Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipelines: Safety, Siting, and Eminent Domain

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) pipelines are essential to carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems, promoted by both the Biden and Trump Administrations to reduce emissions of CO₂—a greenhouse gas—from power plants and industrial facilities. Approximately 5,300 miles of CO₂ pipeline already operate in the United States, primarily linking natural CO₂ sources to oil fields for enhanced oil recovery. However, a much larger pipeline network would be needed for CCS to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the national level.

In recent years, several greenfield CO₂ pipeline projects have been proposed in the Midwest to capture CO₂ from ethanol plants. These projects have encountered public opposition and regulatory challenges, including denial of state siting permits. Due to these challenges, two developers (Navigator CO₂ Ventures and Wolf Carbon Solutions) have canceled their respective projects. Summit Carbon Solutions is actively developing a third project, but has struggled to secure all the necessary property rights and permits across the five states (Figure 1) where it would be constructed. (A fourth developer, Tallgrass Energy, is converting an existing natural gas pipeline to carry CO₂ through Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming.)

Challenges to siting new CO₂ pipelines primarily involve two interrelated issues—safety risks and eminent domain authority. These issues raise questions about the future availability of CO₂ pipelines for CCS and the federal role in CO₂ pipeline development.

Figure 1. Summit Carbon Solutions Proposed CO2 Pipeline System

Source: Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC, Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Permit for the SCS Carbon Transport LLC Pipeline Under the Energy Conversion and Transmission Facility Act, November 19, 2024.

CO₂ Pipeline Safety

CO₂ pipelines pose public safety risks. CO₂ displaces oxygen at high concentrations—which may cause suffocation. CO₂ may also contain hazardous contaminants. The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has long regulated the construction, operation, and maintenance of CO₂ pipelines (49 C.F.R. §§190, 195-199). However, a 2020 CO₂ pipeline rupture in Satartia, MS, which caused 45 people to be hospitalized, has prompted criticism from pipeline safety advocates of PHMSA's existing regulations and has contributed to CO₂ pipeline opposition. In 2022, California enacted a moratorium on pipeline transportation of CO₂ for CCS projects until PHMSA updates its regulations.

The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90, §15) directed PHMSA to implement new safety standards for pipeline transportation of gaseous CO₂. On January 15, 2025, PHMSA announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to "strengthen existing standards for hazardous liquid and CO₂ pipelines" and "establish new standards for transporting carbon dioxide in a gaseous state via pipeline." Concurrently, PHMSA submitted the NPRM for publication in the Federal Register, the final step required for the proposal to be official. However, in compliance with a January 20, 2025, memorandum issued by President Trump, PHMSA withdrew the NPRM from Federal Register publication, so it is not "official" and is not open for public comment.

How PHMSA will proceed with its NPRM is uncertain, although the agency may separately consider other regulatory changes related to CO₂ pipeline safety. On June 4, 2025, following a series of executive orders issued by President Trump, PHMSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting "stakeholder feedback on whether to repeal or amend" any of its pipeline safety requirements "to eliminate undue burdens on the identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources and to improve government efficiency." This broad ANPRM applies to PHMSA's existing CO₂ pipeline safety regulations as part of its overall pipeline regulatory portfolio. PHMSA opened a comment period for its ANPRM through August 4, 2025.

Eminent Domain Authority

Due to safety risks and property rights concerns, CO₂ pipeline developers have faced resistance securing voluntary agreements with private landowners for pipeline rights-of-way. Under current law, states have primary siting jurisdiction for CO₂ pipelines, although federal approvals may be required for certain pipeline segments (e.g., on federal lands). Without voluntary agreements, developers may still secure rights-of-way involuntarily if they have eminent domain authority, which often accompanies state siting permits. However, CO₂ pipeline siting authorities, landowner rights, and eminent domain laws vary from state to state, so securing rights-of-way is not guaranteed—especially for interstate projects.

There have been recent regulatory interventions and legislative efforts in some states to limit eminent domain authority for CO₂ pipeline projects. For example, in March 2025, South Dakota prohibited the exercise of eminent domain specifically by CO₂ pipelines. In June 2025, Louisiana enacted legislation authorizing eminent domain authority only for "common carrier" CO₂ pipeline projects, effectively excluding pipelines with capacity committed to only a limited group of shippers. In May 2025, the Iowa legislature passed a bill to limit CO₂ pipeline projects' use of eminent domain and impose other requirements. Iowa's governor vetoed the bill, but nonetheless stated that "we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain."

Some analysts have asserted that the absence of federal siting authority for CO₂ pipelines could be "a significant problem." In 2023, the Biden Administration urged Congress to "address the siting of ... carbon dioxide pipelines ... and provide federal siting authority for such infrastructure." On May 20, 2025, the House Budget Committee reported an initial draft of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), which would have given the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the same siting authority over interstate CO₂ pipelines that it currently exercises for natural gas pipelines, including eminent domain authority—preempting state jurisdiction (§41006). Congressional opponents of this provision criticized it as "especially egregious given that Midwestern states are currently debating or have enacted legislation that would prohibit the usage of eminent domain authority at the state level for carbon dioxide pipelines." This provision was subsequently stripped from the version of H.R. 1 that passed the House. Whether Congress considers future legislative proposals to federalize CO₂ pipeline siting remains to be seen.