Legal Challenge Filed Against North Dakota’s Carbon Storage Facility Approval

A group of landowners in North Dakota have challenged the state's approval of Summit Carbon Solutions' underground carbon storage facility in court. The firm is developing the largest carbon capture pipeline project in the world. Ethanol plants in several states will have their CO2 emissions captured by the project.

Withheld Information and Violation of State Law

The appeal, filed in Burleigh County District Court by attorney Derrick Braaten, alleges that the North Dakota Industrial Commission violated state laws. Landowners claim that the commission did not provide the necessary information during the approval process of the storage facility permit. They argue that the commission's decision was a violation of transparency laws, specifically North Dakota's open records laws.

Montana Court Rules Young People Have a Constitutional Right to a Stable Climate

Summit Carbon Solutions’ CO2 Storage Plan

The underground storage wells approved by the commission are part of Summit’s larger project to create a five-state pipeline network. The network will reduce the amount of CO2 emitted from ethanol production as it transports captured CO2 to be stored in western North Dakota. It is an area of land that Summit needs to store its emissions to back the energy transition.

Concerns Over Denied Access to Vital Information

The landowners, represented by Braaten, contend that the commission unlawfully withheld crucial information. They claim that the commission denied them access to computer-generated models predicting how carbon dioxide moves when injected underground. These models were key to understanding the long-term impacts of the storage facilities.

The appeal states that former Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms refused to provide the models during public hearings in June, just before his retirement. Despite repeated requests, the Braaten Law Firm did not receive the information until November. Braaten argues that landowners were denied the opportunity to challenge the validity of these models before the commission’s approval.

Call for Rehearing and Transparency

Braaten and his clients had requested a rehearing of the decision, but their requests were ignored. He argues that the lack of transparency and denial of access to vital records undermines the legal process. It also undermines the landowners' ability to protect their property rights.

As the appeal continues, it may set a precedent for how carbon capture and storage projects are managed and regulated in North Dakota and beyond.