Judge: No site permit needed for refinery near national park | TribLIVE.com

Judge: No site permit needed for refinery near national park

Associated Press
The Bismarck Tribune via AP
This July 2018 photo shows the property, southwest of Belfield, N.D, that is the planned home of The Davis Refinery near Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

BISMARCK, N.D. — A North Dakota judge has ruled that regulators properly refrained from getting involved in a dispute over the location of an $800 million oil refinery planned near Theodore Roosevelt National Park, sparing developers from a potentially lengthy delay in construction.

The Public Service Commission last year declined to review whether the planned Davis Refinery could be built just three miles from the park in the western North Dakota Badlands, concluding the refinery will be too small to warrant review under state law.

Environmental groups that don’t believe developer Meridian Energy Group is being forthright about the refinery’s size asked a state judge to order the commission to hold a hearing — a request that Meridian called “a fishing expedition.”

Judge Bruce Romanick on Tuesday sided with the PSC, ruling the agency followed state law that requires only those oil refineries with a capacity of 50,000 or more barrels daily to obtain a site permit from the agency. Meridian’s current capacity estimate for the Davis Refinery is 49,500 barrels daily.

“Because the PSC was without jurisdiction, it could not conduct a hearing,” Romanick ruled.

He also said regulators did not abuse their discretion in denying a chance for the plaintiffs to receive more information from Meridian about the refinery plans so they could try to prove their contention that the company is trying to skirt state law. Meridian disputes that.

Opponents said they plan to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

A PSC review can take half a year or longer to complete. Meridian said it was pleased with Romanick’s ruling.

“Trying to push Meridian into a PSC siting process for the Davis project is a transparent attempt to slow down the project,” the company said.

The national park is North Dakota’s top tourist attraction, drawing more than 700,000 visitors annually. The company says the facility will be the “cleanest refinery on the planet,” a model for future plants and a boost for the area economy. Environmental groups worry pollution will erode air quality at the park and mar its majestic scenery.

Meridian initially said the refinery would have a capacity of 55,000 barrels, but as the project evolved, the company lowered the figure to 49,500 barrels daily. CEO William Prentice signed an affidavit saying Meridian has “no current plans” for any expansion beyond that.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Dakota Resource Council question the company’s veracity, and they criticized the PSC for trusting the company. The PSC didn’t comment on Romanick’s decision, saying the ruling speaks for itself.

Dakota Resource Council attorney JJ England said the group will appeal to the state Supreme Court, noting Romanick didn’t address the fact that Meridian’s state air quality permit is for a facility with a 55,000-barrel capacity.

“This decision also raises alarming questions about the jurisdiction of North Dakota state agencies,” he said.

Meridian began site work for the refinery last summer and has a goal of having it fully operating by mid-2021 , though the company still faces another court battle. The National Parks Conservation Association has appealed to the state Supreme Court the air quality permit that the state Health Department issued for the refinery, arguing it violates the federal Clean Air Act.

Categories: Business | Wire stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.