The Iowa Senate passed a bill Monday night that would make it harder for carbon capture and other pipeline companies to use eminent domain.
Republican leaders of the Iowa Senate refused to bring an eminent domain bill up for a vote for the past four years, even as House Republicans passed several bills in response to landowners’ concerns about Summit Carbon Solutions’ plan that got conditional state approval to take private land in the path of its proposed pipeline. But 12 Republican senators forced a vote on the issue by refusing to pass bills funding state government until they got to vote on a pipeline bill.
Sen. Jeff Taylor, R-Sioux Center, said it’s not just a fight about the constitutional authority to use land for a carbon capture pipeline.
“It’s also a fight about justice,” he said. “It’s a fight about truth. It’s a fight about good government. And those things are worth fighting for, I think, even if it puts you at odds with the majority of your partisan colleagues.”
The bill passed 27-22 after a tense debate. Thirteen Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for the bill, and 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it.
Several supporters of the bill said they are not outright opposed to the carbon pipeline being built, they just don’t want eminent domain used for the pipeline.
Sen. Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, said the bill would slow down the process of building utility infrastructure and put an “onerous burden” on all kinds of pipelines, with higher costs passed on to consumers. He said it could also open the state up to costly lawsuits paid for by taxpayers if the bill interferes with existing contracts.
“House File 639 is a pie that’s baked with a whole ton of ingredients, and some of them are spoiled, and I don’t think we want the Iowa residents to eat that pie,” Klimesh said. “And that’s what we’re setting the table for.”
Democrats proposed an amendment to simply ban the use of eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines. That was the policy favored by landowners opposing eminent domain, but it failed when the 12 Republicans joined the rest of the GOP majority to reject a motion that would have put it up for a vote.
Sen. Bill Dotzler, D-Waterloo, said that was the Republicans’ chance to fix the problems with the bill and they didn’t do it. He said the majority of the GOP senators are ignoring Iowans’ constitutional rights.
“You care more about somebody taking somebody’s property than you do the owners. That’s what it’s all about. And I heard we’ve been playing games over here. Bull. Road apples. You think anybody up there isn’t concerned about the crops they have?” Dotzler asked, pointing to landowners in the gallery of the Senate chambers. “They’re here because somebody with big pockets [is] taking away the rights they have to their ground.”
Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, who used to work for the Summit pipeline’s parent company, proposed an amendment to the bill that was similar to the version he proposed in the Senate Commerce Committee. But 12 anti-pipeline Republicans and the chamber’s 16 Democrats joined together to reject the amendment supported by the leaders of the Senate’s GOP majority.
He said “environmental extremists” wrote the bill that ultimately passed, and it would impact energy and utility projects by letting “out-of-state extremists” file lawsuits.
“I believe that House File 639 is a Trojan horse,” Bousselot said. “It’s a horse rolled into the Legislature … with the armor and the look to kill one project. But it’s the soldiers that are contained within that I worry about for our state.”
Supporters and opponents react to the bill’s passage
Kathy Stockdale, a landowner from Hardin County who does not want the Summit pipeline to go through her land, has been coming to the Iowa Capitol for years, urging lawmakers to take action. After the vote Monday night, she said she was frustrated with Republican leaders who tried to stop eminent domain bills from moving forward, and she is proud of the 12 senators who took a stand.
“We are not extremists. We are landowners,” Stockdale said. “We are not activists. We are landowners. We are not protesters. We are landowners standing up for our rights, and it’s time for our senators to do that, too — and our governor.”
She said the bill that passed wouldn’t protect her private property rights, but it would help improve insurance coverage and Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC) proceedings. She wanted the Senate to vote to fully ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines, like the House did with a separate bill.
"We are not protesters. We are landowners standing up for our rights, and it’s time for our senators to do that, too — and our governor."Kathy Stockdale, landowner
But, Stockdale said she hopes Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds will sign the bill into law.
Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA), said the group will be asking Reynolds to veto the bill. He said the bill would effectively ban carbon capture pipelines.
“After enduring the largest two-year income drop in history, farmers are desperate to find new markets,” Shaw said. “[Carbon capture and sequestration] is the key to unlocking massive new demand for ethanol and corn around the world. For three years, IRFA has sought to work on a middle ground approach that enhanced landowner rights and protections but would allow CCS projects a path forward. While a majority of the Iowa Senate turned their back on Iowa agriculture tonight, IRFA thanks those who stood for common sense.”
Shaw said the bill would also effectively ban carbon capture projects that get all landowners in their path to agree to the plan, because it would add permit restrictions that make the projects not economically viable. He said Iowa would be left behind while other states and countries move forward with similar projects.
Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he wrote the bill, and he rejected the “environmental extremist” label. He said it was frustrating to hear some senators say things about the bill that weren’t true.
“It’s a solid bill,” Thomson said. “It was misdescribed in unfathomable terms by some of the senators, but we got it done, and I’m very, very grateful for all the people who were involved.”
He said the bill was not intended to undo state regulators’ approval of the Summit pipeline.
Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, agreed.
“This has never been about killing the pipeline,” he said. “This has been about protecting the private property rights of the citizens of Iowa.”
Holt said Summit could have used all voluntary easements to build its pipeline, but it is trying to use the government to seize property for a private economic development project.
South Dakota passed a law banning the use of eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines, and regulators in that state have told Summit to reapply for a permit. Construction in Iowa can’t start until South Dakota approves the pipeline.
A Summit Carbon Solutions spokesperson did not respond to IPR’s request for comment Monday night.
What does the bill say?
The bill says a pipeline company granted a pipeline permit shall not be vested with the right of eminent domain unless the pipeline company is a common carrier. For a hazardous liquid pipeline to qualify as a common carrier, it “must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it will transport a commodity for one or more shippers not affiliated with the carrier who will either retain ownership of the commodity or sell the commodity to a party other than the carrier.”
It would require an agency proposing to acquire property by eminent domain to “have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed use meets the definition of a public use, public purpose, or public improvement.”
The bill would put new insurance requirements in place for hazardous liquid pipelines, including coverage for landowners who can’t get insurance or whose premiums go up as a result of a pipeline.
Carbon pipelines would be prohibited from operating for longer than 25 years, and the IUC would not be able to renew a permit granted to a carbon pipeline.
The bill would establish requirements for IUC members to attend hearings and informational meetings. It would also list the people who may intervene in IUC proceedings, and limit the circumstances in which the IUC can impose sanctions against interveners.
