The Ohio Supreme Court gave the go-ahead for the sale of wind energy in a Tuesday decision regarding out-of-state vendors of the renewable natural resource.
Six wind farms in the Midwest were certified to sell wind energy in the state in a supreme court decision that upheld a ruling by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
The PUCO decision was challenged by Carbon Solutions Group, who has renewable energy clients in Ohio. The group argued that the energy company Avangrid did not meet the criteria to be certified for sales in Ohio, and that the commission didn’t act appropriately in the process of certifying the entities.
The challenge related to wind farms in four different states, each being certified as “a qualifying renewable-energy resource,” as is required in state law for the farms to be able to sell energy in Ohio.
The farms are located in states that don’t connect directly to Ohio, including Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa.
In order to qualify as an energy resource, out-of-state facilities have to prove the energy can be delivered to the state, via a commission-adopted test that determines if energy coming from a noncontiguous state can be sent here.
The commission uses certain power-flow studies to determine whether energy sources sent from other states “have an impact on power flows over transmission lines within Ohio,” according to the supreme court decision.
The company challenging the certifications didn’t argue that the test was unreasonable, but instead that the test was “erroneously applied.”
While the utilities commission approved the certifications for three different reasons, the only reason challenged by the Carbon Solutions Group was whether Avangrid had proven they could deliver the wind energy to Ohio.
The group challenging the certifications argued to the supreme court that the commission “erred” in finding that the energy was deliverable, and that the wind farms had “failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating” that fact.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed reports and multiple pieces of testimony by members of the commission who determined the deliverability requirement had been met, and the majority decision noted a previous decision in which the justices ruled that “if the commission finds that a staff recommendation contains sufficient factual findings and conclusions of law, it may adopt the same.”
“In light of (the staff testimony and analysis) … we find no merit in CSG’s contention that the evidence does not support the staff’s deliverability findings and recommendations,” the majority wrote in the Tuesday decision.
Judge Julia Dorrian of the Tenth District Court of Appeals sat in for Justice Jennifer Brunner on the case, and wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and justices Patrick DeWine, Dan Hawkins, and Megan Shanahan.
Dorrian and the majority also said the evidence in the record of the PUCO decision didn’t show “misapprehension, mistake, or willful disregard of duty.”
“Although the commission in its order could have articulated its reasons in a more methodical manner, the commission did address its reasoning as well as the facts on which it relied…,” Dorrian wrote for the majority.
While the court sided with PUCO in saying the commission had the authority to determine if the tests proved the energy could be delivered, justices held back from setting a precedent for future cases that might ask for further study of electricity load, “or other evidence as it determines may be necessary when considering whether the deliverability standard is met.”
Justice Patrick Fischer agreed with part of the majority’s decision, but disagreed with his colleagues in siding with the commission’s decision that the energy could be delivered to the state. Fischer went so far as to say the majority opinion “ignores the commission’s clear violation” of state law as it pertains to record-keeping in contested cases.
“Furthermore, the majority errs in determining that sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the commission’s decision,” Fischer wrote. “In affirming the commission’s order, the majority has acted far beyond the scope of our appellate authority in reviewing commission orders.”
Fischer was joined in his opinion by Judge John Williamowski, a Third District Court of Appeals judge sitting in for Justice Joe Deters.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.