March 19, 2024

IUB concludes oil pipeline deliberations without decision

Fifth day of meetings announced for Feb. 19

Image 1 of 2

DES MOINES — The Iowa Utilities Board concluded four-scheduled days of deliberations Feb. 11 without reaching a decision on the fate of the proposed Dakota Access crude oil pipeline, which would run diagonally through 18 Iowa counties.

Board chairperson Geri Huser made it clear from the opening gavel Feb. 11 that a decision would not be announced, and scheduled a fifth day of deliberations at 1 p.m. Feb. 19 in the IUB hearing room in Des Moines. The board also reserved March 9 and 10 for further deliberations if time was needed.

The board directed staff chief operations officers Cecil Wright and general counsel David Lynch to prepare a draft order weighing the pros and cons of the $3.7 billion, 1,134-mile pipeline on both sides of the issue. IUB spokesperson Don Tormey said the board will review the draft order, and may or may not reach a decision Feb. 19. Tormey said the board is under no timeline to rule on the project, according to Iowa code.

Energy Transfer Partners — Dakota Access’ parent company — has been pushing the pipeline’s development for the last 1.5 years. It would stretch from North Dakota to a hub Patoka, Ill. and gulf coast refineries and carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day through Iowa. The 343.43-mile underground Iowa segment would include 33.73 miles in Jasper County from Mingo through Reasnor.

The board did, however, speak in more detail Feb. 11on the issues which will ultimately weigh into its decision whether to accept or deny Dakota Access, LLC’s permit after returning from a two hour closed session Feb. 10.

When discussing the need for additional domestic and global oil supply, board member Nick Wagner said market demand, not the construction of a single pipeline, would determine production in the Bakken region of North Dakota and would not weigh heavily on his decision.

“If there’s a squeeze on getting the refined products that are needed we’ll have to import them, which is much more costly and uses more energy then if it’s available domestically,” Wagner said.

The board member said Dakota Access’ existing contracts with shippers and plan to refine the product in the Midwest — prior to federal lawmakers lifting the ban in January on U.S. crude oil exports — shows the pipeline company believes there is domestic demand for the Bakken crude.

Huser and board member Libby Jacobs both agreed global climate change was an overarching concern but do not see it as a large factor in the permitting decision of this particular pipeline.

“I believe this is a critical issue, but we have to follow the law,” Huser said. “The law says you weigh this against the other items that are before us. As long as you’re willing to admit (climate change) is a critical concern and we put that in any order that comes out, I think we’re on the same page Mr. Wagner.”

The conversation on the requested use of eminent domain by Dakota Access to order landowners of 296 parcels on the route to allow the pipeline to go through was held until the Feb. 19 session. The IUB did discuss the disputes of many individual parcel owners on Tuesday and Wednesday, but the Feb. 19 debate could center around specific conditions put on Dakota Access to protect landowners in the event of a permit approval.

Mingo resident Kathy Holdefer has been a leading voice in the opposition to the pipeline in Jasper County and in Iowa. Her home was once on the proposed pipeline route before it was shifted by Dakota Access, but still sits just a few hundred yards from where it would lay. At the deliberations Thursday Holdefer said she is still holding hope the IUB will deny the pipeline permit.

“I’m not surprised they’re taking a long time, in fact, I’m encouraged,” Holdefer said. I think they’re doing a more thorough deliberation than I expected. I think some of the tiny details are getting glossed over, but the fact that they went through parcel by parcel, and the fact that they’re really talking about where is the board’s role in the process — what facts should be weighed — that’s really encouraging, too.”

But in another statement Thursday, the Mingo landowner was critical of Dakota Access’ position throughout the 1.5 year process.

“I continue to be proud of how far we have come in resisting this attack on Iowa landowner rights as well as on our soil and water,” Holdefer said. “I think Dakota Access thought it would bulldoze us through this process, similar to how they want to bulldoze our land. We will continue to fight this until we drive this out-of-state, private company out of Iowa.”

But not all resisters are as optimistic as Holdefer. In a statement released Friday, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement — one of the lead activist groups fighting the pipeline — issued a vote of “no confidence” in the IUB’s process.

Members of local labor unions have been a quiet presence at the deliberations all week. Ryan Hollinrake, of Indianola, is the training coordinator for Local Operators 234. He said Thursday that he’s confident the board will pass the project, and union workers have been upgrading skilled training for journeymen and recruiting and training new apprentices to prepare manpower for the pipeline, if approved.

“The utility board has a large issue in front of them to decide, but, ultimately, I think they’ll realize the Dakota Access pipeline will benefit Iowa long-term,” Hollinrake said. “A project of this scale you always hear a lot of rumors. We haven’t bought into any of those. We’re just been gearing up, training our people and trying to gain more man power.”Contact Mike Mendenhall at mmendenhall@newtondailynews.com