The Ohio Power Siting Board (PSB) is responsible for approving the siting of major utility facilities, including electric power generation plants and transmission lines, within the state of Ohio. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4906, the PSB conducts a comprehensive review process that considers environmental, economic, and social impacts. A key component of this review is the consideration of alternative sites and alternative energy sources. ORC 4906.10 mandates that an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed site is reasonably necessary, considering the need for the facility, the availability of alternative sites, and the availability of alternative energy sources. The Board evaluates the applicant’s analysis of alternatives to ensure that the proposed facility represents the most prudent and responsible choice, balancing the public interest with the environmental and economic consequences. This includes assessing whether less impactful or more cost-effective energy generation or transmission solutions exist. The Board’s decision-making framework is designed to promote reliable and affordable energy while minimizing adverse effects on Ohio’s natural resources and communities.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) is responsible for the siting of major utility facilities in Ohio. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4906, the OPSB has exclusive jurisdiction over the siting of such facilities, including power plants and associated transmission lines. When considering an application for a new electric generation facility, the OPSB must evaluate numerous factors to determine if the proposed site is in the public interest. These factors are broadly categorized in ORC 4906.10 and include environmental impact, economic development, the impact on local communities, and the need for the facility. Specifically, the Board considers the impact on air and water quality, noise levels, visual aesthetics, and the preservation of natural resources. Economic benefits, such as job creation and tax revenues, are also weighed. Furthermore, the OPSB must assess the facility’s impact on existing infrastructure and land use patterns. The decision-making process involves public hearings, expert testimony, and detailed environmental impact statements. The ultimate goal is to balance the need for energy with the protection of the environment and the welfare of Ohio citizens. The statute does not mandate a specific percentage of renewable energy for approval, nor does it prioritize one type of energy generation over another in an absolute sense, but rather assesses the proposal against the established criteria for the public good.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has specific procedural requirements for the siting of major utility facilities, including electric power generating plants. Under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4906, any person proposing to construct a major utility facility must obtain a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need from the OPSB. This process involves extensive review of environmental, economic, and social impacts. The application for a certificate must include detailed information about the proposed facility, its location, environmental impact assessments, and plans for mitigating adverse effects. Public participation is a key component, with opportunities for public hearings and input from affected parties, including local governments and citizens. The OPSB’s decision is based on whether the proposed facility is consistent with the state’s energy policy and whether its benefits outweigh its adverse effects. The statute also outlines requirements for amending or transferring certificates. The core principle is to balance the need for reliable and affordable energy with the protection of the environment and public welfare.

The question pertains to the regulatory framework governing the siting of large-scale solar energy facilities in Ohio, specifically focusing on the role of the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) and the interplay with local zoning ordinances. Under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4906, the OPSB has exclusive jurisdiction over the siting of major utility facilities, which includes electric generating plants with a generating capacity of fifty megawatts or more. This jurisdiction extends to the granting of a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. While local governments retain authority over zoning and land use, the OPSB’s certificate supersedes local regulations if there is a conflict. The law establishes a process for the OPSB to consider local input, including resolutions from affected townships or municipalities, but the ultimate decision rests with the Board, balancing state-wide energy needs with local concerns. Therefore, a certificate issued by the OPSB is the primary legal instrument that authorizes the construction of such a facility, preempting conflicting local zoning.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) is responsible for the siting of major utility facilities in Ohio. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4906, the OPSB reviews applications for the construction of electric power generation facilities with a generating capacity of 50 megawatts or more, and transmission lines of 138 kilovolts or more. The primary goal of the OPSB’s review process is to ensure that the facility is consistent with the long-term regional development of the state, considering economic development, environmental protection, and the public interest. This involves a comprehensive assessment of the proposed site, the environmental impact, the need for the facility, and the views of affected communities. The process mandates public hearings and allows for input from various stakeholders, including local governments, environmental groups, and affected citizens. The OPSB’s decision-making authority is guided by statutory criteria and rules promulgated by the board, which aim to balance the need for energy infrastructure with the protection of Ohio’s natural resources and communities. The ORC outlines specific procedural requirements, such as the content of an application, notice provisions, and the timeline for decisions, ensuring a structured and transparent review.

In Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) oversees the regulation of public utilities, including electric generation. When a utility seeks to recover costs associated with the retirement of a fossil fuel-based generating facility, it typically files a “securitization” or “decommissioning cost recovery” plan. The legal framework for such recovery is often found within Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4905 and relevant PUCO administrative rules. Specifically, ORC 4905.10 grants PUCO the authority to approve the issuance of stocks, bonds, and other evidences of indebtedness, which can be used to finance the costs of retiring or decommissioning utility assets. The process involves demonstrating that the proposed recovery mechanism, often through the issuance of securitized transition bonds, is prudent, necessary, and in the public interest. PUCO’s review will scrutinize the utility’s justification for the retirement, the projected costs, the proposed financing structure, and the impact on customer rates. The commission must find that the recovery plan allows the utility to recover its prudently incurred costs and associated financing expenses, thereby maintaining the utility’s financial integrity and ability to serve its customers, while ensuring that the recovery is structured to minimize the burden on ratepayers. The issuance of securitized transition bonds, for instance, allows the utility to recover these costs over a longer period, potentially at a lower interest rate than traditional financing, with the bonds being repaid through a dedicated rate component. This mechanism is designed to facilitate the transition to cleaner energy sources by mitigating the financial impact of retiring older, less efficient, or environmentally problematic assets. The PUCO’s approval is contingent upon a thorough examination of the economic benefits and costs to consumers.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) has broad authority over public utilities in Ohio, including the setting of rates and service standards. When a utility seeks to recover costs associated with infrastructure upgrades or new generation facilities, it typically files an application for a rate increase or a financing order. Ohio Revised Code Section 4909.18 governs the process for determining the value of utility property for rate-making purposes, which is a crucial step in rate cases. Section 4905.21 grants the PUCO the power to authorize or prohibit the issuance of securities, including bonds, by public utilities, ensuring that such financing is for legitimate utility purposes and does not unduly burden ratepayers. Furthermore, Ohio’s energy policy, as reflected in legislation like the energy choice and renewable energy standards, influences the types of projects utilities undertake and how their costs are recovered. A utility seeking to recover the cost of a new solar farm would likely need PUCO approval for the project itself, a determination of its prudent investment, and a mechanism for cost recovery through its rates, all of which fall under the PUCO’s regulatory purview. The PUCO’s decisions are subject to judicial review, but its initial findings on matters of fact and the exercise of its discretion in rate-making and financing are generally given significant deference.

The scenario involves a public utility in Ohio seeking to recover costs associated with a significant infrastructure upgrade to its natural gas distribution network. Ohio law, specifically under Chapter 4905 of the Ohio Revised Code, governs the rate-making authority of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). When a utility proposes to recover costs for such projects, it typically files an application for a rate adjustment or a financing order. The PUCO then undertakes a detailed review to determine the prudence and reasonableness of the expenditures, the necessity of the upgrade for public safety and service reliability, and whether the proposed recovery mechanism is in the public interest. A key aspect of this review is the consideration of whether the costs are “used and useful” in providing service, a standard that allows for the recovery of capital investments that benefit ratepayers. The PUCO’s decision-making process involves analyzing the utility’s evidence, potentially holding public hearings, and considering input from consumer advocates and other stakeholders. The commission’s ultimate goal is to balance the utility’s need to earn a fair return on its investments with the obligation to provide safe, reliable, and affordable service to Ohio consumers. The specific mechanism for cost recovery, such as a surcharge or inclusion in the base rate, is determined by the PUCO based on the nature of the investment and its expected impact on customer bills. The principle of allowing recovery for prudent investments in infrastructure necessary for service is a cornerstone of utility regulation in Ohio, aimed at ensuring the long-term viability of essential services.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) plays a crucial role in regulating utility services within the state. When a regulated electric utility in Ohio proposes a significant capital expenditure for a new generation facility, it must seek approval from the PUCO. This process is governed by Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4909.18, which outlines the requirements for obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The statute mandates that a utility must demonstrate that the proposed facility is necessary and convenient for the public, and that the expenditure is reasonable and proper. This involves submitting detailed evidence regarding the need for the facility, its cost, its environmental impact, and its overall benefit to Ohio consumers. The PUCO then conducts a thorough review, which may include public hearings and expert testimony, to determine if the proposed project aligns with the public interest and statutory requirements. Approval is not automatic and depends on the utility successfully meeting the burden of proof. Failure to secure this certification would prevent the utility from recovering the costs of the facility through customer rates.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) oversees the regulation of public utilities in Ohio, including electric generation, transmission, and distribution. Ohio law, specifically through the Ohio Revised Code (ORC), grants PUCO the authority to approve electric utility rate structures and service standards. When an electric utility proposes changes to its base rates, it must file an application with PUCO. This application is subject to a thorough review process, which often involves public hearings, expert testimony, and detailed financial analysis. The commission’s decision is guided by statutory mandates to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, that service is adequate, and that the utility earns a fair rate of return on its invested capital. This process is designed to balance the interests of consumers, who seek affordable and reliable service, with the utility’s need to maintain its infrastructure and invest in future capacity. The ORC provisions related to rate cases, such as those concerning the determination of a reasonable rate of return and the allowable operating expenses, are central to PUCO’s regulatory authority. Therefore, any modification to base rates requires a formal PUCO approval, which is a public and deliberative process.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) has broad authority to regulate public utilities within the state, including electric generation, transmission, and distribution. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4905.04 grants PUCO the power to supervise and regulate public utilities and to do all things necessary and convenient in the exercise of this power. This includes setting rates, approving service standards, and ensuring the safety and reliability of utility operations. When a utility proposes a significant change in its operations, such as the decommissioning of a major generating facility, it must seek PUCO approval. This approval process typically involves a formal application, public notice, evidentiary hearings, and a PUCO order. The commission’s decision is guided by statutory mandates, including ensuring just and reasonable rates, promoting reliable service, and considering the public interest. ORC Section 4905.21 specifically addresses the abandonment of service by a public utility, requiring PUCO consent. The commission’s review would scrutinize the economic, operational, and environmental implications of such a decommissioning, balancing the utility’s financial health with the needs of its customers and the broader public good.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has a statutory mandate to review and approve or reject applications for the siting of major utility facilities. This review process is governed by Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4906. The statute outlines specific criteria that the OPSB must consider, including the impact of the facility on the environment, public health and safety, and the economy of the affected area. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed facility is necessary and that its construction and operation will not unreasonably endanger public health, safety, or the environment. Furthermore, the OPSB is tasked with considering the impact on local zoning and land use plans, as well as the aesthetic and visual impact of the facility. The process involves public hearings and opportunities for public comment, ensuring transparency and stakeholder involvement. A key aspect of the OPSB’s authority is its ability to impose conditions on the approval of a facility to mitigate potential adverse impacts. These conditions can relate to construction practices, operational procedures, environmental monitoring, or decommissioning plans. The ultimate decision rests on whether the proposed site and facility comply with the statutory requirements and will serve the public interest.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) has established specific rules regarding the recovery of costs associated with the development and construction of new electric generation facilities in Ohio. Under Ohio Revised Code Section 4909.16, and further detailed in PUCO rules such as Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 4901:1-23, utilities can seek approval for “new clean energy resource investment plans.” These plans allow for the recovery of prudently incurred costs, including capital expenditures, financing costs, and operating expenses, over the expected life of the asset. The mechanism for cost recovery is typically a rate adjustment rider or a dedicated rate component, approved by the PUCO after a thorough review of the utility’s application. This review scrutinizes the necessity, reasonableness, and prudence of the expenditures, ensuring that the investment aligns with the state’s energy policy goals, such as promoting clean energy and ensuring reliability. The PUCO’s approval process often involves public hearings and consideration of testimony from various stakeholders, including consumer advocates and environmental groups. The objective is to balance the utility’s need to recover its investment with the imperative to protect consumers from excessive or unwarranted rate increases. Therefore, the PUCO’s direct oversight and approval are the fundamental legal and regulatory pathways for a utility to recover such capital investments in new generation within Ohio.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) plays a crucial role in regulating the state’s energy sector. One of its key functions is to ensure that utility companies provide reliable service at reasonable rates. When a utility proposes a significant change in its operations or seeks to recover costs associated with new infrastructure or environmental compliance, it typically files a rate case or an application for approval of a particular project. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4909.18 outlines the process for rate adjustments, requiring utilities to submit detailed information about their proposed rates, operating expenses, and capital investments. The PUCO then conducts an investigation, which may include public hearings, expert testimony, and analysis of the utility’s financial records. During this process, interested parties, such as consumer advocacy groups and industrial users, can intervene and present their own evidence and arguments. The commission’s final order must be based on the evidence presented and must comply with statutory standards, including the principle of allowing a utility a fair rate of return on its invested capital. The question probes the specific statutory framework governing the PUCO’s review of a utility’s proposal to recover costs for a new renewable energy project, which falls under the purview of ORC Chapter 4928, particularly concerning energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, and the general rate-making principles established in ORC Chapter 4909. The PUCO’s authority to approve such cost recovery is not automatic; it requires a demonstration that the investment is prudent, necessary, and in the public interest, aligning with the state’s energy policy objectives.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) has specific rules regarding the recovery of costs for electric distribution utilities in Ohio. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4928.67, electric distribution utilities can apply to the PUCO for approval of a base rate adjustment rider to recover certain costs associated with compliance with renewable energy standards, energy efficiency programs, and demand-side management programs. These riders are typically designed to allow for the pass-through of prudently incurred costs, subject to PUCO review and approval. The key concept is that these costs are not automatically recovered but require a formal application and approval process by the PUCO, ensuring that the expenses are reasonable and necessary for achieving the state’s energy policy objectives. The recovery mechanism is a rider, which is an addition to the standard base rate, reflecting the incremental costs of these programs. The question probes the understanding of the regulatory mechanism for cost recovery for specific mandated programs in Ohio, emphasizing the role of the PUCO and the nature of the adjustment.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) is responsible for approving the siting of major utility facilities in Ohio, including electric generating plants and high-voltage transmission lines. When considering an application for a new solar electric generating facility, the OPSB must evaluate numerous factors to determine if the proposed facility is in the public interest. These factors are outlined in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4906. Key considerations include the environmental impact, the economic benefits to the state and local communities, the impact on existing infrastructure, and the reliability of the proposed facility. Specifically, the OPSB must consider the potential effects on air quality, water resources, soil, and wildlife habitats. The economic benefits often involve job creation during construction and operation, as well as tax revenue for local governments. The board also assesses the visual impact of the facility and its compatibility with the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, the OPSB must ensure that the proposed facility will not adversely affect the ability of existing utilities to serve their customers reliably. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed site is the most appropriate one, considering all these factors, and that the facility will be constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental and economic impacts. The process involves public hearings and input from various state agencies and stakeholders. The ultimate decision hinges on a comprehensive assessment of whether the proposed facility serves the public convenience and necessity, balancing economic development with environmental protection and community well-being.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has a statutory mandate to ensure that new electric power generation facilities are sited in a manner that is consistent with the state’s energy needs, environmental protection, and the public interest. When considering an application for a new solar energy facility, the OPSB evaluates various factors, including the facility’s impact on local communities, the environment, and the state’s energy infrastructure. The Ohio Revised Code, particularly Chapter 4906, outlines the process and criteria for siting electric energy generating facilities. A key aspect of this review involves assessing the economic benefits and potential negative impacts, such as visual aesthetics and land use changes. The OPSB’s decision-making process is quasi-judicial, meaning it follows established procedures for hearings, evidence presentation, and deliberation, akin to a court. The Board’s authority extends to approving, denying, or conditioning the construction and operation of such facilities. This includes imposing specific requirements to mitigate adverse effects identified during the review. The concept of “public interest” is a broad but central tenet, encompassing economic development, environmental stewardship, and the reliable provision of energy services. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of a solar project’s alignment with these multifaceted considerations is paramount for OPSB approval.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) oversees the regulation of public utilities in Ohio. One of the key mechanisms for ensuring fair and reasonable rates is the “cost of service” rate-making approach. In this method, a utility is allowed to recover its prudently incurred operating costs and earn a reasonable rate of return on its invested capital, known as the rate base. The rate base typically includes the net original cost of utility property used and useful in providing service, less accumulated depreciation, plus an allowance for materials and supplies and, in some cases, construction work in progress. The allowed rate of return, or “fair rate of return,” is determined by the PUCO based on the utility’s cost of capital, considering both debt and equity components. This rate of return is applied to the rate base to calculate the utility’s annual revenue requirement for return on investment. Operating expenses, including fuel, labor, maintenance, and taxes, are also factored into the revenue requirement. The total revenue requirement is then translated into rates that customers pay. Ohio law, specifically Revised Code Chapter 4909, governs these rate-making proceedings. The PUCO’s role is to balance the interests of consumers, who seek affordable service, with the need for utilities to maintain financial health and invest in infrastructure. The concept of “used and useful” property is central to preventing the recovery of costs for assets that are not currently contributing to service provision. The PUCO must ensure that rates are not unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory, as stipulated by Ohio statutes.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has a specific process for approving the siting of electric power generating facilities. This process is governed by Chapter 4906 of the Ohio Revised Code. When an applicant proposes to construct a new electric generating facility with a capacity exceeding certain thresholds, they must submit an application for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. The OPSB then conducts a thorough review, which includes public hearings, consideration of environmental impacts, and assessment of the facility’s need. The board’s decision must balance the public interest, including economic development and reliable energy supply, with environmental protection and the concerns of affected communities. This process is designed to ensure that energy infrastructure development in Ohio is undertaken in a responsible and comprehensive manner, considering all relevant factors before construction commences. The specific threshold for mandatory OPSB review for electric generating facilities is a nameplate capacity of 50 megawatts or more, as defined in Ohio Revised Code Section 4906.01. Therefore, a facility with a capacity of 45 megawatts would not require an OPSB certificate of environmental compatibility and public need.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) is responsible for the siting of major utility facilities, including electric generating plants and high-voltage transmission lines, within Ohio. The Ohio Power Siting Board is governed by Chapter 4906 of the Ohio Revised Code. The process for obtaining approval for a new electric power plant involves an application that must demonstrate compliance with various criteria, including environmental impact, economic development, and the public need for the facility. Section 4906.10 of the Ohio Revised Code outlines the criteria for approval, which include considerations of the applicant’s financial qualifications, the impact on the environment, the impact on the local economy, and the public interest. The board must also consider the suitability of the proposed site. Public participation is a key component, with provisions for public hearings and the opportunity for affected parties to intervene. The decision-making process involves a thorough review of the application, expert testimony, and public input, culminating in a board order that either approves, denies, or approves with conditions the proposed facility. The statute aims to balance the need for energy infrastructure with environmental protection and community concerns.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has exclusive jurisdiction over the siting of major utility facilities in Ohio, as established by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4906. This includes power generation facilities with a generating capacity exceeding 50 megawatts. When an applicant proposes a new power plant, the OPSB conducts a comprehensive review process that assesses various factors, including environmental impact, economic development, and the facility’s impact on local communities and existing infrastructure. The process involves public hearings, expert testimony, and detailed studies to ensure that the proposed facility serves the public interest and complies with all relevant state and federal regulations. The OPSB’s decision-making authority is central to energy development in Ohio, balancing the need for reliable energy with environmental protection and community well-being. The board’s mandate is to ensure that the siting of these facilities is in the public interest, considering all relevant factors. This includes evaluating the need for the facility, its impact on the environment and land use, its effect on the local economy and tax base, and the applicant’s ability to construct and operate the facility safely and reliably. The ultimate goal is to approve or deny a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need.

The scenario describes a situation where a municipal electric utility in Ohio is considering the acquisition of a distributed generation facility. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4905.04 grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) jurisdiction over all public utilities, including municipal utilities, for certain aspects of their operations. However, ORC Section 4909.34 specifically addresses the PUCO’s authority regarding the acquisition or construction of new facilities by electric light companies, which includes municipal electric utilities. This section requires that such acquisitions or constructions be found to be “necessary and appropriate for the service, safety, and welfare of the public” after a hearing. The process involves filing an application with the PUCO, which then conducts an investigation and public hearing to determine if the proposed acquisition meets the statutory standard. The PUCO’s approval is a prerequisite for the municipal utility to proceed with the acquisition under this provision. Other sections of Ohio law, such as those pertaining to municipal powers (e.g., ORC Chapter 743), govern the general authority of municipal corporations, but for facility acquisitions that impact the utility’s service and public welfare, the PUCO’s oversight under ORC 4909.34 is the controlling regulatory mechanism. The question tests the understanding of which specific Ohio statute governs the PUCO’s review of a municipal electric utility’s acquisition of a new generating facility.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) plays a pivotal role in regulating investor-owned electric, natural gas, telephone, and certain water and wastewater companies within Ohio. A key aspect of this regulation involves ensuring that utility rates reflect the actual cost of providing service, a principle known as cost-of-service regulation. When a utility seeks to increase its rates, it must file an application with the PUCO. This application is typically accompanied by extensive testimony and exhibits detailing the utility’s proposed rate structure, operating expenses, capital investments, and a justification for the requested revenue increase. The PUCO then initiates a formal rate case proceeding, which is a quasi-judicial process. During this proceeding, intervenors, such as consumer advocacy groups and large industrial customers, can participate by presenting their own evidence and arguments. The PUCO staff also conducts an independent review of the utility’s filing. Ultimately, the Commission issues an order that may approve, deny, or modify the proposed rates. This order is based on a thorough examination of the evidence presented, ensuring that rates are just and reasonable, and that the utility can recover its legitimate costs while earning a fair rate of return on its invested capital, thereby maintaining its financial integrity and ability to serve the public. The process is designed to balance the interests of the utility, its customers, and the public good, adhering to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4909.

The question probes the nuanced application of Ohio’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) and its interaction with advanced energy technologies, specifically focusing on the eligibility of combined heat and power (CHP) systems for Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). Ohio’s RPS, as established by Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4928.64, mandates that electric distribution utilities procure a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable energy resources. While the statute defines eligible technologies, the interpretation and implementation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) are critical. Historically, the PUCO, through its administrative rules and case decisions, has clarified the definition of “renewable energy resource.” For a technology like a combined heat and power system, its eligibility often hinges on whether the primary energy source used in the generation process is considered renewable under Ohio law. If the CHP system primarily utilizes natural gas, a fossil fuel, even if it achieves high thermal efficiency, it would not qualify as a renewable energy resource for the purposes of generating RECs under the Ohio RPS. The RECs are specifically tied to the generation of electricity from qualifying renewable sources, such as solar, wind, or certain types of biomass. Therefore, a CHP system fueled by natural gas, despite its energy efficiency benefits, would not generate RECs that count towards a utility’s RPS compliance in Ohio. The key distinction lies in the definition of the energy source, not solely the efficiency of the generation process.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has a comprehensive process for approving the siting of major utility facilities, including electric generation facilities and transmission lines. Under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4906, any person proposing to construct a major utility facility must obtain a certificate of siting from the OPSB. This process involves a thorough review of environmental, economic, and social impacts. The statute outlines specific requirements for the application, public notice, hearings, and the board’s decision-making criteria. The board must consider factors such as the need for the facility, its impact on the environment, the public interest, and alternative sites. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the facility is sited in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts and maximizes public benefit, aligning with Ohio’s energy policy objectives. The certificate, if granted, may include conditions to mitigate identified impacts. The process emphasizes public participation and transparency, allowing affected parties to voice concerns and present evidence.

The scenario involves a dispute over the interpretation of a renewable energy certificate (REC) purchase agreement between an Ohio-based solar farm, “Sunbeam Power LLC,” and a large industrial consumer, “Metropolis Manufacturing.” The agreement stipulates that Sunbeam Power will deliver a certain quantity of RECs annually, generated from its Ohio facility, to Metropolis Manufacturing for a period of ten years. Metropolis Manufacturing claims that certain RECs generated from a newly installed battery storage system, which is co-located with the solar farm but operates independently for grid services, should not be counted towards their contractual obligation because these RECs are derived from a hybrid generation and storage facility, not solely from the solar panels. Sunbeam Power argues that the RECs are valid as they are tied to the renewable energy generated by their facility, and the battery storage is an ancillary service enhancing the reliability of that renewable output. In Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) oversees the regulation of utilities and the energy market, including the generation and trading of RECs. The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) is responsible for siting major utility facilities, but REC accounting and contract disputes typically fall under the purview of PUCO’s regulatory framework and contract law. The crucial element here is the definition and eligibility of RECs under Ohio law and PUCO rules. Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 4901:1-41 outlines the state’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS) program, which defines eligible renewable energy sources and the mechanisms for generating and tracking RECs. While the AEPS program encourages renewable energy, the specific treatment of RECs from hybrid systems involving storage can be complex and may depend on the precise language of the contract and any relevant PUCO guidance or rulings. The question asks about the most likely regulatory body that would resolve this contractual dispute. Given that the core of the issue is a disagreement over the fulfillment of a REC purchase agreement, which is a commercial transaction governed by contract law, and not a dispute solely about the siting of a facility or a direct complaint about utility service reliability to end-consumers, the most appropriate venue for resolving such a contractual interpretation issue would be through the civil court system. While PUCO might have jurisdiction over broader aspects of the AEPS program and REC markets, specific contract disputes between private entities are typically handled by courts. The OPSB’s role is limited to the siting of facilities. Therefore, a civil court would interpret the contract and determine the validity of the RECs under its terms and relevant Ohio law.

The scenario describes a situation where a utility company in Ohio is seeking to recover costs associated with the decommissioning of a retired nuclear power plant. Ohio law, specifically Chapter 4905 of the Ohio Revised Code, governs the regulation of public utilities by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). When a utility proposes to recover costs through customer rates, it must file an application with the PUCO. The PUCO then conducts a review process to determine the prudence and reasonableness of the expenditures and whether the proposed recovery mechanism is in the public interest. This process typically involves an evidentiary hearing where all interested parties, including consumer advocates and industrial customers, can present testimony and evidence. The PUCO’s decision must be based on the record developed during this proceeding and must comply with statutory requirements and established regulatory principles. The concept of “stranded costs” is relevant here, referring to the unrecovered investment in assets that are no longer economically viable or are retired prematurely. The PUCO’s role is to balance the need for utilities to recover legitimate costs to ensure financial stability and attract capital with the imperative to protect consumers from excessive charges. The commission’s authority to approve or deny such recovery is a core aspect of its regulatory oversight. The question tests the understanding of the procedural and substantive requirements for cost recovery in Ohio’s regulated utility sector, particularly concerning the PUCO’s decision-making process for significant capital investments like nuclear plant decommissioning.

The scenario describes a situation where a renewable energy project in Ohio is seeking to secure financing. A critical aspect of this process, particularly under Ohio law, involves the regulatory framework governing the siting and operation of such facilities. The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) plays a pivotal role in this process. The Electric Generation Facility Siting Act, codified in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4906, establishes the OPSB’s authority to issue certificates of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction of certain types of electric generation facilities, including those powered by renewable sources like wind and solar, if they meet specific size thresholds. The Act mandates a thorough review process that considers environmental impacts, economic development, and the public interest. For a project to be considered for financing, especially by entities that are risk-averse and require regulatory certainty, obtaining an OPSB certificate is often a prerequisite or a significant factor in demonstrating project viability and compliance with state-level permitting. Without this certification, the project may face significant delays, potential legal challenges, or an inability to operate, all of which would negatively impact its bankability and the willingness of investors to provide capital. Therefore, the initial step in securing financing, assuming the project meets the OPSB’s jurisdiction criteria, involves navigating the OPSB’s certification process.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has a specific statutory framework for approving the siting of major utility facilities, including electric generation facilities and transmission lines. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4906, any person proposing to construct a major utility facility must obtain a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need from the OPSB. This process involves a comprehensive review of the proposed facility’s impact on the environment, public health and safety, and the economy. The ORC outlines specific criteria the OPSB must consider, such as the nature of the facility, its environmental impact, its compatibility with existing land use, and the public need for the facility. The board also considers the impact on local communities, including potential economic benefits and disruptions. Public participation is a key component, with opportunities for public hearings and input from affected parties. The decision to grant or deny a certificate is based on whether the proposed facility is necessary and will serve the public interest, considering all relevant factors and the testimony presented during the proceedings. The OPSB’s authority is exclusive in this regard, meaning that no other state or local agency can issue a similar permit for the siting of these facilities.

In Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) oversees the regulation of public utilities, including electric generation and transmission. When a utility seeks to recover costs associated with a new transmission line project, it typically files an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the PUCO. This process involves demonstrating that the proposed project is necessary for the reliable and efficient delivery of electricity and that the costs are reasonable and prudent. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4909.10 grants the PUCO the authority to grant or deny such certificates. The evaluation of the application considers various factors, including the economic feasibility, environmental impact, and public need for the facility. The PUCO’s decision-making process is guided by principles of ensuring adequate service at reasonable rates while balancing the interests of consumers and utility investors. The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) also plays a role in siting major utility facilities, but for transmission lines, the PUCO’s CPCN authority is the primary regulatory mechanism for cost recovery approval. The key is that the PUCO must find the investment to be in the public interest and necessary for service.