Background
Grain Belt Express received a certificate of convenience and necessity in 2019 to construct and operate a multistate electricity transmission line. It later sought approval to reconfigure the project by adding the Tiger Connector, whose final route crossed Cheri Meadows’ property in Callaway County. Meadows attended a public meeting, communicated repeatedly with Grain Belt representatives, and watched the Public Service Commission’s 2023 evidentiary hearing online, but she did not intervene in the certificate-amendment proceeding.
The PSC approved the amended certificate in October 2023, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that approval in a prior appeal. After the certificate became final, Meadows filed a complaint alleging that Grain Belt had violated it and asking the PSC to require removal of the transmission line from her property because of safety and property-use concerns. Following an evidentiary hearing, the PSC denied the complaint, finding that Grain Belt had not violated the certificate and had responded to Meadows’ concerns by moving the line 94 feet farther from her residence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that four of Meadows’ five appellate points were impermissible collateral attacks on the final 2023 certificate. Although Meadows characterized her claims as challenges to Grain Belt’s application of the certificate, the relief she sought—removing the Tiger Connector from her property as unsafe, unlawful, or unreasonable—would require relitigating the certificate’s validity and approved route. Missouri law makes final PSC orders conclusive in collateral proceedings.
The court also rejected Meadows’ substantial-evidence challenge. The PSC was entitled to credit Grain Belt representative Jason Brown’s account of the parties’ communications over Meadows’ conflicting account, and the appellate court would not second-guess that credibility determination. The record supported findings that Meadows knew of the approval process, had opportunities to participate, communicated extensively with Grain Belt, and received an accommodation moving the line farther from her home. The court also struck new claims first raised in Meadows’ reply brief.
Key Takeaways
- A final PSC order cannot be challenged indirectly through a later complaint seeking relief that would effectively undo the order.
- Describing a claim as a challenge to implementation will not avoid the collateral-attack bar when the requested remedy contests an approved project’s route or validity.
- Appellate courts defer to the PSC’s credibility findings when substantial evidence supports its resolution of conflicting testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of participating in PSC certificate proceedings before an approval becomes final. A landowner who had notice and an opportunity to intervene generally cannot use a later enforcement complaint to reopen the lawfulness or reasonableness of an approved transmission route.