Submitted Photo Several midwestern states, including North Dakota, are reviewing comprehensive plans presented by Summit Carbon Solutions for what is anticipated to be one of the largest carbon capture and storage initiatives globally. The accompanying image is sourced from Adobe Stock.
Despite ongoing regulatory scrutiny, a highly debated pipeline project in North Dakota has received momentum following the recent approval of a crucial permit.
With the permit now in hand, both proponents and critics of the project are strategically contemplating their next moves.
The North Dakota Public Service Commission has granted Summit Carbon Solutions the necessary siting permit for its proposed pipeline route across the state.
Summit’s ambitious plan involves constructing an expansive multi-state pipeline that seeks to extract carbon emissions from ethanol production facilities and securely store them underground in North Dakota.
Notably, the commission had previously denied Summit’s initial permit application last year, which adds to the project’s contentious backdrop.
Zach Cassidy, serving as the CO2 pipeline organizer for Dakota Resource Council, expressed significant concerns about regulatory oversight following this decision.
“Who in our state government, or our local governments, has the power to make safety decisions on this pipeline for their residents?” asked Cassidy. “Because if county commissioners can’t do it, and if the PSC won’t do it, that means that no one is looking out for us.”
His remarks draw attention to recent rulings asserting that state law supersedes the ability of counties to impose zoning restrictions.
Cassidy emphasized that while Summit has made headway, it still requires a storage permit in North Dakota, and opponents are actively focused on that issue, in addition to advocating for legislative reforms.
In a show of optimism, Summit celebrated the commission’s decision, revealing plans to reapply for a permit in South Dakota, where its previous application was also rejected.
The proposed carbon capture initiative has incited considerable backlash stemming from fears regarding public safety and the rights of landowners threatened by the pipeline’s development.
Summit has also reported that it has successfully obtained over 80% of the necessary land easements for the designated route in North Dakota, reflecting significant progress in their logistical preparations.
Prior to last Friday’s unanimous approval, Commission Chair Randy Christmann took the opportunity to urge the company to engage in meaningful dialogue with landowners and avoid over-reliance on practices such as eminent domain.
“It is something that burdens families for generations,” Christmann articulated. “Eminent domain should never be abused.”
Summit has reiterated its commitment to working collaboratively with affected landowners and local communities to address concerns and ensure transparency.
Looking beyond North Dakota, the company is currently awaiting a crucial permit decision in Minnesota, having already secured approval for the pipeline project in Iowa. Nebraska is also part of the extensive multi-state plan.
How does Zach Cassidy suggest local communities can be more involved in decisions regarding CO2 pipeline projects?
**Interview with Zach Cassidy – CO2 Pipeline Organizer for Dakota Resource Council**
**Interviewer**: Thank you for joining us today, Zach. With the recent approval of the siting permit for Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline project in North Dakota, what are your initial thoughts on this development?
**Zach Cassidy**: Thank you for having me. The approval of this siting permit is certainly significant, but it raises serious concerns about regulatory oversight and safety. We’re at a crossroads where the state needs to ensure that the pipeline adheres to the highest safety standards to protect local communities.
**Interviewer**: Can you elaborate on your concerns regarding regulatory oversight? What specific issues are you worried about?
**Zach Cassidy**: Absolutely. My primary concern revolves around the lack of clear authority when it comes to making safety decisions for this pipeline. If local governments and county commissioners find themselves restricted in their ability to govern over such projects, it raises a troubling question: who is truly responsible for ensuring the safety of residents? If the North Dakota Public Service Commission isn’t taking on that responsibility either, then we have a significant problem on our hands [[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage)].
**Interviewer**: With the complex nature of carbon capture and storage initiatives, do you believe stakeholders, including the residents, are adequately informed about the potential risks and benefits?
**Zach Cassidy**: It’s crucial that stakeholders are not only informed but actively involved in discussions about such initiatives. Carbon capture can be part of the solution to climate change, especially with projects like this targeting emissions from ethanol production. However, without a transparent dialog about the potential environmental and health impacts, the community can feel marginalized. We need to ensure that everyone has a seat at the table and that their voices are heard [[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage)].
**Interviewer**: Moving forward, what actions do you think should be taken to address the concerns surrounding this project?
**Zach Cassidy**: First and foremost, we need to demand clarity and accountability from our regulatory bodies. Local governments should be empowered to make decisions affecting their residents’ health and safety. Additionally, there should be comprehensive public consultations to discuss both the benefits and risks of the pipeline project openly. Building trust between the community and the developers is essential, and that can only happen through transparency and collaboration.
**Interviewer**: Thank you, Zach. Your insights on this
