CO₂ is a hazardous material in high concentrations. The FEIS consistently underplays the known and unknown risks of transporting large amounts of CO₂ at high pressures through a pipeline.

• CO₂ Rupture Impact Zone: According to the analysis in the FEIS, the potential impact radius for levels of CO₂ that would be “immediately dangerous to life or health” is 617 feet. This expands to 910 feet for lower concentrations that cause dizziness, drowsiness, severe muscle twitching, and unconsciousness within a few minutes. Although Summit indicates that it will take 10 minutes for the pipeline safety system to shut off the relevant valves in the event of “abnormal operation,” the FEIS does not mention any meaningful safety measures in the case of a rupture releasing a large amount of concentrated gas. Instead, the FEIS suggests that it is “reasonable” for Summit to simply supply indoor and outdoor CO₂ detectors for residences within 1,000 feet of the project. But the rupture report in Appendix G states that “a full rupture results in impact distances too quickly for an early warning device, such as an oxygen detector, to be effective.” Because the FEIS fails to adequately address both the extent of the risk of a pipeline rupture on surrounding residents, and does not cover concrete protection measures, the PUC does not have enough information to issue a decision on the permit.
• First Responders and Health Professionals: CO₂ pipelines pose unique problems for first responders and health care providers. Because CO₂ is colorless and odorless, both victims and first responders have no way of knowing what is causing the health problems that result from inhaling concentrated gas. In addition, first responders require special equipment, including non-internal combustion engine vehicles, to respond to a CO₂ disaster. The FEIS assumes Summit’s September 2022 Emergency Response Plan (Appendix N) is sufficient. This plan is not only outdated but it also fails to provide a framework for how local EMS and first responders will interact with the applicant in the event of a leak or rupture. Though the plan talks of multiple company personnel as playing roles in an emergency response, it ignores the fact that the applicant only plans on having one full-time employee at the capture facility. Summit will not employ any first responders to address pipeline ruptures in the field. Local first responders are advised to NOT respond to emergency situations for which they lack proper training, equipment, plans, and information as doing so would put themselves and the community that relies on them at even greater risk. If the FEIS does not address these dangerous gaps in Summit’s safety preparedness plans, the PUC (as well as first responders and the public) will lack the information needed to determine and prepare for the likely risks and harms associated with any proposed route.
• Setbacks: The FEIS still asserts that the PUC “cannot set safety standards” for Summit’s proposed pipeline. But the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has expressly said in public letters to CO₂ pipeline companies like Summit that state and local authorities can exercise their powers to regulate land use—including setback distances—and that “nothing in the federal pipeline safety law impinges on these traditional prerogatives of local—or state—government.” Contrary to the FEIS claims, the PUC must consider where the pipeline is placed and what is the safest option for Minnesotans, which means the PUC can and should determine what routing, setback, and depth requirements are necessary to adequately protect Minnesotans.

The FEIS discounts the direct and long-term impacts of pipeline construction on land and soil integrity in spite of the significant evidence of likely harm.

• Land Degradation: This project is going to cut through roads, ditches, tile lines, and prime farmland. There is a growing body of both anecdotal evidence and peer-reviewed research that shows that pipeline projects in the Midwest have caused yield reduction and damage to land years after project completion and “restoration.” The FEIS acknowledges that the reduced productivity from construction “typically would extend for 2 to 3 years, but could take up to 5 years, depending on impacts on soils from the construction disturbance,” but fails to identify any specific measures the applicant should take to avoid these damages or repair them. The FEIS also incorrectly states that all three routes would have similar potential impacts, despite acknowledging that RA-North would impact fewer acres of sensitive soils—that is hydric soils, highly wind and water erodible soils, compaction-prone soils, and soils with revegetation concerns.
• Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance: All three routes included in the FEIS would impact both Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, but Summit’s preferred route would impact significantly more acres of both of these than the proposed alternatives across both the construction footprint and the operation footprint of the proposed project.
• Impact of Leaks or Ruptures on Vegetation: The FEIS concludes a leak of CO₂ “would slow plant growth” and that the rupture of the pipeline would freeze and physically disturb the surrounding soil and “instantly kill all herbaceous ground vegetation” but provides no measures to avoid these impacts and downplays the potential for long-term impacts of such damage on the soils and vegetation. Instead, the FEIS states without any citations or reference to scientific studies that these complex ecosystems would naturally “re-colonize” and restore themselves or simply be able to withstand the harms of a dramatic, near instantaneous, artificial freeze.
• Soil Compaction: The FEIS acknowledges that “soil compaction would be unavoidable in unpaved areas of equipment and vehicle operation” and that even if soils were decompacted, “some compacted soils could remain.” Soil compaction can have serious consequences in terms of water infiltration and drainage and should not be dismissed as an insignificant impact.
• Geologic Hazards: The FEIS acknowledges that the applicant has not conducted geologic hazard surveys despite being advised to do so by the PHMSA Bulletin released after the Satartia, Mississippi, rupture in February 2020. Without this information, the PUC cannot issue a well-informed decision on the permit application. Despite this, the FEIS suggests that it is sufficient for the applicant to complete these studies sometime after permitting but before construction begins. Failure to require the applicant to conduct and complete this and other surveys before the FEIS is completed renders the FEIS incomplete and therefore inadequate.

Minnesota’s recent experience with pipeline construction demonstrates the serious harms that it has on water resources and reveals a pattern of state agencies underestimating those impacts.

• Dangers to Water and Waterbodies: The proposed route for Summit’s pipeline network includes many crossings of rivers, streams, ditches, wetlands, aquifers, and other sensitive water bodies. The FEIS makes claims about how CO₂ from a pipeline rupture will behave in water without citing sources that support those claims. More research and analysis are needed to understand how CO₂ disperses in water generally, but also how this might change based on local conditions found along the proposed routes. More information is also needed to understand what risks a CO₂ pipeline leak or rupture poses to Minnesota’s precious waters and the fish, amphibians, reptiles, waterfowl, birds, insects, and other aquatic life that rely on it to survive. Notably, the FEIS states that groundwater surveys to determine the type and extent of potential impacts of the project will occur after the PUC issues its decision on the route permit. Failure to include such essential information renders the FEIS incomplete and therefore inadequate.
• Water Use: As recent years have demonstrated, Minnesota is increasingly at risk of drought and over-commitment of our drinking water supplies. The FEIS fails to discuss the impacts of an increase in water use on local water supply. The carbon capture process can double water demand at an ethanol facility. The FEIS states that Summit “anticipates” an average water use for the operation of the carbon capture equipment of 13 million gallons per year for one ethanol plant. The lack of certainty about this water demand is concerning, given that this is supposed to be a final assessment of the project’s potential environmental impacts. There must be a careful and case-specific assessment of how the installation and operation of carbon capture equipment will impact current ground and surface waters, and the analysis must account for periodic drought conditions. Moreover, Summit has not finalized information on its water appropriation sources for ongoing operation or volumes needed for construction, so it is impossible to know the full impacts of those appropriations on water resources. Existing uses of these waters are more important than this company’s excessive and private use that does nothing to benefit local communities or economies. Minnesota should not risk our fresh drinking water supply for a project whose proposer has not been transparent with its actual demands for water resources.
• Aquifer Damage: All three routes cross a surficial beach ridge aquifer in Otter Tail County. The DNR has said that the area is “prone to significant groundwater discharge,” and the applicant’s initial groundwater investigation confirmed that “artesian groundwater conditions are present” along that beach ridge system. In early feedback on the Draft EIS, the DNR noted that “Project construction has the potential to intersect shallow confined groundwater potentially causing a breach in a confined aquifer” and that “breaching shallow confined aquifers could have significant long-term impacts to groundwater resources.” This, along with our state’s first-hand knowledge of how damaging pipelines can be to aquifers and the consequences of insufficient review and oversight of aquifer impacts, requires that the FEIS adequately assess potential aquifer damage before the PUC issues its decision on the route permit.
• HDD Drilling: Summit’s preferred route RA-South and alternative route RA-Hybrid would both cross three rivers (Pelican River, Otter Tail River, and Bois de Sioux River) via the horizontal directional drilling, or HDD, method. The FEIS acknowledges that horizontal directional drilling can result in unintended releases of drilling mud but downplays the severity of such a release as “localized” and “short-term.” According to the FEIS, an assessment of the potential for and impacts of an inadvertent release will be conducted at some point in the future. Failing to provide that crucial information now means that the PUC will not have all the necessary information to inform its decision on the permit, and that the FEIS is incomplete and therefore inadequate.
• Wetlands: The FEIS describes the potential impacts to wetlands as “minimal to moderate” and similar across the route alternatives. This purposefully misconstrues the data in the FEIS which shows that when comparing impacts along route construction widths, RA-South would impact 2.7 acres of wetlands compared to .7 acres along RA-North. This difference is not insignificant, especially given the state’s commitment to having no net loss of wetlands. If the PUC approves any route permit, it should choose the route with the fewest environmental impacts. RA-North appears to have fewer environmental impacts than the other routes.
• Impacts of a Leak or Rupture on Animals: According to the FEIS, CO₂ leaks would not affect mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects and would be unlikely to impact fish and freshwater mussels. The FEIS reaches this conclusion without providing any reasoning or supporting evidence whatsoever. Though the FEIS does note some harm may come to animals in the event of a rupture, it relies heavily on the assumption that animals will simply move out of the rupture area to avoid the release. Some animals, including critical species such as freshwater mussels, cannot merely swim away from harm, and all of them cannot move faster than a rapidly expanding concentrated gas cloud. The reason for this strange unsupported assumption is not provided and is contradicted by information in the rupture report in Appendix G which suggests the impacts of a rupture would be nearly immediate.
• Critical Wildlife Habitats: Summit’s preferred route would cross over or near several waterfowl protection areas, including the Orwell 9 Unit and Ridgeway WPA in Otter Tail County. The FEIS notes that some of these areas will be avoided during construction but only considers the recreational impacts to these features in the event of a leak or rupture. Failure to discuss how the unique wildlife and natural resources in these areas may be impacted renders the FEIS incomplete and therefore inadequate.

The DEIS consistently fails to properly account for the real CO2 emission and climate impacts of the project.

• Lifetime of Project: Summit states that the anticipated lifetime of this project is 25 years. The FEIS acknowledges that “if the ethanol plant continues to operate beyond the life of the proposed project, it’s CO₂ emissions would not be captured.” Despite this, the FEIS comes to the vague and unsupported conclusion that the project would provide a “net benefit” with regard to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. There is not sufficient data to support such a conclusion.
• 100% CO₂ Capture Rate: Summit states that the capture facility will be able to capture 100% of the CO₂ emitted by the CO₂ scrubber stack at the Green Plains Ethanol plant (which already does not include the CO₂ emitted from other parts of the plant’s operations, such as the natural gas it burns). There is no carbon capture facility in the world, ethanol or otherwise, that captures carbon at a rate of 100% even when functioning as intended. Moreover, carbon capture technologies have an overwhelming track record of failure and breakdown leaving the associated facility to emit all its CO₂ into the atmosphere during these down periods. The entire basis of the project is its ability to capture carbon emissions—taking at face-value Summit’s unverified claim of a 100% capture rate would be not just inaccurate and inadequate but negligent.
• CO₂ Storage: The FEIS assumes 100% of captured CO₂ is being permanently stored underground. There is no guarantee that this will occur at the point of injection, but the FEIS simply accepts Summit’s statements regarding its North Dakota monitoring and verification protocols without further discussion of how a failure of these protocols would impact the project’s alleged climate benefits.
• Enhanced Oil Recovery: The FEIS somewhat acknowledges that the applicant can—and has plans to—sell some of its captured CO₂ to others for alternative uses instead of permanent sequestration, but the FEIS analysis continues to downplay what the impacts of this diversion would be. The FEIS provides details about the amount of CO₂ that would be emitted based on different capture rates at the ethanol facility if the captured gas was then used for EOR. The FEIS also incorrectly states that “Production of oil through EOR would not be dependent on the availability of CO2 produced by the ethanol plant.” This claim is contradicted by countless public statements from public officials in North Dakota and North Dakota oil industry representatives—they have clearly stated that every ton of CO₂ from other states is needed and can be repurposed for EOR. Summit’s representative in North Dakota testified that the Summit project would help to support EOR in North Dakota oil fields in the future. Therefore, every ton sent to North Dakota should be understood as having the potential to increase oil production through EOR.

• Environmental Justice Communities: The FEIS acknowledges that the project will directly intersect a defined environmental justice community but does not account for the burden of the potential health and safety impacts of a leak or a rupture, not to mention any negative impacts from construction on the ecosystem in that community. The FEIS also fails to assess the cumulative impacts of this project in relation to existing pollution or health disparities in the area.
• Human Trafficking: The FEIS confirms the increased risk of human trafficking resulting from the arrival of temporary workers during construction, citing Minnesota’s very recent and stark experience with human trafficking incidents during the construction of the Line 3 pipeline. However, the FEIS includes no mention of the trauma this would inflict on the local community, including the most vulnerable members, or the burden this puts on local service providers. The FEIS also provides no mention of the local dynamics that could intensify these risks and burdens, including the identified environmental justice community as well as proximity to the state border and Indian Country. Such cursory treatment of this critical public safety concern is not just inadequate, but disrespectful and harmful to public health and safety.
• Energy Costs and Ratepayer Impacts: The FEIS states that during operation the proposed project will require about 38,501,733 kilowatt hours per year, and that this amount is “not anticipated to require the addition of power generation capacity.” However, the FEIS also notes that this is double the amount of electricity the Green Plains refinery is currently using, but does not explain how this will impact overall electricity supply for Lake Region Electric Cooperative. Who is paying for that electricity? Summit or the ethanol facility? And if the latter, will those cost increases and transmission and distribution infrastructure needs be passed on to these corporations or regular ratepayers?
• Jobs & Local Economic Impact: The FEIS continues to rely on Summit’s proclamations about jobs, tax revenues, and other economic impacts in spite of the expert evidence that demonstrates that applicants typically provide inflated socioeconomic numbers estimated using inappropriate methods. Moreover, the FEIS continues to include references to two industry reports—prepared by Ernst and Young and the NorthStar Policy Action—that provide such biased data that it could not justifiably be used in the FEIS analysis of the project’s socioeconomic impacts. Why then are they included in or text of the FEIS? Without independent verification of the analysis, the presentation of the socioeconomic impacts of the project are at best speculative and at worst overtly misleading.
• Housing Availability: The FEIS makes a passing acknowledgement that construction of the project and an influx of non-local workers could impact housing availability and rent in the region but dismisses those impacts as “minimal and short-term.” However, the information provided in the FEIS about housing makes no distinction about the availability of affordable housing. Given the affordable housing constraints across the state including in our smaller cities and rural areas, the FEIS cannot simply shrug its shoulders at the impacts these changes could have on local working people and families.

• Complete Network Impacts: In addition to the direct impacts of the 28 miles of pipeline included in Summit’s application, the FEIS does not account for the indirect and cumulative impacts of Summit’s entire project in Minnesota. This is despite Summit’s clear and public plans for a much larger buildout in Minnesota and recent statements that they will be applying for permits for additional parts of the network imminently. Allowing Summit to artificially segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline will prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of the project.