Reports related to this article:
Project(s): View 2 related projects in PECWeb
Plant(s): View 1 related plant in PECWeb
Released September 17, 2025 | SUGAR LAND
en
Researched by Industrial Info Resources (Sugar Land, Texas)--Summit Carbon Solutions (Ames, Iowa) is seeking to change language on the permit issued by Iowa for its Midwest Carbon Express Pipeline in order to make starting construction in the state less contingent on the pipeline's progress in two problem states, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Where to begin and why is this important? Let's start with Summit's vision of the completed pipeline: a 2,500-mile network of pipe spanning five states (Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota), capturing and delivering carbon-dioxide from 57 ethanol plants to an underground storage space in North Dakota.
The pipeline is intended to span more than 1,000 miles in Iowa, but Summit's permit to begin construction in that state is contingent on progress made in the Dakotas, which to put it mildly, have seemed to present nothing but headaches to Summit executives, although the company's dealings with the communities have been diplomatic.
As it stands, the Iowa permit prevents Summit from beginning construction in the state until Summit has secured route permission in South Dakota and route and storage permission in North Dakota, naming the two states specifically. The purpose of this clause was to prevent Summit building a "pipeline to nowhere" in Iowa without a final route or destination for the captured carbon.
Earlier this week, Summit applied to the Iowa Utilities Commission to amend the permit from being specifically tied to progress in the Dakotas to broader language stipulating that construction can begin as long as Summit has secured CO2 storage somewhere--not necessarily in North Dakota--and has a route to get the carbon there--not necessarily involving South Dakota.
Why is Summit doing this? The Dakotas, particularly South Dakota, which borders Iowa and provides an exit route from state, present Summit's biggest obstacles to the pipeline's progress, and Summit appears to be reconsidering its activities in the two states.
North Dakota regulators approved the pipeline's proposed route through the state in November 2024, but since that time, North Dakota has become home to multiple lawsuits challenging the pipeline and the proposed storage area. Burleigh County, for example, is suing the state's Public Service Commission, arguing the state regulations for pipelines should not preempt county zoning ordinances. In July, a separate lawsuit from a group of landowners challenging the North Dakota Industrial Commission's approval for the storage site was combined with Burleigh County's lawsuit, bringing a combined onslaught of challenges to the project that await resolution.
South Dakota has presented even more of a challenge to Summit. In March, the state passed legislation that flat-out banned the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines, presenting a severe challenge to Summit's finding an acceptable route there. Having already rejected a proposed route through the state in 2023, South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission rejected another proposed earlier this year. Summit responded by saying it would not seek legislative action but would sweeten its proposals to landowners and reduce the scope of the project in the state.
...Which leads us back to Iowa and the idea that Summit may be substantially rethinking the extent of its presence in the Dakotas. Rather than making Iowa construction contingent on permissions received from North and South Dakota, Summit is now proposing that it "shall not commence construction on any segment of pipe in Iowa until it has secured access to one or more sequestration sites and permits or agreements to allow it to reach such storage ... and has filed proof of such approvals with the Commission." No mention of the Dakotas.
The proposed change suggests that Summit is reconsidering its plan for the Dakotas, both for the pipeline that would capture the emissions from 18 plants in the two states as well as the storage site spanning three North Dakota counties.
While South Dakota has rejected two pipeline routes, challenges to the North Dakota sequestration site possibly present an even larger challenge to the project, as construction of the entire pipeline network is contingent on having a CO2-storage area available. Late last month, North Dakota's Supreme Court overturned a ruling by a lower court, allowing a group of landowners to challenge the state Industrial Commission's approval of the storage area. At issue is the state's policy of "amalgamation," which allows the storage site beneath the landowners' properties to proceed provided at least 60% of them are in agreement with the project. The group opposing the law claims it is unconstitutional as it allows companies to use private property without letting landowners argue in the courts for just compensation. According to trade publication Ag Week, about 92% of the landowners on the 90,000-acre sequestration area chose to participate in the project, but the holdouts appear to be very vocal and intent on taking their challenge as far as possible through the courts.
While Summit hasn't officially changed its plans for the Dakotas at this point, the company's request to alter the language in the Iowa construction permit to not be contingent on the project's progress in the two states shows that Summit is intent on proceeding with the pipeline in the areas where it has been permitted and is reconsidering its presence in problem regions, potentially substantially altering plans as they currently stand for the $8.9 billion project.
Subscribers to Industrial Info's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) Pipelines and Terminals Project Databases can learn more by viewing the related project reports.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of industrial market intelligence. Since 1983, IIR has provided comprehensive research, news and analysis on the industrial process, manufacturing and energy related industries. IIR's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) helps companies identify and pursue trends across multiple markets with access to real, qualified and validated plant and project opportunities. Across the world, IIR is tracking over 200,000 current and future projects worth $17.8 trillion (USD).
Where to begin and why is this important? Let's start with Summit's vision of the completed pipeline: a 2,500-mile network of pipe spanning five states (Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota), capturing and delivering carbon-dioxide from 57 ethanol plants to an underground storage space in North Dakota.
The pipeline is intended to span more than 1,000 miles in Iowa, but Summit's permit to begin construction in that state is contingent on progress made in the Dakotas, which to put it mildly, have seemed to present nothing but headaches to Summit executives, although the company's dealings with the communities have been diplomatic.
As it stands, the Iowa permit prevents Summit from beginning construction in the state until Summit has secured route permission in South Dakota and route and storage permission in North Dakota, naming the two states specifically. The purpose of this clause was to prevent Summit building a "pipeline to nowhere" in Iowa without a final route or destination for the captured carbon.
Earlier this week, Summit applied to the Iowa Utilities Commission to amend the permit from being specifically tied to progress in the Dakotas to broader language stipulating that construction can begin as long as Summit has secured CO2 storage somewhere--not necessarily in North Dakota--and has a route to get the carbon there--not necessarily involving South Dakota.
Why is Summit doing this? The Dakotas, particularly South Dakota, which borders Iowa and provides an exit route from state, present Summit's biggest obstacles to the pipeline's progress, and Summit appears to be reconsidering its activities in the two states.
North Dakota regulators approved the pipeline's proposed route through the state in November 2024, but since that time, North Dakota has become home to multiple lawsuits challenging the pipeline and the proposed storage area. Burleigh County, for example, is suing the state's Public Service Commission, arguing the state regulations for pipelines should not preempt county zoning ordinances. In July, a separate lawsuit from a group of landowners challenging the North Dakota Industrial Commission's approval for the storage site was combined with Burleigh County's lawsuit, bringing a combined onslaught of challenges to the project that await resolution.
South Dakota has presented even more of a challenge to Summit. In March, the state passed legislation that flat-out banned the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines, presenting a severe challenge to Summit's finding an acceptable route there. Having already rejected a proposed route through the state in 2023, South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission rejected another proposed earlier this year. Summit responded by saying it would not seek legislative action but would sweeten its proposals to landowners and reduce the scope of the project in the state.
...Which leads us back to Iowa and the idea that Summit may be substantially rethinking the extent of its presence in the Dakotas. Rather than making Iowa construction contingent on permissions received from North and South Dakota, Summit is now proposing that it "shall not commence construction on any segment of pipe in Iowa until it has secured access to one or more sequestration sites and permits or agreements to allow it to reach such storage ... and has filed proof of such approvals with the Commission." No mention of the Dakotas.
The proposed change suggests that Summit is reconsidering its plan for the Dakotas, both for the pipeline that would capture the emissions from 18 plants in the two states as well as the storage site spanning three North Dakota counties.
While South Dakota has rejected two pipeline routes, challenges to the North Dakota sequestration site possibly present an even larger challenge to the project, as construction of the entire pipeline network is contingent on having a CO2-storage area available. Late last month, North Dakota's Supreme Court overturned a ruling by a lower court, allowing a group of landowners to challenge the state Industrial Commission's approval of the storage area. At issue is the state's policy of "amalgamation," which allows the storage site beneath the landowners' properties to proceed provided at least 60% of them are in agreement with the project. The group opposing the law claims it is unconstitutional as it allows companies to use private property without letting landowners argue in the courts for just compensation. According to trade publication Ag Week, about 92% of the landowners on the 90,000-acre sequestration area chose to participate in the project, but the holdouts appear to be very vocal and intent on taking their challenge as far as possible through the courts.
While Summit hasn't officially changed its plans for the Dakotas at this point, the company's request to alter the language in the Iowa construction permit to not be contingent on the project's progress in the two states shows that Summit is intent on proceeding with the pipeline in the areas where it has been permitted and is reconsidering its presence in problem regions, potentially substantially altering plans as they currently stand for the $8.9 billion project.
Subscribers to Industrial Info's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) Pipelines and Terminals Project Databases can learn more by viewing the related project reports.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of industrial market intelligence. Since 1983, IIR has provided comprehensive research, news and analysis on the industrial process, manufacturing and energy related industries. IIR's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) helps companies identify and pursue trends across multiple markets with access to real, qualified and validated plant and project opportunities. Across the world, IIR is tracking over 200,000 current and future projects worth $17.8 trillion (USD).
