A North Dakota judge ruled last week that counties do not necessarily lose their zoning authority to state-level decision-making.
The decision could reshape a dispute over Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed carbon dioxide pipeline.
Here's what to know
In an order arising from a lawsuit brought by landowners and the governments of Emmons and Burleigh counties against the state's Public Service Commission — or PSC — and the company Summit Carbon Solutions, District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren addressed the reach of local authority, as reported by the North Dakota Monitor.
Summit's route permit, which the PSC granted in 2024, was not set aside. Instead, Lofgren said it can stay in effect while the commission fixes several problems identified by the court, per the local news outlet.
Before the matter is resolved, the commission must revisit whether a redacted version of Summit's carbon dioxide plume dispersion model should be made public, whether an alternative route was adequately examined, and whether the chosen route would impair public welfare.
The court also instructed the PSC to decide whether setback rules adopted by Emmons and Burleigh counties are unreasonable. According to the Monitor, if the agency ultimately says they are, state decisions and requirements would apply instead.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
More background
At the center of the case is Summit's five-state plan to capture emissions from ethanol facilities and move the CO2 by pipeline to western North Dakota for long-term underground storage.
A key portion of that route still lacks approval because pipeline developer Summit has not secured a permit in South Dakota, according to the local outlet. Without that link, the future of the company's original project design remains unclear.
Lofgren also found the state law authorizing that underground storage unconstitutional, per the Monitor, matching a separate court ruling. A related appeal is reportedly pending.
What's being done?
Lofgren's decision sends the matter back to the PSC, which appears to be reviewing the decision. One issue the commission must revisit is why it decided the route would not impair public welfare.
Lofgren also told the PSC to reconsider how it handled public access to Summit's plume model, which estimates how carbon dioxide could spread after a hypothetical rupture in a high-pressure pipeline. He said a redacted version should be released or the commission must give a stronger justification for keeping it confidential, per the Monitor.
The commission still has to make a direct finding on the county setback rules and take another look at an alternate route.
Meanwhile, as the Monitor reported last week, the company has a backup plan involving underground storage in Wyoming.
Where can I learn more?
Similar disputes show how often courts, regulators, and landowners clash over siting authority:
• In Iowa, Summit Carbon Solutions faced county resistance even after judges backed the project.
• In North Carolina, Enbridge survey letters intensified landowners' fears that eminent domain could follow.
• In Tennessee, federal judges blocked a major gas pipeline after warnings of irreparable harm.
• In North Carolina, state records revealed alarming pollution concerns tied to Transco's pipeline expansion.
• In Detroit, state regulators approved refinery changes despite residents' claims of limited authority.
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
