logo
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds rejects GOP bill to increase regulations on carbon dioxide pipeline

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds rejects GOP bill to increase regulations on carbon dioxide pipeline

CBS News11-06-2025
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse.
The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state.
But in the Senate, it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. It also provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs.
Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota.
The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges.
The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company.
Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline.
As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there.
The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches.
Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well.
But as debate in the state Senate seemed inevitable, dozens of Summit employees and leaders and members of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and labor unions made a big showing as well.
The pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market.
The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits.
Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a May 12 statement after the vote that a majority of the Iowa Senate "turned their back on Iowa agriculture."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Justice Kagan Won 70% of the Time
Justice Kagan Won 70% of the Time

Wall Street Journal

time15 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Justice Kagan Won 70% of the Time

Here's a figure that might surprise: Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court's leading liberal, was in the majority of 70% of this term's non-unanimous outcomes. To compare, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, stout conservatives, were each at 62%, tied with Justice Sonia Sotomayor. They were a tick above Justice Neil Gorsuch's 61%. That's according to the end-of-term statistics compiled by the website SCOTUSblog. Also notable: 42% of rulings this year were unanimous, which is down slightly from the past two years, but it isn't far from the average of the past two decades. Another 24% of cases produced lopsided decisions, 8-1 and 7-2 (or else 7-1 with a recusal).

Trump Floats a Mass Deportation ‘Temporary Pass'
Trump Floats a Mass Deportation ‘Temporary Pass'

Wall Street Journal

time15 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Trump Floats a Mass Deportation ‘Temporary Pass'

If you're confused about the Trump Administration's mass deportation policy, join the club. First it was the full Stephen Miller, deporting every illegal in the land. Then there was going to be a reprieve for the agriculture and hospitality industries, then it was back to the full Miller. On Sunday the President said he now wants a 'temporary pass' for some businesses. 'I don't back away,' Mr. Trump said on Fox News Sunday Morning Futures. 'What I do have, I cherish our farmers. And when we go into a farm and we take away people that have been working there for 15 and 20 years, who were good, who possibly came in incorrectly. And what we're going to do is we're going to do something for farmers where we can let the farmer sort of be in charge. The farmer knows he's not going to hire a murderer.' He's right about that. Employers need good workers, and it's crazy policy for the U.S. government to raid businesses in order to drag away someone who arrived here illegally but has been a reliable employee for years. 'But you know, when you go into a farm and you set somebody working with them for nine years doing this kind of work, which is hard work to do and a lot of people aren't going to do it, and you end up destroying a farmer because you took all the people away—it's a problem,' Mr. Trump added. 'You know, I'm on both sides of the thing. I'm the strongest immigration guy that there's ever been, but I'm also the strongest farmer guy that there's ever been, and that includes also hotels and, you know, places where people work, a certain group of people work.'

The Great Budget Baseline Con
The Great Budget Baseline Con

Wall Street Journal

time15 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

The Great Budget Baseline Con

The Senate on Monday began its 'vote-a-rama' on amendments to the tax bill, and it was scheduled to go deep in the night. But before we see the final product, it's worth rehearsing one more time one of the greatest distortions of this budget debate—to wit, that the Senate bill is a fiscal blowout because it will increase the federal deficit by $3.3 trillion over 10 years. That's the official Congressional Budget Office 'score' of the bill, but it's only true if you assume that Congress was going to tolerate a $4.5 trillion tax increase. That would be the result if the 2017 tax reform expired at the end of this year, as most of the individual tax provisions are scheduled to do. Congress was never going to allow that. Even Democrats support extending most of the 2017 individual cuts except the lower 37% top marginal rate. Senate Republicans correctly argue that the bill's cost should be measured against a more realistic baseline, which assumes that existing tax rates and policy continue. In any rational world, changes in the law would be scored against current policy. But in Washington they are scored against CBO's current-law 'baseline,' which assumes that the 2017 tax cuts will expire. Voila, $3.3 trillion in new deficits over 10 years.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store