Iowa House Bill HF368

Iowa 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/23
• Refer: 2/20/23

Caption

A bill for an act relating to specified utility construction project requirements, and including effective date and applicability provisions.(See HF 565.)

Impact

The bill has significant implications for state laws governing eminent domain, land use, and utility regulation. By requiring pipeline companies to secure at least 90 percent of the route through voluntary easements rather than relying on eminent domain, it elevates the priority of landowner negotiation in the permit process. Furthermore, by expanding the definition of 'landowner' to include farm tenants, it enhances legal protections for individuals who may not directly own the land but are affected by pipeline activities. This shift may contribute to a more equitable framework for land use in the context of utility construction projects.

Summary

House File 368 focuses on regulations related to the construction of liquefied carbon dioxide pipelines in Iowa. It aims to strengthen landowner protections by establishing stricter criteria for the issuance of construction permits. One of the notable provisions is that the Iowa utilities board will not issue a permit until the federal pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration provides updated safety standards. The bill emphasizes acquiring necessary permits from various regulatory bodies before construction can commence, thereby bolstering the requirements for pipeline companies seeking to utilize eminent domain.

Contention

Debates surrounding HF368 highlight concerns about maintaining a balance between energy infrastructure development and the rights of landowners. Supporters of the bill advocate that it provides essential safeguards against potential abuses of eminent domain, promoting responsible infrastructure development that honors landowner rights. However, critics argue that overly stringent regulations could hinder the progress of necessary energy projects and result in increased costs for utility companies, which may ultimately be passed on to consumers. The ongoing discussions underlines the tension between ecological considerations, community rights, and economic development.