(SBA) - Des Moines, IA. On Thursday, Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) issued a decision that burdens parties, landowners, and the public by allowing Summit to move forward with 16 separate applications for its carbon pipeline project. Board members Erik Helland and Sarah Martz voted against consolidation and Josh Byrnes filed a dissenting opinion.
Last month, Summit announced a partnership with 18 POET and Valero ethanol facilities and an expansion to their proposed carbon pipeline route. Rather than amending their open docket and adding in the new proposed lateral lines, Summit opened up 14 new dockets, bringing the total to 16 open dockets.
“You can’t expand something that doesn’t exist. Summit still doesn’t have approval for their original route. This project should be considered as one - there is no reason to rush this. Summit doesn’t have approval in any state.” Said Jess Mazour, Sierra Club Iowa Chapter Conservation Program Coordinator. “It’s not our fault that Summit changed their project in the middle of the game.
Summit’s expansion drastically changes the nature of Summit’s carbon pipeline project. Parties brought up the issue of changing pipe size, pressure changes, valve and pump station locations and more as reasons to consolidate all 16 of Summit’s dockets and consider the project as a whole.
Sierra Club Iowa Chapter argued that Iowa law allows the IUB to reopen and consolidate Summit’s dockets.
“Iowa law lays out situations where IUB can consolidate dockets and Summt’s applications certainly meet those requirements.” said Wally Taylor, Attorney for the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter. “This is another example of IUB making decisions that help Summit and harm Iowans.
199 IAC 7.14(1) states dockets can be consolidated if (1) the matters involve common parties or common questions of fact or law, (2) consolidation is likely to expedite or simplify consideration of the issues, and (3) whether consolidation would adversely affect the substantial rights of any of the parties to the proceedings.
IUB said there are sufficient differences between the projects, including impacted landowners and pipe size and length. IUB also said adding 340 miles to the existing record would further add to the complexity of the proceeding. IUB added that consolidation would adversely impact the substantial rights of Summit Carbon and SCS.
“How dare the IUB say ‘Summit Carbon’s substantial rights would be impacted’. This is a slap in the face to every Iowan who’s constitutional property rights have been violated for the last 3 years. Iowa law does not promise approval of a pipeline application and Iowa law does not say how long it may take.” said Kim Junker, impacted by one of Summit’s expansion dockets. “Their reasoning is completely backwards. All along IUB has protected Summit at the expense of our Rights. All IUB cares about is catering to Summit.”
Josh Byrnes, the only IUB member who has been on the board since the beginning of the proceedings, filed a dissenting opinion. ‘The Board should demand that the route for a project of this size and magnitude be the product of comprehensive planning to ensure the final route is the most efficient to accomplish the project’s objectives and to minimize the impact on Iowa landowners. Had a comprehensive evaluation been performed, perhaps the route proposed in this case makes the most sense without alteration. However, I believe that discussion should at least occur as the exercise is worth the time and effort.’
