Latest news with #CharleyThomson
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa Republican tensions mount following Reynolds' pipeline bill veto
Rep. Charley Thomson chats with attendees at a rally against CO2 pipelines at the Iowa Capitol Mar. 18, 2025. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch) The issue of eminent domain as it pertains to a carbon sequestration pipeline project in Iowa has put Republicans at odds with one another, but Gov. Kim Reynolds' Wednesday decision to veto a bill on the issue has amplified the tensions. On a call with landowners opposed to the pipeline project and upset by the veto, Rep. Steven Holt, a Republican from Denison and one of the lawmakers leading eminent domain and pipeline-related legislation, said there will be 'consequences for the governor's agenda' moving forward. 'The governor's lack of leadership is why we are where we are today, and it will affect her agenda going forward until the end of her term,' Holt said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Landowners on the call were similarly upset by Reynolds' decision, following years of silence on the issue. Peg Rasmussen, who owns land in Montgomery County, said 'a true leader steps in when a problem arises' but 'Reynolds did nothing.' 'The legacy you leave behind is one of bowing down to big business at the expense of Iowans,' Rasmussen said. Tensions around eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines have risen in response to proposed projects in Iowa. Three projects, Navigator CO2, Wolf Carbon Solutions and Summit Carbon Solutions have sought to build carbon sequestration pipelines through Iowa. The first two projects were withdrawn, but the Summit project received a permit from the Iowa Utilities Commission in June 2024 and has more than 1,300 voluntary easements signed for the project. Landowners opposed to the pipelines have lobbied for four years against the projects, and in particular their ability to use eminent domain. This year lawmakers narrowly passed House File 639 to change the definition of a common carrier for hazardous liquid pipelines, increase insurance requirements, set permit limits and add requirements to the IUC. Opponents of the bill said it changed the rules in the middle of the game, had unintended consequences to critical energy infrastructure and would stop Iowa from leading the nation in biofuels production. Landowners also directed their animosity towards Republican lawmakers who opposed the bill, namely at senators who failed to take up the issue for four years, then argued House File 639 was a bad bill. 'The fight for private property rights will continue,' Rasmussen, who was part of a group of landowners regularly lobbying at the State Capitol, said. 'Iowa legislators and Gov. Reynolds, we'll see you at the Capitol in 2026, and we can't wait to tell our legislators how we feel about their votes in the 2026 election.' Holt said the 'leadership void' from the governor and 'civil war' among Senate Republicans has exposed the difference between 'country club Republicans' and 'grassroots Republicans.' Rep. Charley Thomson, a Republican from Charles City who wrote the now-vetoed HF 639, and who, with Holt, has led much of the legislation on the issue, said the opposing Republicans are part of the 'anything-for-a-buck 'wing' of the party' and don't represent the 'vast majority' of Iowa Republicans. 'In the governor's view, constitutional rights, such as eminent domain protections, should not be allowed to interfere with schemes to make money, especially if those schemes are being promoted by her friends, supporters, and contributors,' Thomson wrote in a statement. Bruce Rastetter, founder of Summit Agricultural Group, which started Summit Carbon Solutions, has been a top campaign contributor to Reynolds' campaigns, sparking some of the criticism leveled at the governor. In her explanation of the veto decision, Reynolds wrote the bill had 'vague legal standards' and would impact projects beyond just the use of eminent domain. Reynolds cited the permit limits clause in the bill and increased requirements for insurance as setting a precedent that 'threatens' the state's business reputation. Senate President Amy Sinclair had the same beliefs on the bill. In a recent appearance on Iowa Press, Sinclair said HF 639 'was not a property owners rights bill' but rather a bill 'that's just going to facilitate activists.' 'To say I was a person who opposed property rights, that's 100% false,' Sinclair said on the show. Sinclair and other Republicans who were opposed to HF 639 voted for a re-write amendment to the bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, that would have allowed companies to avoid eminent domain and instead pursue voluntary easements outside of the project corridor. It also would have held operators responsible for damage to the land for the project's lifetime. Thomson said Reynolds' stated concerns were a 'polite window-dressing' for the governor's 'real message' that she will 'veto any bill that Summit Carbon Solutions dislikes.' In reaction to the veto, Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, vowed during a Radio Iowa interview to 'work to kill every single piece of legislation that has [Reynolds'] name on it.' The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment on the attacks from lawmakers. Summit Carbon Solutions, in a statement following the veto, said it looks forward to 'continued discussions with state leaders' as the project advances. Thomson and Holt said they are supportive of House Speaker Pat Grassley's call to petition for a special session in order to override the veto of the bill. The motion for a special session, and to override the veto, would require support from both chambers, which Senate majority leadership indicated Wednesday would be unlikely. Corey Cerwinske, a Bremer County Supervisor attending the virtual press conference, said lawmakers should introduce articles of impeachment on the governor for her 'malfeasance.' Holt said while the veto 'may violate' the constitutional rights of Iowans, the governor's action 'probably doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.' In her veto explanation, Reynolds asked the Iowa Utilities Commission to implement a section of the bill that required attendance at informational meetings and during live testimony. This was a problem brought up by landowners and lawmakers during the proceedings for the Summit Carbon Solutions permit. They alleged IUC would send representatives to meetings rather than commissioners, and that all three commissioners were not present during live testimony. The IUC in a Thursday press release said it 'fully supports' the 'transparency goals' the governor requested and 'will begin implementing' the practices. The release said the commission will also reinstate its public, monthly commission meetings beginning in August. 'The IUC remains dedicated to fair, transparent, and accountable governance of Iowa's energy and utility infrastructure,' the statement read. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
Reps. Charley Thomson, right, R-Charles City and Helena Hayes, R-New Sharon, spoke about legislation to regulate or limit the use of eminent domain in carbon capture pipeline projects at a Feb. 6, 2025 news conference. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) A coalition of House lawmakers introduced a package of six bills Thursday aimed creating restrictions on the construction of a carbon capture pipeline in Iowa. Flanked by anti-pipeline activists, Reps. Charley Thomson, Helena Hayes, Mark Cisneros and Cindy Golding spoke about the legislative proposals at a news conference Thursday morning. The proposals, a total of six bills, seek to put new regulations on the Iowa Utilities Commission's roles and oversight of pipeline projects, as well as on the exercise of eminent domain. The measures come as lawmakers seek to limit the Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed pipeline that would transport carbon dioxide from capture facilities, largely ethanol plants, to underground storage in North Dakota. The IUC approved Summit's permit in August 2024, a decision that granted the company use of eminent domain. However, Summit is not allowed to begin construction until the project is approved in other states including South Dakota, where the pipeline proposal has received significant pushback from lawmakers and property owners, as well as faced hurdles gaining state approval. The legislation introduced include House File 238, a measure prohibiting the IUC from renewing permits for pipelines transporting liquid carbon dioxide; House File 242, allowing for landowners impacted by eminent domain takings to seek a declaratory review in court, and House File 240, requiring companies seeking hazardous liquid pipeline permits to show evidence they have insurance or surety to cover damages that could result from the construction or operation of a pipeline, as well as purchasing insurance or reimbursing people who have increased insurance premiums or who are not able to obtain insurance because of the project. The suite of measures comes from the Republican Legislative Intervenors for Justice, a group of House GOP lawmakers that has taken other actions to stop the pipeline construction, like filing lawsuits claiming the IUC acted unconstitutionally and illegally when approving the Summit permit. Thomson, R-Charles City, said the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is poised to take federal action heightening safety requirements for carbon dioxide pipelines, and some of these bills were an effort to address concerns with the Iowa commission's permitting and evaluation process. 'We see that the IUC made a number of errors on safety,' Thomson said. 'We know that they made errors on constitutionality issues. This is to address … some of the problems that we saw in the IUC's process that may have led to those errors.' Thomson also introduced legislation, approved in a subcommittee meeting Wednesday, that would prohibit the IUB from considering climate change when issuing a pipeline permit. Speakers at the news conference advocating against the pipeline construction said carbon capture pipelines pose health and safety risks to people who live near the project. Dan Tronchetti, a Greene County resident, said though landowners were told that CO2 pipelines are safe, he said he has since learned his home is in the 'kill zone' for the pipeline if problems were to occur. 'With an eight-inch pipeline operating at 2,100 PSI, the kill zone would be 1,800 feet, and you would be dead in less than four minutes,' Tronchetti said. 'Your internal combustion engine in your car or pickup will not run because the CO2 takes the oxygen out of the air. And so with my front door, 1,150 feet from the pipeline, that's a major concern. I might go to sleep one night in my bed, and that would be the end of me.' Advocates in support of the project have said there are risks associated with CO2 pipelines, but that the transportation method is overwhelmingly safe. 'Direct injection of CO2 through pipelines is one of the safest and most efficient methods of transporting and sequestering carbon,' American Carbon Alliance CEO Tom Buis said in a statement on the proposed PHMSA rules. 'Pipelines have a proven track record of safety and reliability, minimizing the risks associated with other forms of CO2 transportation.' These bills are not the first effort by House Republicans to pass legislation limiting pipeline construction. The House passed an measure allowing landowners subject to eminent domain requests by carbon dioxide pipeline companies to file earlier requests in court challenging the requests, and in 2023 approved a bill restricting pipeline companies' ability to use eminent domain. However, these bills have consistently failed to gain traction in the Iowa Senate. Thomson said he was 'disappointed that the Senate has not given, in my view, adequate consideration to this issue.' However, he said he felt confident the legislation proposed for the 2025 session would move forward. Though 'well-monied interests' in the state want the Summit project to move forward, he said Iowans and property owners are calling for action on the issue. 'The Senate, the other branches of the government can do what they do, but the people of Iowa demand an answer on this,' he said. 'This is not going to go away. We're not going to go anywhere. We're going to get this thing done. We're going to protect the constitutional rights of Iowans.' Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a statement Thursday that not all Iowans support stopping the Summit pipeline, saying the proposed legislation would 'destroy Iowa farmers' ability to compete in growing, low carbon biofuels markets in the U.S. and around the world.' 'This muddle of bills is a slap in the face to the supermajority of Iowa landowners who support carbon capture pipelines,' Shaw said in a statement. 'At a time when farm income has declined by $90 billion, we should be helping Iowa farmers access new and growing markets, not choking off their ability to participate. These actions represent wrong policy at the wrong time.' Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner said Democrats are largely in support of these legislative proposals and called for Republicans to allow the measures to be brought forward for the chamber's consideration. 'We'll see this year with some new senators, if any — particularly among our Republican colleagues — if anything changes with that,' Weiner said. 'I personally support property rights, but I can't tell you what my colleagues would do. But … I think that really, Iowans deserve, at least, to be able to see a vote take place.' House Speaker Pat Grassley said some of the bills may be rolled together into larger bills as the session moves forward, but expects they will advance in some form through the House. Whether the Senate chooses to take action on pipelines this year is less certain, he said. He said there are issues within the House proposals he is hopeful 'would at least get some level of consideration' in the Senate, but also said he would like to see the Senate take up its own proposals on how to tackle these issues. 'What I've been saying on eminent domain is, I'd love to see a situation where there is bills in the House, kind of like what we just talked about, and also some potential bills having activity in the Senate,' Grassley said. 'Even if they don't agree with one another, just knowing that there's bills moving through the process, I think would be an optimistic sign to be able to get some things done.'
