Apparently, Iowa Governor Reynolds' veto of the carbon pipeline eminent domain law comes at the cost of Republican harmony in her state.
Sort of reminds me of South Dakota before the 2024 Republican primary.
From Iowa Capital Dispatch.
Iowa Republican tensions mount following Reynolds’ pipeline bill veto
by Cami KoonsLawmakers say her decision will impact their support of her agenda
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.
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.
Landowners also directed their animosity toward 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 expressed 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.”
IUC announces plans for ‘increased commissioner engagement’
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.
Background:
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.
Photo: Rep. Charley Thomson chats with attendees at a rally against CO2 pipelines at the Iowa Capitol March 18, 2025. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch).
This Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts
- Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines’ use of eminent domain
- IA Gov. Kim Reynolds disappoints landowners, vetoes eminent domain, carbon pipeline bill
- Low-carbon jet fuel executive says company could ‘copy and paste’ South Dakota plan to North Dakota site
- Commentary: We deserve better than costly, wasteful carbon capture schemes
- Federal appellate court upholds decisions favoring Summit over county pipeline ordinances
- Landowners urge IA Governor Reynolds to pass bill limiting eminent domain for CO2 pipelines
- Controversial pipeline provision removed from budget reconciliation bill as expected, group says
- Anti-pipeline activists cheer expected removal of federal permit preemption from reconciliation bill
- Federal overreach: Will Congress trample on state laws protecting property rights against ethanol carbon pipelines
- Two lawsuits against Summit Carbon Solutions allowed to advance in ND; a third case is pending
- Iowa Senate passes bill restricting eminent domain for ethanol carbon pipelines
- Missing in MNReformer coverage of sustainable aviation fuel: industry groups & fuel stocks
- Why hasn’t a carbon pipeline bill come to Iowa's Senate floor? Lawmakers blame opposing parties
- South Dakota regulators deny ethanol carbon pipeline permit again; company vows to reapply
- CO2 storage law challenged in North Dakota Supreme Court hearing
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commission says ethanol carbon pipeline company must show a path forward to keep permit application active
- Carbon pipeline company files for pause or dismissal of legal fights in South Dakota
- Ethanol carbon pipeline company seeks dismissals of North Dakota court challenges
- CURE wants 45Q tax credit gone; Iowa state representative calls on Summit Carbon Solutions to pull ethanol carbon pipeline application
- Ethanol leaders see irony in Governor Larry Rhoden's ‘Open for Opportunity’ visit after eminent domain ban for carbon pipelines
- Iowa opponents push for a ban on eminent domain for ethanol carbon pipelines
- South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden signed eminent domain ban on carbon pipelines
- South Dakota Legislature passes eminent domain ban for carbon pipelines
- Carbon pipeline eminent domain ban advances to South Dakota House; ‘compromise’ bill gutted
- SD House: carbon capture pipeline moratorium and land-agent regulations advance, while environmental analysis bill fails
- SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain, enviro studies for carbon pipelines
- CURE action alert: carbon pipelines & CCS not Minnesota's answer to a carbon free future
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic
- Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements
- State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
- Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
- Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
- Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
- Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
- Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
- Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week
- Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
- Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
- Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
- 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
- Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
- Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
- North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision
- Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
- Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
- North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
- Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
- Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
- Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
- Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
- U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
- Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
- North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
- North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
- SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
- In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters
- CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
- Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
- Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question
- Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
- Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
- Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
- VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
- Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
- Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
- Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota
- Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
- Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
- South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
- Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
- Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
- Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
- South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
- South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
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