Gideon Oakes would like South Dakota voters to elect him to a six-year Public Utilities Commission term on Nov. 5.
The state’s three elected commissioners oversee the regulation of private utility companies, which provide essential services including telecommunications, electricity and natural gas. The commissioners are assisted by a staff of analysts and lawyers.
The job of a commissioner is to ensure private utilities provide reliable services at fair rates. They also approve major projects, such as new power plants or transmission lines.
Oakes, a Libertarian, helps run a family-owned bed and breakfast and some cabins near Keystone. He is also a volunteer emergency medical technician.
He previously served on the boards of the Black Hills & Badlands Association, the Keystone Rural Fire Protection District, and United Way of the Southern Black Hills. He served two terms on the town board of Keystone.
Oakes and Democratic candidate Forest Wilson are challenging Republican incumbent Kristie Fiegen.
Following are portions of a Searchlight interview with Oakes, edited for length and clarity.
ELECTION 2024 COVERAGE: Busy ballots await voters, a run down
Why are you running?
I’m running for a chance to give the voters a fresh perspective. This office doesn’t turn over very often.
The current commission has a collective tenure of almost half a century if you go back and look at Commissioner [Gary] Hanson’s tenure, and then both Feigen and [Chris] Nelson, that’s 48 years of combined tenure.
At some point, you have to ask yourself, “Are we taxpayers and the citizens of South Dakota benefitting from that much experience out of three commissioners?” And I’m going to leave that decision up to the voters. But as for me, I believe that elected office should be a calling, not a career.
Summit Carbon Solutions wants to build a carbon dioxide pipeline through South Dakota, to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants to an underground storage site in North Dakota. Summit will need a PUC permit. What’s your view of the project?
I know Commissioner Fiegen generally tries to avoid this topic as much as possible, and I understand ex parte laws [requiring commissioners to remain objective on matters before them] and why she doesn’t want to be in a position to taint the outcome of something she’s going to be requested to rule on later, but I also think that the people of South Dakota deserve straightforward answers on it if it’s important enough of a topic.
And so, for me, I think any public elected official needs to stand first and foremost for the rights of the people, and that’s the mark of a true public servant and a true leader. And to me, that includes the rights of property owners to say, “not on my land.”
So do you side with the pipeline opponents?
I don’t want to comment on any specific docket, but in general, I think transactions involving people’s property, and especially landowners, they need to be a voluntary exchange. Eminent domain should be limited to the most rare of circumstances. I don’t think it should ever be used for private commercial gain, only public necessity and utilities.
Does the Public Utilities Commission fairly balance the interests of utility companies and their customers?
I think there’s always room for improvement. I’m not going to sit here and say that the current PUC is just a rubber stamp for utilities. I think they do have public interest at heart.
Let me put it this way: To me, the most effective government is that which is most local. In an ideal world, these siting issues are going to be decided by county commissioners and municipal officials who live, work, shop and worship alongside their constituency. As far as the siting issues go, those are who should be making those decisions for their own community, not a three-person bureaucracy working in an air-conditioned office.
But do you think the commission fairly balances interests in things like electric and natural gas rate decisions?
I don’t want to just sit here and throw mud at them. But if you look at the facts, Kristie Feigen sat on the Xcel Energy advisory board [from 1999 to 2001] prior to being appointed to the commission by Gov. Daugaard in 2011. Sometimes I wonder if those connections are truly beneficial to the voters of South Dakota.
And again, just the sheer length of time people have been in office. Are we, as the public, benefitting from that much experience? Sometimes, too much of something can be not a good thing.
How do you feel about wind, solar and batteries displacing some of the need for coal and natural gas?
I think renewable energy is great. I think emerging technologies in wind, solar and even next-generation nuclear, I think they have a very important role to play, especially as we become more energy independent.
I’ve said that I’ll work wherever I can to reduce those barriers to emerging energy technologies. Obviously, we have to balance property rights. That’s always a big thing. We have to always look first and foremost to that, but in that way, when you encourage and protect property rights, I think there are a lot of folks, especially in the ag community, who would like to jump on the renewable energy bandwagon. But I think they feel shackled by the way it’s always been, and the way it feels like it’s always going to be.
Can you clarify what you mean by “the way it’s always been” and “shackled”?
Effectively, the government provides a monopoly to energy providers. And in exchange for that monopoly, they regulate them. I feel like that’s somewhat of an antiquated model.
I realize that in some situations, people are going to have zero choice in power. If you are right in the middle of a private provider’s district, the local co-op isn’t going to be running a special cable to you. That’s not feasible. But, there are a lot of cases where people are on the border of a district and could actually have a choice in the matter.
I feel the government should not be protecting an inferior energy provider, if there is a choice in your neighborhood. Maybe you should have the choice to pick your energy provider when you’re on the border of a district, let the marketplace decide on that.
I realize that’s a far-off idea and a little bit fanciful, but every other industry offers choice in the matter. Why does energy have to be the outlier on that?