Iowa House Bill HF2228

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/26

Caption

A bill for an act relating to the installation of transmission lines on highway rights-of-way.(Formerly HF 736.)

Summary

HF 2228 would change Iowa law governing utility accommodation on highway rights-of-way, with a specific focus on transmission lines. It requires the Department of Transportation (DOT), upon written request from a utility infrastructure owner, to coordinate with utility or transmission line developers to review highway corridors for possible transmission line locations. The DOT would also have to assign a project coordinator within 30 days and share known plans for future highway projects that could affect transmission line siting. The bill also amends the DOT’s utility accommodation rules to expressly allow longitudinal transmission line installations on primary road rights-of-way, including interstate rights-of-way, when requested by a utility infrastructure owner, unless the DOT finds that the installation would threaten public safety or interfere with the highway’s proper function and public use. If the DOT requires a permit, it must act on the application within 30 days. If an installation is denied, the DOT must publicly state the reasons for denial within 90 days.

Impact

The bill would expand the statutory framework in Iowa Code chapter 306 by creating a formal coordination process for transmission line siting along highway corridors and by limiting the DOT’s discretion to deny longitudinal transmission line installations on primary and interstate rights-of-way. It would also require the DOT’s utility accommodation rules to be at least as stringent as standards adopted by the utilities commission under chapters 478, 479, and 479B, while preserving the commission’s authority over utility routing decisions. The practical effect would be to make highway rights-of-way more available for transmission infrastructure, subject to safety and highway-function limits, and to impose new timing and transparency requirements on DOT permit and denial decisions.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been framed as a coordination and infrastructure-siting measure rather than a controversial regulatory overhaul, and the available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes indicating strong public opposition or support. Its language suggests a policy goal of facilitating transmission development and reducing uncertainty for utilities and developers. However, the fact that the bill was ultimately withdrawn indicates it did not advance to enactment, regardless of any underlying support for improved coordination.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to have been the balance between facilitating transmission line development and preserving DOT control over highway safety, highway function, and public use. The bill narrows the DOT’s ability to refuse longitudinal transmission line installations, which could concern transportation officials, local governments, or highway users worried about encroachment on rights-of-way. At the same time, utilities and transmission developers would likely favor the bill’s mandatory coordination, deadline for permit action, and public explanation requirement for denials, because those provisions reduce delay and increase predictability.