Connect with us

Wyoming

Summit weighs new destinations for carbon pipeline: Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas

Published

on

Summit weighs new destinations for carbon pipeline: Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas


play

  • Summit Carbon Solutions is asking Iowa regulators to amend its carbon dioxide pipeline permit to explore sequestration sites in other states.
  • Opponents, including landowners and environmental groups, are challenging Summit’s Iowa permit in court.
  • A judge is deciding whether to review the existing permit or send the case back to regulators to consider the proposed changes.

With Summit Carbon Solutions’ planned route effectively blocked by South Dakota’s ban on the company’s use of eminent domain, opponents question where it intends to sequester the carbon dioxide a $9 billion pipeline it proposes would collect from Iowa and other Midwestern ethanol plants.

The sequestration site is supposed to be in North Dakota, but reaching that state is problematic without running the pipeline through South Dakota, where Ames-based Summit not only faces the eminent domain ban but has yet to obtain a permit.

Advertisement

Attorneys at a Polk District Court hearing Friday, Oct. 10, puzzled over the pipeline’s route as they debated whether Judge Scott Beattie should move forward with a judicial review of Summit’s Iowa permit for pipeline construction or, as Summit requests, return the case to the Iowa Utilities Commission so the panel can consider the company’s request to amend its permit.

That would make it possible for the company to consider other possible sites for sequestering the carbon emissions.

Bret Dublinske, a Summit attorney, said Friday that North Dakota used to be the only option. But now Tallgrass Energy is capturing carbon with its Trailblazer pipeline through Nebraska and sequestering it in Wyoming, and Colorado and Kansas, along with Nebraska, are seeking federal approval to store carbon, he said.

“We’re asking for permission to explore all options,” Dublinske said.

Advertisement

Iowa regulators made approval of Summit’s permit contingent on it getting a permit to build the pipeline through South Dakota. The state’s regulators have twice rejected the company’s application, most recently, because it lacked a viable route after the ban on allowing it to use eminent domain, which would have enabled it to obtain access to property for the project from unwilling landowners.

Christina Gruenhagen, the Iowa Farm Bureau’s government relations counsel, said the project should go back to the state regulators to determine if it’s viable.

“It’s not clear whether this pipeline is still going to North Dakota, or will go around South Dakota, whether it’s going to stop in Nebraska, go to Wyoming, go to Kanas, we don’t know,” Gruenhagen said.

She said it raises questions about the use of eminent domain in Iowa, which some lawmakers want to strike down, and if the pipeline serves a public purpose.

Advertisement

“At this point, we don’t know whether that pipeline can be completed to achieve the public purpose of sequestering carbon dioxide,” she said.

Here’s what to know about the discussion at Friday’s hearing.

What is Summit saying about its route and sequestration plans?

Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor said in a text Friday that the company’s proposed permit amendment “keeps open the option to transport CO2 west through Nebraska or north through South Dakota, which is part of our original permit.”

Summit wants to remove North Dakota as the sequestration location, change the pipeline size in some areas and add a customer.

Advertisement

Taking the pipeline through Nebraska could make Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas and Colorado possible sequestration options.

Summit announced plans four years ago to build the 2,000-mile pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from dozens of ethanol plants in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota and Nebraska, liquefy it under pressure, and sequester it deep underground in North Dakota.

Despite the challenges that have emerged, the company has said it remains committed to the project. Proponents say the pipeline would significantly lower the carbon footprint of ethanol made in Iowa and other states it serves, expand markets and qualify the corn-derived fuel as low carbon, making it eligible for generous federal tax credits.

“Our focus is on supporting as many ethanol partners as possible and building a strong foundation that helps farmers, ethanol plants, and rural communities access the markets they’ll depend on for decades to come,” Zenor said in her text Friday.

What’s the issue before the Polk District Court?

Nine Iowa counties, the Sierra Club’s state Chapter, landowners and others are challenging the Iowa Utilities Commission’s decision last year to give Summit a permit to build nearly 700 miles of pipeline across the state.

Advertisement

Wally Taylor, the Sierra Club’s attorney; Brian Jorde, an Omaha attorney representing dozens of landowners; and others argued that the issues Beattie will consider are broader than those included in Summit’s proposed permit amendment.

Additionally, Jorde said that Summit should have known in 2023 that it would have difficulty getting a pipeline permit in South Dakota. The company lost its first permit request two years ago and legislative restrictions already were being proposed, he said. “They have done this to themselves,” Jorde said. “They have charted their own course, and now they want a redo.”

Dublinske said that argument doesn’t hold up: North Dakota also initially rejected Summit’s pipeline permit request in 2023, but the company won approval a year later.

Attorney: Summit seeks a ‘wholesale reboot’ of final order

Jason Craig, an attorney for the Iowa counties, said Summit seeks to move the case back to the utilities commission to “pursue an entirely new contested case proceedings — to change the project, change the route, change the pipe engineering, change the conditions of the permit” and consolidate the original pipeline with its proposed expanded route.

“That amendment will require full hearing procedures and will result in a separate final decision,” he said. “That’s not supplementing the record, your honor. That’s a wholesale reboot of the final order.”

Advertisement

But Beattie expressed concern that if he moves forward with the judicial review, yet the permit also is amended, appellate courts could have “two independent and separate records that could result in conflicting matters.”

“Doesn’t it make more sense to send it back, let the commission sort all that out, put it in one clear package, and then move forward?” Beattie said.

Craig said landowners deserved to have the judge review the case instead of sending it back to the commission for “potentially years more” delay.

Beattie said he expects to issue a decision within a couple of weeks.

Donnelle Eller covers agriculture, the environment and energy for the Register. Reach her at deller@registermedia.com.

Advertisement



Source link

Wyoming

Property Tax Relief vs. Public Services: Weed & Pest Districts Enter the Debate

Published

on

Property Tax Relief vs. Public Services: Weed & Pest Districts Enter the Debate


As property tax cuts move forward in Wyoming, schools, hospitals, public safety agencies and road departments have all warned of potential funding shortfalls. Now, a new white paper from the Wyoming Weed & Pest Council says Weed & Pest Districts could also be significantly affected — a concern that many residents may not even realize is tied to property tax revenue.

Wyoming’s Weed & Pest Districts didn’t appear out of thin air. They were created decades ago to deal with a very real problem: invasive plants that were chewing up rangeland, hurting agricultural production and spreading faster than individual landowners could manage on their own.

Weeds like cheatgrass and leafy spurge don’t stop at fence lines, and over time they’ve been tied to everything from reduced grazing capacity to higher wildfire risk and the loss of native wildlife habitat.

That reality is what led lawmakers to create locally governed districts with countywide authority — a way to coordinate control efforts across both public and private land. But those districts now find themselves caught in a familiar Wyoming dilemma: how to pay for public services while cutting property taxes. Property taxes are among the most politically sensitive issues in the state, and lawmakers are under intense pressure to deliver relief to homeowners. At the same time, nearly every entity that relies on those dollars is warning that cuts come with consequences.

Advertisement

The Weed & Pest Council’s white paper lands squarely in that debate, at a moment when many residents are increasingly skeptical of property tax–funded programs and are asking a simple question — are they getting what they pay for?

That skepticism shows up in several ways. Critics of the Weed & Pest District funding model say the white paper spends more time warning about funding losses than clearly demonstrating results. While few dispute that invasive species are a problem, some landowners argue that weed control efforts vary widely from county to county and that it’s difficult to gauge success without consistent performance measures or statewide reporting standards.

Others question whether residential property taxes are the right tool to fund Weed & Pest Districts at all. For homeowners in towns or subdivisions, the work of weed and pest crews can feel far removed from daily life, even though those residents help foot the bill. That disconnect has fueled broader questions about whether funding should be tied more directly to land use or agricultural benefit rather than spread across all residential taxpayers.

There’s also concern that the white paper paints proposed tax cuts as universally “devastating” without seriously engaging with alternatives.

Some lawmakers and taxpayer advocates argue that Weed & Pest Districts should at least explore other options — whether that’s greater cost-sharing with state or federal partners, user-based fees, or more targeted assessments — before framing tax relief as an existential threat.

Advertisement

Ultimately, critics warn that leaning too heavily on worst-case scenarios could backfire. As Wyoming reexamines how it funds government, public entities are being asked to do more than explain why their mission matters. They’re also being asked to show how they can adapt, improve transparency and deliver services as efficiently and fairly as possible.

Weed & Pest Districts, like schools, hospitals and other tax-supported services, may have to make that case more clearly than ever before. The video below is the story of Wyoming’s Weed and Pest Districts.

Wyoming Weed & Pest’s Most Notorious Species

Gallery Credit: Kolby Fedore, Townsquare Media

Notorious Idaho Murderer’s Home Is Back On The Market

Convicted murderer, Chad Daybell’s home is back on the market. Could you live here?

Gallery Credit: Chris Cardenas

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Wyoming

Wyoming battles tougher flu in 2025–26 season, health experts report

Published

on

Wyoming battles tougher flu in 2025–26 season, health experts report


CASPER, Wyo. — While the fall and winter are often highlighted by snowfall and holiday gatherings, the season is also marked by the coughing, running noses and chills that come with the flu. This year, health experts warn of an especially virulent flu in Wyoming and beyond.

Data from the Wyoming Department of Health show that Wyoming saw 426 new influenza cases reported in just the final week of 2025, with well over 1,000 cases in total through flu season thus far in Wyoming. The report also states that, through Dec. 27, there had been 19 deaths in Wyoming caused by the flu this season. Nationally, the CDC reports more than 7.5 million cases of the flu and more than 3,100 deaths.

The uptick in flu cases is seen locally, too, the Natrona County Health Department told Oil City News on Thursday.

“While we don’t have exact numbers locally and only have the statewide data that’s reported, I can definitely say anecdotally that locally we’re seeing the same trends that we’re seeing statewide and nationally,” health department PIO Hailey Bloom said. “There is a surge in the rate across our community, the state and the country.”

Advertisement

Bloom said the surge in cases can partially be attributed to this year’s particular strain. The current flu is a mutated strain known as subclade K, originating from the common flu-causing virus influenza A and its variant H3N2. The strain is one of the more aggressive influenza variants, Bloom said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, subclade K is also more adept at resisting immune systems that have already built up protections against other strains of the virus. Bloom also said this season’s vaccine may not be ideally suited for combating the current strain.

“We use the flu season in the southern hemisphere as a predictor [when crafting the vaccine], and we did see that there were some strains not as effectively combated by this year’s flu shot,” she said. “Some years we get a really, really good match on the flu shot and all of the circulating strains are perfect matches to that shot, and some years it’s not as perfect.”

However, Bloom also said some of the increased cases can be attributed to a lower number of people getting vaccinated, which remains the best way to avoid the virus.

Bloom said 989 Natrona County residents have gotten a flu shot through the health department so far this season. That’s down from the 1,227 distributed in the 2024–25 flu season and the 1,478 the year before that.

Advertisement

The decline in vaccinations similarly mirrors a nationwide trend. In mid-December, the CDC reported that roughly 32.5 million flu shots had been given thus far, which is down about 1.9 million from the same point the prior flu season.

People still in need of a vaccine can get one at the Natrona County Health Department by calling ahead and setting up an appointment or by walking in, Bloom said. Vaccinations can also be administered at other locations like various local pharmacies.

Other than getting vaccinated, tips for avoiding the flu include regularly washing hands, avoiding people you know to be sick, exercising caution if feeling under the weather and dressing appropriately for the weather, Bloom said.

“This year’s flu is more aggressive, more intense and not as well covered by the vaccine, so it’s definitely nasty,” Bloom said. “All that said, the flu shot is still going to give significantly more protection than not getting one.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Wyoming

Former director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife lands a job in Wyoming

Published

on

Former director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife lands a job in Wyoming


This story is part of our Quick Hits series. This series will bring you breaking news and short updates from throughout the state.

The former director of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) agency is joining Wyoming’s Game and Fish Department.

9-News reported that Jeff Davis was hired as the department’s deputy director in late December. That’s after Doug Brimeyer retired.

He starts the job in February.

Advertisement

Davis resigned from CPW last year instead of being fired as part of a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement Davis signed did not directly cite a reason for his termination.

Davis joined CPW as the state reintroduced wolves. His resignation came shortly after Washington state said it would not provide wolves to Colorado’s reintroduction program.

Before joining CPW in 2023, Davis had a long career in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. While there, he focused on coordinating conservation initiatives involving interdisciplinary teams and salmon recovery.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending