House Votes to Ban Eminent Domain for CO2 Pipelines

By Cami Koons

The Iowa House approved a bill Wednesday that would stop pipelines carrying liquified carbon dioxide from using eminent domain. 

Six other bills related to carbon sequestration pipelines, eminent domain, and the Iowa Utilities Commission were combined into one bill, which also advanced. 

The bills were directed at an ongoing fight between landowners and the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, which would stretch more than 1,000 miles in Iowa connecting to biofuel refineries and transporting the sequestered carbon dioxide to underground storage in North Dakota. 

House File 943 is similar to a law recently passed in South Dakota, another state crossed by the pipeline’s proposed route. 

Summit recently asked South Dakota regulators to pause proceedings on its pipeline permit due to the new law. 

The Iowa bill would take effect in May and apply to any eminent domain filings made on or after that date. 

Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, said businesses should “expect the unexpected” if they plan to use eminent domain in Iowa. 

“Expect that we’re going to make changes when eminent domain is involved, and expect that we’re going to make changes in favor of landowners,” Kaufmann said. 

Pipeline opponents advocated for the bill March 18 during a rally at the Capitol and again on Monday at a press conference with a group of Republican lawmakers opposed to the pipeline project. 

The bill passed 82-12. 

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a press release the decision by the House was “hardly surprising, but it is still disappointing.” 

“IRFA members have been saying for three years that (carbon capture and sequestration) is the most important tool available to grow ethanol demand into new markets both here at home and around the world,” Shaw said in the statement.

Shaw said he believes “cooler heads will prevail in the Senate” and said the opposition to the project has been led by a “small, though loud, minority.” 

“IRFA calls on the Iowa Senate to stand with the majority of impacted landowners, farmers, ethanol producers, and Iowa’s economic future to ensure the state has the tools it needs to meet the brewing economic disaster in the heartland,” Shaw said.

‘No Eminent Domain for Private Gain Bill’

House File 639 would increase the insurance requirements for liquid hazardous pipeline operators. 

The five amendments to the bill would also update the definition of a common carrier, require IUC commissioners to be present at all hearings, expand who is allowed to intervene in an IUC docket, limit the pipeline permits to one term not longer than 25 years and stop the IUC from imposing sanctions on intervenors.  

These were all bills that had already advanced from House committees, but Rep. Steven Holt combined into HF 639. 

Holt, R-Denison, said with all of the amendments, the bill should be called the “no eminent domain for private gain” bill. 

The bill passed 85-10.

A spokesperson for Summit said the company has signed easements with more than 1,320 Iowa landowners and has “adjusted the route based on feedback from stakeholders and regulatory agencies.” 

“Regulatory certainty is crucial for maintaining Iowa’s competitive edge in business, fostering long-term opportunities for farmers, ethanol producers, and rural communities,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Concern About Senate Opposition

Some representatives voiced concern because of historic opposition in the Senate.  

Rep. Brian Meyer spoke in support of the bills but said he wondered if lawmakers were “wasting our time here today.” 

“We’ve done this now several years in a row, and the Senate has not acted,” Meyer, D-Des Moines, said. “As far as I can tell, they have not even tried to negotiate … Do something. Do something about this important issue.” 

Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he appreciated the concerns about the Senate on the issue and said he believes the House will “do the right thing without regard for what others may do.” 

Holt said the issue is not partisan and that in both the House and the Senate, the two parties disagree with one another on the issue. He disagreed with a claim that he and other lawmakers fighting for the issue are doing so performatively. 

“We’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do,” Holt said. “And regardless of whether the Senate is going to pass it or not, we’re going to fight for it here because it’s the right thing to do.”

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: [email protected]. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter.