Missouri PSC Staff Says Grain Belt Express Must Be Dismissed

The Staff of the Missouri Public Service Commission didn't waste any time filing their brief on whether or not Grain Belt Express needs county assent before the Commission could issue a permit.  Although not due until July 18, per Commission Order, the Staff emphatically stated that the Grain Belt Express application must be dismissed.

The Western District Court of Appeal’s holding means that, because Grain Belt does not have consent from the Caldwell County Commission for Grain Belt’s proposed transmission line to cross the public roads and highways in Caldwell County, this Commission cannot lawfully grant Grain Belt the CCN it requests for the Grain Belt transmission line project.

The law as expounded by the Western District Court of Appeals in its opinion in Case No. WD79883 requires that, because Grain Belt has failed to prove that it has the consent of Caldwell County required by § 229.100, RSMo., to cross the public roads and highways in Caldwell county, which consent the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals has held is required by § 393.170, RSMo. as a precondition to the Commission granting Grain Belt the CCN it requests, this Commission should dismiss this case, whether it does so by granting the Missouri Landowners Alliance’s motion to dismiss or otherwise.

Why wait when the issue is so clear?

Or maybe they just got tired of reading Mark Lawlor's incorrect legal analysis in the media?

Mark Lawlor, director of development for Clean Line, doesn’t believe that the standard applied in the case of Ameren’s project is pertinent to the Grain Belt Express.
“We’re saying these are two different things, with entirely different standards,” he said. He contends that the standards debated in the Mark Twain project apply to utilities seeking permission to provide service on a retail basis, and are not relevant to a merchant developer of transmission, like Clean Line.
The two standards “have gotten conflated into one confusing mess,” he said.

I think the only one confused here is Mark.  He's been marinating in his own misinformation just a smidge too long.

Mark Twain never sought to "provide service on a retail basis."  That's pure invention on the part of Mark.  The PSC Staff says:

The salient facts here regarding Commission jurisdiction are no different than those in the Mark Twain transmission line case. Both are requests for CCNs for transmission lines that would traverse multiple Missouri counties. In both cases the applicants argue in every venue that their requests were made in reliance on §393.170.1, RSMo., for “line certificates” as addressed in State ex rel. Harline v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 343 S.W.2d 177, 182 (Mo. App. W.D. 1960). In Case No. WD79883, the Western District Court of Appeals rejected the argument squarely presented to it that the county consent required by § 229.100, RSMo., is not a prerequisite to the Commission issuing a CCN for a line, regardless of the Harline-based distinction between §393.170.1, RSMo., “line” certificates and § 393.170.2, RSMo., “area” certificates.

Grain Belt Express and Mark Twain both applied for a "line" certificate, no matter what Mark thinks.  So if the Western District Appeals Court's order vacated Mark Twain's permit because it was granted before county assent was obtained, then Grain Belt Express also cannot be granted a permit before obtaining county assent.  No way.  No how.  To do so would be a direct defiance of the courts.  Now why would the PSC want to do that?

You should read the Staff's brief.  It's only 3 pages.  They didn't need much space to explain the law.

It's when a party needs page after page after page of the most ridiculous, intricate, and circular legal arguments to prop up their desired outcome that you know they're wrong.

The truth is simple.  So is doing what's right.