Bluestem ordinarily doesn't cover national election; it's not my niche.
But I have been paying a great deal of attention to ethanol carbon pipeline proposals, including the fierce rural resistance to the use of eminent domain to put the pipelines on private land, regardless of what landowners think. It's been particularly fierce and organized here in South Dakota.
Witness the formation of South Dakotans First: a property rights coalition that plans to lobby for eminent domain restrictions.
Apparently, Republicans running for president have been paying attention to that landowner sentiment in Iowa, Jared Strong reports for the Iowa Capitol Dispatch.
GOP presidential field generally opposes eminent domain for carbon pipelines
By Jared StrongRepublican presidential contenders are generally against using eminent domain to build carbon dioxide pipelines in Iowa, according to their public statements in recent months and information their campaigns have provided to the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
The issue is a regional dispute that has gained wider attention as the candidates seek Iowans’ votes in the upcoming first-in-the-nation caucuses.
Three such pipeline have been proposed in Iowa in recent years. One of the projects failed amid regulatory setbacks but two others are pending.
Summit Carbon Solutions is the furthest along in its permitting process in Iowa. Final arguments about its permit are due next month, after which the Iowa Utilities Board will decide whether to approve the project and the company’s use of eminent domain to obtain land easements for about a quarter of its nearly 700-mile route in the state.
Many of those who oppose the project argue that eminent domain is improper because the pipeline system doesn’t serve a sufficient public benefit. There are also those who are ambivalent about the pipeline projects themselves but who still oppose their use of eminent domain.
Nearly 80% of Iowans oppose the use of eminent domain for the pipelines, according to a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll in March, and it’s an issue that is being raised at presidential campaign events.
In a July appearance in Council Bluffs, former President Donald Trump appeared unprepared to field a question about the pipeline situation.
“Well, you know, we’re working on that,” Trump said. “And you know, we had a plan to totally — it’s such a ridiculous situation isn’t it? But we had a plan, and we would have instituted that plan. It was all ready, but we will get it right away. If we win, that’s going to be taken care of. That will be one of the easy things we do.”
His campaign did not respond to a request to comment further about the issue.
Trump has a commanding lead among Iowa’s likely Republican caucusgoers, according to a recent Iowa Poll. About 51% say he is their top pick.
His closest contenders — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who are the top picks of 19% and 16% of likely voters — have said the use of eminent domain should be avoided for the projects.
“There is a narrow role for eminent domain for things that are of really significant public use,” DeSantis said in Garner in August, according to Radio Iowa. “I mean, it has been used for highways. I would use it for the border wall down south if need be, but that would be kind of last resort.”
In September, Haley told Radio Iowa she supports the pipeline concepts for their potential to help the ethanol industry but that eminent domain should not be used to build them.
“I want us to be energy dominant, and I think we do that by having an all-of-the-above energy approach, but we have to always be respectful of the rights and freedoms of hardworking Americans,” Haley said.
Summit’s pipeline system would span five states and would transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would enable the company and ethanol producers to also capture generous federal tax credits for sequestering the greenhouse gas and for producing low-carbon fuels.
Ethanol producers would further benefit from the ability to sell their fuels in low-carbon markets.
Opposition to the pipelines and the state rules that regulate them has grown over time. The Republican-controlled Iowa House of Representatives approved legislation to restrict the use of eminent domain for the projects in its last legislative session. And despite recent federal court rulings that said Iowa counties do not have the power regulate the pipeline routes, more counties are considering pipeline ordinances and are prepared for a legal fight. Kossuth County adopted such an ordinance last week.
Presidential candidate Ryan Binkley, a Texas pastor and businessman, announced his opposition to the pipeline projects in September. He called Summit’s project “a controversial approach to fight climate change with technology that has produced inconsistent results.”
“I’ve met with hundreds of people on this issue,” Binkley said. “Only one person I met with has been in favor of it, and they work for an ethanol company. A few companies stand to make a lot of money from this pipeline.”
His opposition to the projects appears to have had little effect on his support among caucusgoers. About 0% of Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa Poll respondents listed Binkley as their top pick.
Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur, is polling at 5% and recently took up the pipeline issue in opposition of eminent domain. He insinuated that the candidates he trails in the polls are reluctant to speak strongly against the projects — which he said serve no legitimate purpose — because of donations they have received from pro-pipeline groups. Similar accusations have been leveled against some of the state’s elected officials.
“Every politician dances to the tune of their biggest donor,” Ramaswamy said at an event early this month with the Free Soil Coalition.
He called for the Iowa Utilities Board to deny eminent domain for Summit’s $5.5 billion project and said the board’s ruling should be challenged in court if it doesn’t. Ramaswamy further said that, as president, he would bar the federal tax credits for companies that use eminent domain.
“These projects are illegal and unconstitutional under settled law,” he said.
The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association — which advocates for the ethanol industry and supports the pipeline projects — released a lengthy rebuttal to Ramaswamy’s position on the pipeline projects, which it said is “driven by politics” and is “just an attempt at clickbait for his campaign.”
The association said Ramaswamy’s disdain for carbon dioxide pipelines is at odds with his support for the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which was blocked by President Joe Biden.
“Keystone is a private, foreign-owned, for-profit entity that is using eminent domain to secure its route,” said Monte Shaw, the association’s executive director. “Any politician who touts support for the Keystone XL pipeline while attacking carbon pipelines in Iowa on the basis of protecting property rights is nothing more than a hypocrite.”
Candidate Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas, also said eminent domain isn’t appropriate for the projects.
“Instead, a fair negotiation process should be employed, and if landowners do not agree, pipeline builders should seek alternative routes,” Hutchinson told Iowa Capital Dispatch.
This iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, a 2024 Republican presidential candidate, has made eminent domain one of his top campaign issues in Iowa. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch).
Related posts
- Ethanol carbon pipeline update: Summit Carbon Solutions prevails over 2 Iowa county ordinances
- Poor beleaguered ethanol carbon operatives organize to escape chains of oppression
- Ethanol carbon capture update: Lincoln could become 6th county to regulate carbon pipelines
- South Dakotans First: property rights coalition plans to lobby for eminent domain restrictions.
- Final arguments for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline Iowa permit are due in January
- Critics allege CO2 pipelines ‘farm the government’ for climate $$ while helping oil industry; bills fuel debate over ethanol’s environmental impact, with climate implications
- Ethanol carbon pipeline update: Summit permit decision in Iowa not expected until next year
- If first you don't succeed: Summit's new route in North Dakota adds thirteen miles of pipeline
- Defying the odds: Meet the attorney for 1,000 clients who beat two pipeline companies
- Summit Carbon stands to benefit from Navigator's canceled pipeline, but IA opponents sue to block Summit Carbon water permit
- Cancel culture: Navigator withdraws ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Iowa
- Navigator CO2 cancels multistate pipeline project
- Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
- Some Iowa landowners were confused by Summit Carbon Solution eminent domain process
- Navigator CO2 pulls its ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Illinois
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Summit pipeline hearing will resume on Tuesday; Navigator asks Iowa regulators to pause its pipeline permit request
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Local officials in Iowa have potential to block carbon capture projects
- IA Capital Dispatch: Summit permit process in North Dakota has reached ‘uncharted waters
- North Dakota Public Service Commission votes 2-1 to reopen Summit Carbon pipeline case
- Navigator CO2 has not ‘taken any state off the map’ after SD pipeline permit rejection
- Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: reaction to denial; water use in IA; rich guy resists subpoena
- Iowa utility regulators want to finish Summit pipeline permit hearing by month’s end
- State denies Summit permit; both ethanol carbon pipelines proposed in South Dakota now rejected
- Summit Carbon Solutions forges ahead despite SD PUC staff's motion to deny pipeline permit
- SD PUC staff motion: non-mysterious portents in the air about potential denial of Summit Carbon Solution's pipeline permit application
- South Dakota Navigator pipeline decision might jeopardize Summit Carbon Solutions proposal
- Breaking: South Dakota Public Utilities Commission unanimously denies Navigator ethanol CO2 pipeline project permit
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments