[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6359981,"mediaKeyId","2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9","parentId",2175457,"title","Bill to bar eminent domain for CO2 storage, repeal pore‑space amalgamation draws split testimony","audioSeconds",1375,"startMs",4576000,"endMs",5951000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9&start=4576&end=5951","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9/thumbnail_4576000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6359981/North-Dakota/Bill-to-bar-eminent-domain-for-CO2-storage-repeal-porespace-amalgamation-draws-split-testimony","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6359981-eafb42fdaf63ab038cf825234efdceea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168634&Signature=PejbYHOaSgMo1saYCgR3tEN7XJ6jxw0taR7tj7NTrMIgnlDFBBNjZ8D7aI6YGmIjpsBlViOGEFYtANRZnoLGB3n~h180NFZC0~C-Uor2F2sie2WDPuqY2hxH2ENeodNy8JdUPEJ6Iz6H-fn9QhtHrUqDJ8OSX7rVg2g7iGHJbcCPVa-4UOCvmqJQUMsy1-YbHwEXS3b3jUanYNg2jHL5vQSTt1wIYT9P54bNjMvRzzpurfd3RKP60eRVjtmF6m9YemxBAtHAzXd1YRj0AW7eJbCWmdrj4EFIUqHCptsmaGcKYeQ5YtIO3RVxvqw~80GdX4VaS459O6yp3YNlWWqvgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author"," House Energy and Natural Resources, ND","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 1414 — which would remove certain public‑domain and eminent‑domain powers for geological CO2 storage and repeal pore‑space amalgamation rules — was the subject of a multi‑hour hearing before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Representative Matt Heilman introduced the bill and said it would stop use of eminent domain for projects described in the bill and remove CO2 pipelines from common‑carrier status. \"This law change will preempt threats of eminent domain when industry representatives meet with their property owners,\" Sen. Jeff Magram said in support, arguing it would reduce landowner \"fatigue\" and allegedly coercive tactics during negotiations.

Supporters — mainly landowners and local officials — described aggressive land‑agent tactics and said property owners felt compelled to sign easements under threat of eminent domain. Several witnesses cited a South Dakota Supreme Court ruling that found Summit Carbon Solutions had not shown it was a common carrier in that state.

Opponents included Summit Carbon Solutions, ethanol producers, the North Dakota Petroleum Council, the Greater North Dakota Chamber and the Lignite Energy Council. Summit's Charlie Adams told the committee HB 1414 would \"stymie carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery projects\" and said Summit has more than 80% voluntary easement agreements on parts of its route. \"This bill would prohibit those 455 land owners who signed voluntary agreements from developing their pore space,\" Adams said, arguing the change would retroactively upset voluntary arrangements.

Ethanol producers and other industry witnesses said pipelines and pore‑space aggregation are critical to create contiguous storage units and to enable private investment to develop CO2 markets and value‑added products. Andrew testimony from Harvest Stone's Jeff Zuger and others said projects enable ethanol facilities to lower carbon intensity and access market premiums.

Committee members sought clarification on which existing statutes would be repealed and asked for legal analysis of the interplay between county land use, Industrial Commission authority and pore‑space ownership. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle"," House Energy and Natural Resources Jan 30, 2025 II","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 1414 would block eminent domain for CO2 infrastructure and repeal pore‑space amalgamation language; supporters argued the bill protects landowners, while industry witnesses said it would undermine investment and CO2 markets.","taxTitle","Energy and Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28890,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6359985,"Hearing on bill to remove CO2 from common‑carrier law draws wide, divided testimony",4760,2791000,7551000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9&start=2791&end=7551","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9/thumbnail_2791000.jpg","/articles/6359985/North-Dakota/Hearing-on-bill-to-remove-CO2-from-commoncarrier-law-draws-wide-divided-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6359985-aee9301dbe6a1d94515471633b01f4f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168634&Signature=A~i0Cfh6lKohPuV8979pC8AwuDlbMKmpfXJmdTzlwf7~qSDHmxIXHY6OdQ0qt66sO6LQrPCxXunOcWZnrp32yDFWhNItS3xUFkZA5cTHl1x9H9XQUUoLblvn5-GtMfO8Sk3~o5dHfapaU0gV2hypdJGEgyZZkFS6uXhXQornFTMfMz3M4gSk75n8Djf9IwPiLhUSIjs9a-xkxKS6Thx40rHt~9naq~K9Snj1R-Dm~yzg2YtHmkc5KbdZFkNxW3SgMG1N3PbWTQSDCxfbDdjkq9WM1lL6m7oYr4I0~PgQGOwQ2Ki8S3toGSDEeW0ANSLca4HkawkjfwhShA4zfPYSgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a contentious hearing on House Bill 1292, which would remove carbon dioxide from the statutory definition of a \"common carrier\" and thereby limit pipeline access to eminent domain.

Representative Laurie Van Winkle told the committee HB 1292 would remove CO2 from Chapter 49 definitions that grant common‑carrier status and associated eminent‑domain powers. \"The carbon dioxide pipeline will not operate as a common carrier,\" Van Winkle said, arguing the statute was inserted to give deployers eminent‑domain authority.

Speakers in favor included landowners, farmers and grassroots volunteers who said early interactions with developers had included threats or pressure about eminent domain. Curtis Junt, a volunteer lobbyist from the affected area, said CO2 is denser than air and poses different safety challenges from natural gas. \"This is no different... it is going to flow on the ground... it moves through several phases,\" Junt said, and he urged protections for landowners.

Proponents also pointed to an August 2024 South Dakota Supreme Court decision — cited repeatedly in testimony — that found evidence insufficient to treat a developer as a common carrier in that state. Several support witnesses said the court decision bolstered their view that the state should not allow eminent domain for CO2 pipelines.

Opponents included oil, coal and ethanol industry groups, the Greater North Dakota Chamber and Summit Carbon Solutions. Ron Ness of the North Dakota Petroleum Council said the bill would affect more than one project and could prevent infrastructure needed for enhanced oil recovery and other CO2 uses. \"This bill, this policy that was put in place in 1993... is much broader than one pipeline,\" Ness said.

Summit Carbon Solutions' representative, Dave Nearing, said the company has secured authorizations from the Public Service Commission and the Industrial Commission and described the planned project as private investment into transport and permanent geologic storage. He urged the committee to prevent policy changes that could impair investment. \"CO2 pipelines are the conduits to the markets of the future,\" Nearing said.

Industry witnesses emphasized that project pipelines support ethanol decarbonization, employment, tax revenues and potential uses such as enhanced oil recovery. Summit and ethanol producers said the projects had secured high percentages of voluntary agreements but that completing a project sometimes requires tools to assemble contiguous pore‑space ownership.

The hearing ran through both extensive public comment and multiple organizational positions; no committee vote was recorded at the hearing.","House Bill 1292, which would remove carbon dioxide from North Dakota's statutory common‑carrier definition and block eminent‑domain use for CO2 pipelines, prompted sharply divided testimony on property rights, safety and economic development.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6359990,"Committee hears bill to impose 2‑year moratorium on direct air carbon capture projects",622,338000,960000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9&start=338&end=960","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9/thumbnail_338000.jpg","/articles/6359990/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-bill-to-impose-2year-moratorium-on-direct-air-carbon-capture-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6359990-a0630682a1077ac0f05051d4f8da0cce/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168634&Signature=HDAdeOcCdiOJsEY2AdIZ2S3r~4W6i1Iybvxvr42SindXYgUEegRlOZC1dC92tyu1d1Dfj34zSMzo1oXRsG4ArTy~amoRJEHQDQFpMo2OE~im4hcUdumc26z9LTkWddV9bBSsk8EFcLkneUoHrO7iPnTgYiiwOlbxUaJpuWpCS9HyJIVu5G6hkKIbv3kT775pK9p~G-c6Ex09WFxZ6xwMBLsRgo97N0QoKgh3yb8geKcqxkWgVGhzz2uItZotN0Ns0MjnANKv7wWiPLXBo0Zy01~4-5tjBb5rV53EC3zKcGtEsyjHajvpJGpLI9QsdYmv9NRs3oKNGxaC6cetsBlD7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Energy and Natural Resources reviewed House Bill 1574 on direct air carbon capture during an October hearing that included testimony from Representative Sue Ann Olson, local farmers and energy researchers.

Representative Sue Ann Olson, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure would impose a two‑year moratorium on “direct air carbon capture” projects and amend county and Industrial Commission authority. \"This bill provides, like I said, a 2 year moratorium on direct air carbon capture...until July 31, 2027,\" Olson said, and she noted an amended version was at members’ desks.

Supporters who testified said counties need time to write local zoning rules and to understand potential impacts. Zachary Cassidy of Dakota Resource Council said DAC projects are “very new technology” and called a temporary ban “common sense.” He added the machines can be noisy and create local nuisances. Cassidy testified: \"We have a machine that God made that captures carbon better than we can and it's called a plant.\"

Several witnesses described practical concerns counties face. Kurt Swinson, an engineer from Beulah who assisted Morton County’s zoning committee, said a proposed facility there had estimated water and power needs: \"Their estimates...were 8 to 10 trucks of water per day\" and the project proposed a roughly 40‑megawatt natural gas fired power plant, he said. Swinson also said counties currently regulate land use and that only the Industrial Commission manages underground injection (Class VI) authority.

Doyle Turner and other rural witnesses raised questions about effects on crops, wildlife, traffic and community character if DAC units were sited in agricultural areas. Turner urged caution about removing CO2 from the air near cropland. \"If we're going to be taking in inordinate amount out, that has an impact,\" he said.

The Energy and Environmental Research Center's Tyler Hammond, who said EERC has been engaged by companies exploring DAC, told the committee North Dakota already hosts commercial carbon capture, utilization and storage projects and urged caution about a blanket moratorium. \"North Dakota is now home to 4 commercial scale CCUS projects,\" Hammond said, and he warned that prohibiting DAC could slow development of markets for CO2 storage and utilization.

Representatives asked whether DAC facilities already operate in state and about energy and water demands; witnesses said one proposed project had been paused while a county drafted zoning. Olson and others repeatedly framed the bill as a pause to let counties and the state consider regulation rather than an absolute ban.

The committee accepted written testimony and public comment. No formal vote was taken at the hearing.

Ending: The bill remained under committee consideration at the close of the hearing; committee members reserved questions on the proper statutory language and the bill's interaction with Industrial Commission rules.","House Energy and Natural Resources reviewed House Bill 1574 on direct air carbon capture, a measure from Rep. Sue Ann Olson that would impose a two‑year moratorium while counties and state regulators develop rules.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6359976,"Committee hears bill to prohibit extreme‑risk protections; cities and advocates express concerns",478,6611000,7089000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9&start=6611&end=7089","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9/thumbnail_6611000.jpg","/articles/6359976/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-bill-to-prohibit-extremerisk-protections-cities-and-advocates-express-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6359976-2ba60154537d0468728d996976c66d51/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168634&Signature=FQnABSiZAH3WbZ5c4sdAAdQ7lOPbfVINo6TFI1ef8UaXkXZXKJwxDk6WqvWqFaMraNj8tHf7hnnwdy5hoEFa3OU0hjkSZWOsL7LVzfXeGB~IELF4vfdwmyZxCdotUUCkqWCKoqnqbMfVwTzCqfb4aqwVbibbQ4JzvIXKHMZqnUv91VUHmhtepN2d6GH9VzCfLi5~~A6FFD1yjilJoHQee23Y0Qv1YkWxJ6qHWSe~4HiwoAFAGjwDp8MIyGQ6tM18ULQnvWQXIAHBOhBQhr0xaEPJ3WATbgqcZJvVYfUX91iubSffE3rTm7Te7tnUfLnRqBJaQNcDvUHBMU9nn4pT3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on House Bill 1411, which would prohibit state and local extreme‑risk protection provisions and make violations a Class B misdemeanor.

Representative Matt Heilman, the bill sponsor, said the measure is intended to \"protect law‑abiding citizens and the right to exercise the Second Amendment,\" arguing that extreme‑risk orders are often pursued at the federal level and some states have adopted them. Heilman told members he included exceptions in the draft for specific state institutions and other statutory provisions and had discussed the language with law‑enforcement representatives.

Opponents raised concerns about unintended public‑safety consequences. Stephanie Ingebretson of the North Dakota League of Cities said the bill could be overly broad and may constrain routine interagency discussions about protective orders. \"I just think there's some concerns with how broad this language is,\" she told the committee, and she urged a do‑not‑pass recommendation.

Lisa Hermosillo, an advocate with ties to Minot Air Force Base, told lawmakers she works on suicide‑prevention efforts and that restricting extreme‑risk tools could cost lives. Citing military and state data, Hermosillo said firearms are the leading method in both civilian and military suicides and urged lawmakers to prioritize public‑safety tools that enable temporary removal of lethal means in crisis situations.

Heilman said he was willing to amend narrow statutory language to address certain operational concerns identified by law‑enforcement, and committee members asked for additional legal review on the scope and criminal penalties in the bill. No committee action or vote occurred during the hearing.","House Bill 1411 would prohibit the use of extreme‑risk protection provisions in North Dakota; the committee heard sharply differing testimony from supporters who framed the bill as Second Amendment protection and opponents who cited suicide prevention and municipal concerns.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6359971,"Bill would create a \"victim lien\" for CO2 pipeline releases after Sartatia, Miss., bankruptcy concerns cited",2011,11188000,13199000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9&start=11188&end=13199","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175457-1633d8d91dd2c6afe34233455dbde3e9/thumbnail_11188000.jpg","/articles/6359971/North-Dakota/Bill-would-create-a-victim-lien-for-CO2-pipeline-releases-after-Sartatia-Miss-bankruptcy-concerns-cited","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6359971-f8bde5ad2b05b27852feb5bf0ab3df4c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168634&Signature=NbY8u3nuB~ZQvG6hJC0ZvIJEyCJ~NEw-NlJVTzlQwHKMfr~nRPvO7ybrjRnBCUNNWvPehIWEC91~pukNjb~5qg2l78kjZHL2hcbKDKPEBwFTKifITFsXEbSRmNMVfgy-m1yQU4ogNeTPLHpAQm6wOuRNmsxyoRwqaKFKOmOKLt4yCRkqDtzkTZB-eXNYJFnCSTiJxiXeJ~1ShzXGSVM12MGsa~WuHV1xBVS7E9lMZgsh~qTP9qgXZbGI~JfoOEaejRPc4j2FbfFf2k0m7vMCurOJRJtGTlCrax3e-MTna3RQewwazzwkiacz1Bcflw~e5Sfjou1hn3zOgHUCGBCf0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Sue Ann Olson presented House Bill 1210, a proposed addition to Title 35 (liens) that would authorize a \"victim's lien\" for people who suffer injury or property damage resulting from a carbon dioxide pipeline release.

Olson described the proposal as a response to the Startacia, Mississippi rupture and the subsequent bankruptcy of the owner, Denbury Resources, which she said left hospitalized residents and little compensation. \"We got lucky,\" Olson quoted Yazoo County emergency management director Jack Willingham recounting hospitalizations after the release; she added that Denbury later filed bankruptcy and \"did not expect that there would be sufficient assets in the bankruptcy estate to make a payment to the unsecured creditors.\"

HB 1210 would permit people within a defined \"kill zone\" — the bill defines that term as a 25‑mile radius from the site of a release — to file a lien claiming damages; if perfected and proven, liens would be treated as preferred claims. The bill also proposes that, in a bankruptcy involving the operator, the filer would be entitled to hold funds equal to twice the claimed damages in trust while claims are adjudicated.

Witnesses supporting the bill included landowners, local advocates and several witnesses who described the difficulty of securing compensation when large owners reorganize or have limited recoverable assets. Curtis Junt, a longtime pipeline opponent and landowner advocate, testified about CO2 behavior and pipeline risk; he said CO2 can form dense ground‑hugging plumes and earlier incidents show rapid public‑safety consequences.

Industry witnesses asked clarifying questions about definitions, proof of harm and potential for fraudulent or speculative claims. Committee members challenged sponsors on the 25‑mile radius and asked how injury would be proven and administered; Olson said the bill requires claimants to establish damages and that the lien mechanism aims to restore victims’ priority standing among creditors.

No committee vote was taken and members asked for further drafting to clarify definitions, burden of proof and interaction with federal PHMSA reporting and bankruptcy law.","Rep. Sue Ann Olson introduced HB 1210 to create a statutory \"victim's lien\" for people harmed by a CO2 pipeline release, citing the Sartatia, Mississippi rupture and post‑incident bankruptcy as the rationale.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to bar eminent domain for CO2 storage, repeal pore‑space amalgamation draws split testimony

Hearing on bill to remove CO2 from common‑carrier law draws wide, divided testimony

Committee hears bill to impose 2‑year moratorium on direct air carbon capture projects

Committee hears bill to prohibit extreme‑risk protections; cities and advocates express concerns

Bill would create a "victim lien" for CO2 pipeline releases after Sartatia, Miss., bankruptcy concerns cited