The View From Here

I would like to update the citizens of Iowa on two recent events. Many may have heard about the ruling by the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) that approved Summit Carbon Solutions’ petition for constructing, operating and maintaining 688 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline through 29 Iowa counties. Another important event that happened was the Iowa Conservative Energy Dialogue which was held on June 18.

There has been a tremendous battle over the use of eminent domain for the construction of a high pressure CO2 pipeline. These pipelines would gather CO2 that is currently being vented to the atmosphere at ethanol plants across Iowa. The IUB believes that the service to be provided by Summit Carbon will, in their opinion, promote the public convenience and necessity. This allows Summit Carbon to be vested with the right to use eminent domain. This means they can construct a pipeline across a landowner’s property without their consent.

Eminent domain has been used in the completion of public projects in the past. One such project was the completion of the Avenue of the Saints, which connects St. Paul MN. to St. Louis. MO. It was constructed in the early 2000s. How much of the land was obtained voluntarily without the use of eminent domain? The answer is over 94% of the landowners voluntarily participated in this project.

If a project that cut diagonally across many productive farms in Iowa, causing much inconvenience and loss of property value, could be accomplished with 94% voluntary participation, why can’t we require a 90% voluntary participation rate before eminent domain can be authorized? I have heard from electric companies that they have always had 99% voluntary participation from landowners.

The Summit Carbon pipeline does not benefit the people of Iowa, thus the low amount of public support. With low public support, why should the IUB force the project on unwilling landowners?

The second event, the Iowa Conservative Energy Dialogue, revealed a better route to energy independence and sustainability. While Ambassador Branstad complained that a “handful of farmers” should not be able to block the Summit project, the economist they brought in to explain the economic impact of Iowa’s renewable energy admitted that he does not like tariffs or tax credits and grants that distort the market. The carbon pipelines are completely motivated by government tax credits. Without them, there would be no effort to build these pipelines.

The most encouraging part of this dialogue was the discussion about nuclear energy. There are now five different types of nuclear reactors, two of which use no water. Some of these are very small and can be situated in many places in Iowa. These new designs are vastly safer than the original nuclear plants.

Whether you believe in CO2 gas causing a climate catastrophe in the future or not, nuclear makes a lot of sense. It has no emissions of any kind, making it the most environmentally friendly of all power generation sources. It is also reliable, operating 24 hours a day, every day, regardless of the weather. When do Iowans need power the most? When it storms, is cold, is hot, or is flooding. When properly located, none of those events affect nuclear.

If we could use the billions of dollars that the CO2 pipelines would receive, we could build a lot of nuclear plants that do not emit anything! We need to shift our emphasis from CO2 sequestration to human flourishing. Human flourishing promotes both a good economy and a safe environment. Human flourishing requires a reliable source of power that is predictable. Let’s slowdown this mad rush to power that is intermittent and pursue what is best for all mankind.