Background
Six wind farms located in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa applied to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for certification as eligible Ohio renewable-energy-resource-generating facilities. Certification permits qualifying facilities to sell renewable energy in Ohio. Because the facilities are in states not contiguous to Ohio, they had to show that their electricity was physically deliverable into the state.
The commission applied the test established in its Koda proceeding, under which a power-flow study must show that a facility has a distribution-factor impact exceeding 5 percent on an Ohio transmission line and that the megawatt equivalent of the impact exceeds one megawatt. Relying on PJM Interconnection studies and its staff’s analysis, the commission concluded that all six facilities met those thresholds. Carbon Solutions Group, whose clients include Ohio renewable-energy developers and facilities, appealed.
Carbon Solutions argued that the PJM studies did not establish deliverability across the Midcontinent Independent System Operator’s territory into PJM and then into Ohio. It also contended that the commission inadequately explained its decision, improperly denied a subpoena for a PJM official, and relied on hearsay.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the commission’s order. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that each wind farm’s electricity was deliverable into Ohio and that the commission correctly applied the Koda test. The record included PJM power-flow studies meeting Koda’s numerical thresholds, staff analysis of the full studies, and testimony that PJM could obtain the information needed to model power flows across regional-transmission organizations.
The court also held that the commission complied with R.C. 4903.09 because its order sufficiently described the evidence and reasoning supporting certification. Although the commission could have explained its reasoning more methodically, the order provided enough information for judicial review. The court emphasized that its decision did not prevent the commission from requiring studies from multiple transmission organizations or other evidence in future cases.
Carbon Solutions waived its challenge to the denial of its subpoena request by failing to object when the attorney examiner denied the request at the hearing. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider the hearsay claim because Carbon Solutions had not specifically raised it in its rehearing application. Justice Fischer, joined by Judge Willamowski, concurred on those procedural issues but dissented from the deliverability ruling, concluding that the commission had not adequately addressed the asserted evidentiary gap.
Key Takeaways
- A PJM power-flow study satisfying the Koda thresholds supported certification of the six wind farms even though they were located within MISO-administered areas.
- The commission was not required on this record to obtain a separate MISO study or proof of actual electricity delivery into Ohio.
- A party can waive a challenge to an evidentiary ruling by failing to object when the ruling is made, and an issue omitted from a PUCO rehearing application generally cannot be raised on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves PUCO’s existing method for determining whether electricity from renewable facilities in noncontiguous states is deliverable into Ohio. It confirms that modeled impacts on Ohio transmission lines can establish deliverability without tracing particular electrons or proving actual delivery.
The court nevertheless left PUCO room to demand additional interregional studies or other proof in later cases. The divided opinion also highlights the importance of commission orders expressly addressing material challenges to the reliability and scope of technical evidence.