Key Takeaways

• Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking the recusal of South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner Kristie Fiegen due to a potential conflict of interest involving her family.
• Fiegen’s family has received $88,755 for an easement related to Summit’s proposed pipeline, but she has refused to recuse herself from the commission’s decision.
• The company argues that Fiegen’s participation violates the necessary standards for impartiality in quasi-judicial proceedings.

Conflict of Interest Allegations Against Commissioner

Summit Carbon Solutions has filed a lawsuit in Hughes County, South Dakota, asking a state court to order Public Utilities Commissioner Kristie Fiegen to recuse herself from voting on a permit application. The company cites a conflict of interest due to financial ties involving Fiegen’s family. Specifically, her sister-in-law and husband have received $88,755 for granting an easement allowing the proposed 2,500-mile liquefied carbon dioxide pipeline to traverse their property.

Fiegen has previously recused herself from Summit-related decisions, including a commission meeting in 2023 that rejected the company’s original route application, forcing them to submit a new application. However, she has chosen to remain involved in the current proceedings. In a letter dated January 3, Fiegen stated, “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.”

Summit’s pipeline project has gained approvals in neighboring states such as Iowa, North Dakota, and Minnesota, but legal uncertainties remain in South Dakota and Nebraska. The latter state requires county-level approval for pipeline initiatives but lacks specific state regulations regarding carbon pipelines.

The lawsuit claims that Fiegen’s reluctance to disqualify herself from the decision-making process undermines the principle of fairness essential to quasi-judicial proceedings. Summit’s attorney, Jess Vilsack, highlighted that Fiegen’s family might have a vested interest in the outcome of the commission’s decision, as they could benefit financially from the pipeline’s approval or denial. Vilsack noted that affected family members could have mixed motives regarding the permit, potentially desiring its denial if they wish to remain compensated for an easement that wouldn’t be utilized.

Summit’s filing also points out that if Fiegen continues to participate despite the identified conflict, any resulting orders may be rendered void by a court. The lawsuit stresses that the company has “no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law” to address Fiegen’s refusal to step aside.

Fiegen did not respond to requests for comment on this matter, but Leah Mohr, a spokesperson for the commission, stated that they do not comment on ongoing litigation.

As Summit Carbon Solutions continues to navigate regulatory approvals for its ambitious carbon pipeline project, the stakes remain high, not only for the company but also for the residents and officials involved in the approval process.

The content above is a summary. For more details, see the source article.