I often write about like rural farmers and, of course, conspiratorial NIMBYs – chief among them Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., two members of the incoming Trump administration.

But Ramaswamy and RFK Jr.’s presence is providing cold comfort compared to the selection of North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum – a vocal supporter of the project – to be Interior Secretary.

“We’re screwed,” wrote Dawn Shepard, a North Dakotan opposed to the project, on Facebook after the selection was announced. “He will get all Carbon Capture projects approved. I thought Republicans and Trump, included, didn’t believe in climate change. Trump’s not keeping his word.”

It’s not exactly that simple, and its debatable whether Summit’ll actually help address climate change, but the premise is true: Trump’s election may just assure the pipeline’s completion, if all things go its way.

“Those appointments are definitely a big thumb on the scale of the pipeline going through,” said Mark Hefflinger of Bold Alliance, one of the activist networks fighting the pipeline project.

In my conversations with activists and the company, it doesn’t appear there’s any easy way for the Interior Department – which oversees all federal land use – to grease all of the skids for Summit, so to speak. But there are a number of factors in its favor now: the pipeline will still require Army Corps of Engineers permits for water body crossings and those tend to require environmental reviews that heavily involve Interior. At the same time, all sides expect the Interior Secretary and likely Energy Secretary Chris Wright (an oil magnate) to champion beneficial Inflation Reduction Act tax credits for carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization in tax talks early next year.

All the while, most state-level regulators have finished or are completing approvals of the pipeline, with the exception of South Dakota where Summit on Tuesday resubmitted its permitting application to the state’s Public Utilities Commission. While I’ve been told the company didn’t substantially adjust its routing in response to the failed ballot initiative, executives certainly did change plans to elide a repeat rejection from the commission after it said no to pipeline plans last year.

“Our efforts involved spending more than a year driving county roads, knocking on doors, and having meaningful, face-to-face conversations with landowners,” Sabrina Zenor, Summit’s director of stakeholder engagement and corporate communications, told me. “These conversations guided our approach.”

There’s a lot that could still go awry for Summit. They could lose legal battles in Iowa that send them back to the drawing board in a crucial hub for corn and ethanol and where public opinion may be souring on the developer. South Dakota could be its own ball of wax, given how passionate the opposition in the state is.

Trump’s comments on the matter have been vague, indicating he’s … well, being very Trump about this. “Well, you know, we’re working on that,” Trump said when asked about the pipeline at an Iowa primary event last year. “And you know, we had a plan to totally — it’s such a ridiculous situation, isn’t it? But we had a plan, and we would have instituted that plan, and it was all ready, but we will get it — if we win, that’s going to be taken care of. That will be one of the easy things we do.”

Ultimately it may be with many issues: whoever’s in the room last with Trump could decide the pipeline’s fate.

But regardless, developers of renewables and battery storage could take away a few lessons from the pipeline network.

Walt Bones, the former head of South Dakota’s Agriculture Department, is one of the landowners currently negotiating a financial agreement for land use with Summit. He’s a farmer, and like many farmers we write about here at The Fight, he doesn’t support building stuff on or near his land if there’s going to be an impact on his crop yields. He told me that he believes the opposition in the state is largely the product of a rush to build by an over-zealous company seeking the maximum benefit from federal tax credits. And they spooked people, producing widespread skepticism of the pipeline.

“Summit did not help themselves any,” he said.

Now of course, there’s lots of concerns about CO2 pipelines’ environmental impacts and the risk of them going, well, kablooey. But unlike how some farmers skeptically view agri-voltaics (e.g. dual use solar), the thought of a pipeline beneath the earth gives Bones – a former farm regulator – no qualms. And the reasoning is simple: He doesn’t believe the pipeline, which will be buried, will impact his farming at all. And ethanol – unlike solar or wind – will feed demand for more farming.

“Basically zero impact to our land. We’ll still be able to farm over it. We’ll still be able to graze over it with our cows,” he said. “I know what the value is … [it’ll] guarantee the future viability of corn.”

So where does this leave us? It’s likely Bones doesn’t represent every farmer. But maybe there’d be a benefit in renewable developers focusing on finding ever-more ways to create a fly-wheel where solar and wind energy generation creates more business for farmers. Clearly, the sheer footprint of a utility scale solar or wind project can be more impactful than a thin pipeline crossing a property.

And I guess they should also make more politically powerful friends in the Dakotas.

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Is the California Battery Fire an East Palestine Moment?

Moss Landing is turning into a growing problem for the energy storage industry.

Moss Landing in the crosshairs.
Heatmap Pro/Getty Images

The Moss Landing battery fire now may be the storage industry’s East Palestine moment – at least in California.

In the weeks since Vistra’s battery plant south of San Francisco caught fire on January 16, at least two lawsuits have been filed against Vistra, PG&E, and battery manufacturer LG Chem by people and business owners claiming damages from the blaze. I have learned at least one more will be filed by individuals who’ve conducted headline-grabbing soil samples that found toxic metals.

Keep reading...Show less
Hotspots

The Vineyard Wind Lawsuit 2.0

And more of the week’s top conflicts around renewable energy.

The Vineyard Wind Lawsuit 2.0

1. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – Welcome to the Vineyard Wind lawsuit 2.0.

  • Fishermen represented by a conservative legal group – the Texas Public Policy Foundation – filed a petition to the Supreme Court this week asserting that the justices can now reconsider approvals for the Vineyard Wind offshore wind project because of the high court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, a now-defunct judicial precedent that courts defer to agencies on statutory interpretation.
  • It’s not entirely clear whether overturning Chevron will produce a different outcome than the Court’s decision to ignore the last petition from fisherman about Vineyard Wind’s permits. But the argument is definitely different, as the new petition argues a lower court wrongly deferred to agency interpretation of federal laws used to approve the project.
  • The Texas Public Policy Foundation did not respond to requests to discuss this case.

2. Carroll County, Maryland – Carroll County commissioners are intervening in the state permitting fight over two relatively small solar projects, in what has become a wider proxy battle between the county and the state over solar on farmland.

Keep reading...Show less
Q&A

The Case for Agrivoltaics

A conversation with Samantha Levy of American Farmland Trust

The Case for Agrivoltaics

Today’s conversation is with Samantha Levy, senior policy manager for conservation and energy at American Farmland Trust, an agriculture and energy advocacy organization I became familiar with through covering the conflict over solar on farmland. I reached out to Levy after the organization released new recommendations for agrivoltaics policy last week – just before a large agrivoltaics project was canceled in Ohio over local opposition. I wanted to ask: are there any bright spots for the future of solar and farms commingling?

Today’s conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less