Iowa House Bill HF238

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/6/25

Caption

A bill for an act relating to pipelines transporting liquefied carbon dioxide, including permit renewal and operation limitations.(See HF 780.)

Summary

House File 238 would amend Iowa’s pipeline permitting law to impose special limits on pipelines that transport liquefied carbon dioxide. While current law already bars the Iowa Utilities Commission from issuing pipeline permits for more than 25 years, this bill goes further by prohibiting the commission from renewing permits for liquefied carbon dioxide pipelines at all. It also states that no liquefied carbon dioxide pipeline may operate for longer than 25 years. In practical terms, the bill targets carbon dioxide pipeline projects by creating a stricter regulatory framework than the one applied to pipelines generally. The measure would affect the Iowa Utilities Commission’s permitting authority and would likely influence the planning, financing, and long-term viability of carbon capture and carbon dioxide transport infrastructure in the state.

Impact

The bill would amend Iowa Code section 479B.14 governing pipeline permits. It would not change the general 25-year cap on pipeline permits, but it would add a categorical ban on permit renewal for pipelines transporting liquefied carbon dioxide and a separate 25-year operational limit for those pipelines. The affected parties would include pipeline companies, landowners along proposed routes, the Iowa Utilities Commission, and industries relying on carbon capture and CO2 transport projects.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill had at least some support in committee, with a 20-1 House Judiciary Committee report approving it. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader arguments for or against the measure. The committee vote indicates the bill was generally viewed favorably by most members at that stage, though not unanimously.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s targeted restriction on liquefied carbon dioxide pipelines, which could be seen by supporters as a needed limit on long-term pipeline operation and by opponents as a barrier to carbon capture infrastructure and related economic development. The single dissenting committee vote suggests at least one member objected to the approach, but no transcript is available to identify the specific concern. The bill’s focus on preventing permit renewal, rather than simply maintaining the existing 25-year cap, is the most notable policy change and likely the central source of disagreement.