In a closely contested decision, the Iowa Senate has approved a bill potentially affecting the future viability of a major carbon capture pipeline proposed to run across several Midwestern states. The debate, marked by deep divisions among Republicans, centered on property rights and the impact on Iowa’s standing as an agricultural powerhouse.
The bill, passed late Monday, seeks to limit the renewal of permits for carbon dioxide pipelines to 25 years and imposes stricter insurance requirements on pipeline companies. These measures could render the construction of such pipelines financially challenging.
Having already cleared the House, the bill now awaits a decision from Republican Governor Kim Reynolds. Her office indicated they are currently examining the details of the legislation.
If enacted, the bill may necessitate changes to Summit Carbon Solutions’ ambitious $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile project. Already facing setbacks, including South Dakota’s prohibition on using eminent domain to acquire land for these pipelines, Summit will have to strategize its next moves.
Although the project has received permits in Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota, it confronts legal challenges and a denial of application in South Dakota.
The Iowa Senate’s debate over the pipeline was sparked by demands from Republican senators for a more thorough discussion. As a result, Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor reiterated the company’s commitment to the project and the state of Iowa in a recent statement.
“Summit Carbon Solutions has dedicated four years and nearly $175 million towards voluntary agreements in Iowa, achieving agreements with over 1,300 landowners and completing 75% of the Phase One route,” Zenor noted on May 1. However, she offered no comments following the Senate’s decision.
The debate drew a significant presence from Summit stakeholders, including members from the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, reflecting the project’s alignment with state interests in ethanol, farming, and job creation.
The proposed pipeline is designed to transport carbon emissions from ethanol plants in the Midwest to underground storage sites in North Dakota. By reducing emissions, it aims to enhance competitiveness in the renewable fuels market and unlock federal tax credits.
Monte Shaw, Executive Director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, expressed disappointment with the bill, suggesting it undermines Iowa’s ethanol economy and could lead to dire economic repercussions if signed into law.
Critics of the pipeline have voiced concerns about property rights and safety issues, particularly the proximity of the pipeline to homes and schools. Legal battles over land acquisition, including the contentious use of eminent domain, have invigorated opposition in South Dakota, attracting attention from Iowa lawmakers.
Within the Iowa Senate, tensions flared as Republicans debated the bill’s ramifications. A faction of Republicans, alongside Democrats, voted in favor, while others cautioned that the bill might impede broader infrastructure development in Iowa.
Opponents argued the bill complicates the permitting process, introducing ambiguities around public use and fomenting potential insurance disputes. However, supporters dismissed these arguments as misinterpretations.
State Sen. Jeff Taylor, a Republican endorsing the bill, emphasized its focus on adhering to constitutional guidelines regarding eminent domain use. “The requirement for eminent domain under both the Iowa and federal constitutions is for public use,” Taylor stated, outlining that the legislation aligns with these principles rather than economic interests.