In a significant political move, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds issued a rare veto on a proposed bill that aimed to increase regulations on a massive carbon-capture pipeline project spearheaded by Summit Carbon Solutions. This $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile project is planned to traverse several Midwest states, including Iowa, where it has already acquired approval. The bill, crafted by Iowa House Republicans, sought to impose stricter rules on the pipeline.
The legislation faced fierce opposition from Iowa’s influential ethanol industry, which views the pipeline as crucial for maintaining the state’s agricultural leadership, supporting farmers, and fostering construction jobs. This stance underscores a growing divide within the Republican Party over balancing property rights against industry interests.
Governor Reynolds expressed that while she empathized with the legislature’s intent to protect landowners, the bill fell short of sound policy. “It fails to draw the clear, careful lines needed and combines legitimate issues with ambiguous legal standards,” Reynolds explained in her veto message. Despite her disapproval, she affirmed her dedication to collaborating with legislators to enhance property protections, update permitting processes, and maintain respect for private ownership.
However, Iowa State Representative Bobby Kaufmann, among the bill’s proponents, criticized the governor’s timing, suggesting her pledge for cooperation was insufficient and belated. “Where has she been these last three years?” Kaufmann questioned, indicating discontent over perceived favoritism towards corporate interests over constitutional property rights.
In addition to Iowa, Summit’s pipeline project faces hurdles in other states. While Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota have permitted the pipeline, South Dakota has rejected its permit application and enacted a ban on using eminent domain— the compulsory purchase of private land for public use with compensation— for acquiring land for carbon pipelines.
The Iowa bill would have introduced constraints such as banning permit renewals, capping operational duration at 25 years, and mandating higher insurance coverage for the pipeline company. These stipulations could have threatened the project’s financial viability.
Despite the obstacles, Summit expressed gratitude for Governor Reynolds’ review and highlighted its ongoing commitment to voluntary agreements with landowners. “We are eager to continue engaging with state leaders as this pivotal project progresses,” Summit stated, noting the potential benefits for farmers and the long-term reinforcement of American energy dominance.
The veto has ignited tensions within Iowa’s Republican-controlled legislature. House Speaker Pat Grassley announced intentions to seek a special session to challenge the veto. Success would necessitate a two-thirds majority in both legislative chambers, a feat Grassley acknowledges as a tough proposition.
Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver expressed skepticism about garnering the requisite support in the Senate, given that more senators favored a measured policy approach to safeguarding landowner rights. Intense debate and division marked the close of the legislative session, with lively discussions highlighting internal party conflicts.
Summit’s proposed pipeline aims to channel carbon emissions from ethanol facilities across several states to a storage site in North Dakota. This would reduce the plants’ carbon intensity scores, enhancing their competitiveness in producing renewable fuels, while enabling access to federal tax incentives.
The project has attracted significant criticism, with detractors accusing Summit of infringing on property rights and minimizing safety concerns. The legal struggle in South Dakota, marked by numerous eminent domain disputes, has been particularly contentious, raising alarm among Iowa lawmakers.
A collective of landowners decried the veto, perceiving it as a triumph of “big money and self-interest” over local rights. Jan Norris, a southwest Iowa landowner, lamented, “Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder,” echoing deep frustration and a sense of betrayal felt by many affected residents.