Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
David Moch of Hazelton testifies Jan. 30, 2025, on a bill related to carbon dioxide pipelines. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor)
David 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.
Carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota this week
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.
Study pegs potential $9 billion tax impact for CO2 in North Dakota oil wells
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.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
40 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
How Stablecoins Can Be Destabilizing
Stablecoins' going mainstream wouldn't take all of banks' deposits away. Just some of the better ones. The Senate looks set to soon pass the so-called Genius Act, which will set guidelines for issuers of stablecoins—digital tokens that are fully backed by fiat currencies such as dollars. One big debate over the wisdom of giving stablecoins a regulatory framework centers around how they would affect the current banking system if they were to hugely expand in size.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey discuss President Trump's "big beautiful bill", proposed tax and spending cuts
As the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate considers making changes to President Trump's "big, beautiful bill", Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas vowed, "We're going to get this done. We will get the one big, beautiful bill passed, and the reason we're going to is because we have to." Cruz made his comments to CBS News Texas Thursday during an interview for Eye On Politics. When asked what changes he would like to see made to the version of the bill passed by the U.S. House last month, Cruz said, "I'd like to see us cut more spending. I'll tell you one idea that I've been urging my colleagues to do, and an idea I urged the President in the Oval Office last week to do is to end the Federal Reserve's practice of paying interest rates on bank reserves. For most of the history of the Fed from 1913 until 2008, the Fed did not pay interest on reserves. Then it started paying interest on reserves fairly recently in 2008." A report by the Federal Reserve at the time said, "This policy gave banks an incentive to hold onto their reserves rather than lending them out, thus mitigating the need for the Federal Reserve to offset its expanded lending with reductions in other assets." But Cruz said it's too costly to taxpayers. "In the last couple of years of the Biden administration, that expenditure skyrocketed, and it's spending now over $150 billion. That is your and my taxpayer money that is going straight to big banks. Ending that practice, that one change alone, would save $1.1 trillion over the next ten years." Cruz said the U.S. could save another $2 trillion over a decade by cutting more federal spending. "For example, removing illegal aliens from federal government welfare benefits that saves hundreds of billions of dollars. Another is expanding work requirements to receive federal benefits. I think work requirements are incredibly helpful and beneficial for young, healthy people." He also said the Senate's version of the bill will include his legislation for no tax on tips, a federal tax credit that provides incentives for school choice programs, and a what's called Invest America, which provides $1,000 to newborn children that can be invested for them. Parents, family members, and employers can also give up to $5,000 a year in a tax advantage account. "By the time he or she turns 18, they'll have $170,000 in that account, and if they keep contributing $5,000 a year, by the time that child turns 35, he or she will have $700,000 in that account." House and Senate Republicans favor extending and making permanent the income tax cuts approved in 2017 during President Trump's first term. When asked about the Congressional Budget Office's projections that the "big, beautiful bill will add $2.4 trillion to the debt if passed as is, Cruz rejected it. "Historically, CBO has been wrong in its scoring. Over and over and over again, they underestimate the economic growth from tax cuts. But what I'll say secondly, is I agree. We need to cut more spending." All Democrats in the U.S. House, including Representative Marc Veasey of Fort Worth, voted against the "big, beautiful bill." When asked what he favors, Veasey told CBS News Texas, "I probably would include a much smaller tax cut. I certainly believe that when we have an opportunity to cut taxes that we should. I'm not one of these people that think that we ought to be sending out extra punishment just because someone's been successful. That's not what I'm all about. I think that entrepreneurism and people that are wealthy in this country have created a lot of jobs. I just think that people need to pay their fair share. Kicking people off of health care services so Elon (Musk) can have a tax break is not what I'm all about." The national debt has grown to nearly $37 trillion and asked whether spending cuts are necessary, Veasey said, "Spending absolutely has to be cut, but it needs to be done responsibly." The CBO also projected that under the bill passed by House Republicans last month, 7.8 million people will lose their medicaid coverage by 2034. Veasey said, "I'm not surprised. It's going to be detrimental, particularly to a state like Texas, where you hae such a high percentge of residents that really do rely on medicaid services. You're going to see mortality rates rise and you're going to see a lot of people that voted for Trump, they are literally going to see their health care coverage ripped right from up under them." Republicans in the House and Senate have said the spending on Medicaid has grown unsustainably, and that they want to preserve it for the people who it was originally designed for: pregnant women, the poor, and the disabled. Republicans favor strict work requirements. But Veasey discounted that. "There are a lot of nuances in that, that I don't think the Republicans are explaining to people on purpose. Someone that's pregnant would need to verify, probably more than once during the pregnancy that they're actually pregnant. That's the sort of thing that is going to end up through attrition kicking people off the rolls. What it's going to do is exacerbate poor health care outcomes because people won't go to the doctor anymore because they won't have a practitioner. They'll go and get all of their needs through the emergency room." Senate Republicans hope to pass the "big, beautiful bill" by July 4th. It will then go back to the House for consideration.
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Senator's ‘We All Are Going to Die' Gaffe Becomes Rallying Cry for Democrats
A one-sentence gaffe from Iowa's junior senator has become a line of attack against Republicans nationally, with Democratic fundraising solicitations, political ads, social media and T-shirts now highlighting her words heading into the midterm elections. Sen. Joni Ernst's response of 'we all are going to die' to a constituent who was complaining about proposed Medicaid cuts in President Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' has also helped produce a 2026 GOP primary challenger for her and prompted several Iowa Democrats to announce bids for her seat.
