Title: In re Application of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2742.] 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-2742 
IN RE APPLICATION OF ICEBREAKER WINDPOWER, INC., FOR A CERTIFICATE OF 
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC NEED FOR AN ELECTRIC 
GENERATING FACILITY IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO; 
DEMPSEY ET AL., APPELLANTS; POWER SITING BOARD, APPELLEE; 
ICEBREAKER WINDPOWER, INC., INTERVENING APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc., Slip Opinion 
No. 2022-Ohio-2742.] 
Power Siting Board—Offshore wind-powered electric-generation facility—
Application for certificate of environmental compatibility and public need—
R.C. 4906.10(A)—Power Siting Board’s order granting certificate subject 
to conditions affirmed—Board’s authority under R.C. 4906.10(A)(6) does 
not extend to the power to make public-trust determinations. 
(No. 2021-0153—Submitted December 7, 2021—Decided August 10, 2022.) 
APPEAL from the Power Siting Board, No. 16-1871-EL-BGN. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
BRUNNER, J. 
{¶ 1} Appellee, the Ohio Power Siting Board (“the board”), approved the 
application of intervening appellee, Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. (“Icebreaker”), for 
a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need to build a six-turbine 
wind-powered electric-generation facility in Lake Erie.  Appellants, W. Susan 
Dempsey and Robert M. Maloney (hereafter, “the residents”), who are residents of 
the village of Bratenahl on the southern shore of Lake Erie, have appealed the 
board’s decision granting the certificate, raising two propositions of law.  First, they 
argue that there was insufficient evidence before the board for it to determine (1) 
the nature of the probable environmental impact of the project under R.C. 
4906.10(A)(2) and (2) whether the project represents the minimum adverse 
environmental impact under R.C. 4906.10(A)(3).  Second, they argue that the 
board’s decision to issue the certificate violated the public-trust doctrine and thus 
the project does not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity under R.C. 
4906.10(A)(6). 
{¶ 2} For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the board’s decision. 
I.  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 3} On February 1, 2017, Icebreaker filed an application with the board 
for a certificate to build a six-turbine wind-powered electric-generation facility on 
approximately 4.2 acres of submerged land in Lake Erie located between eight and 
ten miles off the shore of Cleveland.  The project would be the first freshwater 
offshore 
wind-powered 
electric-generation 
facility 
in 
North 
America.   
It has been described as a small-scale demonstration project that will provide 
valuable information as to how offshore wind facilities interact with the 
environment and that will test the viability of large-scale wind facilities on Lake 
Erie and the other Great Lakes.  See Power Siting Bd. No. 16-1871-EL-BGN, ¶ 2 
(May 21, 2020). 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
3 
{¶ 4} The proposed wind farm’s estimated electric-generation capacity is 
20.7 megawatts, making it an “economically significant wind farm,” R.C. 
4906.13(A) and Ohio Adm.Code 4906-1-01(R), the construction of which requires 
the board’s approval, R.C. 4906.10 and 4906.20(A).  R.C. 4906.10(A) provides that 
the board shall not grant a certificate for the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of a major utility facility unless it first makes eight substantive 
findings, including “[t]he nature of the probable environmental impact” of the 
facility, R.C. 4906.10(A)(2), and that “[t]he facility represents the minimum 
adverse environmental impact,” R.C. 4906.10(A)(3). 
{¶ 5} Several parties, including the residents, intervened before the board.  
The residents do not want the facility to be built on Lake Erie, because they fear 
that the project could lead to additional wind farms being built on the lake.  The 
most contentious issue before the board was whether Icebreaker had sufficiently 
demonstrated under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) and (3) the proposed facility’s probable 
environmental impact on birds and bats.  The residents argued that the board could 
not determine the facility’s probable impact on birds and bats based on the evidence 
that Icebreaker had submitted.  The residents also claimed that the project violates 
the public-trust doctrine, which provides that the state holds title to Lake Erie in 
trust for the benefit of the people of Ohio, State ex rel. Squire v. Cleveland, 150 
Ohio St. 303, 82 N.E.2d 709 (1948), paragraph two of the syllabus. 
{¶ 6} On September 4, 2018, Icebreaker entered a joint stipulation with 
several parties that purported to resolve most of the issues in the case.  The residents 
and the board’s staff opposed the stipulation.  Icebreaker filed a revised stipulation 
on May 15, 2019.  The staff joined the revised stipulation, leaving only the residents 
opposing Icebreaker’s application. 
{¶ 7} On May 21, 2020, the board issued an order approving the revised 
stipulation with certain modifications, thereby granting a certificate to Icebreaker 
for the proposed project, subject to certain conditions.  The board found, contrary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
to the residents’ arguments, that Icebreaker had submitted sufficient evidence for 
the board to determine the probable environmental impact of the project on birds 
and bats.  However, the board found it necessary to impose a different risk-
mitigation measure than that which the revised stipulation proposed.  The board 
therefore modified the stipulation to require that the turbines be nonoperational 
from dusk to dawn for eight months of the year until otherwise ordered by the board.  
The board reasoned that it was necessary to shut down the turbines during the 
specified times due to the lack of data regarding the actual impact that the project 
would have on birds and bats at the project site and some uncertainty regarding 
Icebreaker’s postconstruction collision-monitoring technology. 
{¶ 8} As for the residents’ argument that the project violated the public-trust 
doctrine, the board determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the issue.  The board, 
however, went on to reject the argument that the project violated the public-trust 
doctrine. 
{¶ 9} The residents and Icebreaker both sought rehearing of the board’s 
order.  On October 8, 2020, the board issued an entry denying the residents’ 
rehearing application.  The board, however, granted Icebreaker’s rehearing 
application in part and removed the turbine-shutdown requirement imposed in the 
May 21 order.  The board determined that it was unnecessary to impose that 
requirement because the order had approved a process ensuring that Icebreaker 
would provide the board with the necessary information both before construction 
of the wind farm and during its operation.  Power Siting Bd. No. 16-1871-EL-BGN, 
¶ 30-32, 36 (Oct. 8, 2020). 
{¶ 10} On November 5, 2020, the residents filed a rehearing application 
challenging the board’s removal of the turbine-shutdown requirement.  The board 
did not rule on the rehearing application within 30 days; thus, it was denied by 
operation of law.  See R.C. 4903.10(B). 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
5 
{¶ 11} The residents appealed the board’s determination to this court as of 
right.  The board and Icebreaker filed merit briefs defending the order.  Amici curiae 
Great Lakes Towing Company and Ohio Environmental Council submitted briefs 
urging affirmance of the order. 
II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
{¶ 12} Under R.C. 4906.12, we apply the same standard of review to power-
siting determinations that we apply to orders of the Public Utilities Commission of 
Ohio.  In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 43, 
2013-Ohio-5478, 3 N.E.3d 173, ¶ 10.  Under this standard, we will reverse, vacate, 
or modify an order of the board only when, upon consideration of the record, we 
conclude that the order was unlawful or unreasonable.  R.C. 4903.13.  “We will not 
reverse or modify a board decision as to questions of fact when the record contains 
sufficient probative evidence to show that the board’s decision was not manifestly 
against the weight of the evidence and was not so clearly unsupported by the record 
as to show misapprehension, mistake, or willful disregard of duty.”  In re 
Application of Champaign Wind, L.L.C., 146 Ohio St.3d 489, 2016-Ohio-1513, 58 
N.E.3d 1142, ¶ 7.  We review questions of law de novo.  See id. 
III.  ANALYSIS 
{¶ 13} Ohio law prohibits the board from granting a certificate of 
environmental compatibility and public need unless it first determines the nature of 
the probable environmental impact of the facility, R.C. 4906.10(A)(2), that the 
facility represents 
the minimum 
adverse 
environmental impact, R.C. 
4906.06(A)(3), and that the facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity, R.C. 4906.10(A)(6).  In their first proposition of law, the residents raise 
various challenges to the board’s determinations under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) and (3).  
In their second proposition of law, the residents argue that the board’s decision 
granting the certificate violated the public-trust doctrine and, by extension, R.C. 
4906.10(A)(6). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
A.  Proposition of law No. 1: Whether the board erred in determining that 
Icebreaker satisfied the requirements of R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) and (3) 
{¶ 14} In their first proposition of law, the residents contest the board’s 
determinations under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) and (3), arguing that Icebreaker failed to 
submit sufficient evidence for the board to properly assess the environmental risk 
that the project poses to birds and bats.  The board counters that the evidence in the 
record was abundant and that it thoroughly considered it and made all the findings 
required by R.C. 4906.10(A).  Likewise, Icebreaker maintains that the board made 
valid findings under R.C. 4906.10(A) that were fully supported by extensive 
evidence in the record. 
{¶ 15} Upon review, we hold that the board’s determinations under R.C. 
4906.10(A)(2) and (3) were lawful and reasonable.  Therefore, we reject the 
residents’ first proposition of law. 
1.  Record evidence supports the board’s determination that Icebreaker satisfied 
the requirements of R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) 
{¶ 16} The board found that the probable environmental impact of the 
project can be determined by evaluating migration patterns near the project site and 
reviewing data regarding land-based wind farms in the Great Lakes region.  
According to the board, the project was expected to primarily affect migrating birds 
and bats, especially migrating nocturnal birds.  The board found that the facility 
would affect migrating birds and bats through collision, avoidance, and attraction.  
But the board determined that any environmental impact would be severely reduced 
by the project’s small scale, its location several miles offshore, and the flight 
patterns of migrating birds.  We hold that the board’s determinations in that regard 
were amply supported by the record. 
{¶ 17} First, the board generally cited myriad scientific studies submitted 
as evidence that monitored birds and bats flying in the vicinity of the project site 
and other offshore and near-shore parts of Lake Erie.  The board specifically cited 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
7 
radar monitoring of the project site, acoustic studies of bird and bat activity, aerial 
studies of birds in the project area and birds migrating over Lake Erie, and a wind-
turbine-placement-favorability analysis conducted by the Ohio Department of 
Natural Resources (hereafter, “ODNR”). 
{¶ 18} Second, the board cited evidence showing that the small scale of the 
project (six turbines) and its location between eight and ten miles offshore severely 
reduced the impact that the facility will have on birds and bats.  The board found 
that because the project is located several miles offshore, it will not impact the 
habitats of nesting birds or roosting bats.  The board also determined that eagles 
and other raptors were concentrated near the shoreline and were not expected to fly 
near the project site and that very few waterfowl venture as far from the shoreline 
as the project site. 
{¶ 19} Third, the board cited the testimony of staff witness Erin Hazelton, 
who testified that the nature of the probable environmental impact on birds and bats 
will be collision, avoidance, and attraction.  The board also cited radar studies 
showing that most of the migrating birds are expected to fly above the rotor-swept 
zone of the turbines and that only a small percentage of the birds are expected to 
fly in the rotor-swept zone. 
{¶ 20} Fourth, the board relied on a review by Icebreaker’s expert witness, 
Dr. Caleb Gordon, of 42 land-based wind farms in the Great Lakes region, as well 
as the board’s staff’s own review of Ohio’s land-based wind-farm projects.  Based 
on this evidence, the board estimated that the project could be expected to cause 
between 21 and 42 fatal bird collisions per year.  In addition, the board cited 
evidence suggesting that an offshore facility may have less of an impact on 
nocturnal migrating birds than a land-based wind facility. 
{¶ 21} Fifth, the board relied on studies of bat fatalities at 55 land-based 
wind-farm projects, as well as a bat-acoustic survey of activity near the project area.  
Based on this evidence, the board found that the collision risk for bats near the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
project is low because bat activity is significantly greater on land than offshore 
(almost ten times more frequent in terrestrial environments near Cleveland than 
offshore). 
{¶ 22} In summary, the board’s order contains a lengthy discussion of the 
“nature of the probable environmental impact,” a factor that must be determined 
under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2).  On appeal, the residents bear the burden of 
demonstrating that the board’s decision was against the manifest weight of the 
evidence and was “so clearly unsupported by the record as to show 
misapprehension, mistake or willful disregard of duty.”  Champaign Wind, L.L.C., 
146 Ohio St.3d 489, 2016-Ohio-1513, 58 N.E.3d 1142, at ¶ 7.  As explained below, 
the residents have failed to meet that burden. 
2.  The residents’ evidence does not justify reversing the board’s determination 
under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) 
{¶ 23} As shown above, the residents have not established that the board’s 
determination under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) lacked support in the record.  And what 
the residents attempt to establish through their evidence is either irrelevant or does 
not justify reversal of the board’s determination. 
a.  The residents’ request for additional preconstruction radar monitoring 
{¶ 24} The residents first point to a lack of data that they argue was 
necessary for the board to make a determination under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2).  They 
claim that Icebreaker failed to submit sufficient preconstruction radar data showing 
the number and density of birds and bats that fly through the project’s rotor-swept 
zone.  The residents assert that without this data, the board lacked the evidence 
necessary to assess the risk that the project poses to birds and bats. 
{¶ 25} The board determined that additional preconstruction radar 
monitoring was not necessary to a determination under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2), 
because the board’s task under that provision is to “identif[y] the nature of the 
probable impact, not the actual impact.”  Power Siting Bd. No. 16-1871-EL-BGN, 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
9 
at ¶ 107 (May 21, 2020).  The board determined that evidence in the form of studies 
of land-based wind farms and existing radar data for migrating birds and bats at the 
project site was sufficient to determine the probable impact—i.e., collision, 
avoidance, and attraction—on birds and bats under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2).  It is true 
that the board acknowledged that preconstruction radar monitoring at the project 
site would provide more detail regarding the flight patterns of migrating birds and 
bats, particularly in the rotor-swept zone.  But the board explained that the purpose 
of preconstruction radar monitoring is to verify the number and density of birds and 
bats in the project area so as to establish a baseline for comparison with 
postconstruction radar-monitoring data.  Accordingly, the board determined that 
preconstruction radar data for the project site was necessary to ensure that any 
adverse environmental impact was minimal under R.C. 4906.10(A)(3), but that 
such data was not relevant to a determination of the probable environmental impact 
under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2). 
{¶ 26} The residents maintain that additional preconstruction radar 
monitoring was necessary to determine the project’s probable environmental 
impact.  According to the residents, Icebreaker acknowledged the need for 
additional radar studies in the following excerpt from its application: 
 
 
While state and federal agencies have agreed that the 
information regarding the impact to fish and wildlife supports a 
finding that the permitting processes at the state and federal levels 
can move forward, they have requested that [Icebreaker] conduct 
additional field surveys prior to construction in order to provide a 
direct comparison with postconstruction survey information, as a 
means to assess the level of wildlife impact during the operational 
phase of the project. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
(Emphasis added.)  The residents maintain that despite these requests from other 
state and federal agencies, Icebreaker has failed “to collect and submit to the Board 
pre-construction radar studies for the rotor-swept zone of the Project site.” 
{¶ 27} The language from Icebreaker’s application quoted above, however, 
does not help the residents’ claim that Icebreaker needed to submit radar studies for 
the rotor-swept zone before the board issued the certificate.  The excerpt expressly 
states that “the permitting processes at the state * * * level[] can move forward.”  
Likewise, their reliance on the emphasized language from the excerpt is equally 
unavailing because the excerpt says that the state and federal agencies requested 
the additional field surveys “prior to construction,” not prior to certification. 
{¶ 28} Moreover, the residents have failed to acknowledge that what these 
agencies requested is precisely what the board has ordered.  The board issued 
Icebreaker a certificate subject to certain conditions.  Relevant here is revised 
stipulation condition No. 21, which requires Icebreaker to complete up to two years 
of preconstruction radar monitoring and produce viable data for at least 75 percent 
of the survey hours before construction may begin.  The monitoring program must 
also be able to determine the flight altitude of birds and bats flying near and through 
the rotor-swept zone.  Also relevant is revised stipulation condition No. 22, which 
requires Icebreaker to demonstrate prior to construction that the requirements for 
radar monitoring set forth in condition No. 21 have been satisfied for at least one 
spring, summer, and fall migration season.  And once the facility becomes 
operational, Icebreaker must repeat the radar-monitoring process to determine the 
precise impact of the project on birds and bats, including behavioral impacts such 
as attraction and avoidance. 
{¶ 29} In summary, the board required Icebreaker to submit evidence that 
the residents now assert was necessary to grant the certificate—namely, additional 
preconstruction radar studies that will then be used to assess the actual impact on 
birds and bats once the project becomes operational.  And although we do not 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
11 
conclude that the board erred, the residents have not shown that the board’s failure 
to require that the requested monitoring be conducted before issuance of the 
certificate appreciably affected them.  See Champaign Wind, L.L.C., 146 Ohio St.3d 
489, 2016-Ohio-1513, 58 N.E.3d 1142, at ¶ 15 (this court will not reverse the 
board’s order unless the appellant shows prejudice stemming from the board’s 
error).  Therefore, we hold that the residents have not demonstrated reversible error. 
b.  The residents’ claim that Icebreaker’s migration evidence is misleading 
{¶ 30} The residents also cite a letter from the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service for the proposition that “assertions made by Icebreaker that birds 
and bats migrate around Lake Erie, instead of crossing it, are affirmatively 
misleading.”  (Emphasis sic.)  The residents’ reliance on the letter is misplaced. 
{¶ 31} The Fish and Wildlife Service provided the letter in response to a 
draft environmental assessment for the proposed project that was prepared by the 
United States Department of Energy.  The letter questions recent marine radar 
studies cited in the assessment that demonstrate that migrating birds avoid flying 
over large bodies of water like Lake Erie, because other studies demonstrate that 
large numbers of migrating birds do fly over large bodies of water.  The residents, 
however, overlook the fact that the board never found that migrating birds avoid 
flying over Lake Erie and instead fly around it.  Rather, the board expressly found 
that birds are expected to migrate north and south over Lake Erie, and the residents 
do not challenge that finding. 
c.  The residents’ reliance on statements of the board’s staff’s counsel and on 
the board chairman’s concurring opinion on rehearing 
{¶ 32} The residents argue that the board’s staff admitted that additional 
preconstruction radar data was necessary to determine the probable impact of the 
project on birds and bats.  The residents refer to the staff’s motion to suspend the 
procedural schedule, in which staff requested “additional supplemental information 
on the viability and design of the pre- and post-construction radar monitoring 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
protocol that [Icebreaker] intends to utilize at the project site for determining 
project impacts * * * [, because] this information is necessary to measure the effect 
of off-shore turbines on birds and bats.” 
{¶ 33} Counsel’s statement in a prehearing motion describing the staff’s 
characterization of the quality of existing evidence is not record evidence.  See 
Champaign Wind, L.L.C., 146 Ohio St.3d 489, 2016-Ohio-1513, 58 N.E.3d 1142, 
at ¶ 24.  But even if it were record evidence, the residents have acknowledged that 
staff later changed its position and determined that it had sufficient information to 
determine the probable environmental impact of the project. 
{¶ 34} The residents also claim that the board chairman undermined the 
board’s order when, in their view, he stated in his concurring opinion on rehearing 
that the probable and actual environmental impact of the project could not be 
determined without evidence establishing the number and density of birds and bats 
that fly through the rotor-swept zone.  This argument lacks merit for two reasons. 
{¶ 35} First, the residents have taken the chairman’s statement out of 
context.  The chairman did state in his concurring opinion that the order 
“recognized an unlawful and unreasonable deficiency contained in the [revised 
stipulation].”  Power Siting Bd. No. 16-1871-EL-BGN, at 3 (Oct. 8, 2020) 
(Chairman Sam Randazzo, concurring).  The residents emphasize the chairman’s 
statement that there were “open and significant issues associated with the 
identification and mitigation of the risks to avian and bat populations.”  But as we 
read it, the chairman was referring to the revised stipulation’s failure to “identify a 
lawful and reasonable process” for resolving the risk issues, not the fact that those 
issues were left open and needed to be resolved.  (Emphasis added.)  Id. (Chairman 
Sam Randazzo, concurring). 
{¶ 36} Moreover, our role here is to determine whether the board’s order 
was lawful and reasonable.  And we note that the chairman’s concurring opinion is 
not the order of the board. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
13 
3.  The residents have failed to demonstrate that the board erred in determining 
that the project satisfied the requirements of R.C. 4906.10(A)(3) 
{¶ 37} When the board approved Icebreaker’s certificate, it left several 
disputed issues unresolved.  Among other things, the board required Icebreaker to 
(1) demonstrate compliance with certain requirements for the preconstruction radar 
monitoring and data gathering discussed above, (2) determine whether the 
preconstruction radar technology will be deployed on a floating platform or a 
stationary platform, (3) submit a bird-and-bat-impact mitigation plan that includes 
a collision-monitoring plan, and (4) decide on a specific collision-detection 
technology that will be used to collect data regarding the impact on birds and bats 
after the project becomes operational.  Rather than requiring Icebreaker to resolve 
those matters before issuing the certificate, the board determined that the conditions 
on its grant of the certificate were sufficient to protect birds and bats and to ensure 
that the facility represented the minimum adverse environmental impact. 
{¶ 38} The residents challenge the board’s deferral of those requirements, 
arguing that without them, the board lacked sufficient evidence to determine that 
the project represented the minimum adverse environmental impact under R.C. 
4906.10(A)(3).  They contend that the board could not have made this 
determination given Icebreaker’s failure to submit the preconstruction radar data 
and its failure to identify a suitable technology to monitor bird and bat activity at 
the project site and detect collisions with the wind turbines.  The residents maintain 
that it was Icebreaker’s burden to submit this information before the board granted 
the certificate and that the board erred in granting the certificate “subject to pre-
construction radar and collision monitoring conditions that the Board contends will 
allow it to later” make the mandatory determination under R.C. 4906.10(A)(3).  We 
reject these arguments for the following reasons. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
a.  The board’s decision imposing conditions on its grant of the certificate is 
consistent with our precedent 
{¶ 39} We have upheld the board’s practice of imposing conditions on 
wind-farm construction certificates.  See, e.g., In re Application of Buckeye Wind, 
L.L.C., 131 Ohio St.3d 449, 2012-Ohio-878, 966 N.E.2d 869, ¶ 16-18 (lead 
opinion); see also In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., 166 Ohio St.3d 438, 
2021-Ohio-3301, 187 N.E.3d 472, ¶ 52 (reaffirming the board’s authority under 
R.C. 4906.10(A) to impose conditions on natural-gas-pipeline construction 
certificates).  In Buckeye Wind, a group of landowners neighboring a proposed wind 
farm challenged the board’s decision granting a certificate to the wind farm’s 
developer to build 70 wind turbines.  Id. at ¶ 3-4.  When the board approved the 
certificate, it required the developer to resolve several disputed issues before a 
preconstruction conference with the board’s staff.  Id. at ¶ 14.  Among other things, 
the board authorized its staff to (1) approve new sites for three turbines, (2) review 
and accept plans regarding the design and siting of electric-collection lines, (3) 
determine the maximum potential distance that a dislodged turbine blade could be 
thrown, and (4) determine the specific model of wind turbine to be used.  Id. 
{¶ 40} Each of those deferred issues related to and affected the facility’s 
environmental impact under R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) and (3).  We determined that the 
board had not been required to resolve the issues before the certificate was issued, 
because R.C. 4906.10(A) expressly allows the board to issue a certificate subject to 
such conditions as it considers appropriate.  Buckeye Wind, L.L.C. at ¶ 16.  We 
explained that R.C. 4906.10(A) “authorize[s] a dynamic process that does not end 
with the issuance of a construction certificate.”  Id.  And we noted that “[t]he 
General Assembly vested the board with authority to allow its staff to monitor [the 
applicant]’s compliance with conditions that the board has set, conditions upon 
which [the parties opposing the application] already had the chance to be heard.”  
Id. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
15 
b.  The board properly considered the factors in R.C. 4906.10(A)(3) 
{¶ 41} Although the residents concede that Buckeye Wind applies here, they 
argue that the board misapplied our precedent in that case by failing to “study the 
factors listed in” R.C. 4906.10(A) before granting the certificate.  According to the 
residents, the board’s decision granting the certificate subject to conditions to be 
reviewed later shows that the board lacked the evidence necessary to make a 
determination under R.C. 4906.10(A)(3). 
{¶ 42} Contrary to the residents’ claim, the board did consider the 
requirements of R.C. 4906.10(A)(3) before granting the certificate.  By requiring 
that the board determine that “the facility represents the minimum adverse 
environmental impact,” the statute directs the board to “consider[] the state of 
available technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and 
other pertinent considerations.”  Id.  Among other considerations, the board found 
that Icebreaker’s moving the project further away from the shore and the small scale 
of the project minimized several potential adverse environmental impacts on 
wildlife. 
{¶ 43} The board also considered specific measures that were designed to 
minimize the adverse environmental impact on birds and bats at the project site.  
For example, the board required Icebreaker to submit a radar-monitoring plan prior 
to construction that includes pre- and postconstruction monitoring and produces a 
minimum percentage of viable monitoring data.  The board also required Icebreaker 
to install fully functioning collision-monitoring technology prior to operation.  The 
board allowed Icebreaker to delay choosing a specific collision-monitoring 
technology in order “to ensure the latest technologies and advancements are being 
utilized at the project.”  And to limit the risk to birds and bats, the board required 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
specific and expedited mitigation measures (including turbine-shutdown 
requirements) in case of a significant mortality event1 or equipment failure. 
{¶ 44} The residents have not shown that the board’s decision to issue the 
certificate subject to conditions was unlawful or unreasonable.  The board acted 
within its authority when it imposed conditions on its grant of the certificate.  And 
the board thoroughly considered the requirements of R.C. 4906.10(A)(3) before it 
issued the certificate subject to the conditions. 
4.  Whether the board erred in removing the condition for mandatory shutdown 
{¶ 45} The residents argue that the board acted unlawfully and 
unreasonably when it removed the requirement for mandatory turbine shutdown on 
rehearing.  According to the residents, the record establishes that without the 
turbine-shutdown mandate, the board could not determine that the project 
represents the minimum adverse environmental impact.  We disagree. 
a.  The turbine-shutdown mandate: Its nature and the board’s reasons  for 
removing it 
{¶ 46} The revised stipulation provided the board’s staff and ODNR with 
authority to “feather” (i.e., shut down) the turbines during nighttime hours from 
March 1 through January 1 in the event that the collision-detection system 
employed at the project site failed to accurately detect collisions.  This ten-month 
period covered the spring and fall peak-migration periods and the summer 
residency period, when migrating birds and bats are at their highest risk of harm by 
facility operations. 
{¶ 47} In the May 21, 2020 order, the board imposed a different risk-
mitigation measure, requiring Icebreaker to shut down the turbines during 
nighttime hours from March 1 through November 1.  The board reasoned that it 
was necessary to shut down the turbines at the specified times upon commencement 
 
1.  Hazelton defined a significant mortality event as 21 detected collisions, facility-wide, within a 
24-hour period. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
17 
of operations due to (1) the lack of data regarding the actual impact on birds and 
bats at the project site, (2) the uncertainty concerning the postconstruction collision-
monitoring technology, and (3) the fact that the project would be the first offshore 
wind-farm project in Ohio.  Under the order, however, Icebreaker could seek less 
restrictive operating limits after gathering and providing the board with data 
regarding the flight patterns of migrating birds and bats in the project area. 
{¶ 48} On rehearing, the board changed course and determined that the 
turbine-shutdown mandate would be removed, “provided that, prior to any 
construction or operation of the [p]roject, the [b]oard * * * address[es] the bird and 
bat risk mitigation measures that shall apply to this project.”  Power Siting Bd. No. 
16-1871-EL-BGN, at ¶ 30 (Oct. 8, 2020).  The board noted that “[p]ursuant to R.C. 
4906.10(A)(3), the proposed facility must represent the minimum adverse 
environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and the nature 
and economics of the various alternatives, along with other pertinent 
considerations.”  Id. at ¶ 31.  The board thus determined, after further review, that 
it was unnecessary to impose the shutdown mandate because its order had set forth 
a process to ensure that prior to and during operation of the facility, the necessary 
information would be provided to the board for its review and approval.  Id. at  
¶ 30-32, 36.  Based on that process and the supervision that it calls for, the board 
was persuaded that the shutdown mandate could be eliminated without detracting 
from any effort to establish the risk-mitigation protocols that will apply to the 
project. 
b.  The residents fail to show error in the board’s decision 
{¶ 49} In arguing that the shutdown mandate was necessary for the board 
to determine that the project satisfied the requirements of R.C. 4906.10(A)(3), the 
residents rely exclusively on the board’s staff report of investigation and the 
testimony of staff witness Hazelton.  The staff report did conclude that the 
shutdown mandate was critical to assuring that the project would not significantly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
18 
impact birds and bats, at least until there was sufficient preconstruction radar data 
and an effective postconstruction monitoring plan.  But that evidence is not 
persuasive, because the staff changed its position on the shutdown mandate when 
it joined the revised stipulation, which did not recommend the shutdown as a 
condition to issuing the certificate.  And in supporting the revised stipulation, staff 
members testified that the shutdown condition contained therein (providing staff 
and ODNR with discretion to determine when turbines are to be shut down), 
coupled with other stipulated conditions, was sufficient to satisfy R.C. 
4906.10(A)(3).  Based on this evidence, the residents have failed to show that the 
board erred in its decision. 
5.  Conclusion: Proposition of law No. 1 
{¶ 50} The project, if completed, would be the first freshwater offshore 
wind-powered electric-generation facility in North America.  That the board 
employed a flexible standard in granting the requested certificate poses no legal 
problem—“an agency, particularly when facing new issues, may proceed on an 
incremental, case-by-case basis,” Buckeye Wind, L.L.C., 131 Ohio St.3d 449, 2012-
Ohio-878, 966 N.E.2d 869, at ¶ 33. 
{¶ 51} In summary, the board determined that Icebreaker’s evidence and 
the conditions imposed under the revised stipulation showed sufficient compliance 
with the statutory requirements.  On appeal, it is the residents’ burden to show that 
the board erred, but the residents have failed to do so.  Accordingly, we reject the 
residents’ first proposition of law. 
B.  Proposition of law No. 2: Whether the board’s decision to issue the 
certificate violated the public-trust doctrine and, by extension, R.C. 
4906.10(A)(6), because the project does not serve the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity 
{¶ 52} The residents claim that the board’s decision to grant the certificate 
to Icebreaker violated the public-trust doctrine and thus the project does not serve 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
19 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity under R.C. 4906.10(A)(6).  The 
residents argue that the public-trust doctrine prohibits the state—and the board as 
its agent—from relinquishing its ownership interest in Lake Erie to the benefit of a 
private, for-profit entity such as Icebreaker. 
{¶ 53} The public-trust doctrine provides that the state of Ohio holds title 
to the land under Lake Erie within the territorial limits of the state as trustee for the 
benefit of the people of Ohio.  Squire, 150 Ohio St. 303, 82 N.E.2d 709, at 
paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.  The state “may, by proper legislative 
action, carry out its specific duty of protecting the trust estate and regulating its 
use.”  Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.  In effect, the public-trust doctrine 
imposes an affirmative duty on the part of the state to protect the natural resources 
and navigable waters of Lake Erie for the public. 
{¶ 54} The residents raised their public-trust argument to the board in their 
posthearing reply brief.  The board rejected the argument on multiple grounds.  
First, the board determined that whether the project violates the public-trust 
doctrine is a question for judicial determination that is outside the board’s 
jurisdiction.  Second, the board determined that the project did not violate the 
public-trust doctrine, because the state was not relinquishing any interest in Lake 
Erie.  The board noted that the project is subject to a submerged-land lease between 
the state (through ODNR) and Icebreaker.  According to the board, the terms of the 
lease required Icebreaker to respect the public’s right to the free and unrestricted 
use of the waters and its right of navigation in and around the facility.  In addition, 
the board reiterated that it had already examined the potential impact of the facility 
on the lake, including any effects on recreational activities.  Based on its review, 
the board determined that due to the project’s small scale and its location at least 
eight miles offshore, the project was expected to have a minimal impact on the 
public’s enjoyment of Lake Erie. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
20 
{¶ 55} Here, the residents argue that the board erred in determining that it 
lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the project violated the public-trust 
doctrine.  They claim that the board has authority to determine public-trust issues 
when it considers whether “[a] facility will serve the public interest, convenience, 
and necessity” under R.C. 4906.10(A)(6). 
{¶ 56} The residents, however, point to no language in R.C. 4906.10(A)(6) 
that gives the board authority to make public-trust determinations concerning Lake 
Erie.  The board, as a creature of statute, may exercise only those powers that the 
General Assembly confers on it.  In re Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 156 Ohio 
St.3d 181, 2018-Ohio-5206, 124 N.E.3d 787, ¶ 20.  Yet R.C. 4906.10(A)(6) makes 
no mention of any obligation of the state to hold the waters and submerged land of 
Lake Erie in trust for the people of Ohio.  We may not add words to a statute to 
achieve a desired construction.  In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 147 
Ohio St.3d 439, 2016-Ohio-1608, 67 N.E.3d 734, ¶ 49.  If the General Assembly 
intended to vest the board with authority to make public-trust determinations 
regarding Lake Erie, it could have chosen words to that effect. 
{¶ 57} Moreover, the power to administer the public-trust doctrine is 
expressly designated to ODNR.  See R.C. 1506.10 (declaring that the waters and 
submerged land of Lake Erie “belong[] to the state as proprietor in trust for the 
people of the state” and designating ODNR “as the state agency in all matters 
pertaining to the care, protection, and enforcement of the state’s rights designated 
in [R.C. 1506.10]”); R.C. 1506.11(A) and (B) (authorizing ODNR’s director to 
regulate the use of Lake Erie through leases of “all or any part of the state’s interest” 
in the lake’s waters and underlying lands); see also State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio 
Dept. of Natural Resources, 130 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-4612, 955 N.E.2d 935, 
¶ 51-55.  And contrary to the residents’ assertion, the General Assembly has clearly 
allowed for both private and public uses of Lake Erie.  Specifically, R.C. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
21 
1506.11(B) provides that “any person who wants to develop or improve part of the 
territory” may file an application for a submerged-land lease.  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 58} The provisions noted above show that the General Assembly acted 
to protect the public trust in Lake Erie and vested those duties in ODNR.  As a 
result, the board’s authority under R.C. 4906.10(A)(6) does not extend to the power 
to make public-trust determinations.  Accordingly, we hold that the board did not 
err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the residents’ public-trust 
argument. 
IV.  CONCLUSION 
{¶ 59} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the board’s order granting the 
certificate to Icebreaker. 
Order affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
KENNEDY, J., dissents, with an opinion. 
_________________ 
 
KENNEDY, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 60} The General Assembly has not created a statutory exception to R.C. 
4906.10’s requirements for granting a certificate of environmental compatibility 
and public need for the construction, operation, and maintenance of electric-
generation facilities that are “demonstration projects.”  Therefore, appellee, the 
Ohio Power Siting Board, lacked authority to grant intervening appellee, Icebreaker 
Windpower, Inc., a certificate to build an offshore wind farm in Lake Erie without 
first making all the findings that are required for certifying a major utility facility. 
{¶ 61} R.C. 4906.10(A) prohibits the board from granting a certificate for 
the construction, operation, and maintenance of a major utility facility unless it 
determines, among other things, “[t]he nature of the probable environmental 
impact,” R.C. 4906.10(A)(2), and “[t]hat the facility represents the minimum 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
22 
adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and 
the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and other pertinent 
considerations,” R.C. 4906.10(A)(3).  Icebreaker’s proposed facility would be the 
first freshwater offshore electric-generation wind-farm project in the United States, 
and for that reason, it is not currently possible to know all of the facility’s probable 
impacts on the environment.  And only after first determining the impact that the 
facility will likely have on the environment, including its impact on aquatic and 
avian wildlife, can the board determine whether the facility represents the minimum 
adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and 
the viability of alternatives. 
{¶ 62} Without additional information, the probable environmental impact 
of constructing a wind farm in Lake Erie is unknown, and the board’s order granting 
a certificate to Icebreaker was unreasonable and unlawful.  Therefore, I would 
reverse the board’s order granting the certificate.  Because the majority does not, I 
dissent. 
Standard of Review 
{¶ 63} We apply the same standard of review to an order of the board that 
we apply to an order of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.  In re Application 
of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., 166 Ohio St.3d 438, 2021-Ohio-3301, 187 N.E.3d 472, 
¶ 11, citing R.C. 4906.12.  “Under this standard, we will reverse, vacate, or modify 
a board order ‘if, upon consideration of the record, [we are] of the opinion that such 
order was unlawful or unreasonable.’ ”  (Brackets added in Duke Energy Ohio.)  
Id., quoting R.C. 4903.13. “We ‘will not reverse or modify a board decision as to 
questions of fact when the record contains sufficient probative evidence to show 
that the board’s decision was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and 
was not so clearly unsupported by the record as to show misapprehension, mistake 
or willful disregard of duty.’ ”  Id., quoting In re Application of Champaign Wind, 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
23 
L.L.C., 146 Ohio St.3d 489, 2016-Ohio-1513, 58 N.E.3d 1142, ¶ 7.  We review 
legal questions de novo.  Id. 
R.C. 4906.10(A) 
{¶ 64} At issue in this case are R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) and (A)(3), which 
provide that the board may not grant a certificate for the construction, operation, 
and maintenance of a major utility facility unless the board first “finds and 
determines,” among other requirements, the following: 
 
(2) The nature of the probable environmental impact; [and] 
(3) That the facility represents the minimum adverse 
environmental impact, considering the state of available technology 
and the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and other 
pertinent considerations. 
 
Reviewing the meaning of these provisions returns us to a familiar place: statutory 
construction.  As we explained long ago, “[t]he question is not what did the general 
assembly intend to enact, but what is the meaning of that which it did enact.”  
Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621, 64 N.E. 574 (1902), paragraph two of the 
syllabus.  “When the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a 
clear and definite meaning, we must rely on what the General Assembly has said.”  
Jones v. Action Coupling & Equip., Inc., 98 Ohio St.3d 330, 2003-Ohio-1099, 784 
N.E.2d 1172, ¶ 12. 
The Nature of the Probable Environmental Impact 
{¶ 65} Here, R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) required the board to find and determine 
the nature of the probable environmental impact of constructing, operating, and 
maintaining the proposed wind farm in Lake Erie.  Something is “probable” when 
it is “based on or arises from adequate fairly convincing though not absolutely 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
24 
conclusive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence or support.”  Webster’s Third New 
International Dictionary 1806 (1993).  It is “probable” if it “can reasonably and 
fairly convincingly be accepted as true, factual, or possible without being 
undeniably so.”  Id.  The word “probable” “applies to that which is so supported by 
evidence that is adequate although not conclusive or by reason that it is worthy of 
belief or acceptance.”  Id. 
{¶ 66} In this case, the board did not find and determine the nature of all the 
probable environmental impacts of Icebreaker’s proposed wind farm.  As the 
majority points out, the most contentious question before the board was the 
proposed facility’s probable environmental impact on wildlife, including birds and 
bats.  Yet in discussing the proposed facility’s environmental impact, the board 
“recognized that the actual quantifiable impact [on birds and bats] is still unknown.”  
(Emphasis added.)  Power Siting Bd. No. 16-1871-EL-BGN, ¶ 105 (May 21, 2020).  
According to the board, that did not preclude it from granting the certificate 
because, in its view, R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) tasked it “with identifying the nature of 
the probable impact, not the actual impact.”  Id. at ¶ 107.  The board essentially 
assumed that the actual environmental impact of the project could be addressed 
later. 
{¶ 67} However, the board’s distinction between probable impact and 
actual impact is a false one.  The difference between a probable impact and an 
actual one is the degree of certainty and the weight of evidence supporting whether 
the impact will occur or has occurred.  R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) requires the board to 
determine the actual impacts that are likely to occur, including impacts on wildlife 
such as avian and aquatic animals.  Data about the number and density of birds and 
bats passing through the project area was therefore necessary to determine how 
those animals would be impacted by constructing a wind farm in their habitat.  The 
board cannot simply wait and see what evidence will be generated after it grants a 
certificate.  Rather, the board has a gatekeeping role of ensuring that the 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
25 
environmental impacts of a facility are known and justified by public need before 
the facility is constructed. 
{¶ 68} The majority points out that “the board generally cited myriad 
scientific studies submitted as evidence that monitored birds and bats flying in the 
vicinity of the project site and other offshore and near-shore parts of Lake Erie.”  
Majority opinion, ¶ 17.  However, those studies could not reveal the full impact of 
the proposed wind farm.  For example, the studies that the board cited included 
ones in which bird and bat carcasses were retrieved from the areas beneath land-
situated wind turbines and then counted.  Power Siting Bd. No. 16-1871-EL-BGN, 
at ¶ 105 (May 21, 2020).  At a basic level, such studies show that wind turbines 
impact wildlife by killing birds and bats.  But studies quantifying the impact that 
onshore wind farms have on wildlife are relevant here only to the extent that all 
other variables in the studies are controlled, i.e., that birds and bats pass through 
the rotor-swept zones of offshore facilities at the same frequency and in the same 
concentrations as they do at onshore facilities.  Such a basis for comparison was 
not established by the evidence before the board. 
{¶ 69} According to the testimony of Dr. Henry M. Streby, an ecology 
professor with the University of Toledo, “[t]ens of millions to hundreds of millions 
of birds fly over Lake Erie during every spring and fall migration.”  And Dr. Streby 
explained, “To date, no study has been conducted that could provide a scientifically 
credible count or estimate of the number of birds that pass through the proposed 
project area during any time period.”  Dr. Streby opined that “adequate pre-
construction monitoring of bird activity in the Project area has not been completed, 
rendering it impossible to make a reliable determination of the nature of the 
probable environmental impact of the Project on birds.” 
{¶ 70} Similarly, Erin Hazelton, the wind-energy administrator for the Ohio 
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, who coauthored the staff’s 
report of its investigation regarding the proposed facility, disputed Icebreaker’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
26 
assessment that the proposed project would pose only a “low risk” to migratory 
birds and bats.  When asked whether she believed that “th[e] project is anything 
other than low risk to migratory birds and bats,” Hazelton testified, “[W]e don’t 
have the required data concerning pre-construction surveys, [so] it’s really difficult 
to determine that now.  So it may be accurate.  It’s also possible that it’s not entirely 
accurate.”  The board’s staff report further noted that “there are still elements of 
avoidance, attraction, and/or displacement that cannot be evaluated until the project 
is constructed.” 
{¶ 71} In an attempt to quantify the environmental impact of the proposed 
facility, Icebreaker relied in part on a review of aerial surveys of birds flying over 
Lake Erie.  But these surveys tracked larger sea birds and were conducted by flying 
an airplane across Lake Erie 29 times in a zigzag pattern between the Ohio shore 
and the Canadian international boundary.  During the flights, observers counted the 
birds they saw over 664 miles of travel.  However, Lake Erie’s surface area is about 
10,000 square miles.  The reliability of the results of these flyovers was therefore 
limited by the small area that each flight covered, the limited ability to observe the 
birds and bats (due to their size, their colors and the color of the water, and their 
behaviors), meteorological factors such as the weather, and the heights of waves.  
Naturally, these surveys could detect only relatively large birds, and birds could not 
be accurately observed at night, despite that (as the majority points out) the 
proposed wind farm was expected to primarily impact nocturnally migrating birds 
and bats.  These aerial studies provide little evidence quantifying the risk that the 
proposed wind farm would pose to wildlife. 
{¶ 72} The bird-and-bat risk assessment submitted by Icebreaker noted that 
data from a NEXRAD weather-radar analysis of birds and offshore acoustic studies 
of birds and bats revealed that “bats and many nocturnally migrating birds regularly 
transit the Project area.”  But as Dr. Streby pointed out, avian radar-detection 
systems provide more useful data than NEXRAD weather-radar sweeps, because 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
27 
NEXRAD radar does not encompass the rotor-swept zone and is not designed to 
monitor migratory animals—it generally cannot track or quantify low-flying 
animals.  Dr. Streby provided evidence that “as early as 2010 the [United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service] informed Icebreaker of the inappropriateness of 
NEXRAD radar data for quantifying the use of the proposed project site by 
migratory birds in the spring and fall.”  Icebreaker’s risk assessment admitted that 
“[t]he extent to which nocturnally transiting bird and bat migrants may exhibit 
either avoidance or attraction to the facility is impossible to predict with 
preconstruction data.”  And it stated that although “[b]irds and bats are known to 
collide with wind turbine blades causing injury or death[,] * * * [l]ess is known 
about collision rates at offshore wind energy facilities.” 
{¶ 73} Moreover, Icebreaker’s bird-and-bat-monitoring plan recognized 
that “[d]ue to the unprecedented nature of this demonstration project, protocols for 
determining potential impacts to birds and bats in an offshore environment have 
not been previously established for the Great Lakes.”  That plan explained that “[i]t 
is critical that sufficient and accurate data are collected pre- and post-construction 
in order to evaluate risk of the Project to avian and bat species.”  This is exactly the 
type of data that the board needed in order for it to find and determine the probable 
environmental impact of the proposed wind farm, and such data was not submitted 
to the board. 
{¶ 74} The board granted the certificate of environmental compatibility and 
public need even though the data needed to quantify the project’s impact on birds 
and bats had not yet been collected and would not be collected until after 
construction of the wind farm.  The board therefore failed to require Icebreaker to 
provide sufficient evidence showing the probable environmental impact of the 
proposed wind farm.  Because the board did not have sufficient evidence by which 
to determine the nature of the probable environmental impact of the project, the 
board should have denied Icebreaker’s application for a certificate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
28 
The Minimum Adverse Environmental Impact 
{¶ 75} The board’s failure to determine the nature of the proposed wind 
farm’s probable environmental impact also precluded it from making the finding 
required under R.C. 4906.10(A)(3), which conditions the granting of a certificate 
for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a major utility facility on “the 
facility[’s] represent[ing] the minimum adverse environmental impact, considering 
the state of available technology and the nature and economics of the various 
alternatives, and other pertinent considerations.”  The board cannot find that the 
project represents the minimum adverse environmental impact without first 
establishing the environmental impacts that the facility is likely to have. 
{¶ 76} The board’s finding that the project satisfies R.C. 4906.10(A)(3) is 
erroneous for another reason: the board’s decision to grant the certificate relied on 
technology designed to minimize the environmental impact that does not currently 
exist and is expected to be identified and developed sometime in the future. 
{¶ 77} R.C. 4906.10(A)(3) does not prohibit the board from approving 
proposed facilities that will have some environmental impact.  Rather, the provision 
requires the board to ensure that the proposed facility will minimize adverse 
environmental impact when it is technologically and economically feasible to do 
so.  But here, the board found that the proposed wind farm would have a minimum 
environmental impact by relying on a state of technology that currently does not 
exist. 
{¶ 78} For example, the board required Icebreaker to use a collision-
detection system so that the turbines could be feathered in the event that a specified 
number of birds and bats collide with the turbines’ rotors within a 24-hour period.  
Power Siting Bd. No. 16-1871-EL-BGN, at ¶ 152 (May 21, 2020).  Yet it 
acknowledged that “no specific technology has been chosen to date because 
[Icebreaker] wants to ensure the latest technologies and advancements are being 
utilized at the project, consistent with the intent of the statutory criterion to consider 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
29 
‘the state of available technology’ and ‘other pertinent considerations,’ including 
the fact that the application requests approval of a demonstration project.”  Id. at 
¶ 157, quoting R.C. 4906.10(A)(3).  The board reasoned that “a portion of the initial 
demonstration will be used to determine the collision monitoring technology’s 
detection efficiency.”  Id. at ¶ 158.  That is so, it explained, because “the ability to 
calculate and assess the actual environmental impact relies on technology and data 
that is, to an extent, unknown.”  Id. at ¶ 160.  The board continued: “[T]his is to be 
expected given the unprecedented nature of this project and that the purpose of this 
demonstration project is to explore these uncertainties.”  Id.  And Icebreaker’s bird-
and-bat-monitoring plan recognized that “no proven effective technologies to 
perform bird/bat collision monitoring at offshore wind energy facilities are 
currently available.” 
{¶ 79} But nothing in R.C. 4906.10(A)(3) permits the board to grant a 
certificate based on unproven technology, nor does it envision a “process allowing 
Staff to make the ultimate determination of whether the project represents the 
minimum adverse environmental impact, without Board oversight or a public 
hearing, after the Board’s issuance of the certificate,” Power Siting Bd. No. 16-
1871-EL-BGN, at ¶ 138 (May 21, 2020).  Yet that is what the board’s order 
contemplates.  See id. at ¶ 152 (conditioning the grant of the certificate on “the 
collision-detection technology [being] demonstrated to [the Ohio Department of 
Natural Resources’] satisfaction through lab and field testing prior to start of 
construction”); id. (“[the Ohio Department of Natural Resources] and Staff will 
have the authority to direct mandatory feathering from March 1 through January 1, 
during all nighttime hours, in the event the collision-detection system does not 
accurately detect collisions”). 
There Is No Exception for “Demonstration Projects” in R.C. 4906.10 
{¶ 80} The board essentially held Icebreaker’s proposed wind farm in Lake 
Erie to a lesser degree of scrutiny because, “as a first-of-its-kind project[,] the actual 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
30 
impacts of the facility are, naturally, still unknown.”  Power Siting Bd. No. 16-
1871-EL-BGN, at ¶ 2 (May 21, 2020).  The board explained that “as an 
unprecedented demonstration project, unknown risks are to be expected and * * * 
a major purpose of this project is to gather information about the impacts of an 
offshore wind project in the Great Lakes.”  Id. at ¶ 148.  Again, it also noted that 
“the ability to calculate and assess the actual environmental impact relies on 
technology and data that is, to an extent, unknown.”  Id. at ¶ 160.  Therefore, 
although it concluded that “the projected risk to avian and bat species associated 
with this small demonstration projected is expected to be low,” the board 
“recogniz[ed] * * * that there is a considerable unknown risk associated with the 
number and density of birds and bats potentially migrating through the rotor-swept 
zone.”  Id. at ¶ 148. 
{¶ 81} However, R.C. 4906.10(A)(3) does not relax the requirements for 
granting a certificate for “demonstration projects.”  The same criteria apply to all 
proposed major utility facilities.  And the provision is phrased in the present tense: 
“The board shall not grant a certificate for the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of a major utility facility * * *  unless it finds and determines * * * (3) 
[t]hat the facility represents the minimum adverse environmental impact, 
considering the state of available technology and the nature and economics of the 
various alternatives, and other pertinent considerations.”  (Emphasis added.)  The 
findings that must be made before a certificate may be granted are therefore 
unambiguous.  And if the board is unable to make those findings at the time that it 
reviews an application for a certificate—because the environmental impacts are 
uncertain or because the technology needed to minimize them is unproven—the 
board has no choice but to deny the application. 
{¶ 82} It may make good policy to loosen the rules for an “unprecedented” 
project that will advance science concerning wind energy.  But “as a creature of 
statute, the [board’s] authority is limited by the statutory scheme that created it.”  
January Term, 2022 
 
 
 
31 
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dist. v. Bath Twp., 144 Ohio St.3d 387, 2015-Ohio-
3705, 44 N.E.3d 246, ¶ 3.  “ ‘[A] fundamental principle of the constitutional 
separation of powers among the three branches of government is that the legislative 
branch of government is “the ultimate arbiter of public policy.” ’ ”  Kaminski v. 
Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250, 2010-Ohio-1027, 927 N.E.2d 1066, 
¶ 59, quoting Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, 
880 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 21, quoting State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett 
Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126, 2002-Ohio-7041, 
781 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 21.  If it is necessary to “refine Ohio’s laws to meet the needs of 
our citizens,” that role belongs to the General Assembly.  Id. 
{¶ 83} In sum, the record in this case demonstrates that the board approved 
Icebreaker’s application for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public 
need without making the findings required under R.C. 4906.10.  It therefore erred 
in granting the application.  Consequently, I would reverse the board’s order 
granting the certificate.  Because the majority does not, I dissent. 
_________________ 
 
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., Mark D. Tucker, and 
John F. Stock, for appellants. 
 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, John H. Jones, Section Chief, and Thomas G. 
Lindgren, Kyle L. Kern, Cameron F. Simmons, and Katherine Walker, Assistant 
Attorneys General, for appellee. 
 
Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C., Christine M.T. Pirik, Terrence O’Donnell, 
Jonathan R. Secrest, Sara H. Jodka, and William V. Vorys, for intervening appellee. 
 
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., Aaron M. Herzig, and Anna M. Greve, 
urging affirmance for amicus curiae Great Lakes Towing Company. 
 
Miranda Leppla, Trent Dougherty, and Chris Tavenor, urging affirmance 
for amicus curiae Ohio Environmental Council. 
_________________