Court Opinion

ID: 9381946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 14:04:08.027564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:36.100620
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

                                No. 21–0696

             Submitted February 21, 2023—Filed March 24, 2023

LS POWER MIDCONTINENT, LLC and SOUTHWEST TRANSMISSION, LLC,

      Appellants,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, IOWA UTILITIES BOARD, GERI D. HUSER, GLEN
DICKINSON, and LESLIE HICKEY,

      Appellees,

and

MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY and ITC MIDWEST LLC,

      Intervenor-Appellees

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty,

Judge.

      Electric transmission companies seek further review of the court of

appeals decision affirming the district court’s ruling they lacked standing to

challenge the constitutionality of anticompetitive legislation. TEMPORARY

INJUNCTION GRANTED. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED;

DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH

INSTRUCTIONS.
                                         2

      Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating

justices joined. Oxley, McDermott, and May, JJ., took no part in the

consideration or decision of the case.

      Michael R. Reck (argued), Charles F. Becker, and Erika L. Bauer (until

withdrawal) of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and David M. Ranscht (argued) and

Benjamin Flickinger (until withdrawal), Assistant Attorneys General, for State

appellees.

      Stanley J. Thompson (until withdrawal), Elizabeth R. Meyer, and Tara Z.

Hall of Dentons Davis Brown PC, West Des Moines, for intervenor-appellee

MidAmerican Energy Company.

      Bret A. Dublinske (argued) and Lisa M. Agrimonti of Fredrikson & Byron,

P.A., Des Moines, and Amy Monopoli (until withdrawal) of ITC Holdings Corp.,

Des Moines, for intervenor-appellee ITC Midwest LLC.

      Lynn C. Herndon of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, and Kenneth R.

Stark of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Harrisburg, PA, for amicus curiae

Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers.

      Terri C. Davis and Kelly A. Cwiertny of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C,

Cedar Rapids, for amicus curiae Resale Power Group of Iowa.

      Samantha C. Norris, Haley R. Van Loon, and Jackson G. O’Brien of Brown,

Winick, Graves, Gross and Baskerville, P.L.C. for amicus curiae NextEra Energy

Transmission, LLC.
                                        3

WATERMAN, Justice.

      In this appeal, we must decide whether the district court correctly ruled

that qualified would-be competitors in the electric transmission market lacked

standing to challenge new legislation that blocks them from bidding against

existing Iowa operators on future projects. The statute at issue, Iowa Code

section 478.16 (2020), grants “incumbent” Iowa entities a right of first refusal

(ROFR) that forestalls competitive bidding. The ROFR repeatedly failed to pass

as a stand-alone bill but was enacted in the final hours of the 2020 legislative

session as part of a fifty-page appropriations bill. The plaintiffs sued the Iowa

Utilities Board to enjoin enforcement of section 478.16 on grounds the

enactment violated the single-subject, title, and equal protection provisions of

the Iowa Constitution. The district court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss

on grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because there were no approved

projects to upgrade Iowa’s electric grid when the suit was filed.

      The plaintiffs appealed, arguing they satisfied standing requirements

because such projects were imminent and they were otherwise qualified bidders.

We transferred the case to the court of appeals. New projects were announced

while the appeal was pending and the plaintiffs moved to stay enforcement of the

ROFR. The court of appeals denied the stay, declined to take judicial notice of

the new projects, and affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing, stating the

plaintiffs “swung before the pitch and cannot satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of

our standing test.” We granted the plaintiffs’ application for further review.
                                                4

       On our review, we hold the district court erred by dismissing this action

for lack of standing. The more fitting baseball analogy is that the enactment of

section 478.16 took the plaintiffs off the ball field before the game began. The

likelihood of future projects satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement for standing.

We vacate the court of appeals decision, reverse the dismissal order, and remand

the case for the district court to address the constitutional challenges on the

merits. Because the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits,

we grant a temporary injunction to stay enforcement of section 478.16 pending

resolution of this litigation.

       I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

       The electricity market involves three main steps: generation, transmission,

and distribution. This case is about transmission: how to move electric power

from where it is generated to where it is distributed either wholesale or to retail

consumers. Congress has enacted massive funding to upgrade our nation’s

electric grid. The bipartisan infrastructure bill and Inflation Reduction Act have

appropriated billions of dollars for electric transmission projects.1 The plaintiffs

in this case, LS Power Midcontinent, LLC, and Southwest Transmission, LLC,

(collectively LSP), are among the few entities with the capital and expertise to

compete for upcoming upgrades to the electric grid.

       Our    nation’s   electric   grid   is       interdependent.   For   example,   PJM

Interconnection, one of the largest grid operators in the thirteen eastern states,

       1InflationReduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, § 50151, 136 Stat. 1818, 2046
(2022) (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. § 18715); Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L.
No. 117-58, § 40106, 135 Stat. 429, 934 (2021) (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. § 18713).
                                        5

generates surplus electricity from fossil fuel plants. “When wind power plunged

in the Midwest and central states [in late February 2023], PJM helped fill the gap

between supply and demand and kept the lights on.” S.O.S. for the U.S. Electric

Grid, Wall St. J. (Feb. 26, 2023, 4:47 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/s-o-s-

for-the-u-s-electric-grid-pjm-interconnection-blackout-supply-renewables-

subsidy-report-fossil-fuel-4cbdd56e. Efficient transmission is a key component

for avoiding grid imbalances that can lead to blackouts. See id. (citing PJM

report).

      The Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) regulates the siting and construction of

electric transmission lines in our state pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 478. The

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates interstate, high-voltage

transmission. FERC in turn oversees regional transmission organizations

(RTOs). Each RTO coordinates, controls, and monitors the power grid within its

region of service. This authority includes planning and approving new

transmission projects to be carried out by private entities. Two RTOs,

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Southwest Power Pool

(SPP), serve Iowa. Missouri-based LSP actively develops, constructs, and

manages electric transmission projects in the territory of these two RTOs. LSP

currently has no projects in Iowa.

      In 2011, FERC took action to lower the cost of grid upgrades. Specifically,

FERC directed RTOs to remove federal-level ROFRs in order to increase

competitive bidding. See Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by

Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, 76 Fed. Reg. 49,841,
                                                  6

49,855 (2011) [hereinafter FERC Order]. The agency reasoned that federal

ROFRs might “be leading to rates . . . that are unjust and unreasonable,” in large

part because “it is not in the economic self-interest of incumbent[s] to permit

new entrants to develop transmission facilities,” even if those facilities “would

result in a more efficient or cost-effective solution.” NextEra Energy Cap.

Holdings, Inc. v. Lake, 48 F.4th 306, 312 (5th Cir. 2022) (alteration and omission

in original) (quoting FERC Order at 49,886). Because the Federal Power Act

“leav[es] room for state regulation,” the FERC Order permits state-level ROFRs.

Id.; FERC Order at 49,880. That left the door open to the state ROFR at issue

here.

        A. The ROFR and Its Effects. Iowa Code section 478.16(2), enacted in

2020, 2020 Iowa Acts ch. 1121, § 128, gives incumbent electric transmission

owners an ROFR2 to construct, own, and maintain an RTO-approved electric

         2At oral argument, counsel for LSP contended the right granted by Iowa Code

section 478.16(2) should not be called a “right of first refusal.” He explained the holder of a right
of first refusal has a right to match a third party’s higher offer on a project or real estate. See
Right of First Refusal, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“For example, if Beth has a right
of first refusal on the purchase of Sam’s house, and if Terry offers to buy the house for $300,000,
then Beth can match this offer and prevent Terry from buying it.”). In his view, section 478.16(2)
grants a right that is even more restrictive than a right of first refusal because it does not require
bid matching; instead, the incumbent transmission owner is automatically entitled to take on a
transmission project if it so chooses.
         Counsel’s point is well taken. Section 478.16(2) more closely resembles a right of
preemption, which entitles the holder to the first opportunity to buy before any third parties
become involved. See Right of Preemption, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“For example,
if Beth has a right of preemption on Sam’s house for five years at $100,000, Sam can either keep
the house for five years (in which case Beth’s right expires) or, if he wishes to sell during those
five years, offer the house to Beth, who can either buy it for $100,000 or refuse to buy. If Beth
refuses, Sam can sell to someone else.”); see also Knepper v. Monticello State Bank, 450 N.W.2d
833, 836 (Iowa 1990) (“A preemption merely requires the owner, when and if he decides to sell,
to offer the property first to the person entitled to the preemption.”).
       Our cases, however, have used “right of preemption” and “right of first refusal”
interchangeably. See, e.g., id. (“The right granted to the prior owner of agricultural land by
section 524.910(2) is sometimes called a right of ‘preemption’ or of ‘first refusal.’ ”). Both the
                                                7

transmission line that will be connected to an existing electric facility. Amicus

Resale Power Group of Iowa rightly observes the ROFR stifles competition: “The

Iowa ROFR Statute creates a right that no market participant would otherwise

have—an ability to essentially deny market entry to a potential competitor, and

thereby preserve a monopoly role in the development and ownership of additional

transmission facilities.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

described a similar electric transmission ROFR as follows:

             Imagine if Texas—a state that prides itself on promoting free
       enterprise—passed a law saying that only those with existing oil
       wells in the state could drill new wells. It would be hard to
       believe. . . .

              Texas recently enacted such a ban on new entrants in . . . the
       building of transmission lines that are part of multistate electricity
       grids. . . .

               ....

              . . . [T]he ban’s interference with interstate commerce [is] as
       clear as it is for the oil well hypothetical.

NextEra Energy Cap. Holdings, Inc., 48 F.4th at 309–10 (5th Cir. 2022)

(reinstating claim under dormant commerce clause).

       Section 478.16 defines “incumbent electric transmission owner” as

follows:

             (1) A public utility or a municipally owned utility that owns,
       operates, and maintains an electric transmission line in this state.

            (2) An electric cooperative corporation or association or
       municipally owned utility that owns an electric transmission facility

district court and court of appeals called the right granted by section 478.16(2) a “right of first
refusal.” So did the amici and parties—including counsel for LSP in the briefing. So do we.
                                          8

      in this state and has turned over the functional control of such
      facility to a federally approved authority.

             (3) An [individual or entity who, as of July 1, 2020, owns and
      maintains an electric transmission line that is required for
      rate-regulated electric utilities, municipal electric utilities, and rural
      electric cooperatives in this state to provide electric service to the
      public for compensation.]

Id. § 478.16(1)(c). Notably, this definition of incumbent does not include LSP,

which operates transmission lines in neighboring states, or amicus NextEra

Energy Transmission, LLC, the leading transmission company in North America,

which operates fifteen electricity generation facilities in Iowa that generate over

1,300 megawatts using transmission lines (called “gen-tie lines”) that connect its

wind turbines and solar panels to substations. MidAmerican Energy Company

and ITC Midwest, LLC, the two intervenors in this case, fall within this statutory

definition of “incumbent.”

      Section 478.16 further provides that an incumbent electric transmission

owner has ninety days to exercise its ROFR. Id. § 478.16(3). If it does, the RTO

must assign the project to the incumbent. Id. If not, the Iowa Utilities Board

decides whether another entity can take on the project. Id.

      LSP is a Qualified Transmission Developer in MISO. As such, it is qualified

to complete transmission projects in Iowa. But because it does not currently

manage any projects in Iowa and does not meet any of the statutory definitions,

LSP is at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent electric transmission owners

for future transmission projects. LSP cannot compete for a new transmission

project in Iowa unless the incumbent owner chooses to forego its ROFR.
                                       9

      B. Enacting the ROFR. LSP identified salient facts about the enactment

of the ROFR. The legislature had twice failed to pass ROFRs for incumbent

transmission owners. First, in 2018, the senate passed an ROFR. See S.F. 2311,

87th G.A., 2d Sess. § 18 (Iowa 2018) (introduced); S. Journal, 87th G.A.,

2d Sess., at 556 (Iowa 2018). The house failed to pass most of the bill and

dropped the ROFR. H-8340, 87th G.A., 2d Sess. § 1 (Iowa 2018). Then in January

2020, a standalone bill with the ROFR was introduced in the house. H.S.B. 540,

88th G.A., 2d Sess. § 1 (Iowa 2020). But that bill died in subcommittee. See H.

Journal, 88th G.A., 2d Sess., at 141 (Iowa 2020) (logging last activity advancing

bill). The 2020 legislative session was truncated by the COVID-19 pandemic

closures. Regardless, undisputed affidavits from legislators of both parties

confirm the ROFR lacked the votes for enactment as a standalone bill in 2020.

      The ROFR was ultimately enacted through an amendment to the final

appropriations bill of the 2020 legislative session. S-5163, 88th G.A., 2d Sess.

§ 128 (Iowa 2020). The appropriations bill, over fifty pages long and containing

thirty-four divisions, was a potpourri of various unrelated subjects. See

H.F. 2643, 88th G.A., 2d Sess. (Iowa 2020) (enrolled). Besides the ROFR,

H.F. 2643 included comprehensive spending provisions, sections 1, 3–7, 9,

11–18, 33–37, 39–44, 46–47, 55, 58–59, 73, 76–77, 82–83, 110–12, 120; the

repeal of previous spending provisions, section 2; a provision for alternative

venues in civil trials, section 10; suspension of certain Health and Human

Services provisions, section 32; provisions for regulations related to COVID-19,

section 45; directives to state agencies, sections 53, 54; authorization for the
                                       10

Iowa State Fair Board to issue and sell revenue bonds, section 72; legislation

relating to alarm system contractors, sections 86–89; directives related to

economic development, sections 91–94; contingent appropriations, sections

97–101; a provision making some school districts eligible for an adjustment in

state foundation aid, section 105; contingent repeal and amendment of hemp

regulation, sections 107–08; amendments to the process for obtaining an

absentee ballot, sections 123–26; provisions governing when the Board of

Regents may hire attorneys, section 127; corrections and amendments to

previous legislation and preexisting portions of the Iowa Code, sections 8,

19–29, 38, 49–52, 56–57, 61–69, 80–81, 91–92, 114, 116–17; effective dates for

the foregoing, sections 30, 48, 70, 74, 78, 84, 90, 95, 102–04, 106, 113, 115,

118, 121; and retroactivity provisions, sections 31, 60, 71, 75, 79, 85, 96, 109,

119, 122. 2020 Iowa Acts ch. 1121 (codified in scattered chapters of the Iowa

Code).

      To capture that broad range of subjects, the bill bore a remarkably general

title: “An Act relating to state and local finances by making appropriations,

providing for legal and regulatory responsibilities, providing for other properly

related matters, and including effective date and retroactive applicability

provisions.” Id. The ROFR was added in the final hours, but the existing title was

left unchanged. See S-5163, 88th G.A., 2d Sess. § 128 (Iowa 2020).

      The ROFR was introduced to the Senate at 1:33 a.m. on June 14, 2020—

the final day of the legislative session. Senate Video HF 2643 - Continuing

Approps,   Iowa   Legislature,   at   01:32:02–01:33:24 AM     (June 14,   2020),
                                         11

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/dashboard?view=video&chamber=S&clip=s202006

13085856120&dt=2020-06-14&offset=59814&bill=HF%202643&status=r.

Legislators lamented the inability to understand what they were voting on.

Senator Bolkcom remarked, “It would have been nice to have had this

amendment during the -- during the daytime and had more opportunity to

actually understand what we are voting on, but we are not going to get that

opportunity here in the middle of the night.” Senate Video HF 2643: S-5163 by

Breitbach of Clayton, Iowa Legislature, at 02:29:22–02:29:40 AM (June 14,

2020), https://www.legis.iowa.gov/dashboard?view=video&chamber=S&clip=s202

00613085856120&dt=2020-06-14&offset=59814&bill=HF%202643&status=r.

Senator Taylor objected to the broad scope of subjects contained in the bill. “It’s

one bill instead of nearly a dozen.” Id. at 02:37:44–02:38:00 AM.

      The sponsor of the ROFR, Senator Breitbach, when asked for the bill

history, gave inaccurate responses and expressed ignorance about who backed

the ROFR. The video record of deliberations includes the three relevant

exchanges set forth below.

      1. Confusion over the origin of the bill.

            SENATOR BISIGNANO: I’m going to Section 33, and that’s the
      one on the electrical transmission lines, and I’ve never heard of
      anything like this in any moving legislation that was drafted and in
      committee, and do you have a bill history on the bill that this would
      have addressed?

            ....

             SENATOR BREITBACH: I do not have the bill number, but
      you’ll remember it was the omnibus utility bill. We passed it in the
      -- in the Senate. We sent it over to the House. They took that portion
                                  12

of -- There were 26 sections of that utility bill, and they took that
part out of it, and -- and we’re putting it in this bill.

2. The sponsor misrepresents the legislative history.

      SENATOR BISIGNANO: Okay. So for -- That was two years
ago. And then this year did it come out of the Senate or the House?

      SENATOR BREITBACH: We’ve got it in front of us right now.

       SENATOR BISIGNANO: It was never a bill. It was in the
original two-year-ago bill; but when it got splintered out, it was
basically dead. I mean, when you take something out, it’s discarded.
So it would have had to get its way back into this building by some
interest. Who’s the interest?

       SENATOR BREITBACH: I’m not sure, because the utility bill
that was running this year, I basically told the House, I said, I’m not
going to pass a bill out of here and have you sit on it. If you want to
get something done, you get it passed out of the House. They worked
on it over in the House, passed it out.

      SENATOR BISIGNANO: It failed in the subcommittee?

     SENATOR BREITBACH: What’s that? It went through the full
committee process, passed out of the House, came over to the Senate.
We did not move it.

       SENATOR BISIGNANO: Okay. So this electric transmission
line, there was a bill this year --

      SENATOR BREITBACH: Yes.

      SENATOR BISIGNANO: -- in the Senate that had passed the --

       SENATOR BREITBACH: No. It was not in the Senate this year.
It started in the House.

      SENATOR BISIGNANO: This year.

      SENATOR BREITBACH: Yes. We could ask Representative
Carlson, who floor-managed it, exactly where it -- where it ended up
at, but we’ve had a shortened session. We didn’t get to finish the
second funnel. It never made it here.
                                           13

            SENATOR BISIGNANO: So it didn’t make the funnel, and no
      one lobbied for this. MidAmerican is not a supporter.3 They’re a large
      energy company. There’s been no mention all year, until I read this
      tonight and was contacted and said, Where did this come from?

            And we don’t know where it came from. All we know is that
      two years ago it was in a utility bill. It got taken out. This year you’re
      claiming the House, and I assume you’re right, ran it through the
      process.

            Was it vote -- or did they run out of time this year? Was it
      voted on the floor?

            SENATOR BREITBACH: They ran out of time. I’m not sure if
      it was voted on the floor, but it went through the committee process.
      I had had several conversations with Representative Carlson. I
      believe it made it all the way through the floor because he was talking
      to me about it, trying to get it through legislation this year, but with
      the shortened session, this -- everything kind of blew up, you know.

            SENATOR BISIGNANO: I’d like to wake up Representative
      Kaufman and ask him what the history of this was going through
      the House process because I think that’s relevant. I mean, this is
      setting statute in business in the middle of the night that was never
      lobbied by any utility to have a chance to support or oppose it.

             It’s brand-new. The first time I saw it is an hour ago, maybe
      an hour and a half now, but I’m just uncomfortable with policy
      legislation coming through a budget bill in the middle of the night
      that no one’s heard of, that I know of, and my utility is saying, what
      is this?

(Emphasis added.) In fact, the standalone ROFR had died in subcommittee in

2020 and never made it through the committee process or to the floor.

      3. Other misrepresentations by the sponsor.

              SENATOR BREITBACH: Okay. You know, there are several
      different ways you can -- you can do extension of utilities. One of
      the ways that has been used is if you own the line running to Area X
      and now you’re going to go to Y, you’re the company that gets to do
      it, period. Nobody else gets to bid on it. You have -- You have priority.

      3Senator
             Bisignano’s statement was correct when made, but later that night MidAmerican
Energy Company registered in favor of the bill, as did ITC Midwest.
                                           14

      Another way to do it is to just put it out for open bids, take the low
      bid, that’s it.

             A couple problems with both of those ways. The first way,
      sometimes you don’t get the best price. The second way, sometimes
      you have an out-of-area company come in and build it. They get
      paid, but they’re not the one[] that’s going to be there to maintain it
      and make sure that it’s solid and continuing. So there’s a trade-off
      there.

              With this situation, it’s a first right of refusal. So if I own the
      line going to Point X and they’re bidding out to Y, it’s open for bids.
      If I happen to be the low bid, I get it. If somebody else happens to be
      the low bid and I have a first right of refusal, then I can say I will do
      it for that price and I’ll extend it out.

(Emphasis added.) In fact, the ROFR provides no competitive bidding or

price-matching mechanism; to the contrary, the incumbent gets the project,

period.

      The bill containing the ROFR passed the senate at 5:47 a.m., four hours

after the ROFR was introduced.4 It passed the house that afternoon.5

      Amici in this appeal previously had successfully lobbied to block the ROFR

as a standalone measure in 2018 and early in the 2020 session. Those amici

lacked time and notice to express their opposition to the ROFR this time around.

For example, the Resale Power Group of Iowa (RPGI), a 28E entity representing

twenty-four Iowa municipal utilities, seeks lower electric transmission costs

       4See S. Journal, 88th G.A., 2d Sess., at 842–43 (Iowa 2020); Senate Video HF 2643 -

Continuing Approps, Iowa Legislature, at 05:47:28–05:47:45 AM (June 14, 2020),
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/dashboard?view=video&chamber=S&clip=s20200613085856120&
dt=2020-06-14&offset=59814&bill=HF%202643&status=r.
      5See H. Journal, 88th G.A., 2d Sess., at 774–75 (Iowa 2020); House Video HF 2643 -
Continuing Appropriations, Iowa Legislature, at 01:07:08–01:08:20 PM (June 14, 2020),
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/dashboard?view=video&chamber=H&clip=h20200614111809521&
dt=2020-06-14.
                                         15

through increased competition. RPGI observes that the circumstances of the

ROFR’s late-night enactment denied it “the opportunity to alert legislators to the

anti-competitive structure and pricing consequences of the legislation.”

      C. This Litigation. On October 14, 2020, LSP filed this action against the

IUB and several individual defendants in their official capacity: Geri D. Huser,

IUB Chair; Glen Dickinson, Director of the Legislative Services Agency (LSA); and

Leslie Hickey, Iowa Code Editor (collectively, “the State”). The Petition sought a

declaratory judgment that the ROFR violated three provisions of the Iowa

Constitution: (1) the single-subject clause, Iowa Const. art. III, § 29; (2) the title

clause, id.; and (3) the privileges and immunities (equal protection) clause, id.

art. I, § 6. LSP sought a temporary injunction prohibiting publication in the Iowa

Code and enforcement of the ROFR pending resolution of this case. LSP alleged

that MISO and SPP would pursue up to $30 billion in new electric transmission

projects over the next ten years. LSP supported this claim with the observation

that MISO and SPP were actively studying the viability of new projects

throughout the region, including in Iowa, and were encouraged by the

Midwestern Governors Association in 2020 to act with a sense of urgency.

      The State resisted LSP’s motion for temporary injunction, arguing LSP

lacked standing and was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its constitutional

challenge. The State filed a motion to dismiss, again arguing LSP lacked standing

to challenge the constitutionality of the ROFR. MidAmerican Energy Company

and ITC Midwest LLC were allowed to intervene, and both joined the State in its

motion to dismiss and resistance to LSP’s motion for temporary injunction. At a
                                         16

combined hearing on the State’s motion to dismiss and LSP’s motion for

temporary injunction, all parties argued standing and the merits of the

constitutional issues. The parties argued only law; they did not dispute facts.

      The district court concluded that LSP lacked standing because there was

no indication that “a specific project is planned, when such a project may arise,

or that [LSP has] been denied such a project.” On that ground, the district court

denied LSP’s motion for temporary injunction and granted the State’s motion to

dismiss without reaching the merits of LSP’s constitutional challenges. LSP

moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied. LSP appealed; we

transferred the case to the court of appeals.

      Before the court of appeals heard oral argument, LSP filed another motion

for a temporary injunction on May 27, 2022, to stay enforcement of the ROFR

pending resolution of this appeal and any subsequent proceedings in district

court. LSP asked the court of appeals to take judicial notice that MISO would

approve over $1.5 billion in Iowa transmission projects on July 25. Neither the

State nor the Intervenors disputed the accuracy of this fact but opposed taking

judicial notice. On July 8, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling

dismissing the case on standing grounds. The court of appeals declined to take

judicial notice of the newly pending transmission projects and denied injunctive

relief. As planned, on July 25, MISO approved its “Tranche 1” package of

eighteen new transmission projects in its Midwest Subregion. Press Release,

MISO, MISO Board Approves $10.3B in Transmission Projects (July 25, 2022),

https://www.misoenergy.org/about/media-center/miso-board-approves-
                                       17

$10.3-in-transmission-projects/ [https://perma.cc/ZGT6-NPP2]. Three projects

are to be in Iowa. Id. In the same announcement, MISO reiterated its plans for

three additional tranches of transmission projects. Id.

      We granted LSP’s application for further review.

      II. Standard of Review.

      “We review a decision by the district court to dismiss a case based on the

lack of standing for errors at law.” Dickey v. Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure

Bd., 943 N.W.2d 34, 37 (Iowa 2020) (quoting Hawkeye Foodservice Distrib. Inc. v.

Iowa Educators Corp., 812 N.W.2d 600, 604 (Iowa 2012)). In reviewing a motion

to dismiss, we accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the petition. Venckus v.

City of Iowa City, 930 N.W.2d 792, 798 (Iowa 2019).

      We review rulings denying temporary injunctive relief for abuse of

discretion. League of United Latin Am. Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, 950 N.W.2d 204,

214 (Iowa 2020) (per curiam); Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co., 621 N.W.2d 178,

180 (Iowa 2001) (en banc). Applying the wrong legal standard is an abuse of

discretion. NuStar Farms, LLC v. Zylstra, 880 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Iowa 2016).

      III. Analysis.

      A. Standing. As we explain below, LSP’s standing does not rise or fall on

the issue of whether new transmission projects already have been approved. The

district court and court of appeals erred by imposing that requirement.

      Standing “must exist at the commencement of the litigation.” Klein v. Iowa

Pub. Info. Bd., 968 N.W.2d 220, 234 n.9 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Baker v. City of

Iowa City, 750 N.W.2d 93, 97 (Iowa 2008)). A party must satisfy two
                                          18

requirements to demonstrate standing. “[A] complaining party must (1) have a

specific personal or legal interest in the litigation and (2) be injuriously affected.”

DuTrac Cmty. Credit Union v. Hefel, 893 N.W.2d 282, 289 (Iowa 2017) (quoting

Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 452 (Iowa 2013)).

On the first prong, “we require the litigant to allege some type of injury different

from the population in general.” Id. (quoting Hawkeye Foodservice, 812 N.W.2d

at 606). On the second, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact that is fairly

traceable to the defendant’s conduct and is likely to be remedied by a favorable

decision. Iowa Citizens for Cmty. Improvement v. State, 962 N.W.2d 780, 790

(Iowa 2021). “[T]he injury cannot be ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical,’ but must be

‘concrete’ and ‘actual or imminent.’ ” DuTrac Cmty. Credit Union, 893 N.W.2d at

289 (quoting Hawkeye Foodservice, 812 N.W.2d at 606). To demonstrate

sufficient imminence, “[o]nly a likelihood or possibility of injury need be shown”;

“[a] party need not demonstrate injury will accrue with certainty, or already has

accrued.” Iowa Bankers Ass’n v. Iowa Credit Union Dep’t, 335 N.W.2d 439, 445

(Iowa 1983).

      A business that is excluded from competing for new projects is injured

upon its exclusion. Horsfield Materials, Inc., 834 N.W.2d at 457. “An entity ‘need

not demonstrate that it has been, or will be, the low bidder on a Government

contract. The injury in cases of this kind is that a ‘discriminatory classification

prevent[s] the plaintiff from competing on an equal footing.’ ” Id. at 458 (quoting

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 211 (1995)). As we explained,
                                         19

the injury in fact supporting standing arises when the government imposes the

barrier that prevents the plaintiff from competing:

      When the government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult
      for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members
      of another group, a member of the former group seeking to challenge
      the barrier need not allege that he would have obtained the benefit
      but for the barrier in order to establish standing. The “injury in fact”
      in an equal protection case of this variety is the denial of equal
      treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the
      ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.

Id. (quoting Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of

Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666–69 (1993) (holding subcontractor otherwise

“able and ready to bid” had standing to challenge ordinance favoring

minority-owned businesses)).

      At oral argument, we asked counsel for the State about a hypothetical we

modified from the one used to illustrate this point in Horsfield Materials, Inc. v.

City of Dyersville, see id. at 457: What if the law favored white-owned

transmission companies and         excluded all minority-owned transmission

companies? Counsel steadfastly maintained a specific project would have to arise

before a minority-owned company would have standing to challenge the law. We

disagree. For standing purposes, LSP was injured upon the ROFR’s enactment;

it does not have to identify a specific project it has already lost to the incumbent.

      The State and the intervenors rely in part on Iowa Citizens for Community

Improvement v. State, where we held social justice organizations lacked standing

to sue over farm fertilizer runoff in the Raccoon River. 962 N.W.2d at 785, 794.

They alleged their members paid higher water rates due to the costs of nitrate

removal and that they suffered “aesthetic injury and injury to their recreational
                                            20

use of the Raccoon River for swimming and kayaking.” Id. at 787. We noted their

asserted injuries arose “from the government’s allegedly unlawful failure to

regulate someone else.” Id. at 791 (emphasis added). The principal relief they

sought was an injunction compelling the enactment of unspecified legislation to

improve water quality. Id. at 787. They alleged such legislation would lower their

water bills and enhance their recreational enjoyment of the river. Id. We

determined that their “attenuated causation theory” failed the redressability

requirement. Id. at 785. By contrast, the State’s ROFR enactment directly injured

LSP as a specific bidder denied access to transmission projects, and redress is

potentially    available   because   Iowa    courts   may   enjoin   unconstitutional

legislation.

      Our standing jurisprudence is more permissive than federal law. See

Hawkeye Bancorporation v. Iowa Coll. Aid Comm’n, 360 N.W.2d 798, 802 (Iowa

1985). This is no wonder: our rule is self-imposed, while the federal rule is a

constitutional requirement. Id. But even under the more demanding federal

standing jurisprudence, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

held that LSP had standing to challenge similar protectionist policies. In two

cases decided the same day, the D.C. Circuit ruled LSP had standing to challenge

two practices: (1) MISO’s practice of awarding transmission projects to the

transmission developer that owned the transmission infrastructure where the

new project would be located, and (2) FERC’s practice of excepting transmission

projects from competitive bidding when it would delay the project and threaten

electric grid reliability. Coal. of MISO Transmission Customers v. FERC, 45 F.4th
                                       21

1004, 1008 (D.C. Cir. 2022); LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. FERC, 28 F.4th

1285, 1287–89 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Such practices have the same effect as an ROFR

in that they effectively preclude LSP from participating in a competitive bidding

process. The D.C. Circuit held LSP had established an injury-in-fact because

“(1) it ‘was ready, willing and able to perform’ the construction contracts for

which it wished to compete, and (2) the challenged action ‘deprived the company

of the opportunity to compete for the work.’ ” Coal. of MISO Transmission

Customers, 45 F.4th at 1015 (quoting LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC,

28 F.4th at 1288–89). The same is true here.

      Applying our test, on the first prong, the district court correctly concluded

that LSP had a particularized injury distinct from the general population. See

Hawkeye Foodservice, 812 N.W.2d at 606. The court of appeals recited, but did

not review, this determination. We agree with the district court. Unlike members

of the general public, LSP is approved to complete transmission projects in Iowa.

Very few entities are so qualified. Yet section 478.16 injures LSP by precluding

it from bidding on new projects in Iowa unless the incumbent fails to exercise its

ROFR. See id.

      On the second prong, the district court and court of appeals concluded

that LSP failed to show an actual injury. We disagree. The new enactment

effectively blocks LSP from competing. We have seen this before. In Horsfield

Materials, we held a concrete supplier had standing based on the competitive

disadvantage it incurred from being omitted from a list of concrete suppliers who

were preapproved for city contracts. 834 N.W.2d at 457. The supplier
                                          22

demonstrated its qualifications and competence to supply concrete for other

projects. Id. It was unlikely—and far less likely than a preapproved supplier—

that it would get work under a city contract due to its exclusion from the

preapproved list and difficulties getting work after contracts had been awarded.

Id. Thus, the supplier suffered a competitive injury without any showing of

profits lost from its inability to take on a particular project. Id.

       So it is with LSP. It has been left off a de facto preapproval list due to its

lack of in-state transmission infrastructure. It is qualified and competent to

supply transmission lines for in-state projects. Yet it is blocked from competing

unless the incumbent declines to exercise its ROFR. Thus, LSP suffered a

competitive injury without reference to any particular transmission project. That

injury occurred at the time of the enactment of the ROFR and existed when LSP

filed suit. See id.

       It is plain to see that LSP’s injury is traceable to the defendant State’s

actions and that a favorable decision will redress that injury. See Iowa Citizens

for Cmty. Improvement, 962 N.W.2d at 790–91. Here again, this mirrors the

effects of the city’s preapproved bid list that caused an injury to the omitted

party. See Horsfield Materials, Inc., 834 N.W.2d at 457. A judgment in Horsfield’s

favor would have cut off the source of the injury and allowed it to return to the

field of play. Id. at 457–58. The State’s grant of an ROFR to the incumbent

companies has caused LSP’s harm; blocking the ROFR’s enforcement would

allow LSP to take the field.
                                        23

      LSP’s injury in the form of lost future profits is also sufficiently imminent.

LSP’s petition alleged that MISO and SPP may approve some $30 billion in new

electric transmission projects over the next ten years, some to be located in Iowa.

LSP supported this allegation with the observation that MISO and SPP had begun

studying ways to expand the transmission grid in the Midwest, including in Iowa.

We take these factual allegations as true. Given that MISO and SPP will want a

return on their investment of time and energy, it is likely these studies will

translate into real-world transmission projects in Iowa within a few years. LSP’s

market value has presumably already declined from the loss of its ability to

compete for new Iowa projects. LSP will lose profits when new projects go to the

incumbent. This too suffices for standing. See id.; Iowa Bankers Ass’n,

335 N.W.2d at 445 (“A party need not demonstrate injury will accrue with

certainty, or already has accrued.”).

      The district court and court of appeals erred by requiring a specific, live

project to establish standing. We do not require evidence of existing harm. See

Horsfield, 834 N.W.2d at 457 (rejecting the need for proof of lost profits

associated with a particular project when a plaintiff can demonstrate a likelihood

of exclusion from new projects); Iowa Bankers Ass’n, 335 N.W.2d at 444–45.

Proof of a pending project would help establish standing, but it is not necessary.

See Iowa Bankers Ass’n, 335 N.W.2d at 444–45. The court of appeals

overemphasized the facts of those cases, each involving projects that had already

been “barricaded away” from the plaintiffs or their competitors. An injury need

be only “actual or imminent.” DuTrac Cmty. Credit Union, 893 N.W.2d at 289
                                         24

(emphasis added) (second quoting Hawkeye Foodservice, 812 N.W.2d at 606). It

need not be both.

      We find the federal authority persuasive. LSP is a Qualified Transmission

Developer that is “ready, willing and able” to complete projects in Iowa. See Coal.

of MISO Transmission Customers, 45 F.4th at 1015 (quoting LSP Transmission

Holdings II, LLC, 28 F.4th at 1288–89). The ROFR, like the practices challenged

in federal court, “deprive[s] [it] of the opportunity to compete for the work.” Id. at

1015 n.3 (second alteration in original) (quoting LSP Transmission Holdings II,

LLC, 28 F.4th at 1288–89). It is possible an incumbent transmission owner

would decline to exercise its ROFR and thereby give LSP a chance to bid, but we

find that scenario unlikely given the Intervenor incumbents’ zealous efforts to

defend the ROFR in court.

      As amicus RPGI recognized:

              These electric transmission projects are being planned,
      queued for approval, and scheduled for development now. Waiting
      until transmission projects are already approved by MISO and
      development is already underway means it is too late for a
      non-incumbent transmission owner like LSP to get meaningful
      relief, which should necessarily come at the very outset of the MISO
      planning process, when new projects are in the very initial stages of
      proposal and years away from approvals, development,
      construction, and operation.

(Footnote omitted.) Another amicus, NextEra, identified the following new

transmission projects in Iowa.

      • A $755 million project in the Cedar Rapids area.

      • A $231 million project spanning from Cedar Rapids to Atalissa,

      Iowa.
                                        25

      • A $390 million project spanning from Orient, Iowa into Missouri.

      • A $673 million project spanning from Madison County, Iowa to

      Mount Pleasant.

      • A $594 million project spanning from Mount Pleasant into Illinois.

      We hold LSP met the standing requirements when it filed its petition. We

do not reach LSP’s request for judicial notice of the new project announcements,

nor do we reach LSP’s alternative request that we apply a “great public

importance” exception to standing. See Godfrey v. State, 752 N.W.2d 413, 425

(Iowa 2008) (declining to apply that exception). We vacate the court of appeals

decision and reverse the district court’s dismissal ruling.

      B. Whether to Stay Enforcement of Section 478.16 Pending

Resolution of the Constitutional Claims. LSP and all amici argue we should

issue a temporary injunction to stay enforcement of section 478.16 pending

resolution of its constitutional claims on remand. The State and Intervenors

oppose such an injunction. The district court previously denied a temporary

injunction based on its erroneous conclusion that LSP lacked standing. Our

holding that LSP has standing is now the law of the case. The district court has

not yet ruled on other grounds for granting or denying a temporary injunction to

stay enforcement of section 478.16. We have discretion to issue the temporary

injunction now or remand to the district court to decide the injunction issue

anew. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1506 (permitting a district court judge or the supreme

court or a justice thereof to grant a temporary injunction); see also Berent v. City

of Iowa City, 738 N.W.2d 193, 206 & n.1 (Iowa 2007) (reversing district court
                                         26

ripeness ruling and deciding issues that were briefed and argued on appeal

instead of remanding for the district court to decide them).

      The threshold requirement for a temporary injunction is a showing that

LSP is likely to succeed on the merits in at least one of its constitutional

challenges to the ROFR statute. See Pate, 950 N.W.2d at 208–09 (“A temporary

injunction is available only if the party seeking the injunction can show a

‘likelihood of success on the merits.’ ” (quoting Max 100 L.C., 621 N.W.2d at

181)). We must decide whether to grant the stay or defer to the district court to

decide anew whether to grant the temporary injunction on remand.

      The appellate briefing squarely addressed the injunction issue. And LSP

and Intervenor incumbent MidAmerican briefed the merits of the constitutional

claims on appeal; the State and ITC Midwest chose not to brief the injunction

issue on appeal but emphasized the urgency of resolving the legal issues in this

case. All parties briefed the merits of the constitutional claims in district court.

The constitutional claims turn on questions of law that do not require further

development of an evidentiary record to evaluate LSP’s likelihood of success on

the merits on its constitutional claims under article III, section 29 of the Iowa

Constitution. We review constitutional claims de novo. Planned Parenthood of the

Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds ex rel. State, 975 N.W.2d 710, 721 (Iowa 2022). We

conclude the briefing and existing record are adequate to decide whether to issue

a temporary injunction.

      C. LSP’s Likelihood of Success on the Merits. LSP challenges the

constitutionality of the ROFR under article III, section 29 (title and single-subject
                                                 27

requirements) and article I, section 6 (equal protection) of the Iowa Constitution.

Because we find its claims under article III, section 29 compelling, we begin

there:

         Every act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly
         connected therewith; which subject shall be expressed in the title.
         But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be
         expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much
         thereof as shall not be expressed in the title.

Iowa Const. art. III, § 29. Challenges to legislation under this provision are

justiciable and not merely aspirational. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland,

Inc., 975 N.W.2d at 728. But we will hold legislation unconstitutional only if it is

palpably so. See id. at 724, 728. “[S]tatutes are cloaked with a presumption of

constitutionality. The challenger bears a heavy burden, because it must prove

the unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 721 (quoting Planned

Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, 962 N.W.2d 37, 46 (Iowa 2021)).

Out of over ninety attempts, we have held only thirteen statutes invalid under

article III, section 29. Id. at 725 n.8. All thirteen violated the title requirement;6

         6See  State v. Taylor, 557 N.W.2d 523, 526–27 (Iowa 1996) (holding a title describing Code
corrections did not give sufficient notice of substantive changes); Giles v. State, 511 N.W.2d 622,
625 (Iowa 1994) (same); W. Int’l Ins. v. Kirkpatrick, 396 N.W.2d 359, 365–66 (Iowa 1986) (en banc)
(same); State v. Nickelson, 169 N.W.2d 832, 837 (Iowa 1969) (holding the title to the bill enacting
the Uniform Commercial Code gave no notice of a criminal provision against embezzlement of
mortgaged property); Nat’l Benefit Acc. Ass’n v. Murphy, 269 N.W. 15, 19 (Iowa 1936) (holding
the title to a bill providing for the reincorporation of assessment life associations did not give fair
notice of a provision prohibiting some companies from writing life insurance policies); Smith v.
Thompson, 258 N.W. 190, 194 (Iowa 1934) (holding unconstitutional a provision reducing the
salary of the members of the general assembly and lieutenant governor when the title referenced
salary reductions for other officials but not these), overruled on other grounds by Carlton v.
Grimes, 23 N.W.2d 883, 903–04 (Iowa 1946); Chi., R.I. & P. Ry. v. Streepy, 224 N.W. 41, 44 (Iowa
1929) (holding unconstitutional a provision conferring upon municipalities the power to tax to
create an emergency fund when the title of the act referenced only the creation of a state budget
office); In re Breen, 222 N.W. 426, 428 (Iowa 1928) (holding a provision suspending the license
of any physician or pharmacist who was convicted for a federal narcotics offense was
inadequately described by a title relating to the sale and transportation of liquor); State v.
Manhattan Oil Co., 203 N.W. 301, 303 (Iowa 1925) (holding unconstitutional a tax raising revenue
                                               28

three also violated the single-subject requirement.7

       Because LSP filed this action before section 478.16 was codified, its

challenge under article III, section 29 may proceed. See Tabor v. State,

519 N.W.2d 378, 380 (Iowa 1994) (“The State’s suggestion that codification of

legislation otherwise invalid under article III, section 29 cures any continuing

constitutional infirmity is not legally sound. The codification process only cuts

off a right of constitutional challenge under article III, section 29 if no one has

lodged such a challenge before codification is complete.” (citing State v. Mabry,

460 N.W.2d 472, 474–75 (Iowa 1990) (establishing codification as the cutoff for

constitutional challenges))).

       1. Title. The title of an act must express the subject matter of the act. See

Iowa Const. art. III, § 29. The title requirement is meant to provide “reasonable

notice to lawmakers and the public regarding proposed legislation, thereby

to maintain highways when the title suggested the act contained merely regulatory provisions);
Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Fairweather, 181 N.W. 459, 461–62 (Iowa 1921) (holding
unconstitutional a provision prescribing “the method of fixing the assessed valuation of corporate
stock in banks and trust companies” when the title of the bill purported only to amend a list of
tax-exempt property); State v. Bristow, 109 N.W. 199, 200 (Iowa 1906) (holding unconstitutional
a statutory definition of “peddler” that expanded the term to include “itinerant vendor” when only
“peddler” appeared in the title); Rex Lumber Co. v. Reed, 77 N.W. 572, 573–74 (Iowa 1898)
(holding unconstitutional a provision granting public officers additional means to collect taxes
when the title related only to “the lien of taxes between vendor and vendee”); Williamson v. City
of Keokuk, 44 Iowa 88, 92 (1876) (holding unconstitutional a section that attempted to “legalize
and make valid certain acts of the [Keokuk] city council” when the title referred only to amending
the charter of the city of Keokuk).
       7See  Taylor, 557 N.W.2d at 526 (holding a provision criminalizing trafficking in stolen
weapons violated single-subject requirement when all but six sections of the seventy-four-section
bill related to juvenile justice); Giles, 511 N.W.2d at 625 (holding a substantive change
incorporated into a Code correction bill violated single-subject requirement); W. Int’l Ins.,
396 N.W.2d at 364–65 (same).
                                         29

preventing surprise and fraud.” Giles v. State, 511 N.W.2d 622, 625 (Iowa 1994).

The legislature need not turn the title into an index, but it may use a title that is

“plain and broad, and direct[s] the attention to the general subject.” Iowa Sav. &

Loan Ass’n v. Selby, 82 N.W. 968, 969 (Iowa 1900). “In examining the sufficiency

of an act’s title, we likewise favor a finding of constitutionality.” State v. Iowa

Dist. Ct., 410 N.W.2d 684, 686 (Iowa 1987). “A title is sufficient, even though it

is broad, if it gives fair notice of a provision in the body of an act.” Id. (quoting

W. Int’l v. Kirkpatrick, 396 N.W.2d 359, 365 (Iowa 1986) (en banc)). Accordingly,

legislation will be “constitutionally valid as to the title unless matter utterly

incongruous to the general subject of the statute is buried in the act.” Id.

      The title of H.F. 2643 is “An Act relating to state and local finances by

making appropriations, providing for legal and regulatory responsibilities,

providing for other properly related matters, and including effective date and

retroactive applicability provisions.” 2020 Iowa Acts ch. 1121. At the end of the

act was a new law that insulated in-state electric transmission entities from

out-of-state competition through the ROFR. Id. § 128. No part of the title gives

notice of that provision.

      Intervenor MidAmerican Energy argues the title “legal and regulatory

responsibilities” provided fair notice of the ROFR. It relies on the unpublished

court of appeals opinion Rush v. Reynolds, No. 19–1109, 2020 WL 825953, at

*13 n.21 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2020), in which the court of appeals approved

that phrase in a title as a constitutionally adequate catchall for the disparate

subjects. No decision of our court has so held. Approving a bare allusion to “legal
                                         30

and regulatory responsibilities” would allow boilerplate recitations to satisfy

article III, section 29. Textually, the constitution’s phrase “shall be expressed” in

the title would cease to do any work. Iowa Const. art. III, § 29; see Express,

Black’s    Law   Dictionary   (11th   ed.     2019)   (“Clearly   and   unmistakably

communicated; stated with directness and clarity.”). If that phrase passes

constitutional muster, the legislature could use it on every bill it enacts.

      In our view, this title is so amorphous that it is difficult to discern the

shape and contours of the subject of the bill to which the ROFR might be “utterly

incongruous.” See Iowa Dist. Ct., 410 N.W.2d at 686. And it is difficult to identify

the “general subject” to determine whether the title adequately directs attention

to the ROFR provision. See Iowa Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 82 N.W. at 968–69. The title

probably fails to “clearly and unmistakably communicate[]” the subject matter

of H.F. 2643, and it likely fails to provide fair notice of the ROFR. See Giles,

511 N.W.2d at 625.

      H.F. 2643 likely was enacted with a title that does not comply with

article III, section 29. We conclude that LSP is likely to succeed on the merits on

its “title” challenge to Iowa Code section 478.16.

      2.   Single subject. Intertwined with the title requirement is the

single-subject requirement: each act must embrace only a single subject. Iowa

Const. art. III, § 29. “In determining whether the single subject requirement has

been complied with, we construe the enactment liberally in favor of its

constitutionality.” Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc., 975 N.W.2d at 721

(quoting Iowa Dist. Ct., 410 N.W.2d at 686).
                                        31

       The single-subject requirement primarily prevents logrolling. See id. at

727.

       Logrolling occurs when a provision unrelated to the core of a bill and
       not itself capable of obtaining majority support is tied to a popular
       bill having majority support. Logrolling also occurs when several
       matters, none of which individually has majority support, are joined
       in one bill and passage procured by combining the minority in favor
       of each into a majority willing to enact them all.

Id. (quoting Iowa Dist. Ct., 410 N.W.2d at 686). To pass constitutional muster,

“all matters treated [in an act] should fall under some one general idea and be

so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular

understanding, as to be part of . . . one general subject.” Giles, 511 N.W.2d at

625 (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Long v. Bd. of Supervisors,

142 N.W.2d 378, 381 (Iowa 1966)). The proper analysis is to “search for (or to

eliminate the presence of) a single purpose toward which the several dissimilar

parts of the bill relate.” Mabry, 460 N.W.2d at 474 (quoting Miller v. Bair,

444 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Iowa 1989)).

       We begin our single-subject analysis by looking at the enactment itself.

See Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc., 975 N.W.2d at 721. We are

skeptical that any single subject could encompass the breathtaking sweep of

matters included in H.F. 2643. The title itself gives us pause on single-subject

grounds: “An Act relating to state and local finances by making appropriations,

providing for legal and regulatory responsibilities, providing for other properly

related matters, and including effective date and retroactive applicability

provisions.”
                                        32

      LSP argues the subjects are so unrelated the only way to fit them within a

single, common subject is to assert they are all “laws.” It observes the bill

contained a medley of appropriations provisions, e.g., 2020 Iowa Acts ch. 1121,

§ 4, corrective provisions, e.g., id. § 64 (codified at Iowa Code § 260C.48 (2021)),

and grants of substantive rights, such as the ROFR, id. § 128 (codified at Iowa

Code § 478.16 (2021)). We have repeatedly held that combining substantive

provisions with corrective provisions in one bill is fatal under article III,

section 29. See Giles, 511 N.W.2d at 625 (holding a substantive change

incorporated into a Code correction bill violated single-subject requirement);

W. Int’l Ins., 396 N.W.2d at 364–65 (same). We have that combination here—with

appropriations added to the mix.

      Other courts have rejected legislation cobbled together from such

disparate subjects. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected as too vague the

proffered subjects “governmental matters” and “governmental regulation.”

People v. Olender, 854 N.E.2d 593, 603 (Ill. 2005); People v. Reedy, 708 N.E.2d

1114, 1119 (Ill. 1999). H.F. 2643 similarly combines numerous disparate

subjects.

      Although not “directly relevant,” we have also considered the legislative

history of the bill and “the circumstances of [its] passage.” Planned Parenthood

of the Heartland, Inc., 975 N.W.2d at 727. The ROFR failed to garner sufficient

votes for enactment as a standalone bill in 2018 and again in 2020. The

unpopularity of the ROFR is clear: it had already failed earlier in the same

session and in the previous general assembly. The affidavits of legislators from
                                         33

both parties confirm the ROFR lacked the votes to become law as a standalone

bill. The appropriations bill, necessary to fund the operations of the government,

presented a ready vehicle to carry the ROFR across the finish line. Rolling it all

into one bill brought legislative success, but triggered LSP’s constitutional

challenge. Attaching an unpopular matter to a bill that is sure to pass is a

hallmark of logrolling. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc., 975 N.W.2d at

727 (quoting Mabry, 460 N.W.2d at 473).

      Just last term, we rejected a logrolling claim. See id. at 727. There, the

challenged legislation, establishing a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, had

been “separately approved by a house majority.” Id. Both houses had debated

the 24-hour waiting period at length, and it was clear the contents and effects of

the bill were known to all legislators. Id. Both sections of the final bill “pertained

to the identified subject of ‘medical procedures,’ specifically government

regulation of medical procedures in the interest of preserving human life.” Id. at

726. Importantly, “[n]o legislator who voted for HF 594 contends they would have

voted against the 24-hour waiting period as a standalone provision.” Id. at 727.

And “[n]o legislator contends they did not understand the contents of HF 594 or

were misled as to what they were voting on.” Id.

      Such is not the case with the ROFR. The senate held debate on the ROFR

immediately before it did the same with the 24-hour waiting period. Unlike the

24-hour waiting period, however, the ROFR is not germane to the numerous

unrelated subjects in the appropriations bill. And the amorphous subject of the

bill, “state and local government and regulatory matters—appropriations and
                                       34

miscellaneous changes,” is much less precise and considerably less concrete

than “medical procedures.” Importantly, legislators were unsure of what they

were voting on. Senators had not seen the ROFR until 1:33 a.m. on the final day

of the legislative session. After the ROFR was introduced, the senate caucused

for approximately one hour, and then debate began. The ROFR’s sponsor could

not produce a bill history, nor could he accurately describe the ROFR’s demise

in the house earlier in the term. Senate Video HF 2643: S-5163 by Breitbach of

Clayton,   Iowa   Legislature,   at   4:12:32–4:21:12 AM     (June   14,   2020),

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/dashboard?view=video&chamber=S&clip=s202006

13085856120&dt=2020-06-14&offset=59814&bill=HF%202643&status=r. Most

conspicuously, the ROFR had not been approved even by a house subcommittee

earlier in the same term. The bill sponsor falsely represented the provision as

allowing competitive bidding and price-matching. It is undisputed the ROFR

lacked the votes to pass as a standalone measure. LSP argues the passage of the

ROFR presents a textbook example of logrolling and violates the single-subject

requirement.

      We are not surprised the ROFR lacked enough votes to pass without

logrolling. The provision is quintessentially crony capitalism. This rent-seeking,

protectionist legislation is anticompetitive. Common sense tells us that

competitive bidding will lower the cost of upgrading Iowa’s electric grid and that

eliminating competition will enable the incumbent to command higher prices for

both construction and maintenance. Ultimately, the ROFR will impose higher

costs on Iowans. The data back this up: amicus Coalition of MISO Transmission
                                         35

Customers offers data collected from two recent bid-based projects that indicate

competition reduces costs by fifteen percent compared to MISO’s estimates. As

the Coalition summarizes, “Without competition, there are fewer checks and

balances on cost estimates, and no pressures or incentives to curb project costs

and prevent cost overruns.”

      We conclude that LSP has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of

its claim that the ROFR’s enactment violates the single-subject requirement of

article III, section 29 of the Iowa Constitution.

      3. Equal protection. LSP also argues the ROFR violates the guarantee of

equal protection under the Iowa Constitution:

      All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the
      general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens,
      privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not
      equally belong to all citizens.

Iowa Const. art. I, § 6. Having concluded LSP has shown a likelihood of success

on its challenges under article III, section 29, we need not address its equal

protection claim.

      D. Other Factors Justifying a Stay.

      1. Irreparable harm to LSP. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1502(1) permits

a temporary injunction to prevent irreparable harm to the movant. LSP faces

irreparable harm through the loss of opportunity to land multi-million-dollar

electric transmission projects in Iowa. “These sorts of injuries, i.e., deprivations

of temporally isolated opportunities, are exactly what preliminary injunctions are

intended to relieve.” Bao Xiong ex rel. D.M. v. Minn. State High Sch. League, 917

F.3d 994, 1003 (8th Cir. 2019). If these multi-million-dollar transmission
                                       36

projects go to the incumbents and we ultimately hold section 478.16 is

unconstitutional, then LSP will be irreparably harmed by having lost out on a

unique opportunity to do business in Iowa. Neither the State nor the intervenors

argue LSP has an adequate remedy at law through a cause of action for money

damages on projects where it was wrongfully prevented from bidding.

      We have long recognized that we may enjoin “an unconstitutional statute

or ordinance to prevent irreparable injury to the business and property of the

plaintiff.” Stoner McCray Sys. v. City of Des Moines, 78 N.W.2d 843, 850–51 (Iowa

1956). Federal courts have held that the “irreparable harm” requirement is met

when the movant shows it is likely to succeed in showing a constitutional

violation. Am. C.L. Union of Ky. v. McCreary County, 354 F.3d 438, 445 (6th Cir.

2003), aff’d sub nom. McCreary County v. Am. C.L. Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844

(2005). We reach the same conclusion here.

      2. Balancing the harm to the parties. We “balance the harm that a

temporary injunction may prevent against the harm that may result from its

issuance.” Max 100 L.C., 621 N.W.2d at 181 (quoting Kleman v. Charles City

Police Dep’t, 373 N.W.2d 90, 96 (Iowa 1985)). As we explained above in our

standing analysis, LSP is harmed by the loss of opportunity to compete for new

projects. The intervenors who are shielded from competition by the challenged

statute have consistently argued new projects are years away. If so, they face no

harm from competition while this case is pending. And they have no right to

protection from an unconstitutional statute. The State would be harmed “by not

being allowed to enforce its duly enacted law.” Law v. Gast, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___,
                                        37

___, 2022 WL17337609, at *4 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 30, 2020). But that interest does

not apply if “the law in question is unconstitutional.” Id. Based on our

assessment that LSP is likely to succeed on its constitutional challenge, the

balance of harms favors a temporary stay.

      3. The public interest. The public has an interest in reliable electric service

at reasonable rates. The intervenors argue their rates are regulated. But LSP and

the amici persuasively argue the challenged ROFR will decrease competition and

thereby increase the cost of electricity for Iowans. As NextEra aptly observes, “It

is axiomatic that competition breeds innovation, variety, higher quality goods

and services, and lower prices for consumers.” In urging our court to enjoin

enforcement of section 478.16, NextEra notes:

      [The ROFR] deprives the Iowa market of the benefits of competition
      by eliminating the opportunity entirely. By granting an exclusive
      right to incumbent electric transmission owners to construct, own,
      and maintain electric transmission lines, desirable competitors are
      permanently deprived of the chance to propose, bid on, and
      ultimately construct, own, and operate critically important
      transmission line projects in the State of Iowa. . . . [T]he preclusion
      of this competition . . . will undoubtedly injure Iowa residents by
      removing [the incumbent’s] incentives to innovate, improve, and
      reduce costs.

      Similarly, the MISO transmission customers, large commercial end users

of electricity in the Midwest, conclude that section 478.16’s ROFR “prevent[s] the

efficiency and price-lowering benefits of competition for transmission projects.”

This amicus elaborates, “With the ROFR, an incumbent utility in Iowa has little

or no incentive to minimize costs because such costs are passed directly through

rates to captive customers without viable alternatives for transmission services.”

And RPGI raises the same alarm, stating the ROFR “will almost certainly increase
                                        38

the cost of electricity to customers across the State, including rate payers in

RPGI communities.”

      The amici also warn that higher electric rates will discourage businesses

and industry from locating or expanding in Iowa. RPGI states, “Retail electric

rates are a major factor in a community’s efforts to attract and keep businesses

and residents.” RPGI explains,

            RPGI member communities are harmed by businesses and
      industrial electric users opting not to locate or expand in their
      communities. Instead, these organizations choose locations outside
      of ITC-MW’s footprint to avoid higher electricity costs due to the
      exorbitant transmission rates of ITC-MW. This lack of economic
      development, in turn, creates an endless cyclical cost creep issue for
      ratepayers. It is challenging for RPGI members to grow their electric
      service rate base because ITC-MW’s rates are so much higher than
      other transmission providers elsewhere in Iowa.

      It is not our role to second guess policy choices of the elected branches or

regulators. But it is our role to adjudicate whether constitutional lines were

crossed in the enactment of H.F. 2643. At this stage of the litigation, we are

persuaded that LSP is entitled to a temporary injunction that stays enforcement

of the ROFR statute pending final resolution of its constitutional claims.

      IV. Disposition.

      For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals

and reverse the judgment of the district court. We remand the case for the district

court to finally decide the merits of LSP’s constitutional claims. We grant LSP’s

application for a temporary injunction staying enforcement of section 478.16

pending resolution of this case. No bond shall be required. This stay applies only
                                       39

to Division XXXIII, section 128 of H.F. 2643 and does not reach any other

provisions enacted in H.F. 2643. See Iowa Code § 4.12 (establishing severability).

        TEMPORARY INJUNCTION GRANTED. DECISION OF COURT OF

APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

        All justices concur except Oxley, McDermott, and May, JJ., who take no

part.