FILED WITH Executive Secretary February 18, 2016 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BEFORE THE IOWA UTILITIES BOARD IN RE: DAKOTA ACCESS LLC IOWA UTILITIES BOARD Docket No. HLP-2014-0001 JOINDER IN MOTION TO RECUSE FILED BY KRISS WELLS AND SIERRA CLUB Comes now Intervener, Keith Puntenney, in support of this Joinder In Motion to Recuse filed by Kriss Wells, and Attorney Wallace Taylor, on behalf of the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, and states as follows: 1. Keith Puntenney joins in the statements made by Kriss Wells, and Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, in their motions to Recuse. 2. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1984 in a 6:0 decision (3 justices taking no part in this decision), clearly articulated the doctrine of administrative deference as the appropriate legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency’s interpretation of a statute which it administers. (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.; 467 U.S. 837 (1984)) In a two part analysis, the Chevron two-step test ,stated the following: First, always is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute… Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. 3. The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment X, states as follows: Powers retained by the states and the people The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 4. Iowa Code Chapter 479B grants to the Iowa Utility Board the power to: …grant the utility board the authority to implement certain controls over hazardous liquid pipelines to protect landowners and tenants from environmental or economic damages which may result from the construction, operation, or maintenance of a hazardous liquid pipeline or underground storage facility within the state, to approve the location and route of hazardous liquid pipelines, and to grant rights of eminent domain where necessary. (479B.1 Purpose-authority) 5. Intervener’s have set forth in detailed testimony at the IUB hearing, and both in initial and reply briefs substantial unbiased testimony that both Global Warming and Climate Charge issues represent a clear and present danger, of both economic and environmental consequences to Landowners and Tenants, if the DAPL project is allowed to proceed forward.(See especially Puntenney testimony, briefs, and Hearing Exhibits 130) 6. The outline for briefs. As set forth by the IUB chair herself, asked for detailed Global Warming and Climate Change information as part of the Intervener’s initial and reply briefs. This is clearly appropriate as a response to the IUB Commissioner’s duties under Chapter 479B, and as set forth in 479B.1. Further, nothing in either the Federal or State statutes ‘reserves’ this inquiry to another party, other than the IUB. If not asserted by the IUB as part of this proceeding, this right inures ‘to the people”, under Amendment X, of the US Constitution, and we assert that the IUB must consider both Global Warming and Climate Change issues as part of any deliberations under Chapter 479B. Wherefore, Keith Puntenney joins in the Motion to Recuse filed by Kriss Wells, and Wallace Taylor, Sierra Club Iowa Chapter. Keith Puntenney 1404 Aldrich Ave Boone, Iowa 50036 515-230-1001 (cell) 515-432-6915 (Fax) ksmpunt@hotmail.com Landowner IA-WE-078.000