Title: State ex rel. Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

State: missouri

Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. MISSOURI 
) 
COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, 
) 
et al.,  
) 
) 
Appellants,   
 
 
 
 
) 
) 
vs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC95546 
) 
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE 
) 
RULES, et al., 
) 
) 
Respondents. 
) 
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri 
Honorable Patricia S. Joyce, Judge 
Plaintiffs appeal a judgment dismissing for mootness their action challenging the 
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules’ (JCAR) authority to disapprove the 
“geographic sourcing” provisions of a 2010 rule promulgated by the Public Service 
Commission (PSC).  Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to an order compelling the 
Secretary of State to issue a revised version of the 2010 rule that includes the geographic 
sourcing provisions. Alternatively, they argue the Court should require these provisions 
to be added to the 2015 rule that superseded the 2010 rule.  
This Court affirms the dismissal on mootness grounds without reaching the 
question of JCAR’s authority to disapprove the portion of the 2010 rule in question.  The 
Opinion issued April 25, 2017
 
2 
PSC never published the geographic sourcing provisions at issue in this case, and they 
never became part of the 2010 rule.  Moreover, while this case was pending in the trial 
court, the PSC issued an amended 2015 rule that did not include the geographic sourcing 
provisions of the 2010 rule in question here, and no challenge has been filed as to the 
2015 rule.  It is within the discretion of the PSC and the Secretary of State to issue an 
amended 2015 rule to supersede the 2010 rule.  In light of the adoption of the 2015 rule, 
no purpose would be served by addressing JCAR’s actions regarding a superseded prior 
rule.  The trial court’s judgment dismissing this case as moot is affirmed. 
I. 
BACKGROUND 
 
On November 4, 2008, the Missouri electorate approved Proposition C, which 
established renewable energy standards for investor-owned utilities.  Proposition C later 
was codified as sections 393.1020-393.1030, RSMo Supp. 2010.1  In January 2010, the 
PSC proposed regulations implementing Proposition C’s renewable energy standards.  
The proposed regulations included provisions requiring electric corporations to achieve 
escalating percentages of their electricity sales with power obtained from renewable 
energy sources.  Under the proposed regulations, utilities could demonstrate compliance 
with the statute by registering and retiring a sufficient number of “renewable energy 
credits”2 representing renewable energy generated or purchased.  4 CSR 240-20.100(3).  
                                              
1 For more detail concerning section 393.1030 and the renewable energy standards 
contained in it, see State ex rel. Missouri Energy Development Ass’n v. Public Service 
Comm’n, 386 S.W.3d 165, 170 (Mo. App. 2012). 
2 Under the rule, a “renewable energy credit,” or “REC,” is a “tradeable certificate of 
proof that one megawatt-hour of electricity has been generated from renewable energy 
sources.”  § 393.1025(4). 
 
3 
Subsections 240-20.100(2)(A) and (2)(B)2 of the proposed regulations, referred to as the 
“geographic sourcing provisions,” would have required the renewable energy credits to 
represent electricity that was “sold to Missouri customers.”  These geographic sourcing 
provisions form the focus of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.3 
 
When proposing a new rule, an agency must follow certain rulemaking procedures 
set out in title 36, chapter 536, RSMo.  See §§ 536.021.1, 386.125.  The agency must first 
file a notice of proposed rulemaking concurrently with the Secretary of State and with 
JCAR, and the notice shall be published in the Missouri Register as soon as practicable.  
§§ 536.021, 536.024.2, 536.073.5.  The notice of proposed rulemaking must contain the 
entire text of the proposed rule and should specify a timeframe not less than 30 days after 
publication of the notice in the Missouri Register within which anyone may file a 
                                              
3 These subsections stated: 
(A) Electric energy or RECs associated with electric energy are eligible to 
be counted towards the RES requirements only if the generation facility for 
the renewable energy resource is either located in Missouri or, if located 
outside of Missouri, the renewable energy resource is sold to Missouri 
electric energy retail customers. For renewable energy resources generated 
at facilities located outside Missouri, an electric utility shall provide proof 
that the electric energy was sold to Missouri customers. 
(B) The amount of renewable energy resources or RECs associated with 
renewable energy resources that can be counted towards meeting the RES 
requirements are as follows: 
…2. If the facility generating the renewable energy resources is 
located outside Missouri, the allowed amount is the amount of 
megawatt-hours generated by the applicable generating facility that 
is sold to Missouri customers. For the purposes of subsections (A) 
and (B) of this section, Missouri electric energy retail customers 
shall include retail customers of regulated Missouri utilities as well 
as customers of Missouri municipal utilities and Missouri rural 
electric cooperatives. 
35 Mo. Reg. 365 (Feb. 16, 2010). 
 
4 
statement in support of or in opposition to the proposed rulemaking.  § 536.021.2.  The 
agency may also solicit comments from the public about the proposed rule before it files 
its final order of rulemaking.  § 536.026.  Normally, within 90 days after the end of the 
notice and comment period, “the state agency proposing the rule shall file with the 
Secretary of State a final order of rulemaking either adopting the proposed rule, with or 
without further changes, or withdrawing the proposed rule, which order of rulemaking 
shall be published in the Missouri Register.”  § 536.021.5.  But the filing agency must 
first submit the final order of rulemaking to JCAR, and it cannot file the order with the 
Secretary of State until 30 days after such final order has been received by JCAR.  
§ 536.024.3.  During this 30-day period, JCAR may hold hearings on the final order of 
rulemaking.  Id.   
No proposed rule can become effective without submission to JCAR, which has 
the authority to disapprove a rule in whole or in part.  § 536.073.  JCAR shall report any 
disapproved portion to the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives, and that 
portion shall not take effect if JCAR’s action is ratified by resolution adopted in each 
house within 30 legislative days after JCAR’s disapproval.  § 536.073.9.  Any portion of 
a proposed rule that is disapproved shall not formally be filed with the Secretary of State 
by the proposing agency or published by the agency in the Missouri Register.  
§ 536.073.8.     
In this case, in January 2010, the PSC filed notice of the proposed rule with the 
Secretary of State and with JCAR in accordance with section 536.073.5.  The text of this 
proposed rule included the geographic sourcing provisions, and it was published in the 
 
5 
Missouri Register for notice and comment in February 2010 as required by section 
536.021.1. 35 Mo. Reg. 365 (Feb. 10, 2010).  After the comment period ended in June 
2010, the PSC filed with JCAR a final order of rulemaking, including the two geographic 
sourcing provisions, pursuant to section 536.024.  JCAR held hearings concerning the 
proposed rule and ultimately voted to disapprove the two geographic sourcing provisions 
on July 1, 2010.  JCAR also sent a letter to the Secretary of State informing the Secretary 
of its action. A few days later, the PSC submitted a revised 2010 final order of 
rulemaking with the Secretary of State and with JCAR.  The transmittal letter stated that 
as to the two geographic sourcing provisions, “in accordance with section 536.073.8, the 
Commission is not filing those sections for publication” with the remainder of the rule, so 
those provisions would not become effective.  Instead, uncertain whether at some later 
point provisions addressing geographic sourcing might be needed, the PSC stated it was 
asking the Secretary of State to show subsections (2)(A) and (2)(B)2 as “reserved” for 
later use “in the event the Commission decides to amend the rule.”   
On August 16, 2010, the Secretary of State published the revised final 2010 rule in 
the Missouri Register.  35 Mo. Reg. 1183 (Aug. 16, 2010).  That published 2010 rule did 
not contain the geographic sourcing provisions.  The revised 2010 rule became effective 
September 30, 2010. 4 CSR 240-20.100 (2010).   
At the end of January 2011, after the revised 2010 rule had already become 
effective, the PSC issued an “Order Withdrawing Geographic Sourcing Provisions (2)(A) 
and (2)(B)2 of 4 CSR 240-20.100 Pursuant to the Actions of JCAR” and stating that it 
had not presented the provisions to the Secretary of State and would not do so in the 
 
6 
future.  It further stated, “The Commission is withdrawing those provisions and again 
requests that [the geographic sourcing provisions] not be published or become effective.”  
The order was not appealed and was published in the Missouri Register.  36 Mo. Reg. 
1002-1007 (Apr. 1, 2011). 
When the legislature reconvened for the 2011 session, it passed Senate Concurrent 
Resolution No. 1, which disapproved the withdrawn geographic sourcing provisions.  The 
Governor received the resolution but sent a letter to both chambers, stating he did not 
sign or veto it because the PSC order withdrawing the geographic sourcing provisions 
rendered the resolution moot.4  The concurrent resolution and the letter from the 
Governor were published in the 2011 Missouri Register. 36 Mo. Reg. 1008-1011 (Apr. 1, 
2011). 
 
More than two and one-half years later, in October 2013, Missouri Coalition for 
the Environment, Missouri Solar Applications, LLC, and Thomas J. Sager initiated an 
action against the Secretary of State, JCAR, the PSC, and the Governor, challenging 
JCAR’s authority to disapprove the portions of the 2010 rule as first proposed and 
promulgated by the PSC.  Plaintiffs recognized that sections 536.019, 536.021, and 
536.073 authorize JCAR to disapprove any rule or portion of any rule filed by an agency 
but argued those statutes violate the separation of powers clause set out in article II, 
                                              
4 This opinion does not address the effect of or need for the formal withdrawal or whether 
there it was necessary for the legislature to adopt a concurrent resolution in light of the 
fact that subsections (2)(A) and (2)(B)2 had been withdrawn and the final 2010 rule 
published without them. 
 
7 
section 1, of the Missouri Constitution5 to the extent they allow a legislative committee to 
suspend and veto administrative rules.  Defendants argued the case was moot because the 
PSC voluntarily withdrew the geographic sourcing provisions before the 2010 rule was 
published.  They also cite Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. Joint Committee on 
Administrative Rules, 948 S.W.2d 125, 134 (Mo. banc 1997), and allege any 
constitutional issue was resolved by section 536.073.9’s requirement that the legislature 
pass a concurrent resolution approving any disapproval which shall be submitted to the 
Governor.  
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The trial court initially 
granted the PSC’s motion.  Plaintiffs appealed the decision to this Court, which dismissed 
the appeal because the judgment was not final as to all parties.  Order Dismissing Appeal, 
State ex rel. Mo. Coal. for the Env’t v. Joint Comm. on Admin. Rules, Case No. SC95100 
(Mo. banc Nov. 17, 2015).  In the meantime, the PSC was undertaking new rulemaking in 
accordance with chapter 536’s rulemaking procedures.  The proposed new rulemaking 
never contained geographic sourcing provisions.  40 Mo. Reg. 538-554 (May 1, 2015).  
After an appropriate notice and comment period and submission to JCAR and the 
Secretary of State, the 2015 rule was published in the Code of State Regulations on 
October 31, 2015 and took effect on November 30, 2015.  40 Mo. Reg. 1499 (Oct. 15, 
                                              
5 Article II, section 1 of the Missouri Constitution provides: “The powers of government 
shall be divided into three distinct departments--the legislative, executive and judicial--
each of which shall be confided to a separate magistracy, and no person, or collection of 
persons, charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of those 
departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except 
in the instances in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.” 
 
8 
2015), 4 CSR 240-20.100 (2015).6  
Because the 2015 rule did not have, and never had, geographic sourcing 
provisions, and the 2010 rule had been superseded and was no longer in effect, after 
publication of the 2015 rule, the PSC moved the circuit court to dismiss the action as 
moot.  On January 11, 2016, the circuit court granted the PSC’s motion. 
Believing the trial court erred in ruling the case moot, Plaintiffs appeal directly to 
this Court.  They argue the statute permitting JCAR to disapprove of all or part of a 
proposed rule violates the separation of powers provisions of article I section 3 of the 
Missouri Constitution.  They ask this Court to order the Secretary of State to republish 
the 2015 rule with the geographic sourcing provisions that once had been proposed by the 
PSC for inclusion in the 2010 rule.  
II. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
Appellate courts review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo.  Byrne & Jones 
Enters. v. Monroe City R-1 Sch. Dist., 493 S.W.3d 847, 851 (Mo. banc 2016).  “In 
reviewing the dismissal of a petition, the sole issue to be decided is whether, after 
allowing the pleading its broadest intendment, treating all facts alleged as true and 
construing all allegations favorably to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to relief.”  Id. 
(citation and quotation marks omitted).  “This Court must affirm the dismissal if it can be 
                                              
6 The new renewable energy standards rule retained the same numbering as the former 
rule, which meant it continued to reserve subsections (2)(A) and (2)(B)(2).  It contains 
the same note concerning these provisions as the 2010 final rule, explaining JCAR’s 
disapproval, the PSC’s order withdrawing the provisions, and the 2011 Senate 
Concurrent Resolution No. 1.  At oral argument, the parties indicated these subsections 
 
9 
sustained on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss.”  Id. (citation and quotation 
marks omitted).  Mootness is a legal issue reviewed de novo.  See State ex rel. Reed v. 
Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. banc 2001); Mercy Hosps. E. Cmtys. v. Mo. Health 
Facilities Review Comm., 362 S.W.3d 415, 417 (Mo. banc 2012).  
III. 
THE ACTION PROPERLY WAS DISMISSED AS MOOT   
 
A trial court properly dismisses a cause of action as moot “when the question 
presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was 
rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.”  C.C. 
Dillon Co. v. City of Eureka, 12 S.W.3d 322, 325 (Mo. banc 2000) (quotation omitted). 
“When an event renders a court’s decision unnecessary, such as where an enactment 
supersedes the statute on which the litigants rely to define their rights, an appeal no 
longer represents an actual controversy and should be dismissed.”  Humane Soc’y of the 
U.S. v. State, 405 S.W.3d 532, 536 (Mo. banc 2013).   
Here, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutional validity of JCAR’s authority to 
disapprove of proposed administrative rules such as the two geographic sourcing 
provisions included in the first proposed version of the 2010 rule.  Those standards were 
not included in the published 2010 rule after the PSC voluntarily withdrew them before 
action by the legislature or Governor to approve JCAR’s disapproval.  Whether the PSC 
action mooted the controversy about JCAR’s authority, see Mo. Energy Dev. Ass’n, 386 
S.W.3d at 175-76, and whether JCAR had authority to disapprove the geographic 
                                                                                                                                                  
remained reserved so, should this Court order the inclusion of the geographic sourcing 
provisions in the revised rule, there would be a location for them to be added. 
 
10 
sourcing provisions, need not be resolved by this Court because, while this case was 
pending at the trial level, the PSC in 2015 amended and superseded the 2010 rule in its 
entirety with a 2015 renewable energy standards rule, which took effect November 30, 
2015.  No part of the 2015 rule’s text includes, or ever has included, the geographic 
sourcing standards.7  Disapproval by this Court of JCAR’s actions in regard to the 2010 
rule accordingly would not affect any live controversy.  The 2010 rule that plaintiffs seek 
this Court to order to be revised to include the geographic sourcing provisions no longer 
is in effect. This suit does not challenge the 2015 rule, so the validity of the 2015 rule is 
not before the Court. 
 
This Court has long recognized that, when a challenged provision is superseded, 
the challenge becomes moot.  For instance, in Missouri Municipal League v. State, 465 
S.W.3d 904, 906 (Mo. banc 2015), the plaintiff sought declaratory judgement that a 
statute was invalid because its bill-passage violated procedural requirements in the 
Missouri Constitution.  While the case was being litigated, however, the General 
Assembly repealed and replaced the statute challenged by the plaintiff.  This Court found 
the plaintiff’s procedural claims were moot because they were based on allegations 
concerning the enactment of the old statute.  This meant that “no matter what declaration 
this Court might make about the validity of [the challenged statute] enacted therein, that 
declaration would have no practical effect going forward. … Instead, those rights and 
                                              
7 JCAR notes that any person or entity may comment on a proposed rule during the notice 
and comment period.  § 536.021.  
 
11 
obligations will be governed by the provisions of [the newly enacted statute].”  Id.8 
The same reasoning applies here.  While Plaintiffs have challenged the validity of 
the 2010 rule, that rule has been superseded and is no longer in effect.  Whether JCAR 
had the authority to disapprove of the geographic sourcing provisions in the superseded 
2010 rule, therefore, is moot, as resolution of that issue would have no real-world effect. 
Mo. Energy Dev. Ass’n, 386 S.W.3d at 175-77. 
Plaintiffs argue the controversy is not moot because the reason the geographic 
sourcing provisions were not included in the 2015 rule was that the PSC knew JCAR 
would disapprove if the 2015 rule included the geographic sourcing provisions that had 
once been proposed in the 2010 rule, and, therefore, JCAR’s disapproval still has an 
effect on the 2015 rule.  Plaintiffs further argue this Court can “issue effectual relief by 
order of mandamus compelling the Secretary of State to publish the geographic sourcing 
provisions.”   
As this Court noted in State ex rel. Missouri Growth Association v. State Tax 
Commission, 998 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Mo. banc 1999), mandamus applies only to 
ministerial acts; it cannot be used to compel a public official to perform a discretionary 
act.  Although the PSC is required to “make whatever rules are necessary to enforce the 
renewable energy standard,” § 393.1030.2, there “is still no ministerial duty to 
promulgate the specific rule in question because conceivably there is a host of different 
rules that could accomplish [the statute’s] mandate.”  Mo. Growth Ass’n, 998 S.W.2d at 
                                              
8 See also Humane Soc’y, 405 S.W.3d at 535-36 (affirming the trial court judgment 
finding the plaintiffs’ claim was moot because the plaintiffs had alleged a procedural 
 
12 
789.  The PSC exercised its discretion in drafting an amended 2015 rule and chose not to 
include geographic sourcing provisions.  “Missouri courts have long recognized that 
when the decision involves the exercise of regulatory discretion, the PSC is delegated a 
large amount of discretion, and many of its decisions necessarily rest largely in the 
exercise of its own judgment.”  State ex rel. Sprint Mo., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 165 
S.W.3d 160, 164 (Mo. banc 2005) (quotation omitted).  While Plaintiffs speculate as to 
what caused the PSC to exercise its discretion in that way, they cite no authority that the 
PSC’s motivations affect the validity of the rule so adopted.  Moreover, as noted, the 
validity of the 2015 rule was not challenged below or in this Court and cannot affect the 
mootness of the challenge to the 2010 rule that is at issue in this case. 
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
This Court affirms the trial court judgment dismissing this case as moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     LAURA DENVIR STITH, JUDGE 
 
Breckenridge, C.J., Fischer, Draper and  
Russell, JJ., and Hess, Sp.J., concur.  
Wilson, J., not participating. 
                                                                                                                                                  
defect in the enactment of a statute that had since been repealed and reenacted).