The Iowa Utilities Commission rejected consolidating Summit Carbon Solutions' pending pipeline dockets and set hearings for two minor segments in 2027, dates later than those requested by the company, which warns of harm to ethanol and farmers.
The Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC) rejected Summit Carbon Solutions' request to consolidate the pending dockets and schedule a joint hearing for the second phase of its carbon capture pipeline. The regulator set hearing schedules for two segments of the project, but denied the company's request to combine the dockets.
The IUC did not rule on the remaining Phase 2 dockets, which could still be consolidated in the future, as Summit requested. The routes in this phase would add laterals to the pipeline to connect it with more biorefineries than those contemplated in the original route.
In its request, Summit noted that the IUC has scheduled and held hearings and issued orders for "other energy infrastructure projects," but has been "ignoring Summit." The company's initial filings were made between October 2024 and September 2025, according to the request, but the company said it has not received the "basic procedural path."
"Even if this Commission's answer is ultimately no — though we see no reason why that would be the case, given the Commission's prior rulings — further delay on the bare minimum process (setting a hearing) will irreparably harm Iowa's reputation," the company wrote in its consolidation request.
Summit argued that, while other states and the federal government "are speeding up the permitting process, recognizing that energy infrastructure is paramount," the IUC is "making the process longer and more cumbersome."
The company maintained that the delay harms the ethanol industry and farmers seeking access to the low-emission biofuel markets the pipeline would open. It also said that delaying a hearing harms landowners who want their objections heard and rural communities with a stake in the investment.
The IUC, in its order denying consolidation, mentioned the lawsuit against the phase one permit as "part of the larger picture" affecting the docket. Summit's initial permit for more than 600 miles of pipe in Iowa, corresponding to phase one, was approved by the commission in 2024 and gave the company the right of eminent domain. Landowners, the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter and several counties challenged the permit, arguing that Summit should not be considered a common carrier.
In fall 2025, Summit requested an amendment to its permit so that the route would no longer pass through South Dakota or end at a sequestration site in North Dakota. The lawsuit over the initial permit was partially remanded to the IUC because of that amendment and, according to the regulator's response, comments on how to proceed included a request to keep the Floyd and Ida county dockets of phase two as "stand-alone dockets."
The IUC held a hearing in September 2026 to determine the hearing schedule for two segments planned in Ida and Floyd counties, both of them less than 5 miles. In denying consolidation, the regulator finalized the dates: the Floyd County docket will be heard March 23, 2027, and the Ida County one Feb. 23, 2027, both in Des Moines and later than the dates requested by Summit, which had asked for mid-December.
In May 2026, Summit announced that it planned to direct the pipeline west, toward Wyoming, and that it was considering using the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, a process in which the liquefied carbon dioxide from the pipeline is injected near existing oil fields to help push oil to the surface.
Colleen Tucker, a landowner from Mitchell County, addressed the commissioners during public comments at a meeting Thursday and said it was "incredibly bold and frankly offensive" for Summit to speak on behalf of landowners in its filing. Tucker said the IUC is not responsible for Summit's investments and that the company's investment in the project "doesn't give the company a regulatory shortcut or a place at the front of the line."
Landowners who oppose the project said some of them were denied requests to intervene in the upcoming hearings because, although they live near the proposed route, they do not own property in those counties. Don Johannsen, a Cherokee County landowner, said the route runs through land adjoining his and would directly affect him. "They're assuming that because I'm not on the line in Ida County, it doesn't affect me, but it clearly does," Johannsen said.
The question of who can intervene has come up throughout Summit's proceedings before the IUC. Lawmakers opposed to the project, or to its use of eminent domain, have proposed legislation to widen the pool of people who could intervene.
Landowners gathered Thursday ahead of the IUC's first monthly public meeting with its new commissioner, Jon Dunwell, appointed Monday by Gov. Kim Reynolds. Those gathered, in their signature red shirts, said they opposed the appointment and argued that Dunwell's past as a legislator made him partial on the pipeline issue. Dunwell resigned his seat in the Iowa House of Representatives to accept the post, which will require Senate approval.
Kathy Carter, a Floyd County landowner, said she was "really concerned" about the new commissioner. "Because of his past in the Legislature and his ability to vote, I believe it's a conflict of interest," Carter said. "Anyone who has been in that position to influence any legislation should not have the ability to vote on the IUC."
Dunwell voted in favor of legislation in 2025 that would have imposed certain limitations on carbon sequestration pipelines in the state; that bill was passed by the Senate and was ultimately vetoed by Reynolds. He also voted against a House bill earlier this year that would have banned the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines in Iowa, but the measure was not taken up in the Senate.
During the public meeting, Commissioner Joshua Byrnes, who was also a state legislator, said commissioners cannot always be "experts" on everything, and he noted the number of issues the commission handles in addition to pipelines.
The landowner group said it has sent surveys to all candidates for state, federal and local offices asking them about property rights. Weston Grow, a Guthrie County landowner, said the group plans to publish the responses next week. "Each and every legislator will tell you they are for property rights — they have been for almost six years. We're tired of waiting. It's election time. Just like all the phony political ads we are reading, hearing and seeing, don't believe that just because a politician says he is for property rights means that he actually is," Grow said.
