Pipeline companies argue against safety documentation

DES MOINES — Three carbon pipeline companies were at odds with the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB), Office of the Consumer Advocate, land owners and conservationists Tuesday at the capitol during an IUB hearing.

The hearing comes as a response to Summit Carbon Solutions challenging a July IUB order to provide three documents to supplement its application for a CO2 pipeline: a risk assessment, a plume model in the event of a rupture, and an emergency response plan.

Three companies, Summit, Navigator and Wolf, are proposing building pipelines across Iowa that would trap carbon emissions from ethanol and fertilizer plants and store them underground. This captured carbon dioxide can also be used for fossil fuel extraction through enhanced oil recovery.

Some of Adair County will be affected by Navigator’s phase two plans which include a pipeline connecting Poet ethanol plants in Corning and Menlo. Adair, along with 43 other Iowa counties, has filed an official objection with the IUB.

Opponents have primarily argued the safety of the proposed pipelines, citing a burst of a pipeline near Satartia, Mississippi, in 2020, as an example of the potential safety risks. No one died in that incident, but dozens were sickened and needed medical attention.

When a carbon pipeline ruptures, carbon dioxide is quickly released to the surface. Its weight is heavier than air, so it spreads horizontally rather than rising and dissipating. There is no oxygen within the carbon cloud, meaning a person cannot breathe and vehicles can’t operate.

”They are not being honest about how dangerous these pipelines are,” said Jess Mazour, Sierra Club Conservation program coordinator. “If you’re in the cloud, your car’s not going to work, EMS isn’t going to be able to get to you.”

Documentation

The pipeline companies have argued the IUB doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce safety-related documentation upon them.

They claim the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a division of the Department of Transportation, sets safety standards for pipelines.

The arguments on Tuesday hinged on whether the information requested by the board constituted a safety standard. Both the pipeline companies and the consumer advocate’s office agreed the state could not set safety regulations for CO2 pipelines.

Summit, in briefs and in oral arguments on Tuesday, argued requiring the documents amounts to a safety standard. Bret Dublinske, Summit’s attorney, said using safety considerations to make a decision about approving a pipeline at all is preempted by federal law.

“If the board considers safety and makes a decision that a pipeline that is otherwise compliant with PHMSA is not safe enough, you have de facto created a standard,” he said. “And in some ways, it’s actually worse because you haven’t said exactly what that standard is. But what you said is the PHMSA standard is not good enough.”

The Office of the Consumer Advocate argued the requested documents were not a safety standard, but rather a piece of information the board should consider when deciding the pipeline’s route and location.

Anna Ryon, an attorney with the Office of the Consumer Advocate, said during oral arguments the office is not asking the board to make a safety determination. She argued, instead, the documents would be relevant to making decisions about routing and siting.

“The board can look at safety information for purposes other than imposing safety requirements,” Ryon said.

Ryon argued the information would also give interested parties – counties, cities, landowners – a better understanding of the risks associated with having pipelines in their vicinity.

“This is information that the public needs to know,” she said. “For example, it will help counties with their planning and zoning as they look at how they want to expand populations in the county.”

Opponents said the federal government hasn’t finalized its own rules, meaning the pipeline could go into the ground with little regulation, and leave first responders in the dark.

“They need information like a risk analysis so that they can know what they need to do. That information wouldn’t be used to put any standards or requirements on the pipeline companies. It would be used to allow the emergency response teams to do their job,” Ryon said.

“That way, emergency responders in Iowa can start preparing in the event these are approved,” Mazour added. “What they would do when there’s a rupture.”

Navigator attorney Samantha Norris said the company plans to work with local first responders on an emergency response plan for its pipeline, and it will voluntarily provide some information regarding that plan.

“That does not mean, however, it is appropriate for the board to require that that information be filed, because that is a preempted activity,” she said.

What’s next

Summit, the furthest along, proposes to capture carbon dioxide emissions from 32 ethanol plants in five states and pipe it to western North Dakota for underground storage.

In order to build the pipelines, the companies must gain access to land. The easiest way for them to do so is to get the landowner to sign an easement - forfeiting a portion of their property to the project.

”Iowans are sending a strong message to Summit, Navigator and Wolf that we don’t want their carbon pipeline scams,” said Mazour. “There are 1,500 parcels refusing to sign easements on the Summit route. Summit should pack its bags and stop wasting the time and resources of our state government, local governments, organizations and landowners. After a year of harassment and high pressure sales, it’s clear they are failing.”

If the company is not able to obtain more easements, IUB said they will not approve the petition.

Summit has said it wants to begin construction on the $4.5 billion pipeline system in 2023 and be operational in 2024, but there is still significant work to be done on permitting.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Summit said IUB hearings could begin March 20, 2023, and would need about 15 days to complete the hearings.

Other intervening parties said that is unrealistic. Christina Gruenhagen, representing the Iowa Farm Bureau, said July or later would be reasonable, in part to avoid spring planting and harvest. Brian Jorde with the Domina Law Firm that represents landowners said a hearing should be a year away with 30 days set aside for proceedings.

The three-member IUB did not set a schedule Tuesday, saying they would discuss the situation with staff before setting a schedule for the proceedings, which have been likened to a trial, with time needed for evidence discovery and scheduling expert witnesses.

Bret Dublinske, attorney for Summit, questioned whether pipeline opponents may be stalling. “You start to wonder how much of this is tactical as opposed to legitimately needed,” he said.

Mazour said the IUB should require as much safety documentation as possible. “We deserve to be able to be safe in our homes, on the road, in our schools, in our workplaces,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to worry if there’s a pipeline nearby that’s going to kill us, going to harm our communities.”