After her two prior voluntary recusals due to a conflict of interest for pipelines crossing the land of family members, Summit Carbon Solutions is done waiting for PUC Commissioner Kristi Fiegen to step back from their most recent pipeline application.
The carbon sequestration pipeline company has made a formal request of the PUC for Fiegen’s recusal as a final step prior to going to court against the Public Utilities Commission to litigate against them and ask a court to determine whether there is a conflict, according to South Dakota Searchlight:
In a letter sent Thursday, Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions asked Public Utilities Commissioner Kristie Fiegen to disqualify herself. That would allow the governor to appoint another state official to fill in for Fiegen during the three-member commission’s consideration of the application.
and..
“As with your previous decisions,” said the company’s new letter to Fiegen, “the facts and established South Dakota law support a decision that you should step aside.”
On Friday, Fiegen responded with a letter to Summit. In its entirety, Fiegen’s letter said, “I am an elected Public Utilities Commissioner and will carry out my duties as such. I do not have a legal conflict. I am sitting on the docket.”
This seems to be just the smoldering coals of something that’s going to burst into a fire for the PUC.
She’s absolutely right. She was elected to make decisions, not duck out on the most controversial issue in front on the PUC in 50 years. It’s up to the voters, and the voters only, to decide if they agree with her decision and fire her at the next election if they do not.
Recusal guidelines for elected officials should be a very narrow: the voters must be their ultimate judges.
What nonsense…utter nonsense. Everyone in South Dakota deserves to have impartial decision makers on legal cases. This is a bad look for Fiegen and a bad look for the PUC.
PUC members are not judges, they are elected regulators. Parties to PUC cases can file suit in the court system to invalidate any PUC decision, much like parties can sue in the courts to invalidate any law passed by the legislature. The courts are where judicial impartiality is a right: everything else is politics where voters must always have the final say.
If that were true, why does Fiegen sing out everywhere she goes about being like a judge…
Because the PUC does contested case hearings, like permit hearings, and hears evidence and issues orders under the Administrative Procedures Act JUST LIKE JUDGES
She refused herself the first time around and the same issue exists…Why would she not this time?? Up to something???
Summit is a
the one who is sneaky and conniving. They do not understand that no means no.
She needs to recuse herself. She has already. Twice. If she doesn’t, it sets up a lengthy appeal from either side after the fact that will end up in front of the Supreme Court. If she refuses and Summit takes her court now, it will end up in front of the Supreme Court and create precedent that isn’t going to help anyone in the future. It would be an extremely selfish decision not to take a step back.
She is either wrong now or she was wrong the first two times. Or she was playing politics the first two times.
Either way, this is not a good look.
That’s all she does is play politics, the crazy right has taken the lead and took over leadership so she is pandering to them. She consistently has done this her entire career. #politcalHACK
One wonders what she promised the delegates last summer at the GOP convention
anonymous 8:33am: So if she’d made statements that she loves the pipeline, I wonder how you’d feel? Her family is benefiting from this project, why should she remain? Judge Merchan’s daughter was benefiting from the Trump NY prosecution, were you good with that too? Or is that what he’s paid to do, make those ‘tough decisions’. and so for the next six years, she can benefit her entire family from a variety of future projects in front of the PUC, and your logic is to vote her out then???? After she’s enriched herself and other family members. Brilliant.
Well, let’s examine that logic. Currently, agricultural land in South Dakota is taxed at a mil rate far less than commercial or residential property. Should all the members of the Legislature that benefit directly or indirectly from our largest industry recuse themselves from votes related to farming? We’d have less than half of our elected decision-makers left to vote.
Likewise, should medical professionals in elected positions recuse themselves from voting on health issues? Should lawyers in the legislature recuse themselves from creating laws they may be paid by clients to litigate or give advice on? The MN PUC did everything possible to kill Big Stone II and the associated transmission line, does anybody for a minute think that was anything other than a vote to appease greenies in the People’s Republic to our East?
PUC is an elected, policy-making body: not a court.
LOL. It’s almost always and in this case specifically a body acting to hear and determine a contested case. Haven’t you heard Feigen say repeatedly “we are just like judges” everyone else has.
Either the PUC does their job or this goes to federal court and they lose, at taxpayer expense. Stop playing games and politics, and do your d*mn jobs.
anon 4:29: so did she think it was a judicial duty in 2022 and now took your brilliant advice that it’s a “political-making body” in 2024/25? Why did she change her position when the facts haven’t changed?