A sign displays the names of South Dakota’s three elected public utilities commissioners outside of their Pierre office in January 2023. (South Dakota Searchlight/Joshua Haiar via the North Dakota Monitor)

(Joshua Haiar – South Dakota Searchlight) – A company proposing a carbon dioxide pipeline should have conditions on its potential permit after it failed to address concerns about crossings with a crude oil pipeline, said the company that operates the oil pipeline.

Dakota Access LLC, which is controlled by Energy Transfer, operates the Dakota Access Pipeline. It transports crude oil 1,172 miles from North Dakota to Illinois.

Summit Carbon Solutions plans a 2,500-mile pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions.

The routes of the existing and proposed pipeline cross eastern South Dakota. Summit recently reapplied for a permit after being rejected last year by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

In a new filing with the commission, Dakota Access said Summit has not provided sufficient details — such as maps, depths and safety measures — about its proposed crossings of the Dakota Access Pipeline, known by the acronym DAPL.

“Summit has largely refused to talk to Dakota Access about pipeline crossing agreements and necessary mitigation measures to prevent damage to DAPL,” Dakota Access attorneys wrote.

To address the concerns, Dakota Access asked for 12 conditions if Summit receives a permit. The conditions include prohibiting heavy equipment or vehicles from operating directly on DAPL’s right-of-way without protective measures, requiring abrasive-resistant coating to be applied to the carbon pipeline at crossings, and mandating that Summit monitor all crossing locations and notify Dakota Access at least 48 hours in advance of any construction activity near DAPL’s right-of-way in South Dakota.

Alternatively, Dakota Access has requested that state regulators delay Summit’s permit proceedings until an agreement on crossing terms is reached.

Summit Carbon Solutions did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brian Jorde, an attorney for landowners opposing the carbon pipeline, said in a news release that Summit’s failure to work with Dakota Access is problematic.

“The theme has been clear in South Dakota and across the region – Summit does not respect the law, they don’t respect the will of the people, and they think they can force themselves on and through South Dakota,” Jorde said.

Summit already has permits in Iowa and North Dakota. A decision is pending in Minnesota, and Nebraska has no state permitting processing for carbon pipelines.

___________________________________________________