Federal Appeals Court Affirms Counties May Not Regulate “Safety Standards” For Carbon Pipelines

Couser v. Shelby Cnty., Iowa, 2025 WL 1585295 (8th Cir. June 5, 2025)

Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC (“Summit”), plans to build a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide.  The pipeline crosses Shelby County and Story County, Iowa. 

Each county passed an ordinance regulating pipelines in response to the state’s approval of Summit’s pipeline.  The ordinances imposed setbacks, emergency-response procedures and local permit requirements.  Shelby County’s ordinance added an abandonment provision.

Summit and a participating landowner sued both counties in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.  They argued federal and state law preempted the ordinances, both expressly and because the ordinances conflicted with federal and state pipeline regulations.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Summit in both cases.  The decision permanently enjoined the ordinances and declared them preempted by federal and state law.  The counties appealed.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed and upheld declaratory and injunctive relief for Summit.

First, the court considered the federal Pipeline Safety Act (“PSA”).  It expressly preempts state safety standards for interstate pipelines and delegates this power to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) within the United States Department of Transportation. 

The counties argued their ordinances are zoning rather than safety standards and thus not preempted.  The court disagreed.  The counties’ setback provisions are safety standards, emergency-response procedures conflict with PHMSA requirements and Shelby County’s abandonment provision conflicts with PHMSA’s regulations. 

Second, the court held the counties’ permitting requirements conflicted with Iowa Utilities Commission (“IUC”) authority.  Iowa law vests authority over location and routing of pipelines in the IUC, which issues permits and decides where and how to construct pipelines.  The court held permitting and trenchless construction requirements prohibit what the state permits.  State law thus preempted those requirements. 

The court thus found no error in either of the district court decisions relating to the ordinances at issue.  Under the decision, no county may impose safety standards on carbon pipelines, including any setback, emergency-response or abandonment provisions.  Additionally, Iowa counties may not require permits for carbon pipelines.

Attorneys at Baird Holm specialize in various subject matter areas including administrative, energy and land use law.  Please contact us with any questions.

Hannes D. Zetzsche
Samuel P. Heffron, Summer Associate