Two North Dakota lawsuits challenging Summit Carbon Solutions’ carbon dioxide pipeline and storage project were allowed to proceed in May 2025 after judges rejected Summit’s motions to dismiss. Those rulings addressed whether the cases could continue—not whether the landowners’ claims were true or the project was unsafe. A separate Burleigh County case was later consolidated with a landowner appeal; a July 2026 argument was scheduled, but the cited reports do not establish what happened afterward.
What the two judges decided
In May 2025, South Central Judicial District judges Pam Nesvig and Jackson Lofgren rejected Summit’s arguments for dismissing two cases on procedural grounds. The disputes concerned notice to parties and whether the cases had been brought in the proper court. By denying dismissal, the judges let the challenges continue; they did not decide the underlying claims.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Carbon Capture (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series) | $16.09 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Carbon Capture | $99.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Carbon Capture and Storage | $175.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
The Science of Carbon Sequestration and Capture | $70.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage: Law, Policy and Standardization Perspectives (Sustainable... | $163.12 | Buy on Amazon |
| Case | Government action challenged | What the plaintiffs alleged | What the May 2025 ruling did |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landowner case before Judge Pam Nesvig | North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) pipeline permit | Landowners challenged whether the PSC adequately considered safety along the route and whether state pipeline rules displaced county setback ordinances. | Rejected Summit’s request to dismiss on procedural grounds; the challenge could proceed. |
| Landowner case before Judge Jackson Lofgren | North Dakota Industrial Commission underground storage permits | Landowners alleged that the state Department of Mineral Resources withheld information about models predicting where injected carbon dioxide would move. That is an allegation, not an established finding. | Issued a similar procedural ruling allowing the case to continue. |
North Dakota Monitor’s May 13, 2025 report described the two rulings. It did not provide direct quotations from either judge’s order, so the rulings should not be presented as findings about safety, disclosure, or agency legality.
What the third case concerns—and what is known about its status
The third case was brought by Burleigh County against the PSC and Summit over the PSC’s pipeline action. When North Dakota Monitor reported the two dismissal rulings in May 2025, the county case was awaiting a decision on a motion to dismiss. It was not one of the two landowner cases resolved by those rulings.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
A North Dakota docket filing records that the Burleigh County administrative appeal was consolidated with a landowner appeal of the PSC pipeline permit on July 16, 2025. A July 9, 2026 notice reported that oral argument in the consolidated appeal was scheduled for July 14. The cited reporting and filing do not establish whether that argument took place or what the court decided afterward. It is therefore more accurate to describe the later proceeding and its last reported schedule than to call the case either resolved or still pending today.
How the project and permit disputes fit together
The pipeline and storage cases address different parts of Summit’s planned carbon capture and storage network. The PSC permit described in North Dakota Monitor’s 2025 reporting covered about 333 miles through southeast and south-central North Dakota. Summit’s plan was intended to connect 57 ethanol plants to storage sites in western North Dakota. The company’s stated rationale included lowering ethanol carbon-intensity scores and gaining access to federal sequestration tax credits; those were proponents’ reasons for pursuing the project, not benefits established by the court rulings.
Rank #2
North Dakota Monitor also reported in May 2025 that about 92% of landowners had voluntarily agreed to participate in the proposed storage facility. That figure is the publication’s reported figure, not a separate statistical study cited in its account.
Later storage-permit developments are separate from the dismissal rulings
In 2026, a district court voided permits for three proposed North Dakota storage areas. On August 31, Summit asked the North Dakota Supreme Court to cancel two of those permits. In the filing, as quoted by North Dakota Monitor, Summit said: “Summit #1 and Summit #2 have determined as a matter of business judgment that they will not proceed with development, construction, operation, or implementation of either proposed storage facility.”
Recommended Free Tools
Rank #3
These later developments do not change what the May 2025 judges decided: those rulings concerned whether two lawsuits could proceed, not the validity of the storage permits or the merits of the landowners’ claims. The cited reports do not establish the final status of every storage permit or appeal.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.A separate North Dakota Supreme Court decision
The North Dakota Supreme Court’s decision in Northwest Landowners Association v. State, 2025 ND 147, concerned a separate challenge to state law governing underground carbon storage. Summit participated as an intervenor. That decision should not be confused with the two South Central Judicial District rulings on Summit’s motions to dismiss.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
