Case Title: Grain Belt Express Clean Line, LLC v. Public Service Commission

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC96993

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2018-07-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
GRAIN BELT EXPRESS CLEAN LINE, 
) 
LLC; MISSOURI JOINT MUNICIPAL   
) 
ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION; and 
) 
MISSOURI LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE, 
) 
) 
Appellants,  
 
 
) 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC96993 
) 
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 
 
) 
) 
Respondent  
 
 
) 
) 
(IN THE MATTER OF GRAIN BELT   
) 
EXPRESS CLEAN LINE, LLC FOR  
 
) 
A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND  ) 
NECESSITY AUTHORIZING IT TO 
) 
CONSTRUCT, OWN, OPERATE, 
) 
CONTROL, MANAGE, AND MAINTAIN 
) 
A HIGH VOLTAGE, DIRECT CURRENT 
) 
TRANSMISSION LINE AND 
) 
AN ASSOCIATED CONVERTER STATION  ) 
PROVIDING AN INTERCONNECTION ON ) 
THE MAYWOOD-MONTGOMERY 345 KV  ) 
TRANSMISSION LINE).  
 
 
) 
APPEAL FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
Opinion issued July 17, 2018
2 
PER CURIAM 
 
Grain Belt Express Clean Line, LLC (“Grain Belt”), seeks to construct a complex, 
interstate electrical transmission line and associated facilities.  It applied to the Missouri 
Public Service Commission (“Commission”) for a line certificate of convenience and 
necessity (“CCN”) pursuant to section 393.170.1.1  The Commission denied the 
application for a line CCN, relying on In re Ameren Transmission Co. of Illinois (ATXI), 
523 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. App. 2017), which purports to require prior consent from each 
county affected by the proposed construction.  The question to be resolved in this case is 
whether consent is required from would-be affected counties before the Commission can 
issue a line CCN.   
 
The statute governing line CCNs, section 393.170.1, does not require prior consent 
from affected counties.  Consent is required, however, from affected counties when the 
utility applies for an area CCN under section 393.170.2.  That subsection sets out the 
procedure for area CCN applications when a utility is seeking to provide retail service.  
Because Grain Belt has applied for a line CCN rather than an area CCN, it does not need 
to obtain prior county consent.   
 
In addition, when publicly owned county roads are impacted, assent is also 
required under section 229.100 from those counties before construction may begin.  
Although the provisions in that section are not relevant to the Commission’s decision in 
issuing a line CCN, Grain Belt acknowledges it will be required to obtain county assent 
                                              
1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016, unless otherwise indicated.   
3 
pursuant to section 229.100 if it intends to construct utilities impacting publicly owned 
roads.   
 
The Commission’s reliance on ATXI was error.  To the extent ATXI suggests 
consent from every would-be affected county is required before the Commission can 
grant a line CCN, it should not be followed.  Accordingly, the Commission’s order 
denying Grain Belt’s application for a line CCN pursuant to section 393.170.1 is 
reversed, and the case is remanded to the Commission to determine whether Grain Belt’s 
proposed utility project is necessary or convenient for the public service.   
Factual and Procedural Background 
 
Grain Belt filed an application for a line CCN with the Commission pursuant to 
section 393.170.1, 4 CSR 240-2.060, and 4 CSR 240-3.105(1)(B).  The application 
sought the Commission’s approval of Grain Belt’s proposed construction of an interstate 
electrical transmission line, which would move wind-generated energy from western 
Kansas to Missouri and other states farther east.  The overhead, multi-terminal line would 
cross 206 miles through the following eight Missouri counties: Buchanan, Caldwell, 
Carroll, Chariton, Clinton, Monroe, Randolph, and Ralls.   
 
The Commission’s report and order denied Grain Belt’s application for a line 
CCN, concluding it was bound by the court of appeals decision in ATXI.  Because ATXI 
had held that the Commission could not lawfully grant a CCN without consent from each 
county affected by a project pursuant to section 393.170.2 and section 229.100, the 
Commission concluded it could not lawfully grant a CCN to Grain Belt until it submitted 
evidence of county assent pursuant to section 229.100.  Four of the five commissioners 
4 
joined in a concurring opinion, stating they disagreed with ATXI and would have voted 
otherwise to grant Grain Belt’s application, but they believed they were bound by its 
holding.   
 
Grain Belt and the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission 
(“MJMEUC”) appeal the Commission’s report and order.  Although the Missouri 
Landowner’s Alliance (“MLA”) prevailed before the Commission, it files a separate 
appeal.  After issuing an opinion, the court of appeals transferred the case to this Court on 
its own motion under Rule 83.02 due to the general interest and importance of the issue 
presented.  This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 10 of the Missouri 
Constitution.   
Standard of Review 
 
Pursuant to section 386.510, appellate review of an order by the Commission is 
two-pronged: “first, the reviewing court must determine whether the [Commission’s] 
order is lawful; and second, the court must determine whether the order is reasonable.”  
State ex rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of State, 120 S.W.3d 732, 734 
(Mo. banc 2003).  The Commission’s order is presumed valid, and the burden of showing 
the order is unlawful or unreasonable rests with the appellant.  In re Mo.-Am. Water Co., 
516 S.W.3d 823, 827 (Mo. banc 2017).  All questions of law are reviewed de novo.  Id.   
Analysis 
I.  The Legislature Has Provided Two Types of CCNs 
 
Grain Belt argues the Commission erred in denying its application for a line CCN 
based on ATXI.  Before addressing this argument, a review of the statute creating CCNs 
5 
is helpful.  Section 393.170 sets out two types of CCNs the Commission may grant a 
utility.  These types are provided for in separate subsections of section 393.170 and are 
commonly referred to as “line certificates” and “area certificates.”  See, e.g., State ex rel. 
Cass Cty. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 259 S.W.3d 544, 548-49 (Mo. App. 2008).  Section 
393.170.1 grants the Commission the authority to issue a line CCN to a utility to 
construct electrical plants.  Subsection 1 provides:  
No gas corporation, electrical corporation, water corporation or sewer 
corporation shall begin construction of a gas plant, electric plant, water 
system or sewer system without first having obtained the permission and 
approval of the commission.   
 
Sec. 393.170.1.  The Commission’s grant of a line CCN does not require prior consent 
from affected counties.   
 
Section 393.170.2 grants the Commission the authority to issue an area CCN for 
the utility to exercise a franchise and provide retail utility service to a geographic 
territory.  See, e.g., Cass Cty., 259 S.W.3d at 549.  Subsection 2 provides:  
No such corporation shall exercise any right or privilege under any franchise 
hereafter granted, or under any franchise heretofore granted but not 
heretofore actually exercised, or the exercise of which shall have been 
suspended for more than one year, without first having obtained the 
permission and approval of the commission.  Before such certificate shall be 
issued a certified copy of the charter of such corporation shall be filed in the 
office of the commission, together with a verified statement of the president 
and secretary of the corporation, showing that it has received the required 
consent of the proper municipal authorities.   
 
Sec. 393.170.2 (emphasis added).  Subsection 2 requires prior consent from would-be 
affected counties before the Commission can grant approval.   
6 
 
The legislature’s intent to distinguish between the two types of CCNs is further 
evidenced in subsection 3 of the statute, promulgated regulations, and case law.  Section 
393.170.3 uses the disjunctive “or” when referencing the Commission’s power to grant a 
line or area CCN.  Subsection 3 provides, in relevant part, “The commission shall have 
the power to grant the permission and approval herein specified whenever it shall after 
due hearing determine that such construction or such exercise of the right, privilege or 
franchise is necessary or convenient for the public service.”  Sec. 393.170.3 (emphasis 
added).   
 
In addition, the distinction between the two types of CCNs provided for in 
subsections 1 and 2 of 393.170 is apparent in the different filing requirements as found in 
rules promulgated by the Commission.  4 CSR 240-2.060 contains the general 
requirements for applications to the Commission.  These requirements, however, are 
qualified by 4 CSR 240-3.105, which contains the specific filing requirements for CCN 
applications.  4 CSR 240-3.105(1)(A) sets forth the requirements for an area CCN 
application under section 393.170.2.  4 CSR 240-3.105(1)(B), on the other hand, contains 
separate filing requirements for a line CCN application under section 393.170.1.2   
 
Case law also has repeatedly recognized section 393.170 as providing for two 
types of CCNs.  See, e.g., Cass Cty., 259 S.W.3d at 548-49 (“The permission and 
approval that may be granted pursuant to section 393.170 is of two types: [The 
                                              
2 Specifically, 4 CSR 240-3.105 provides a set of filing requirements “[i]f the application is for a 
service area,” 4 CSR 240-3.105(1)(A) (emphasis added), and a separate set of filing 
requirements “[i]f the application is for electrical transmission lines, gas transmission lines or 
electrical production facilities,” 4 CSR 240-3.105(1)(B) (emphasis added).   
7 
Commission] may grant CCNs for the construction of power plants, as described in 
subsection 1, or for the exercise of rights and privileges under a franchise, as described in 
subsection 2.”); StopAquila.Org v. Aquila, Inc., 180 S.W.3d 24, 33 (Mo. App. 2005) 
(noting there is a difference between the Commission’s grant of authority to construct 
utility lines and the Commission’s grant of authority to service a territory); State ex rel. 
Union Elec. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of State of Mo., 770 S.W.2d 283, 285-86 (Mo. 
App. 1989) (“Two types of certificate authority are contemplated in [section 393.170].”); 
State ex rel. Harline v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Mo., 343 S.W.2d 177, 185 (Mo. App. 
1960) (“Certificate ‘authority’ is of two kinds and emanates from two classified sources.  
Sub-section 1 requires ‘authority’ to construct an electric plant.  Sub-section 2 requires 
‘authority’ for an established company to serve a territory by means of an existing 
plant.”).   
 
The Commission erred in holding that prior county consent was necessary before 
it could approve Grain Belt’s application for a line CCN by erroneously analyzing this 
case under the area CCN subsection.   
II.  The Commission’s Reliance on ATXI was in Error 
 
The Commission’s decision to deny the line CCN because it found ATXI 
controlling was also error.  In ATXI, the Commission issued a “conditional” report and 
order granting Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois (“Ameren”) a CCN to 
construct a long-distance electric transmission line.  523 S.W.2d at 23.  The CCN, 
however, was contingent upon Ameren receiving the required assents of each county 
affected by the project as required by section 229.100.  Id.  Section 229.100 requires any 
8 
entity intending to construct utilities impacting publicly owned roads to first obtain assent 
from the county where the roads are located before construction may begin.  ATXI held 
that the Commission did not have the statutory authority to issue a “conditional” CCN 
because, according to section 393.170.2 and 4 CSR 240-3.105(1)(D)1, a utility seeking a 
CCN must obtain consent from would-be affected counties before the Commission can 
grant a CCN.  Id.   
 
It was not clear, however, whether Ameren’s CCN application was seeking a line 
CCN or an area CCN.  Ameren’s application stated it was seeking a CCN pursuant to 
section 393.170 and 4 CSR 240-3.105 without specifying under which subsection of the 
statute and regulation it was applying.3   
 
Section 393.170.2, which concerns area CCNs, was the only subsection of the 
statute analyzed in ATXI.  “[T]he specific language of section 393.170.2 states that 
evidence of the county commission consents ‘shall’ be on file before the PSC grants a 
CCN.”4  523 S.W.2d at 26.  The court of appeals did not acknowledge section 393.170.1 
does not require preliminary county consent for line CCNs.  In fact, ATXI does not cite 
                                              
3 Ameren’s application followed the provisions of 4 CSR 240-3.105(1)(B), which is the 
application for a “line certificate.”  It also stated it neither provided retail electric service to the 
general public in Missouri nor served any retail service territory in Missouri.  Ameren’s 
application also requested Commission approval to construct utility lines (indicative of a line 
CCN) rather than exercise a franchise (indicative of an area CCN).  Yet the application also 
indicated factors contemplating an area CCN pursuant to section 393.170.2.  The application 
stated the proposed project would provide benefits for Missouri customers by reducing 
transmission charges to Ameren Missouri by improving the overall reliability of the regional 
transmission system and reducing transmission system congestion.  Further, the application 
stated it would seek approval or waivers from the appropriate authorities prior to the grant of the 
CCN.  Both of these statements contemplate an area CCN pursuant to section 393.170.2.   
4 The Commission’s rules also clearly provide when consent to a project is required, it must be 
received prior to the issuance of a CCN.  4 CSR 240-3.105(2).   
9 
section 393.170.1 at all.  By failing to consider subsection 1, ATXI can be read to conflate 
the provisions in subsection 1 with those in subsection 2.  ATXI’s failure to distinguish 
between line CCNs in subsection 1 and area CCNs in subsection 2 resulted in the 
Commission’s issuance of either type of CCN being contingent on the utility’s receiving 
local approval.  Such an incorrect interpretation renders the use of the disjunctive “or” in 
subsection 3 meaningless.  This Court cannot ignore words in a statute and must give 
meaning to every word used.  State v. Moore, 303 S.W.3d 515, 520 (Mo. banc 2010).   
 
Section 393.170 clearly provides for two types of CCNs and explicitly requires 
prior consent from would-be affected counties to obtain one type of CCN, an area CCN, 
but not the other, a line CCN.  To the extent ATXI requires consent from every would-be 
affected county before the Commission can grant a line CCN, it should not be followed.   
 
In this case, Grain Belt has applied for a line CCN under section 393.170.1.  It has 
not applied for an area CCN under section 393.170.2 because, according to Grain Belt, it 
will not be providing retail service to electric consumers.  Accordingly, it was not 
required to obtain consents from the affected counties before the Commission could issue 
a line CCN.     
 
Further, Grain Belt acknowledges it will be required to obtain county assent 
pursuant to section 229.100 if it intends to construct utilities impacting publicly owned 
roads.  The provisions in that section, however, are not relevant to the Commission’s 
decision-making process in issuing a line CCN.  Section 229.100 does not purport to give 
counties the authority to stand in the shoes of the Commission in determining whether a 
proposed utility project is in the public interest of the state or whether a utility should be 
10 
granted a CCN.  Other than providing that county assent must be obtained prior to 
beginning construction when county roads are impacted, section 229.100 is silent as to 
timing, order of priority, or any other reference to section 393.170 covering the 
Commission’s authority to issue CCNs.  The Commission erred in relying on ATXI in 
denying Grain Belt’s application based on its failure to first obtain assent from impacted 
counties.  Admittedly, Grain Belt will need to obtain such assent before it can begin 
construction if county roads will be impacted, but county assent is not required prior to 
the Commission issuing a line CCN.   
Conclusion 
The Commission erroneously concluded it could not lawfully grant a line CCN to 
Grain Belt without the utility first obtaining consent from the affected counties.  Such 
consent is not required before obtaining a line CCN pursuant to section 393.170.1.  
Consent is required if the utility is seeking an area CCN pursuant to section 393.170.2, 
but it was clear under the facts in the instant case that an area CCN was not requested.  
Grain Belt acknowledges it ultimately will need county assent pursuant to section 
229.100 if it intends to construct utilities impacting publicly owned roads, but such assent 
is not relevant to the Commission’s decision in issuing a line CCN.  Consequently, the  
 
11 
Commission’s order denying Grain Belt’s application for a line CCN is reversed, and the 
case is remanded to the Commission to determine whether Grain Belt’s proposed utility 
project is necessary or convenient for the public service.5   
 
 
 
All concur.   
 
                                              
5 MJMEUC and MLA’s briefs assert several points on appeal.  The Commission filed a motion 
to dismiss MLA’s appeal, which was taken with the case.  Because this Court’s review of Grain 
Belt’s points on appeal is dispositive, this Court does not reach the claims raised by MJMEUC or 
MLA.  Consequently, the Commission’s motion to dismiss MLA’s appeal is overruled as moot.