ST. LOUIS — An appeals court panel has overturned a ruling by the Missouri Public Service Commission that denied a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) for an interstate electrical line and facilities that would span 700 miles across three states.
Because of the importance and general interest in the question involved in the case brought by Grain Belt Express Clean Line and others, the appeals court transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court.
According to the Feb. 27 ruling, the Public Service Commission erred in finding it could not grant a line CCN to Grain Belt based upon court precedent set in ATXI - Matter of Ameren Transmission Co. of Illinois.
The ruling states that Grain Belt filed an application for a CCN with the commission in August 2016 to construct a high voltage direct current transmission line and associated facilities, a project that would cross 206 miles through eight Missouri counties - Buchanan, Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Clinton, Monroe, Randolph and Ralls. It would deliver 500 megawatts of wind-generated electricity from western Kansas to customers in Missouri.
Following hearings in Ralls and Monroe counties, the Commission decided it could not lawfully issue a CCN without consent from each county because it was bound by the ruling in AXTI.
But four commissioners stated in a concurring opinion that they disagreed with the opinion reached at the state's Western District of Missouri in AXTI, but believed it to be binding precedent on their decision, which required them to deny Grain Belt's CCN.
In the appeal that followed at the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, the three-judge panel -- Judges Lisa Page, Lawrence Mooney and Roy Richter -- concluded that the ATXI court improperly required every CCN applicant to acquire local consent for an area CCN.
Among other things, the Eastern District panel focused on a section of law -- 393.170 -- that the legislature established for two distinct CCNs -- line certificates and area certificates.
"We find the legislature clearly and plainly contemplated two separate certificates of convenience and necessity under Section 393.170 by setting each forth in its own subsection and by use of the disjunctive 'or' in Section 393.170.3," Page wrote. "In addition, the separate regulations promulgated by the Commission contemplate two distinct filing requirements for each type of application for a CCN and the Commission’s interpretation of these regulations is entitled to deference... . Moreover, our interpretation is consistent with prior case law. Thus, we must decline to follow the Western District’s interpretation of Section 393.170."