$15 million lawsuit against Summit Carbon Solutions proceeds toward trial

In 2024, pipe manufacturer Welspun Tubular filed suit against Summit Carbon Solutions, claiming it had been commissioned by Summit to produce about 785 miles of pipe, beginning in May 2023, at a total cost of about $183 million.

The pipe was to be used for Summit’s planned multibillion-dollar pipeline project, which is designed to transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants across Iowa and other Midwestern states for underground sequestration.

According to the lawsuit, once Summit’s proposed pipeline project ran into regulatory delays and public opposition, Summit sought to delay fulfillment of the contract. The purchase agreement between the two companies allowed Summit to delay pipe production for up to six months until November 2023, according to Welspun’s complaint.

Welspun alleges it was able to delay the start of production to early 2024 by manufacturing pipe for others, to which Summit agreed. But when Welspun notified Summit that it planned to proceed with production in February, Summit sought another delay, according to the lawsuit.

“Summit asked to discuss the status of the project, and those discussions revealed that the project was dramatically off-schedule,” the lawsuit says.

Summit eventually tried to cancel the contract, Welspun claims, triggering what Welspun claims is a $15 million cancellation charge. Welspun now seeks payment of that $15 million, plus partial reimbursement for materials it obtained to manufacture the pipe.

Summit has denied any wrongdoing, and initially said it was “committed to resolving this matter swiftly.” The lawsuit, however, has dragged on, and in January 2026 attorneys for the two sides notified the court that they had met and conferred in good faith but concluded that “mediation would not be productive or advisable given that the parties had already conducted settlement discussions and reached a fundamental impasse.”

Sean Gorman, a Welspun attorney in Texas, said Friday the situation has not changed since January and the case is expected to be tried as scheduled, beginning June 15, 2026.

Records from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware indicate the trial is expected to last three days, with a judge, rather than a jury, determining the outcome.

Trial follows proposed route changes 

The expected trial comes at a difficult time for Summit, which scaled back its pipeline plans just a few weeks ago.

“Summit’s project has been on shaky ground for a long time,” Wally Taylor, attorney for the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, said last month. “Summit has been flailing around to try to keep their project viable and now it looks like it’s falling apart.”

Jess Mazour, conservation coordinator for the Iowa chapter, which has opposed the project due to environmental concerns, said the recent changes Summit has proposed for the pipeline route suggest the company “is struggling to make their project happen.”

In June 2024, the Iowa Utilities Commission approved a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions to build more than 600 miles of a carbon sequestration pipeline in Iowa, with the condition that the company gain permits in the Dakotas before beginning construction.

The Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, along with several Iowa counties and individual landowners, sued, hoping to overturn the IUC’s permit approval. Last fall, after South Dakota denied Summit a permit and passed a law barring the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines, Summit filed a petition with the IUC  to amend its approved permit by removing the condition that required approval in the Dakotas and by adding several modifications to the company’s plans.

On May 13, 2026, Summit announced a new planned route for the pipeline that would eliminate the need to cross property in Shelby, Pottawattamie, Montgomery, Adams, Page, Fremont, Mitchell and Worth counties, and reduce the miles of pipeline running through Sioux, Crawford, Floyd and Dickinson counties.

Under the new plan, the pipeline would continue to operate through Nebraska and parts of Iowa, and captured emissions would be stored in Wyoming, deviating from the original sequestration plan to store emissions in North Dakota.

A group of Iowa property owners, concerned with what they see as an expanded use of eminent domain, then asked the Iowa Utilities Commission to deny Summit’s request for approval of the new route. The commission has not established a timeline for acting on the proposed revisions.