CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes, I have a few. I want to start with your alternative argument that
the Commission go through the Tartan analysis, determine that Grain Belt has met each of those factors, but then withhold issuing the certificate. Would that be an appealable decision?
MR. ZOBRIST:  I think it would be because if you construe Neighbors United to say that you cannot issue a CCN, you're making these other findings and you're simply withholding it at that point. To be honest, I really haven't thought through that. It may be -- it depends on what your language is. I think if you say that this part is final, you view it as appealable, that that might be something for us to take a look at because it may not be an appealable order until either --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think that would be your worst-case scenario. Then you're sitting in limbo here and you can't take the order up. MR. ZOBRIST: Well, I'm being the optimist, Chairman. I'm assuming we get favorable  factual findings on the public convenience and necessity. We'd use those to go to the county commissions and say the Public Service Commission has weighed in and says the public is not going to be harmed and you should issue your county assents and then we'll be back.  Now, if you -- if you deny it, if you dismiss it, then I think --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, that's --
MR. ZOBRIST: Pardon me. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALL: That, to be perfectly blunt, seems a little naive to me that this commission's decision on public interest is going to sway the county commissions, and so --
MR. ZOBRIST: Like I said --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think the reality is that that would be almost your worst nightmare because then the case just sits in limbo here and you can't take it up on appeal.
MR. ZOBRIST: Well, let me put it this way. The nightmare is if you just dismiss it out of hand because then the project's dead. The
problem -- 
CHAIRMAN HALL: I would say that's better than this because at least then -- oh, okay.   I'm sorry. I'm with you now. Keep going.

I mean, I completely understand Mr. Zobrist's argument. I'm baffled by yours.

We've also raised the possibility of a county veto being in violation of federal law, and this is based solely on my general knowledge, but it seems that local interference with interstate commerce and electricity would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal Power Act gives FERC authority over interstate transmission lines. The state still has authority to regulate the siting of interstate transmission lines, but they're otherwise preempted.

"The world has changed since MISO began this," said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, with offices in Chicago and Madison, serving as attorney for the Driftless Area organization. "It's sort of like saying it's important to build more telephone wires and poles to serve the additional landlines that people in Middleton and Cross Plains are going to use, and then all of a sudden, cell phones came in."
Learner, who has a home near Spring Green, said upgrades to local power lines would be more appropriate than a huge transmission line that will carry electricity produced by fossil fuel and nuclear plants, as well as wind power.
"This is not the right place ... unless it's absolutely needed to keep the lights on, and this line is not needed for that purpose," Learner said.

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

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

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

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

(D) When approval of the affected govern- mental bodies is required, evidence must be provided as follows:
2. A certified copy of the required approval of other governmental agencies;

If any of the items required under this rule are unavailable at the time the application is filed, they shall be furnished prior to the granting of the authority sought.

No person or persons, association, companies or corporations shall erect poles for the suspension of electric light, or power wires, or lay and maintain pipes, conductors, mains and conduits for any purpose whatever, through, on, under or across the public roads or highways of any county of this state, without first having obtained the assent of the county commission of such county therefor; and no poles shall be erected or such pipes, conductors, mains and conduits be laid or maintained, except under such reasonable rules and regulations as may be prescribed and promulgated by the county highway engineer, with the approval of the county commission.

The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests.

“All the ideas come down to a temporary underwriting of the project so you can get these things over the top, or some sort of tax mechanism.”

Plains & Eastern is “pretty much fully developed at this point”, Skelly says. “We’re now in the commercialisation phase, matching chippers – that is wind developers – with utilities in the southeast.”

“It’s still a bit early to tell exactly what the administration will do to stimulate more infrastructure investment,” Skelly says. “But in terms of the things they’re talking about, with private-sector-led projects, it forms a pretty nice Venn diagram with transmission.”