Judge pauses Summit opponents’ lawsuit while proposed permit changes proceed

The Iowa Utilities Commission will have to decide whether Summit Carbon Solutions can change the ending destination for its carbon sequestration pipeline before a case against the company’s permit can proceed, an Iowa court ruled.

The Iowa District Court for Polk County ruled in favor of Summit’s motion to pause the case that landowners, counties and the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter filed in 2024.

Opponents of the proposed carbon capture pipeline sued over the IUC decision to issue a conditional permit to Summit in June 2024. The permit allowed the company to use eminent domain to build a pipeline that would connect to biorefineries across the state and transport carbon dioxide to North Dakota for underground storage.

Per the IUC permit decision, Summit was required to obtain permission for its pipeline in North Dakota and South Dakota before it could begin construction in Iowa.

Since the permit was issued, however, South Dakota enacted a law prohibiting the use of eminent domain for CO2 pipelines, which complicated Summit’s plans to transport the captured CO2 to an underground storage site in North Dakota. Eminent domain forces unwilling property owners to accept easements on their land for projects considered in the public interest, for payment determined by a county commission.

In light of these developments, along with ongoing legal battles in North Dakota, Summit filed for an amendment to its permit with the IUC in September 2025 to remove the requirement that the company receive approval from the Dakotas. Instead of specifying a state, Summit asked for the permit to prohibit construction until the company has “secured access to one or more sequestration sites and permits or agreements to allow it to reach such storage.”

Summit also requested the court stop proceedings on the lawsuit pertaining to the original permit until the IUC rules on the newly filed amendment. Polk County District Court Judge Scott Beattie sided with the company and remanded the case back to the IUC.

In the decision, Beattie wrote that the South Dakota ban is “influential” to the decision.

“Not only does the S.D. CO2 pipeline ban render the IUC’s Final Order void, but it also requires Summit to reroute its pipeline in order to get to North Dakota without going through South Dakota,” the decision said.

During oral arguments, opponents said Summit’s requested permit amendment did not change the basis of their argument that Summit did not meet the definition of a common carrier and should not be granted eminent domain capabilities.

The groups also argued, as described in Beattie’s decision, that it was unfair to pause judicial review based on “the mere possibility that a permit might be amended.”

Beattie wrote, however, that a pause in judicial proceedings while the permit amendment is evaluated is “warranted” as the court would otherwise be evaluating “outdated” facts.

“Adjudicating the merits of a permit that is actively being amended serves no useful purpose,” the decision reads.

Emma Schmit, an organizing director with the pipeline fighter group Bold Alliance, said in a statement the ruling did “not come as a surprise.”

“After years of working to protect property rights from hazardous carbon pipelines, we know not every judge, regulator, or legislator will stand by us the first time around,” Schmit said in the statement. “But, we know the people of Iowa stand with us. So, we’ll continue to explore property rights protections through every possible avenue, including through the courts, the Iowa Utilities Commission, and the legislature.”

Summit Carbon Solutions did not respond to a request for comment on the decision.

This article first appeared in the Iowa Capital Dispatch.