Landowners File Objections for Transparency After Iowa Utilities Commission Holds Closed Meetings about Summit Carbon

At least three Iowa landowners have filed Motions for Transparency at the Iowa Utilities Commission, after the Commissioners announced that a “public meeting” would instead become a closed session where they would privately discuss among themselves pending permit applications from Summit Carbon Solutions, which is seeking to construct a proposed multi-state carbon dioxide pipeline and CO2 waste dump.

The motions filed on the official dockets for Summit’s pipeline permit applications before the Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC), from landowners including Hilary Ziols, Wilmer J. Hulstein Revocable Trust, and Janette J. Henning Trust — object to the lack of transparency evidenced by the closed sessions, and note previous Commission proceedings involving hazardous liquid pipelines have been conducted with, in most cases, “considerable public participation.”

The motion from Hilary Ziols notes further that the Iowa Utilities Commission has established very different terms from those set by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (SD PUC) and agreed to by all parties in that state.

While the SD PUC and IUC both filed public meeting notices on Feb. 4 indicating matters pertaining to SCS Carbon Transport, LLC (Summit Carbon) are on the agenda, “that is where the similarities end, unfortunately,” Ziols writes.

“Unlike the [Iowa Utilities] Commission, which just barely provided the 24 hour advance notice required by Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a), the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission provided a week’s notice to the public, offering a reasonable period of time to allow people to prepare and adjust schedules as needed in order to participate in the meeting. Unlike the Commission, which submitted a vague agenda that does not inform the public of what specific matters are to be taken up during the meeting, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission shared exactly what matters they intend to address during the meeting. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission also included multiple explanations on ways the public can participate in the meeting, which, of course, the Commission did not provide as the public is not to be privy to its closed session meeting.

Why is it that Iowans are undeserving of the same courtesy and respect that South Dakotans are granted? Why is it that our oversight agency sets such lower standards in comparison – and on any number of issues from transparency and accountability to the public to responding to docket comments and objections to obtaining and publicising plume modeling for carbon dioxide pipelines? If the Commission is to live up to its vision of engaging in “continuous improvement activities”, it may not hurt to take notes from South Dakota.”

The landowners’ motions for transparency demand that the IUC submit responses on each separate docket justifying the need for closed sessions, as well as commit to discussing all non-privileged aspects of these dockets in open session, and allow for public comment and participation before final decisions are rendered.

Motion for Transparency final version
Motion 2-4-2025 1
Motion 2-4-2025
Attachment-A-IUC