The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee convened on January 30, 2025, to discuss significant concerns surrounding a proposed carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline project in North Dakota. The meeting highlighted the contentious nature of the project, with strong opposition from local residents and industry experts regarding safety and environmental implications.

One of the primary speakers, who has extensive experience in pipeline construction, raised alarms about the proposed 24-inch CO2 pipeline, which would operate at high pressures of 2,183 PSI. He emphasized that this pipeline differs significantly from traditional natural gas pipelines, citing the dangers associated with CO2, which is heavier than air and can create hazardous conditions in the event of a rupture. He described the potential for CO2 to accumulate in low-lying areas, posing serious risks to nearby communities, including Bismarck, which has a population of around 36,000.

The speaker also criticized the lack of transparency regarding safety measures and emergency response plans, expressing concern that local emergency services may not be adequately prepared to handle a CO2 leak. He pointed out that CO2 behaves differently than natural gas, which disperses quickly, while CO2 can linger and create dangerous conditions for residents.

In addition to safety concerns, the discussion touched on the economic implications of the pipeline. Critics argued that the project is primarily aimed at supporting the ethanol industry rather than addressing genuine energy needs. They expressed skepticism about the projected economic benefits, suggesting that the pipeline could lead to increased costs and financial burdens for local communities.

The meeting also featured testimonies from other stakeholders, including representatives from environmental organizations, who echoed concerns about the safety and necessity of the pipeline. They highlighted incidents in other states where CO2 pipelines have caused safety issues, urging lawmakers to reconsider the project.

As the meeting concluded, the committee faced pressure to weigh the potential risks against the claimed benefits of the pipeline. The discussions underscored a growing divide between proponents of fossil fuel infrastructure and those advocating for environmental safety and community health. The outcome of this debate could have lasting implications for energy policy and public safety in North Dakota.