North Dakota judge upholds local setbacks for pipeline, orders further review

The ruling sends parts of Summit Carbon Solutions’ approval process back to the North Dakota Public Service Commission. The PSC must examine whether county setback rules are unreasonable, explain how the route avoids harming public welfare, reconsider an alternative through southern Burleigh County, and address disclosure of Summit’s carbon-dioxide rupture model. These reviews matter because the court found gaps in the commission’s reasoning.

The permit itself was not overturned. The judge did not decide that the route is unsafe, require the southern Burleigh route, or invalidate the commission’s November 2024 route permit. Instead, the PSC must supply stronger explanations and conduct the required reviews.

The permit therefore remains valid while regulators respond to the court’s directions. The outcome could affect how Summit proceeds in North Dakota, especially as its wider project changes. Summit announced plans in May 2026 to redirect the pipeline toward underground storage in Wyoming, leaving its North Dakota plans uncertain.

A pipeline setback is a minimum separation distance between a pipeline and nearby homes, buildings, or other structures. It determines where infrastructure may be placed on the landscape. Setbacks matter because they shape land use and can place more space between people and a major pipeline project.

In this dispute, Emmons and Burleigh counties sought to enforce local setback rules for Summit’s proposed carbon-dioxide pipeline. North Dakota’s permitting system gives the PSC authority over pipeline routes, creating a conflict between statewide approval and county zoning. The court ordered the PSC to decide whether the counties’ restrictions are unreasonable.

That decision controls which rules apply. If the PSC finds the county requirements unreasonable, state rules would govern instead. The ruling therefore makes setbacks a test of local authority, not just a technical distance requirement. Similar language expanded to power lines in 2025, broadening the issue beyond Summit’s project.

Summit’s original proposal was a regional carbon-capture and storage network. It would collect carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants in five Midwestern states and move the gas through pipelines to underground storage in North Dakota. The article gives the project’s geographic reach but not its total pipeline length.

The source also does not provide a count of the ethanol plants. It identifies them as the emissions sources and says they were spread across five states. The proposed network therefore connected multiple facilities, but its exact size in miles and number of participating plants cannot be determined from the article.

The project’s scale and design have since changed. South Dakota rejected Summit’s route application in April 2025, and North Dakota court rulings challenged proposed storage sites. In May 2026, Summit said it planned to redirect the pipeline toward Wyoming, leaving the North Dakota plans uncertain.

The dispute involves landowners, Emmons County, Burleigh County, Summit Carbon Solutions, and the North Dakota Public Service Commission. The landowners and counties brought the case against the commission’s handling of Summit’s proposed carbon-dioxide pipeline. Their challenge placed local zoning, safety review, route analysis, and public access to technical information before the court.

The counties wanted regulators to decide whether their setback requirements could be enforced. The court instead instructed the PSC to determine whether those restrictions are unreasonable. The challengers also pressed for clearer public-welfare reasoning, fuller examination of a southern Burleigh County alternative, and greater transparency around Summit’s rupture-spread model.

Summit sought to retain its approved route and keep the model confidential. The PSC had agreed with Summit on confidentiality and had issued the route permit in November 2024. The court did not cancel that permit, but required the commission to revisit parts of its process and explain its conclusions more clearly.

The pipeline would transport carbon dioxide under high pressure. That feature makes route safety and potential effects on the public central to the approval decision. Regulators must explain why the proposed route would avoid impairing public welfare, rather than simply rely on a general permitting conclusion.

Earlier, a PSC attorney argued that a federal agency enforced pipeline safety standards. The judge nevertheless required the commission to provide a clearer explanation of its own public-welfare assessment. The ruling also highlighted Summit’s model for estimating how carbon dioxide could spread after a rupture, showing why technical safety information mattered in the case.

The court did not find that Summit’s route is unsafe. It required more regulatory scrutiny and a stronger explanation. The PSC must address the public-welfare concerns raised in the challenge, while also deciding whether to release a redacted version of the model or justify withholding it more convincingly.

The alternative at issue runs through southern Burleigh County. The court found that the PSC had not adequately explained how it evaluated this option or why the proposed route was preferred. That matters because route decisions must show that regulators considered meaningful alternatives before approving major infrastructure.

The court therefore directed the commission to revisit its analysis. The PSC must provide a stronger account of the alternative route’s evaluation and its reasons for not choosing it. The ruling does not itself say that the southern Burleigh route is safer, better, or legally required.

If the commission cannot adequately explain its earlier rejection, it will need to correct or expand its review. The route permit remains valid for now, but the PSC’s response could affect the approval’s reasoning and Summit’s next steps. Those decisions also unfold as Summit considers redirecting the project toward Wyoming.

The case could reshape how North Dakota balances statewide permitting authority with county land-use rules. The judge held that state pipeline-siting authority does not automatically override county zoning ordinances. That means regulators must confront local setback requirements instead of treating state approval as automatically controlling.

The PSC must determine whether Emmons and Burleigh counties’ restrictions are unreasonable. If they are, state rules apply. If not, the county requirements remain significant in the siting analysis. North Dakota lawmakers expanded similar statutory language to power lines in 2025, making the dispute relevant to additional infrastructure projects.

The immediate effect is further review of Summit’s permit process, not cancellation of the permit. Future pipelines, power lines, and other major projects may face closer examination of local zoning, public welfare, alternatives, and technical information. The broader impact will depend on how the PSC responds and how later disputes interpret the balance.