It has been said… and I know because I’ve said it… that the Public Utilities Commission is one of the best elected gigs one can have in the state. Why? #1 – The terms are six-year, as opposed to 4 year terms. #2 – The salary is not set in statute. And #3 – It was not part of the 1992 constitutional change that limited many constitutional officers to 2 terms (because it’s not a Constitutional but statutory office).
However, at least one of those advantages might change if the legislature has it’s way. House Bill 1053 would put PUC offices under the same 2-term limit as other statewide elected officials. The measure is pretty simple, and reads as follows:
An Act to create term limits for public utilities commissioners.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota:
Section 1. That chapter 49-1 be amended with a NEW SECTION:
No person may serve more than two consecutive terms on the public utilities commission. This section applies to terms beginning after July 1, 2024.
Appointment to fill a vacancy or election to complete an unexpired term of office pursuant to § 49-1-5 does not count as a term for the purposes of this section.
That change could correct a 30 year-old disparity between the PUC offices and the rest of elected state government, and with most of the current PUC Commissioners well into their second or third term, and unlikely to serve more than two more terms after July 2024, it would likely not affect the current elected officials.
Term limits have hurt all of Government over the past three decades. The governors power grows. The legislatures power has diminished. Constitutional offices have also been eroded. Meanwhile the governors power grows (not talking about a person but an office).
I am a bigger fan of term limits for these statewide offices than I am of them for legislators.
Also, I am not certain regulators should be elected. PUCs across the country vary on whether they’re elected or appointed. I generally lean toward appointed.
I agree with PP, this is unlikely to impact the current officeholders. Hanson has already said this is his last term. Fiegen is running for reelect this year and could serve for 12 more years after this, until 2036. And with Nelson being reelected in 2022, my reading of this bill is that he could serve 2 MORE full terms after this plus the rest of his current term, which would actually put him in until 2040 (I think that math is correct?).
Lastly, this was introduced last year by Bolin and snuck out of State Affairs by 1 vote. Based on who is sponsoring this year, I am guessing this new version is motivated by some PUC actions since last session…
Let’s not subject the PUC to the whims of the day.
Maybe they should be appointed?
1 by gov
1 by judicial
1 by legislature
This is another bill trying hard to think up a problem. whats the problem? what went wrong? Nothing. Other than a legislator thought “hey, what bill can i bring?”
They want people in who will vote their way. It’s that simple.
Leave it alone. It’s not broke.
EGGACTLY!!!
Second dumbest bill introduced so far. And it is only the first day.
Only morons think getting rid of expertise matters. I hope they only go to residents for their medical care too
PUC is a body that deals with complex legal and economic matters. A smart person needs years to be worth a crap.
Then don’t elect them, appoint them based on expertise.
Yep, that’s democratic. NOT
Leave as is and allow the people to keep the ones they think are good.
Term limits are weapons for those who don’t like who the people in other districts dont’ like.