As carbon dioxide pipeline process begins anew, will Commissioner Fiegen announce her recusal as she has before?
Today’s agenda for the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting includes on the docket “1. HP24-001 In the Matter of the Application by SCS Carbon Transport LLC for a Permit to Construct a Carbon Dioxide Transmission Pipeline” where they will specifically be discussing “TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee not to exceed $875,782? AND shall the Commission authorize the executive director to enter into necessary consulting contracts? AND shall the Commission grant party status to those who have filed thus far? OR how shall the Commission proceed?”
However, there has been no report to date whether Public Utilities Commissioner Kristie Fiegen plans to recuse herself from the proceeding. Why does that matter? Because Commissioner Fiegen had recused herself from pipeline proceedings twice before, as described in her letter of recusal from 2022, citing a conflict of interest:
As written in the letter from 2022,
I have recently been informed that the proposed pipelines would cross land owned by my sister-in-law (my husband’s sister) and her husband. This route is similar to the route in Docket HP14-002 in which I also disqualified myself due to the same conflict of interest as in this docket. Pursuant to SDCL 49-1-9, a Public Utilities Commissioner may not participate in a proceeding in which the Commissioner has a conflict of interest. Given this familial relationship, I am regretfully disqualifying myself from participating in this proceeding.
As required by SDCL 49-1-9, I hereby certify that I am disqualifying myself from participating in this docket and request that you appoint an elected constitutional officer, other than the attorney general, as a member of the Commission in my place. In order to give notice of my disqualification, I am filing this letter in Docket HP22- 001.
In 2022, Commissioner Fiegen very properly recused herself because of a familial relationship where the pipeline crossed her sister-in-law’s land. As I am informed this morning, there has been no change to that portion of the route at this time in this new application. However, looking at the new docket (HP24-001), a similar recusal would not appear to have been filed yet as it had twice before.
Without a new recusal being filed, is it Commissioner Fiegen’s intention to sit for these meetings?
Or will we see an announcement of her recusal today with a new substitute member appointed for purposes of hearing the pipeline?