A North Dakota pipeline route drew objections from landowners and two counties over safety and local rules. A judge has now backed local setback powers and ordered more scrutiny, but the state permit remains in place

A North Dakota court has directed state regulators to take a closer look at the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, raising fresh questions about how safety concerns, local zoning rules and alternative routes should be assessed before major infrastructure projects are approved. The October 9 ruling by South Central District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren found that state pipeline-siting authority does not automatically override county zoning ordinances, according to North Dakota Monitor, with additional reporting from Montana Newsroom and Pipeline Fighters Hub. However, the decision did not cancel the route permit issued to Summit Carbon Solutions in November 2024. Instead, it requires the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) to revisit several aspects of its approval process. The case was brought by landowners and Emmons and Burleigh counties, who challenged the commission’s handling of the proposed carbon dioxide pipeline. The ruling could also have implications for other infrastructure projects in the state, where the boundaries between state regulatory powers and local land-use authority have become a point of contention.

Local zoning authority comes under scrutiny

At the centre of the dispute are setback requirements, which determine how far infrastructure must be located from homes and other buildings. Emmons and Burleigh counties have sought to enforce local rules governing pipeline placement, while the state’s permitting framework gives the PSC authority over pipeline routes.The court has instructed the commission to determine whether the counties’ setback requirements are unreasonable. If the restrictions are found to be unreasonable, state rules would apply. The question extends beyond Summit’s carbon pipeline. North Dakota lawmakers expanded similar statutory language in 2025 to give the PSC authority over power lines, bringing the relationship between state permitting and local zoning into focus for other infrastructure proposals.

Safety and alternative routes require further review

The judge also found that regulators had not adequately explained why the proposed pipeline route would avoid impairing public welfare. The issue is particularly significant because the project would transport carbon dioxide under high pressure.During earlier proceedings, a PSC attorney argued that pipeline safety standards were enforced by a federal agency. The latest ruling, however, requires the commission to provide a clearer explanation of its assessment of public welfare, including the concerns raised in the case.Regulators must also revisit their analysis of an alternative route through southern Burleigh County. The court found the commission’s explanation of why that route had been sufficiently evaluated inadequate. Another issue concerns a model developed by Summit to estimate how carbon dioxide could spread if the pipeline ruptured. The PSC had agreed with the company that the model should remain confidential.The judge directed the commission to release a redacted version or provide a stronger justification for withholding it, particularly given evidence that some members of the public had been allowed to access the information. These issues will require further regulatory scrutiny, although the ruling does not itself establish that the proposed route is unsafe or that the alternative route must be selected.

Summit project faces wider permitting hurdles

The court ruling comes as Summit’s broader carbon capture and storage plans undergo significant changes. The company originally proposed collecting carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants across five Midwestern states and transporting them through a pipeline network for underground storage in North Dakota.However, the project has encountered repeated regulatory and legal obstacles. South Dakota regulators rejected Summit’s pipeline route application in April 2025, while separate North Dakota court rulings challenged the legal basis for its proposed underground storage sites.In May 2026, Summit announced plans to redirect its proposed pipeline towards an underground storage site in Wyoming, leaving the future of its North Dakota plans uncertain. The latest ruling adds another layer of regulatory review to the North Dakota project. The PSC must now address the court’s findings, including the treatment of county zoning restrictions, public welfare concerns and the disclosure of technical safety information. For now, the existing route permit remains valid. The next steps will depend on how the commission responds to the court’s directions and how Summit proceeds with its revised plans.