While the anti-carbon capture pipeline forces here in South Dakota have scored a number of wins, the story is different in our neighbor to the north.
Late last week, I republished a North Dakota Monitor article, Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate.
That's a trend, as the Monitor article below illustrates.
Quote of the month, so far? From the article:
Carbon dioxide pipelines also come with risks, bill supporters noted. Carbon dioxide is a hazardous material and a rupture is potentially fatal.
“Accidents happen all the time,” said Rep. Dennis Nehring, R-Williston, a veteran of the oil and gas industry.
That's reassuring, given the consequences of a carbon dioxide leak, as the folks in Sartartia, Mississippi can tell you.
Lawmakers vote down 6 bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
by Jeff Beach, North Dakota MonitorMembers of the North Dakota House on Friday showed their commitment to pipelines and energy development, voting down six bills that would have taxed or put guard rails on the emerging carbon capture industry.
Rep. Jeremy Olson, R-Arnegard, summarized his opposition to three of the bills by saying, “North Dakota doesn’t need a CO2 sin tax.”
Opponents of the bills voiced support of carbon capture pipelines, in particular for their potential to extend the productivity of North Dakota oil wells through enhanced oil recovery. In enhanced oil recovery, gas is pumped into the well to help force out more oil.
Carbon dioxide pipelines also come with risks, bill supporters noted. Carbon dioxide is a hazardous material and a rupture is potentially fatal.
“Accidents happen all the time,” said Rep. Dennis Nehring, R-Williston, a veteran of the oil and gas industry.
While not named directly by legislators, many of the bills and much of the discussion circulated around Summit Carbon Solutions, the developer of a five-state pipeline network that will capture carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and transport it to western North Dakota for permanent underground storage.
While Summit’s plan doesn’t include gas for enhanced oil recovery, legislators said North Dakota should not inhibit carbon pipeline development for the oil and gas industry, or for the coal and ethanol industries.
Rep. SuAnn Olson, R-Baldwin, the sponsor of four of the bills, said she tried to focus on carbon pipelines that were only for storage, not for industrial use.
Opponents argued that ethanol and coal plants need carbon capture to lower their carbon scores and stay economically viable.
While enhanced oil recovery is not yet widely used in North Dakota, a study by the state tax commissioner projects North Dakota could see another $2.9 billion to $9 billion in oil tax revenue over 10 years if oil companies begin using the technology.
“The oil industry is the golden goose of this state. And I think we want to be prepared for when those times come where the pressures within the Bakken diminish, and we’re going to need to go to the enhanced oil recovery piece,” Rep. Craig Headland, R-Montpelier, said.
Some of the bills attempted to limit the ability of carbon pipeline developers to use eminent domain, a legal proceeding that could force landowners to provide a property easement for pipeline construction. One way to hinder the use of eminent domain would be stripping carbon pipelines of common carrier status.
The bills defeated Friday were:
House Bill 1292, removing common carrier status for carbon pipelines.House Bill 1414, denying use eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines and revoking common carrier status for carbon pipelines. House Bill 1295, eliminating tax exemptions for carbon pipelines. House Bill 1573, imposing a fee on carbon dioxide transportation to create a disaster fund. House Bill 1210, specifying that carbon dioxide pipeline companies are liable for damages within a 25-mile zone if a pipeline leaks or ruptures and providing protections against pipeline operator’s bankruptcy. House Bill 1574, which would have placed a two-year moratorium on direct air capture of carbon dioxide in North Dakota.
Meanwhile, on Thursday, the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee supported House Concurrent Resolution 3016, citing the benefits of enhanced oil recovery and encouraging the state and federal governments to support the development of carbon capture technology and utilization of carbon dioxide.
A vote by the full House is to come.
Photo: Rep. SuAnn Olson, R-Baldwin, speaks during a House floor session on Feb. 14, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
This North Dakota Monitor article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts
- Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
- Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
- Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
- Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
- 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
"It's disappointing to see the North Dakota House vote down the six bills aimed at regulating carbon capture. While carbon capture technology has potential, it's crucial to address the associated risks and ensure proper oversight. The decision to prioritize energy development over environmental and safety concerns raises important questions about the state's long-term sustainability goals."
Posted by: Michael Forster | Feb 16, 2025 at 02:08 PM