GOP advances setting high thresholds for CO2 pipelines

DES MOINES — Dozens of landowners and activists Tuesday swarmed the Iowa Capitol, asking lawmakers to ban eminent domain authority for proposed carbon dioxide pipelines as lawmakers advanced a bill that opponents say would be a “de facto ban” on the projects -- and the bane of the state’s ethanol industry.

House lawmakers advanced House File 368 out of a subcommittee with only Republican support. The bill would require CO2 pipeline companies to obtain 90 percent of the miles along their path through voluntary easements before being granted eminent domain powers to force an easement. The bill also would place a moratorium on projects until the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration develops new rules that govern the hazardous pipelines.

On top of that, companies would need to be in line with all local zoning ordinances and obtain permits in all other states along the pipeline’s path before being granted a permit from the Iowa Utilities Board. Landowners would also have more opportunity for compensation if eminent domain is exercised on their land.

The bill is signed by 22 Republican House lawmakers, including Speaker Pat Grassley.

Activists lobby for full ban

Activists gathered for a rally alongside sympathetic lawmakers. They said the House bill was an improvement on the permitting and eminent domain process for CO2 pipelines, but they said it doesn’t go far enough. Kim Junker, a landowner from Butler County, said she wants to see a complete ban on eminent domain power for the projects.

“Our Legislature created the law that gave the Iowa Utilities Board the power to use eminent domain, and the Legislature can take it away,” Junker said.

If the bill setting a 90 percent threshold goes forward, Junker said, it should be set at 90 parcels -- not miles. Measuring by miles disadvantages small landowners, she said.

Other lawmakers have proposed more drastic measures. Sen. Jeff Taylor, R-Sioux Center, has filed bills that would ban eminent domain authority for the projects, restrict surveying practices for the pipelines and require pipelines requesting eminent domain to disclose investors. Taylor said at the rally it has been an “uphill climb” to get his bills scheduled for public hearings, but he said the House bill would be an improvement.

“If we can’t get a total ban on eminent domain, we would still have a win if that House bill moves forward as is currently written,” Taylor said.

Pipeline companies oppose the bill

The House bill would potentially slow or stop the permitting of three carbon capture pipelines being proposed in the state. Summit Carbon Solutions’ Midwest Carbon Express would stretch across 680 miles in northern, western and central Iowa. Navigator CO2 Ventures’ Heartland Greenway proposes 900 miles from the northwest to southeast corners of the state, with offshoots along the way. Wolf Carbon Solutions has proposed a pipeline that covers four counties -- including Linn -- in Eastern Iowa.

The projects are planned to capture CO2 emitted by ethanol plants and send it to reservoirs deep underground in North Dakota and Illinois. They would take advantage of federal tax credits and open ethanol to new markets.

The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association is a key supporter of the pipelines and argues they are vital to the continued survival of ethanol production in the state. In a statement Monday, the organization’s executive director, Monte Shaw, said the bill unfairly targets carbon dioxide capture pipelines over other liquid pipelines.

“This bill singles out for destruction the single most important technology we have to keep liquid fuels like ethanol competitive with electric vehicles in the rapidly growing low-carbon transportation markets,” Shaw said.

Jake Ketzner, a lobbyist for Summit Carbon Solutions, said at the subcommittee hearing that the projects are a lifeline not only for ethanol, but for Iowa agriculture.

“Why is our project so important? Because carbon capture makes ethanol competitive not just for the next several years, but for decades to come,” Ketzner said.

Rep. Steven Holt, a Republican from Denison and one of the bill’s sponsors, said he opposes the use of eminent domain for the private projects -- not the ethanol industry.

“I have no problem with the pipeline,” Holt said. “I do have a problem with the blunt force of government being used to seize other people’s property for this project.”

A draft version of the bill circulating last week would have exempted many of the rules from applying to Summit and Navigator because they have already filed permit requests. Holt maintained the language was a mistake, and the version that advanced Tuesday applies to all three pipeline companies.

The bill is now eligible for consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Holt, who chairs the committee, said he was optimistic about it passing the House.

Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver did not indicate if the Senate would take it up.

“Several policies have been proposed on this subject in both chambers,” he said. “The legislative process will determine which of those policies have enough support to advance over the next several weeks.“