Block long carbon dioxide pipelines

Summary#

HF 5161, “Dioxide pipelines; issuance of route permit prohibited,” would amend Minnesota Statutes section 216G.025. It would bar the Public Utilities Commission from issuing route permits for certain carbon dioxide pipelines. The bill’s stated aim is to prohibit permits for pipelines that exceed its length limit or cross public waters; it has been introduced and is not law.

  • A person would still need a route permit to build or operate a carbon dioxide pipeline.
  • A person seeking to build or operate one could not apply for a conditional exclusion or partial exemption from route-selection procedures.
  • The Commission could not issue a permit for a pipeline more than 1,000 feet long in Minnesota, or for one that travels over, under, or through public waters.
  • The bill defines a carbon dioxide pipeline as one in Minnesota that transports carbon dioxide in liquid, gaseous, or supercritical form. It does not create a new agency.

What it means for you#

  • Pipeline builders and operators: You could not build or operate a carbon dioxide pipeline without a route permit. Under this bill, the Commission could not permit a pipeline over 1,000 feet long in Minnesota or one that travels over, under, or through public waters.
  • People seeking a route permit: You could not apply for a conditional exclusion or partial exemption from route-selection procedures. The bill does not automatically approve permits for pipelines within its limits.
  • Minnesota Public Utilities Commission: It would be barred from issuing permits for pipelines that meet either prohibited condition.
  • General public: The bill does not directly change taxes, benefits, or property rights. The provided text does not say how it would affect existing permits.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill provides no spending amount, staffing level, fee, fine, or estimate of costs or savings.
  • The text provided does not set out an appropriation or a new charge.

What is unclear#

  • The current version of section 216G.025 and the related route-selection rules were not supplied, so the exact change from current law could not be verified.
  • The bill refers to the statutory definition of “public waters,” but that definition was not supplied here.
  • The bill does not say what happens to permit applications already filed or permits already issued.
  • It does not set out application timelines, decision rules, appeals, or reporting requirements.
  • The bill would take effect the day after final enactment, but it has not been enacted.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that blocking permits for longer pipelines and routes through public waters would limit where these pipelines could be built.
  • The 1,000-foot limit and public-waters restriction are clear tests for the Commission to apply.
  • Preventing applications for conditional exclusions or partial exemptions could keep applicants from seeking those route-selection exceptions.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the 1,000-foot limit could sharply restrict route options: the Commission could not permit a pipeline longer than that within Minnesota, regardless of its proposed route.
  • The bill does not explain why these limits were chosen or how they would affect pipeline projects that need to cross public waters.
  • The current law and route-selection rules were not supplied, so the bill’s effects on existing procedures and permits are unclear.