A coalition of North Dakota landowners is contesting the state’s authorization for an extensive underground carbon storage project by Summit Carbon Solutions. The group, represented by attorney Derrick Braaten, filed an appeal in Burleigh County District Court, arguing that the Industrial Commission violated state laws and withheld crucial information during the approval process. This legal challenge highlights concerns over transparency and the constitutionality of amalgamation rules, which allow a majority of landowners to force compliance on the remaining minority.
The dispute centers around Summit’s ambitious five-state pipeline network designed to capture greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol plants. The company has secured agreements with over 92% of landowners, but opponents claim the computer models predicting CO2 movement were not disclosed, raising questions about accuracy and fairness. Additionally, the case could set a precedent for future carbon storage projects and pipeline regulations in the region.
Legal Challenges Against Regulatory Decisions
The landowners' appeal focuses on procedural irregularities and lack of transparency in the approval process. They argue that the North Dakota Industrial Commission failed to provide essential data, specifically computer-generated models that predict the movement of carbon dioxide when injected underground. These models are critical for understanding potential environmental impacts and ensuring informed consent from affected parties. The commission's decision to approve the storage permit was based on what critics say was incomplete information, leading to a contentious legal battle.
Braaten contends that the Industrial Commission, including key figures like former Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms, did not comply with open records laws. Despite multiple requests, the necessary documents were only obtained months after public hearings. This delay significantly impacted the ability of landowners to present counterarguments effectively. Moreover, the commission’s assertion that the law firm did not inform them about unfulfilled records requests has been strongly disputed, adding another layer of controversy to the case. The appeal seeks to rectify these perceived injustices and ensure a fairer review process for future projects.
Constitutional Questions and Broader Implications
Another significant aspect of the appeal involves questioning the legality of amalgamation rules, which allow a supermajority of landowners to compel participation from the rest. Under this rule, if 60% of landowners agree to the carbon storage plan, the remaining 40% can be legally bound to comply. Summit has already secured more than 92% of the required agreements, but dissenters argue that this approach infringes on individual property rights and may be unconstitutional. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for similar projects across multiple states.
Beyond the immediate legal challenges, the broader debate revolves around the balance between advancing environmentally beneficial technologies and protecting landowner rights. The Northwest Landowners Association, represented by Braaten, has a separate lawsuit before the North Dakota Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of amalgamation rules. Additionally, Emmons County and Burleigh County are contesting the Public Service Commission’s interpretation of state zoning laws regarding pipeline routes. These combined efforts aim to clarify the legal framework governing such projects and potentially influence policy at both state and federal levels. The resolution of these cases will likely shape future regulatory approaches to carbon capture and storage initiatives.