Anna Ryon is a Des Moines attorney who practices in the field of utility consumer advocacy. Her experience includes nearly nine years of service at the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate.
When Brenna Bird was elected attorney general, she took an oath to faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of her office, as state law requires. The official website of the Iowa Department of Justice describes the attorney general as “the state’s chief legal officer.” In that capacity, it is reasonable for Bird to know what duties she is required by law to discharge.
However, Bird’s record suggests she either does not understand all the duties the law requires her to discharge or has simply chosen not to fulfill some of those duties. Her failure to discharge the duties required by law has left Iowa landowners subject to unconstitutional eminent domain and their neighbors subject to the dangers of hazardous carbon dioxide pipelines without the legal representation they deserve.
The consumer advocate division of the department of justice, or the Office of Consumer Advocate (“OCA”), was created in Iowa Code Section 475A. Prior to the government reorganization bill passed by the legislature in 2023, OCA was an independent “separate division” of the department of justice. At that time, OCA was shielded from political influences because the attorney general nominated the Consumer Advocate, and after Iowa Senate confirmation, the advocate was subject to removal only for “malfeasance or nonfeasance.”
Since the government reorganization bill was enacted in 2023, OCA is merely a “division of the department of justice,” with the same status as any other division of the Attorney General’s office. Additionally, the Consumer Advocate now serves “at the pleasure of the attorney general.”
In other words, Brenna Bird is now entirely in control of OCA and its actions.
One thing the government reorganization bill didn’t change is OCA’s duty, which is to “[r]epresent the interests of all consumers generally and the public generally in all proceedings before the utilities board.” That duty extends to judicial appeals of decisions by the Iowa Utilities Board, recently renamed the Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC). Iowa Code Section 475A.2(4) requires OCA to “[a]ppear for all consumers generally and the public generally in all actions instituted in any state or federal court which involve the validity of a rule, regulation, or order of the utilities board.”
But Bird’s public statements about the role of “her lawyers” are those of an attorney general who either doesn’t know about OCA’s duties or who doesn’t want her constituents to know she controls OCA.
On August 15, Bird concealed her obligation to represent the interests of Iowans when she discussed IUC decisions in remarks at the Westside Conservative Club (listen to the audio here). At that meeting, she was asked about state agencies that overreach their authority. Specifically, Robert Nazario asked her about the IUC’s grant of a hazardous liquid pipeline permit to Summit Carbon Solutions, with permission to use eminent domain to build a carbon dioxide pipeline.
Bird correctly explained that the Department of Justice has a different role with respect to the IUC than with respect to other agencies. Unlike other agencies, the Department of Justice does not represent the IUC when its decisions are appealed. Bird therefore asserted that her office has no role in an appeal of the IUC’s decision to grant Summit’s permit.
That statement is blatantly false.
OCA’s statutory duty to represent the interests of Iowans specifically includes representing those interests in judicial appeals of IUC decisions, according to Iowa Code Section 475A.2(4). Bird either knows her statement is false (and is deliberately misleading Iowans), or she doesn’t understand the statutory duty of the Office of Consumer Advocate, which is directly under her control. In either case, Bird’s statement demonstrates she is not qualified to serve as the chief legal officer of Iowa.
Bird’s utter disregard for her obligation to represent the interests of Iowans is exacerbated by her choice of Consumer Advocate. She appointed Lanny Zieman to that position in March 2023. Zieman’s actions since assuming that job show he will not take any initiative to call Bird’s attention to OCA’s statutory obligations or push for the Department of Justice to act on those obligations.
On August 26, Zieman represented OCA at a public information meeting in Corning for IUC Docket HLP-2024-0004—a petition by SCS Carbon Transport, LLC to construct a lateral pipeline to carry carbon dioxide from POET’s Corning ethanol plant through Adams and Montgomery Counties to connect with the already-approved carbon dioxide pipeline.
As someone who considers Adams County to be my home, I asked Zieman what OCA would do to represent the interests of the general public in Adams County in that docket. His response was revealing: it was nonexistent.
Zieman’s lack of response in Corning is consistent with OCA’s performance in docket HLP-2021-0001, in which the IUC approved Summit’s initial petition for a permit to construct a carbon dioxide pipeline and use eminent domain to acquire easements. In that case, OCA presented only a single witness: Scott Bents, an engineer. He testified that Summit’s pipeline offers positive economic benefits (see pages 20 and 21 of his direct testimony).
Rather than have one of the highly qualified accountants or economists who work at OCA testify to the business model or economic impacts of Summit’s proposed pipeline, Zieman put someone unqualified to testify about economics on the witness stand to allege that the pipeline has economic benefits. Following the evidentiary hearing, which lasted 83 days and resulted in 7,499 pages of transcripts, in addition to thousands of pages of pre-filed testimony, OCA failed even to take a position about whether the proposed pipeline satisfied the statutory requirement under Iowa Code Section 479B.9 that the project “promote the public convenience and necessity.”
Instead, OCA simply concluded, “The Board must weigh evidence of benefits against evidence of the public and private costs and other detriments.” OCA’s final position on the central issue of the case was to simply repeat the question at issue in the case.
The failure to do anything more than merely identify the issue in the case is utterly inconsistent with the role of the Office of Consumer Advocate, for reasons that OCA’s name should make clear. OCA’s perfunctory participation in IUC Docket HLP-2021-0001 fell far short of OCA’s duty to represent the interests of Iowans.
Cases heard by the Iowa Utilities Commission involve parties with huge disparities in wealth and expertise. Utilities and pipeline companies have vast financial and legal resources to argue their case. By creating the Office of Consumer Advocate, the legislature helped level that playing field, even if just a bit. Bird and Zieman are ignoring their statutory duties and depriving Iowans of even that little bit of fairness.
Iowans deserve better. We deserve public servants who take their statutory duties seriously and serve Iowans instead of campaign donors. We deserve an attorney general who takes seriously her ethical obligation to advocate zealously for her clients. And we deserve an attorney general who fights for Iowans’ constitutional property rights.
Top image of Attorney General Brenna Bird was posted on the Attorney General’s official Facebook page on April 3, 2024.
10 Comments
Intelligence
I believe that intelligence can be noticed by looking into a human face. Some people radiate intelligence. So there’s that. And then there’s Brenna Bird.
Karl M Sat 14 Sep 8:00 AM
she got her law degree from U Chicago
A better indication of intelligence than your cheap shot.
Laura Belin Sat 14 Sep 8:27 AM
And what did she do with her expensive degree
Not everyone who pays for Rockfeller’s university is a luminary to the world. Up to know she has rubberstamped fringe rulings and lawsuits that make Iowa less attractive, and less competitive. Most of the smart kids have one desire, leaving the State.
Karl M Sat 14 Sep 9:00 AM
Not entering the fray
I don’t attempt to decipher one’s intelligence from the look on her face or the law school she attended.
I find out where they are by the decisions they make on substantive issues.
Without commenting on the choices made by this politically-ambitious young lady, I want folks to keep in mind something basic.
Iowa is, and has been as long as I have practiced, one of the few states where individual consumers can’t enforce their rights in a private cause of action. We have to call the AG’s office.
A vote for a Democratic legislator would help.
Another tweak of the government — eliminating the hold that the Iowa Department of Justice has on consumer issues and allowing private causes of action, are two options.
That won’t probably solve the author’s problem — few, if any, law firms are willing to take on Summit for individuals. Instead, they’d try a class action, and the pipeline would still go through, the lawyers would get a windfall, and the author would get a check for $1,000.00.
In other words, leave Iowa. That is the conclusion that I have reached for myself.
Bill from White Plains Sat 14 Sep 12:30 PM
Thanks, Bill from White Plains
I appreciate your honesty. But I take issue with your advice to leave Iowa. Many Iowans are tied to their jobs in this state and cannot afford to take this drastic action. They have also invested in homes and their local communities. They care about both. Also, grandparents may be loathe to move away from grandchildren. Relocation may not be a viable option for everyone, contrary to your post.
One of my main concerns surrounds this excerpt from your post: “That won’t probably solve the author’s problem — few, if any, law firms are willing to take on Summit for individuals. Instead, they’d try a class action, and the pipeline would still go through, the lawyers would get a windfall, and the author would get a check for $1,000.00.”
I wonder how you arrived at your assumption that a class action would ultimately fail, resulting in a windfall for lawyers and a victory for Summit. How would such an attitude affect your defense of class action plaintiffs?
Oh wait, I see that you have already answered this question: “the pipeline would still go through, the lawyers would get a windfall.”
This pipeline will destroy prime farmland and will potentially decimate Iowa’s aquifers. You may no longer care about this from your perch in White Plains, but Iowans who still live in this state care very deeply about these issues.
Nancy Dugan Sat 14 Sep 5:06 PM
Brenna Bird certainly is taking her own sweet time...
…with her decision about what to do about that outrageous fertilizer spill that killed 750,000 fish, plus massive numbers of other aquatic wildlife, in sixty miles of the East Nishnabotna River. That spill was huge even for Iowa, which is known for river-damaging spills. The impact of this one extended down into Missouri. As the Iowa Environmental Council pointed out, “The damage is almost nuclear.” That sixty miles of river was killed dead.
The IEC also asked, “How can we allow fertilizer to be stored in a way that one single leak or open valve could result in the annihilation of an entire river ecosystem for 60 miles? The total death of a large river’s entire population of not just fish, but mussels, frogs, snakes, and other aquatic life?” The answer, of course, is that this is Iowa.
I wonder if Bird will wait until after the election to decide what to do. For some reason.
PrairieFan Sat 14 Sep 5:21 PM
Minor distraction; major points
The notion that one can judge intelligence by one’s face should not be a point at all in assessing Ms. Ryon’s post. Few if any others have the credentials that Ms. Ryon does in informing us about AG Bird’s failures when it comes to the Office of Consumer Advocate or other areas as noted by Prairie Fan with regard to the East Nishnabotna River.
But I operate under a handicap because I seem to find that people look better or worse as I become more acquainted with them.
Herb Strentz
Herb Strentz Sat 14 Sep 7:58 PM
Anna is right
I spent the 83 days of the Summit hearing before the IUC (pronounced yuck) sitting next to the OCA attorneys. Mr. Zieman was there for only 3 days as I recall. During the other 80 days another attorney in the OCA was there, at least in body. He spent his time during the hearing surfing the internet on his laptop. One day when Mr. Zieman was there, my economic expert witness, Dr. Silvia Secchi from the U of I was testifying. When it was Mr. Zieman’s turn to cross-examine her, he gathered all of his snark and asked her if she was even an economist. She informed him that she had a PhD in economics. If he had just read her prepared testimony he would have known that.
Prairie Fan is also right that the AG’s office has been sitting on the referral of the fertilizer spill into the East Nishnabotna River. The case was referred to the AG back in April. I called the Assistant AG in the environmental division a few weeks ago to see what was happening. I was told they could not tell me anything because the matter is under investigation. Under investigation? The incident was thoroughly investigated by the Iowa DNR, and also by the Missouri DNR, since the spill and fish kill went into the Missouri River. I have to think the intent is for the matter to quietly die. But the Sierra Club is not going to let that happen.
Wally Taylor Sun 15 Sep 9:13 AM
A few questions
I am somewhat surprised that one of the Sierra Club’s primary arguments on appeal is eminent domain in light of its role as an environmental organization. The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska filed a June 2, 2022, motion requesting an environmental impact study of what is now known as phase 1 of the Summit Carbon route, which was denied by the IUC on October 6, 2022. Has the Sierra Club considered filing a new motion requesting an environmental impact study in view of the massive expansion of the Summit Carbon route?
I would also like to know what the Sierra Club’s position is with regard to the use of CO2 to manufacture sustainable aviation fuel, because some of the Sierra Club’s most generous donors are invested in this technology, and it seems likely they would benefit from a CO2 pipeline as a cheap and efficient method of transporting CO2. Sierra Club has focused on sequestration and possible use of the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The lack of acknowledgment and discussion of existing technology to manufacture aviation fuel with CO2 and water leaves us in the dark regarding the potential for harmful environmental impacts associated with this technology. Myriad offtake agreements have been entered into to purchase these efuels, creating real financial pressures for investors in the technology.
Of course, such fuels may also be deemed beneficial to the public in Iowa.
Finally, I would note that this matter has been ongoing for years, and we still do not know who owns Summit Carbon Solutions. We do know that a major investor is the SK Group, which pleaded guilty to defrauding the U.S. Army in June of 2020 and was fined more than $68 million according to a Department of Justice press release.
I considered Ryon’s argument in her September 7, 2023, Motion to Subpoena Bruce Rastetter that “Summit Carbon’s ‘closed loop low carbon fuel supply chain’ may create a vertically-integrated monopoly in violation of Iowa Code section 553.5” to be among the most important made in this matter. But I have come to believe that the anti-competitive nature of this project may be much more vast than Ryon surmised.
In a November 21, 2020, Financial Times article that explored SK’s history of fraud and other financial crimes in South Korea, Kim Woo-chan, an Economics Professor at Korea University, stated: “The amount of [alleged] fraud was several times bigger than Enron’s and Mr. Chey was imprisoned twice for serious financial crimes but he still controls the group—this would be unthinkable in the west.”
Apparently that is no longer the case, because SK is heavily invested in our U.S. energy sector. Had Ryon’s argument garnered more support, perhaps we would have answers to critical questions regarding ownership that allude us to this day. The lack of interest in antitrust issues is baffling to me.
No eminent domain for private gain has become the catchphrase for this pipeline, with some help from the Sierra Club and Nebraska’s Bold Alliance. Bold’s recent study finding there is high awareness of the eminent domain issue is no great surprise, since that has been the focus of the informational campaign for some time, lending the feeling of an echo chamber to the study results. Let’s hope this argument prevails.
Nancy Dugan Sun 15 Sep 1:16 PM
correction
*elude us to this day
Nancy Dugan Sun 15 Sep 1:21 PM