June 11, 2025

The Honorable Paul Pate

Secretary of State of Iowa

State Capitol Building

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I hereby transmit House File 639, an Act relating to hazardous liquid pipelines, including common carrier requirements, proceedings under the Iowa utilities commission, including commission member attendance at hearings and informational meetings, including allowing certain persons to intervene in such proceedings, including sanctions on intervenors in contested cases, and permit, permit renewal, and operation limitations, and including effective date and applicability provisions.

Reasonable people can — and do — disagree about when government, or a private company acting with government approval, should be allowed to take private land. That debate is as old as the Republic. At its core, it asks how we protect individual property rights while still building the infrastrncture — roads, utilities, pipelines — that modern life depends on.

I respect both sides of that debate. I’ve consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair, and a last resort.

But HF 639 isn’t just about eminent domain. It goes much further — and in doing so, sets a troubling precedent that threatens Iowa’s energy reliability, economy, and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.

For example, the bill would block a major pipeline project that uses only voluntary easements. Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy (SIRE) is in the final stages of connecting to a CO2 pipeline with not a single acre condemned. Yet new insurance mandates and an arbitrary 25-year limit that HF 639 places on CO2 pipelines would effectively kill the Project — despite the millions that have already been spent on its development. There is no clear or logical basis for that time limit — and it would make it difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment.

I understand this was not the intent. Those who crafted the bill said they don’t want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary agreements. But that is exactly what the bill does. For that reason alone, I cannot sign it.

Proponents of the bill have also voiced safety concerns about CO2 pipelines. I raised those same concerns with the Trump Administration’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) under the Department ofTranspo1iation, which “oversees the safety of roughly 5,300 miles of CO2 pipelines that have been in operation for decades.” PHMSA assured me that CO2 pipelines are subject to “robust regulations” and “have an excellent safety performance record.” In the last 20 years, there has only been “one serious incident and no fatalities,” and the “one serious incident was the result of third party damage and was not related to pipeline operations.” (PHMSA letter enclosed). Editor’s note: Not included here.

But more broadly, the bill affects more than just CO2 infrastructure. It applies to all “hazardous liquid pipelines,” changing permitting rules across the board and injecting uncertainty into critical energy projects. That includes oil, gas, and fertilizer pipelines — the very systems that heat Iowa homes and power Iowa farms.

While I share the bill’s goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn’t. It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.

Iowa leads the nation in biofuels. We are at the forefront of turning corn into low-carbon energy — a leadership position we risk losing if we block the infrastructure that makes it possible. Other Midwestern states, like Nebraska, Illinois, and North Dakota are already moving forward with carbon-capture projects that would put Iowa at a competitive disadvantage if this bill became law.

That said, this debate has highlighted areas where real progress is possible. I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration. While HF 639 includes a few helpful provisions, the legislature debated-and ultimately declined-to adopt others that would have delivered meaningful reform.

We can do better. And I’m committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property. In the meantime, though, I will ask the Iowa Utilities Commission to implement two important improvements immediately: requiring all commissioners to be present for live testimony, and ensuring that at least one commissioner attends every informational meeting. These changes — drawn from HF 639 — will improve oversight and transparency now, without the need for new legislation.

For these reasons, I must respectfully disapprove House File 639 in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Kim Reynolds

Governor of lowa