HF639 has just been vetoed by Governor Reynolds. Before we jump to conclusions, we should try to understand her reservations. Many people have characterized this issue as either “pro-pipeline” or “anti-pipeline” but this oversimplification does not do the topic justice.
HF639 attempted to create a new definition for a “common carrier” that includes all hazardous liquid pipelines and not just carbon specifically. Hazardous liquid is defined in code as crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquified petroleum gases, anhydrous ammonia, liquid fertilizer, liquified carbon dioxide, alcohols, and coal slurries. Additionally, within this bill, there is a new definition for commodity, which is defined in the bill as “a product by an individual consumer or is used to produce a product used by an individual consumer.” If signed into law, the new commodity definition alone would shut down a project by Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy that has reportedly received 100% voluntary easements to move forward with construction. While many may agree with this heavy-handed approach, one can see why there would be more political opponents pressuring the Governor to veto this bill than just Summit Carbon Solutions. Many legislators do not feel it is responsible for us to step in between the contract of two private entities and this feeling is obviously shared by the Governor in her response. I’ve heard many House members who initially supported the bill that did not understand these facts and are now silently in opposition to HF639 and desire a new solution and approach.
What is my response to her veto? We must allow reason, not emotion, to rule the day. I believe we should create a new bill that would just concern carbon, give carbon companies more room to find voluntary easements, and remove their option for eminent domain. This more tactful approach would result in a responsible bill that the vast majority can support.
Carbon sequestration is a complex issue that has been created and incentivized by the federal government, not by the state legislature, but the state has the ability and responsibility to protect the rights of our landowners. Carbon is not a public utility like other products and as a result should not be given the use of eminent domain. This is a unifying opinion that is supported by the Constitution. If that common ground can be found, I ask that leadership call a special session to make sure this approach is taken to produce a bill as soon as possible to settle this issue once and for all.
The House is calling for a special session to override the Governor’s veto on HF 639. While there may be the required 2/3 support for this in the House, there is not 2/3 support in the Senate that is also required. If we call a special session to pass a new bill, I’m optimistic there would be 2/3 support in both chambers. If nothing is done, I’m afraid landowners will have to needlessly sit and wait in uncertainty until next session for their leaders to all humble ourselves to address this issue.
