Frank Kloucek, Democratic candidate for Public Utilities Commission, may be the wonkiest farmer in South Dakota. Even as he wages a vigorous campaign against clueless corporate tool Don Haggar for a seat on the three-member state regulatory panel, he takes time to speak up on pending federal legislation that could hurt property rights, restrict citizens’ ability to challenge environmentally harmful energy projects, and funnel more taxpayer dollars to corporations:
Public Utilities Commission candidate Frank Kloucek is urging U.S. Sens. John Thune and Mike Rounds to oppose federal permitting changes he says would weaken South Dakota landowners’ rights.
S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, would restrict court challenges and expand federal authority over transmission projects. It also would allow energy developers who win certain lawsuits against the federal government to collect large taxpayer-funded awards.
“Senator Thune leads the Senate and sets its agenda,” Kloucek said. “He should hold this legislation until Congress protects the people whose land sits in its path.”
The Senate’s Nov. 9 vote marks the first procedural step toward taking up the permitting package. It requires 60 votes and would not pass the bill.
Kloucek said he attended a PUC public input meeting in Brookings where Commissioner Chris Nelson urged those present to contact Thune and Rounds and ask them to vote against the bill.
At a renewable-energy conference in Sioux Falls this summer, Kloucek said, he asked speakers whether streamlining property acquisition would weaken landowners’ rights.
“I heard the phrase ‘streamline the acquisition of property,’” Kloucek said. “That property belongs to somebody. The people who own it deserve to know what rights Congress is asking them to give up.”
Section 1402 covers 46 types of energy projects, including wind, solar, carbon dioxide pipelines, and underground carbon storage. Developers who prove that an intentional pattern of disparate treatment by the federal government caused improper permit denials or qualifying delays could collect damages equal to 50 to 100 percent of a project’s reasonably expected construction cost.
The Treasury’s Judgment Fund would pay those awards. Developers would have to demonstrate the financial and technical ability to build the project. After obtaining necessary federal permits, they generally would have to complete it or repay the award.
Section 1401 gives developers a second path. Developers who win lawsuits over improper federal interference with a permitted project could collect an additional 25 to 50 percent of incurred costs not already recovered under the section’s attorney-fee and delay-cost provisions. Those awards also would come from the Judgment Fund.
“That puts taxpayers on the hook for potentially enormous payments to developers,” Kloucek said. “Thune and Rounds need to explain why Congress should create that liability while making it harder for landowners to challenge a faulty review.”
Section 1110 limits challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act. Where agencies offered public comment, a challenger must have submitted substantive comments raising the same issue the challenger later takes to court. Challengers generally would have 150 days to file. For NEPA violations alone, courts could order agencies to fix the review, but approvals would stay in effect and work could continue.
“A farmer who misses the comment period could lose the ability to challenge a faulty environmental review under this law,” Kloucek said. “People should not need a lawyer at their elbow from the beginning just to preserve their chance to be heard.”
On electric transmission, Section 2101 would extend federal permitting beyond designated national-interest corridors, generally for lines of 230 kilovolts or more. Washington could step in when a state lacks siting authority, fails to decide within a year, or denies an application. For lines of 345 kilovolts or more, developers could seek state and federal approval at the same time.
The bill requires at least 45 days of public comment, consideration of landowner input, and consideration of any state record submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Kloucek said those provisions still leave Washington able to override the PUC in qualifying cases.
“The PUC is where South Dakotans bring their concerns about these projects,” Kloucek said. “Congress should protect their ability to participate and defend their property. Thune and Rounds should demand those changes and vote no if Congress refuses” [Frank Kloucek, press release, 2026.10.27].
Commissioner Chris Nelson does indeed agree with Kloucek that the permit reform bill needs changes to protect the PUC’s authority:
Chris Nelson, the Chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, is concerned with one section of the bill. He told SDPB at an event in Milbank the bill gives the federal government the final say on electric transmission lines permits.
“We just think that’s wrong,” Nelson said. “We think it’s wrong to take that decision making away from a state agency and send it to Washington D.C.”
He says the PUC is elected by South Dakotans, and accordingly they understand South Dakota issues. Nelson said the PUC hears a lot of concerns about ag land from farmers and ranchers. He’s a farmer/rancher himself so “A lot of that I can identify with because that’s who I am. I think making those concerns realistically known to somebody in D.C. is going to be a lot harder to ask” [Jackson Dircks, “Congressional Permitting Reform Bill Faces Jurisdictional Concerns, Potential Midterm Election Hoops, Thune Says,” SDPB, 2026.10.25].
The White House likes this permitting reform, which means big business likes it, which means Don Haggar must like it, which means it must be bad for every little guy in the state. And the little guy, as always, is whom Frank Kloucek is fighting for.