Another development in the ethanol carbon pipeline fight, this time from North Dakota. It's a follow-up to Monday's Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week.
Not exactly the prairie fire of the early 20th century, but I'm hoping the landowners stick.
From the North Dakota Monitor
Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
by Jeff BeachDavid Moch signed an easement agreement with Summit Carbon Solution allowing the carbon capture project developer to put a pipeline through his land, but he said signed only because of the threat of eminent domain — a court ordering him to provide a right-of-way for the pipeline.
Moch, of Hazelton, said he spent $9,600 on a lawyer to ensure he had the strongest agreement possible, but he is still opposed to the pipeline and its potential use of eminent domain.
Moch was among those who testified Thursday in favor of bills that limit the ability of Summit and other carbon pipeline developers to use eminent domain.
Summit Carbon Solutions is an Iowa-based company seeking to build a $9 billion five-state network of pipelines capturing CO2 emissions from ethanol plants. Summit’s pipeline would send the CO2 for permanent underground storage in western North Dakota.
Summit Carbon Solutions officials and representatives from the ethanol, coal and oil and gas industries testified against the bills.
“This will disqualify current projects in development and immediately stop the investment in the North Dakota CO2 industry,” said Charlie Adams, manager of agriculture and stakeholder relations with Summit.
Several opponents of the bills pointed to a study by the North Dakota tax commissioner projecting the tax revenue that could come from oil production if enhanced oil recovery — using carbon dioxide to force more oil out of wells — were adopted in North Dakota.
David Nehring, who also works as manager of agriculture and stakeholder relations with Summit, said Summit has not been approached about using its CO2 for enhanced oil recovery but could be in the future.
“I would like to see it be used in the Bakken for EOR,” he said.
Summit’s pipeline permit in North Dakota specifies that the carbon dioxide be stored permanently.
Moch and Nehring testified on House Bill 1292 that strips common carrier status from carbon pipelines. Being a common carrier pipeline — transporting goods for hire — is a factor in pursuing eminent domain.
Two other bills heard Thursday, Senate Bill 2322 and House Bill 1414, would also strip common carrier status from carbon dioxide pipelines and more specifically state that eminent domain could not be used for carbon pipelines.
Adams testified that Summit has signed about 85% of landowners to voluntary easement agreements.
Frances Robinson of Emmons County said Summit bullied landowners with the threat of eminent domain to obtain easements.
“If they tried the same tactics now, there would be a very different result,” she testified.
Sen. Jeff Magrum, R-Hazelton, the sponsor of the Senate bill, argued that it is too easy to claim common carrier status in North Dakota and that the only way to show a company like Summit is not a common carrier is to take the company to court, which is expensive for landowners.
He also cited a South Dakota Supreme Court ruling that said Summit has not shown that it is a common carrier.
Ron Ness, executive director of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said the bills are not just about the Summit project but other pipelines yet to be planned that could carry carbon dioxide to North Dakota oil wells.
“What are we going to need in two years, five years, 10 years down the road?” Ness asked. “It’s going to take a lot of gas to supercharge the Bakken.”
Zach Cassidy of the Dakota Resource Council, an environmental group, was among those who questioned the safety of such a large high-pressure hazardous materials pipeline.
“People’s lives are potentially at risk,” Cassidy said. “It should be their choice whether or not to take that risk for their family, for the paycheck that they get.”
No action was taken on the bills, which represent just a few related to carbon capture.
Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, R-Minot, and House Majority Leader Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson, on Thursday issued a news release supporting carbon pipelines.
“Our baseload coal industry must capture and store its CO2 to stay viable. Our corn and ethanol industries must access low-carbon fuels markets to stay competitive and keep the internal combustion engine competitive,” Hogue said.
Also Thursday, the House voted 86-7 to advance House Bill 1258, which gives the state authority over setback rules for electric transmission lines, similar to the rules for pipeline regulation. The bill goes to the Senate for further consideration.
Photos: Above--David Moch of Hazelton testifies Jan. 30, 2025, on a bill related to carbon dioxide pipelines. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor). Below--A crowd filled a hearing room Jan. 30, 2025, for a series of bills related to carbon dioxide pipelines being heard by the North Dakota House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor).
This North Dakota Monitor article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts
- Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
- Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week
- Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
- Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
- Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
- 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
- Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
- Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
- North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision
- Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
- Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
- North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
- Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
- Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
- Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
- Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
- U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
- Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
- North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
- North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
- SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
- In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters
- CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
- Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
- Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question
- Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
- Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
- Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
- VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
- Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
- Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
- Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota
- Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
- Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
- South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
- Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
- Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
- Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
- South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
- South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments