Even though the Commission gave GBE a second chance to provide the additional information the Commission said it requires in order to make a decision in this case, GBE did not provide the requested information. Much of the requested information—for example, the RTO interconnection studies—will not be available for some time, perhaps years. And, GBE may never be able to get the required consents from all of the county commissions. GBE’s general attitude is summed up thusly: Trust us—we will give you the information only after you give us our CCN.
The response of of Show Me Concerned Landowners points out that Clean Line didn't actually submit the information ordered -- in many instances, it submitted excuses for not providing information, claiming that it would provide the necessary information AFTER the MO PSC issued the CCN. Clean Line seems to overlook the fact that much of this information is REQUIRED in order to issue the permit in the first place! No information, no permit. It's as simple as that.
The Commission should not allow GBE to play this “which comes first—the chicken or the egg” game. Show Me recommends that the Commission deny GBE’s Application without prejudice. GBE is free to refile its Application after it obtains all of the relevant information and documentation that the law and this Commission require.
But wait, Clean Line is whining about the amount of time this is taking! It's already been more than a year!
The Commission’s supplemental procedure should be scheduled with consideration given to the time that has already elapsed in this case. The Company filed its Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity on March 26, 2014, over 12 months ago. Staff and other parties conducted extensive discovery regarding the Company’s Application, testimony, and schedules. The Commission held eight local public hearings, which occurred on August 12 and 14, and September 3 and 4. Three rounds of pre-filed testimony occurred, and the Commission conducted five days of evidentiary hearings (November 10, November 12-14, and November 21).
United for Missouri, another citizens' group, thinks the whole idea of asking for more evidence after the record is closed isn't legal in the first place and the PSC should just deny GBE's application outright:
UFM recommends that the Commission reject the Grain Belt Express Response and deny Grain Belt Express’ application because the Commission misapplied its rules in its March 11 Order. The Commission’s order, therefore, was unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. Further, a review of the Grain Belt Express Response shows that there is very little additional relevant evidence to be adduced in additional proceedings. As a result, further proceedings would be inappropriate and a useless exercise. Finally, a review of the Grain Belt Express Response confirms UFM’s argument in its briefs previously filed in this case, that the proposed facilities are a private enterprise not devoted to the public convenience or necessity, and therefore are not qualified to receive a certificate of convenience and necessity.
Another initial point pertains to the information provided on the number of voluntary easements Grain Belt Express has obtained from landowners on the proposed route. According to Supplemental Exhibit 1 of Grain Belt Express’ Response, out of 724 tracts of land, Grain Belt Express has acquired only 45 easements voluntarily—about 6.2%. Grain Belt Express has been aggressively pursuing voluntary easements from landowners for a year. Given Grain Belt Express’ lack of success in convincing landowners that this is a good project for Missouri, granting Grain Belt Express the power of eminent domain would be inappropriate.
Perhaps the MO PSC should have just denied the application in the first place, instead of opening this can of worms. It's not too late!