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

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.