An Iowa House subcommittee has advanced a legislative proposal that would restrict the Iowa Utilities Commission from factoring climate change into its decision-making process for hazardous liquid pipeline permits. The bill, introduced by Representative Charley Thomson, aims to challenge the commission's authority on environmental grounds. This move comes amidst ongoing debates over the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project, which was approved by the commission in June 2024. Thomson contends that climate change theories are insufficiently robust to justify their inclusion in regulatory decisions. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club's Iowa chapter, have expressed opposition to this legislation, emphasizing the importance of considering broader environmental impacts.

Representative Charley Thomson, who represents Charles City, has been vocal about his skepticism towards anthropogenic climate change. He argues that the current scientific consensus on human-induced climate change is not strong enough to warrant its consideration in policy-making. Thomson believes that the Iowa Utilities Commission made several errors in its evaluation of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline permit. Specifically, he criticizes the commission's constitutional and insurance analyses, as well as its decision to factor in climate change considerations. Thomson asserts that these elements were improperly included in the permitting process.

The Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project aims to transport captured carbon dioxide from biofuel facilities to underground storage sites in North Dakota. Despite its approval by the Iowa Utilities Commission, the project has faced significant opposition from various quarters. Environmental advocates argue that the commission should evaluate a wide array of factors, including climate change, when issuing permits. They contend that ignoring such considerations could have long-term detrimental effects on the environment and public health. The Sierra Club's Iowa chapter, along with other environmental organizations, opposes the proposed bill, maintaining that it undermines the commission's ability to make informed decisions.

Democratic Representative Adam Zabner voiced his disagreement with the bill, highlighting the existing recognition of climate change by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Zabner emphasized the department's acknowledgment of climate change's impact on agriculture, habitats, and public health within the state. He also criticized a provision in the bill that would eliminate the commission's obligation to support projects aimed at reducing petroleum dependency. Zabner argued that now is not the time to backtrack on climate action, especially given the long-term nature of many climate-related initiatives.

Moving forward, the bill will be subject to further discussion in the full committee. Thomson expressed his desire for a more comprehensive debate on the matter. As the legislation progresses, it remains to be seen how lawmakers will balance economic development with environmental concerns. The outcome of this bill could have far-reaching implications for future infrastructure projects and the state's approach to addressing climate change.