The Iowa House of Representatives has secured the number of signatures needed to convene a special legislative session with the goal of overriding Gov. Kim Reynold’s recent veto of an eminent domain bill impacting carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects within the state, according to a June 17 announcement issued by Iowa House Republicans.&nbsp;The controversial bill, H.F. 639, was introduced in February. The Iowa House of Representatives voted 85 to 10 in favor of the bill in March. The Iowa Senate passed more narrowly approved the bill by a vote of 27 to 22 in May.&nbsp;Reynolds on June 11 vetoed the bill, citing vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets. &nbsp;While language included in H.F. 639 did not create an outright ban on CCS projects, provisions of the bill would have effectively prevented the development of such projects within the state.&nbsp;The legislation aimed to create new restrictions governing the use of eminent domain for CO2 pipeline projects. It would have also impacted CO2 pipeline projects that achieved 100% voluntary easements by establishing new permitting restrictions that would have made it difficult for a project to remain economically viable.Reynolds issued an extensive veto message detailing her decision to block the bill. &nbsp;“Reasonable people can-and do-disagree about when government, or a private company acting with government approval, should be allowed to take private land,” Reynolds wrote. “That debate is as old as the Republic. At its core, it asks how we protect individual property rights while still building the infrastructure-roads, utilities, pipelines-that modern life depends on.&nbsp;“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.&nbsp;“But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain,” she continued. “It goes much further—and in doing so, sets a troubling precedent that threatens Iowa's energy reliability, economy, and reputation a place where businesses can invest with confidence.”For example, she explained that the bill would block CO2 pipeline projects that use only voluntary easements, including a project at Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy that is in the final stages of development. The bill’s attempt to implement new insurance mandates and an arbitrary 25-year limit on CO2 pipelines would effectively kill projects like the one SIRE is developing, she wrote.“I understand this was not the intent,” Reynolds wrote. “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.”Reynolds also addresses safety concerns expressed by proponents of the bill, noting that CO2 pipelines are already subject to robust regulations established by the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and that such pipelines have an excellent safety performance record.&nbsp;The bill’s impact would not be limited to CO2 pipeline projects, as its provisions apply to all hazardous liquid pipelines. Those provisions would change permitting rules across the board and inject uncertainty into critical energy projects, including those focused on oil, gas and fertilizer, Reynolds explained. &nbsp;“While I share the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines,” she continued. “This bill doesn't. It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.”Reynolds also specifically addresses the impact H.F. 639 would have had on biofuel producers. “Iowa leads the nation in biofuels,” she wrote. “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.”Immediately following Reynolds veto, Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley issued a statement calling for lawmakers to sign a petition to reconvene the legislature and override the veto. “This veto is a major setback for Iowa,” he said in a June 11 statement. “It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain."By June 17, the House had secured 70 signatures on a petition to convene a special legislative session to attempt to override the veto, surpassing the two-thirds requirement needed for the House to call for a special session.&nbsp;"This veto was a major setback for Iowa landowners and the tireless efforts of the House to safeguard property rights," Grassley said in a June 17 statement. "With 70 members of the House standing united, we've met the constitutional threshold to move forward. We now call on our colleagues in the Senate to join us by securing the necessary signatures so we can convene a special session, override this veto, and deliver the protections Iowa landowners deserve against eminent domain for private gain."Iowa law requires a bill to pass by a supermajority two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override a veto. The Iowa House has 100 members and the Iowa Senate has 50 members. A veto override would require 67 House members and 34 Senators to vote in favor of the measure. Based on the previous votes, the measure should easily pass the House, but an additional seven Senators would be needed to approve the veto override in the Senate.&nbsp;

large_PatGrassley.jpg

medium_PatGrassley.jpg

small_PatGrassley.jpg

thumbnail_PatGrassley.jpg

PatGrassley.jpg

The Iowa House of Representatives has secured the number of signatures needed to convene a special legislative session with the goal of overriding Gov. Kim Reynold’s recent veto of an eminent domain bill impacting CCS projects within the state.

Iowa lawmakers to attempt veto override of eminent domain bill

Related Stories

Biofuel groups applaud Supreme Court ruling on SRE venue case

Senate version of “big, beautiful bill” aims to extend, alter 45Z tax credit

California bill aims to expedite development of up to 3 SAF projects

EPA releases proposed rule to set 2026, 2027 RFS RVOs, make significant changes to RFS program

EPA revises 2024 cellulosic RVO to 1.1 billion RINs

Upcoming Events

North American SAF Conference & Expo

2026 International Biomass Conference & Expo

Iowa lawmakers to attempt veto override of eminent domain bill .css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}