BISMARCK, N.D. — Public utility regulators in Iowa will begin a hearing today on a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline for transporting emissions of the climate-warming greenhouse gas for storage underground that has been met by resistant landowners who fear the taking of their land and dangers of a pipeline rupture.

Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed $5.5 billion, 2,000-mile pipeline network would carry CO2 from 34 ethanol plants in five states to North Dakota for storage deep underground — a project involving carbon capture technology, which has attracted both interest and scrutiny in the U.S.

North Dakota regulators earlier this month denied a siting permit for Summit’s proposed route in the state, citing issues they say Summit didn’t appropriately address, such as cultural resource impacts, geologic instability and landowner concerns. On Friday, Summit petitioned regulators to reconsider.

Other similar projects are proposed around the country, including ones by Navigator CO2 Ventures and Wolf Carbon Solutions, which would also have routes in Iowa.

Carbon capture entails the gathering and removal of planet-warming CO2 emissions from industrial plants to be pumped deep underground for permanent storage.

Supporters view the technology as a combatant of climate change. But opponents say carbon capture and storage isn’t proven at scale and could require huge investments at the expense of cheaper alternatives such as solar and wind power, all at a time when there is an urgent need to phase out all fossil fuels.

Carbon capture also is viewed by opponents as a way for fossil fuel companies to claim they are addressing climate change without actually having to significantly change their ways.

“I think there’s a recognition even in the fossil fuel industry that, whether you like it or not and agree or not, [climate change] is a reality you’re going to deal with from a regulatory standpoint, and you’d better get out in front of it or you’re going to get left behind,” said Derrick Braaten, a Bismarck-based attorney involved in issues related to Summit’s project.

New federal tax incentives have made carbon capture a lucrative enterprise. The technology has the support of the Biden administration, with billions of dollars approved by Congress for various carbon capture efforts.

High-profile supporters of Summit’s project include North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum, a presidential candidate who has called the state’s underground CO2 storage ability a “geologic jackpot,” and oil magnate Harold Hamm, whose company last year announced a $250 million commitment to Summit’s project.

“Carbon capture and storage is going to be more and more important every day as we go forward in America,” Hamm has said.

The Iowa Utilities Board begins its public evidentiary hearing today in Fort Dodge, a hearing “anticipated to last several weeks,” according to a news release. The board’s final decision on Summit’s permit request will come sometime after the hearing.

Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission has a hearing set for Aug. 31 in which the panel “will make decisions about the scope of environmental review” regarding Summit’s permit application for its pipeline in two counties, said Charley Bruce, an energy facilities planner with the commission.

A Summit attorney recently indicated to Minnesota that North Dakota regulators’ decision to deny a permit will not affect the company’s plans, including for other proposed routes in southern Minnesota.

The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission is set to begin its evidentiary hearing for the project on Sept. 11 and expects to make a final decision by Nov. 15.

Nebraska has no state-level regulatory authority for CO2 pipelines. Summit is working with counties individually in Nebraska.

Counties don’t approve or deny a route, but can institute ordinances’ setbacks for land-use purposes that can dictate where a pipeline may go, and can enter into road haul agreements and road crossing permits, said Omaha-based attorney Brian Jorde. He represents more than 1,000 landowners opposed to CO2 pipeline projects in four states.

Summit hasn’t hit “an insurmountable legal obstacle” in North Dakota regulators’ denial “because they literally said ‘try again,'” Braaten said.

“If they get over themselves I think that they could do it and get approved, but I think they certainly shot themselves in the foot and they’re making it much harder in those other states because they’re going to come in with those commissioners there looking at them with a certain level of skepticism because you literally just got denied a permit in North Dakota,” he said.

Landowners have raised concerns about the pipeline breaking, as well as eminent domain, or the taking of private land for the project, with compensation.