Iowa House Bill HF240

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/6/25

Caption

A bill for an act relating to insurance requirements for the granting of a hazardous liquid pipeline permit.(See HF 639.)

Summary

House File 240 would add a new insurance-related condition to the process for obtaining a hazardous liquid pipeline permit in Iowa. Before the Iowa Utilities Commission could grant a permit, the applicant would have to provide evidence of a surety bond or insurance policy sufficient to cover damages from construction and operation of the pipeline, including losses from negligent or intentional discharges, injury to affected property, and diminution in real property value. The bill also addresses downstream insurance impacts on nearby property owners. If a person cannot obtain insurance, or faces higher premiums because of the pipeline’s presence or construction, the pipeline owner would be required to either buy insurance on that person’s behalf or reimburse the increased premium costs. The measure was later withdrawn and was linked to HF 639.

Impact

HF 240 would have amended Iowa Code chapter 479B by creating a new section, 479B.13A, imposing additional financial assurance requirements on hazardous liquid pipeline permit applicants. It would have expanded the permit review process for the Iowa Utilities Commission by requiring proof of coverage for construction- and operation-related damages before a permit could be issued. It also would have created a direct obligation on pipeline owners to address insurance unavailability or premium increases experienced by affected persons, potentially shifting costs from neighboring landowners to pipeline operators.

Sentiment

The limited voting history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment toward the bill’s concept, with the House Committee on Commerce reporting it 20-1. That margin indicates broad support for stronger financial protections tied to pipeline permitting, though not unanimous agreement. The bill was ultimately withdrawn, so it did not advance to enactment in this form.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the scope and cost of the insurance obligations imposed on pipeline applicants and owners. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to ensure full compensation for property damage and insurance-related harms associated with hazardous liquid pipelines, while the lone dissent in committee suggests at least one member had concerns about the breadth of liability, the feasibility of obtaining such coverage, or the burden placed on pipeline development. The requirement to cover increased premiums or purchase insurance for affected third parties is especially notable as a potentially expansive and unusual obligation.