The Iowa Capitol on Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
A subcommittee in the Iowa Senate advanced a bill Tuesday that would put new limitations on pipeline, transmission and liquid hazardous pipeline projects seeking eminent domain.
Senate Study Bill 1166 would exclude pipelines, roads, electric transmission lines and internet cables outside of a city from the definition of a public use, which grants the right of eminent domain.
Notably, the bill would only involve permit applications with a first public information meeting on or after the bill’s implementation and therefore would not impact the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, though much of the subcommittee discussion centered on the controversial project.
The bill would require an applicant to secure voluntary easements for 90% of the project and 75% of the total distance of the project before the Iowa Utilities Commission could grant the right of eminent domain.
Jeff Boeyink, on behalf of Summit Carbon Solutions, said the requirement was “almost an impossible standard” for a company to meet.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Pipeline advocates object to landowner consent measure
Another portion of the bill would require written landowner consent in order for easement negotiations to occur. Opponents to the pipeline project said this would keep landowners from being harassed by companies trying to build a project, but Boeyink said it makes it “very difficult” to talk to landowners.
“Not only do I have to get 90% voluntary easements, but you are limiting severely my ability to even talk to landowners in the first place,” Boeyink said. “So all it would take is 11% of the landowners to say ‘I don’t want to talk to you’ (and) your project is dead.”
Boeyink said this threshold and restriction on communication, if the bill were enacted, would “probably guarantee” that Iowa would never have a pipeline or electric transmission line built in the state.
Victoria Sinclair, on behalf of Land of the Free Action, spoke in favor of the bill and particularly of the requirement for landowner consent.
“I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve personally heard from folks … where their elderly relatives have been harassed in the nursing homes by these companies,” Sinclair said. “That’s unacceptable, and we can’t allow it.”
Mike Heller, on behalf of Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, said the bill “effectively eliminates” the ability to negotiate with landowners and to survey a property. IRFA opposed the bill, noting the importance of pipeline projects to the ethanol industry and for Iowa’s expansion to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel market.
Sen. Dennis Guth, who was not on the subcommittee but attended the hearing, said he worked on previous versions of the bill and developed the 90% threshold from an assessment of past public use projects, notably the Avenue of the Saints and local electric transmission lines, that he said were able to gather more than 90% voluntary participation.
Guth is also one author of Senate File 92, a bill that would explicitly exclude pipelines transporting liquified carbon dioxide from the right to eminent domain. This bill has been assigned to a subcommittee but has not had a scheduled hearing.
Pipeline opponents decry exclusion of Summit project from restrictions
Jess Mazour with the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club said she would rather see the language in SF 92 than the 90% threshold in SSB 1166.
Mazour, who has been an opponent of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, registered undecided on the bill because it would not impact the carbon sequestration pipeline project that has already received conditional approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission.
“We strongly believe that Summit does not deserve to be protected,” Mazour said. “And if the contents of this bill are considered good policy for future projects, then it should be good policy for Summit too.”
Boeyink said he appreciated that the bill recognized that “land rights shouldn’t be different based on the kind of project you’re putting forward” and that it did not single out carbon dioxide pipelines.
Lawmakers in South Dakota passed a bill Tuesday that would prohibit eminent domain use for carbon pipelines. The bill goes to the governor’s desk but it is unknown how the governor will fall on the bill. The Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline would also cross through South Dakota under its current route.
SSB 1166 would also allow those prospective pipeline operators to contact landowners within five miles of the proposed project location to try to obtain voluntary easements.
Mazour and several landowners who spoke at the subcommittee were concerned by the five-mile corridor, which they said would put more landowners “in limbo” while operators and the IUC work out exact routes within the corridors.
The bill would also increase the surety bond for applicants who must prove they have property in the state aside from the project, valuing more than $1 million, or they must file and maintain a $1 million bond with the commission. This would be an increase from previous requirements for pipeline operators, which required property or a bond valued at $250,000.
Mazour said the amount was “woefully inadequate” in reference to the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline.
The bill also stipulates that pipeline projects must be at least eight feet underground unless otherwise negotiated with landowners.
Sinclair with Land of the Free Action said this was a “step in the right direction” to bring safety standards for pipelines closer to updated guidelines from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA.
The bill obligates the commission to adopt restoration practices for agricultural lands following the installation of transmission lines or pipelines, allows landowners to claim damages related to crop deficiencies within an easement strip when renegotiating their claims and it states that landowners are not liable for damages that happen to a project.
Utility advocates raise concerns about transmission, road restrictions
Chaz Allen, on behalf of the Iowa Utility Association, registered undecided on the bill but noted the potential impacts it would have on electric transmission, which he said is “not just a public use, but an essential service.”
“If electric transmission were no longer considered a public use, it could lead to grid instability, higher energy costs, delays in energy expansion and economic harm,” Allen said.
Sen. Matt Blake, D-Urbandale, said the inclusion of roads, electric transmission and internet lines in the bill were a bit of a “poison pill” to advancing the legislation. Blake said he’d prefer to strike those portions out in an amendment.
“I struggle with the idea of trying to handicap some things that are truly public good,” Blake said.
Sen. Tom Shipley, who chaired the subcommittee voted, along with Sen. Dave Rowley, to move the bill forward to committee, noting that there would likely be amendments.
“This is not the final answer on any of this, by any stretch of the imagination,” Shipley said.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.