This fall’s elections for three seats on the Ohio Supreme Court are expected to play a key role in deciding the state’s direction on renewable energy, utility liability and other energy issues.
In addition to deciding appeals from lower courts dealing with energy and other issues, the seven-member Ohio Supreme Court hears all challenges brought by the Ohio Public Service Commission and the Ohio Power Plant Siting Board. The commission generally decides what utilities can do and how much they can charge ratepayers, while the siting board approves where to build power plants and other infrastructure.
Judicial candidates don’t campaign on specific issues, so voters won’t have a full picture of how they’re likely to rule on energy issues. But endorsements, campaign contributions and several decisions made by current officials provide some clues.
The Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund has approved all three Democratic candidates — Michael Donnelly, Melody Stewart and Lisa Forbes. Donnelly and Stewart are seeking another six-year term. Forbes is an appellate judge in Cuyahoga County, which covers much of Cleveland.
Meanwhile, Ohio Oil and Gas Association AND NiSource donated money to the campaigns of all three Republicans – Joseph Deters, Dan Hawkins and Megan Shanahan. American electricity he also donated money to the Shanahan and Deters campaigns, according to records compiled by Open Secrets.
Deters was appointed to a part-term term by Gov. Mike DeWine last year and is challenging Stewart for a full term. Hawkins and Shanahan are trial court judges in Franklin and Hamilton counties, respectively.
Ideally, party jurisdiction shouldn’t matter when candidates run for judges, said Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, a law professor at Cleveland State University. Additionally, some prior energy rulings were unanimous, including a 2021 ruling amending a PUCO decision favoring a FirstEnergy affiliate Randazzo herself was a chair.
However, from 2022 it will be novel state law added party affiliation to ballots in the fall elections of appeals court judges. Republicans hold a 4-3 majority on the Ohio Supreme Court, but that balance could reverse depending on the outcome of this election.
Here are some of the energy issues the novel court is likely to address in the coming years:
Who has the greatest influence on where photovoltaic farms are built?
The Ohio Supreme Court still must hear oral arguments and then rule on cases involving the siting of solar farms Kingwood Solar AND Sunny Birch projects. Supporters of the projects say the Ohio Power Siting Board acted illegally in its handling of the plant’s size local opposition as a determining factor, rather than considering whether the content of the objections outweighs other factors supporting the projects.
“How the justices approach these questions will have a major impact on the future development of renewable energy projects in this state,” said Chris Tavenor, an attorney speaking on behalf of the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund.
If the court sides with the siting commission, it could give local opposition groups more leeway in determining the project’s location than the 2021 law already gives county governments. The result could further empower groups with ties to fossil fuel interests, as sometimes happens stoke fear on renewable energy in order to build the opposition.
The Kingwood case file includes a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the Republican majority in the Ohio Senate that was written as if it came from the entire Ohio Senate. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost then moved to draft a separate brief filed on behalf of seven Democrats supporting the bill. The Aug. 7 ruling denied Yost’s request, but Deters dissented and would have done so negative The Democratic Club has something to say on this matter.
How long can regulators make developers wait for decisions?
Another case Morainepresents ongoing questions regarding the timing of Supreme Court appeals. In Moraine, the court allowed an energy consulting firm to appeal several PUCO out-of-state location decisions renewable energy loansessentially holding the Commission accountable for the delays in issuing a decision on the company’s request for reconsideration of the judgments.
The trial court of August 27 ruling stated that the PUCO cannot avoid its legal obligation to consider reconsideration requests within 30 days, giving itself more time. Donnelly agreed with the ruling, Stewart disagreed, and Deters did not participate.
On the one hand, the ruling should speed up renewable energy cases and perhaps allow developers to move projects forward more quickly. The ruling should also shorten the period in which consumers will have to pay disputed fees that may ultimately be found illegal.
On the other hand, a ruling on a deadline means a change in the law. Ohio Power Siteing Board’s arguments in an earlier article Kingwood Solar appeals were very similar to the PUCO appeal in the Moraine case. However, in September 2023, six judges, including Donnelly, Stewart and Deters, agreed to dismiss the earlier Kingwood Solar case.
On September 4, the PUCO ruled that the novel Moraine ruling would mean a reconsideration of applications in other cases rejected by law and suggested that the time for a possible appeal had passed. October 2 ruling he repeated this position.
“Instead of accepting the court’s pro-consumer ruling, the PUCO is undermining it,” said Maureen Willis, Ohio consumer advocate.
Will utility customers ever be reimbursed for illegal rides?
Some AES Ohio The case seeks to block the refund of more than $150 million in allegedly unlawful “stabilization fees,” which the PUCO says will be refundable “to the extent permitted by law.” Following the ruling in the case, the later utility company reverted to the ancient subsidy system unlawful.
AES also seeks to operate the Aug. 27 Moraine ruling to argue that Ohio Consumer Counsel missed the opportunity to appeal in any event.
“AES’s latest move to avoid refunding 500,000 consumers should be a clear failure,” Willis said. “To protect consumers, the court should proceed to trial and allow justice to be served.”
This case will test the limits of the language surrounding reimbursements in a 2019 case that found that the so-called FirstEnergy’s distribution modernization order is unlawful. Donnelly opinion there it was written that it is not possible to refund money already paid because PUCO did not allow the passenger to refund the money. Stewart was one of the judges who agreed.
What penalties will FirstEnergy face for its role in Ohio’s HB 6 scandal?
The review of these passenger charges is currently one of four FirstEnergy cases pending before the PUCO in connection with the ongoing proceedings House Bill 6 corruption scandal. The evidentiary hearing in another case regarding the division of companies is scheduled to start this month. The driver review and the remaining three cases are likely to be heard next year.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. Fees in at least one case may be recouped through future bill adjustments. Even if consumers do not receive a refund in other cases, FirstEnergy could be subject to criminal liability. So some or all of the cases will likely end up in the Ohio Supreme Court.
Deters recused himself from last year’s case in which a court allowed the Ohio Attorney General’s office to seize the estate of former PUCO Chairman Sam Randazzo. Although the notice did not provide a reason, Deters had previously worked with the lobbyist Matt Borgeswho was convicted last year on federal criminal charges related to HB 6. Deters also rejected several appeals from the PUCO, where his brother is commissioner.
Will drilling still be allowed under state parks and wildlife areas?
Natural gas cases may also end up in the Ohio Supreme Court. One case questions the constitutionality bill in 2023 that designated natural gas as “green energy” and began regulatory action to allow drilling and fracking under state parks and wilderness areas. The briefing ended last year. The court of first instance has not yet made its decision.
Another case challenges cases in which the Ohio Oil and Gas Land Management Commission decided to solicit bids to lease areas under certain state parks and wildlife areas for drilling and fracturing. In February, the court dismissed the appeal. The case is currently under appeal.
It is not certain whether any of the cases will reach the Ohio Supreme Court. Much will depend on the courts’ ruling, said Megan Hunter, an attorney with Earthjustice who represents several environmental groups in these cases.
Evaluating judges
Common Cause encourages voters to do just that Rate ads for judicial candidates with a skeptical view. Pay attention to the emotional setting. Dispute claims that may be misleading or out of context. Also pay attention to which groups are paying for these ads, Common Cause advises: ask yourself who is behind these groups and what they stand to gain.
It is equally critical to listen carefully to candidates. “Focus on judges who talk about the principles of fairness and supporting our democracy as an important aspect of the functioning of our country,” Tavenor said.
“And really just pay attention to whether the judges are speaking a biased language or not, an impartial language,” he added. “Our judges really shouldn’t focus on the goals of political parties.”
This article appeared for the first time Energy News Network and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://energynews.us/2024/10/08/ohio-high-court-races-will-decide-future -of-states-energy-transformation-and-utility-justice/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } }
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
