Opinion ID: 4249577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantial Evidence Claims.

Text: The next issue we must consider is whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that MidAmerican met the “need” requirement and considered other feasible alternatives of section 476.53(4)(c)(2). A. Scope of Review. We must “reverse, modify, or grant other appropriate relief from agency action” that is “not supported by substantial evidence in the record . . . when that record is viewed as a whole.” Id. § 17A.19(10)(f). The Iowa Administrative Procedure Act defines “substantial evidence” as follows: [T]he quantity and quality of evidence that would be deemed sufficient by a neutral, detached, and reasonable person, to establish the fact at issue when the consequences resulting from the establishment of that fact are understood to be serious and of great importance. 18 Id. § 17A.19(10)(f)(1). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding . . . [or] that supports it.” Id. § 17A.19(10)(f)(3). “The agency’s decision does not lack substantial evidence merely because the interpretation of the evidence is open to a fair difference of opinion.” ABC Disposal Sys., Inc. v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 681 N.W.2d 596, 603 (Iowa 2004). B. The “Need” Requirement. In determining whether MidAmerican satisfied the “need” requirement of section 476.53(4)(c)(2), the Board could consider compliance with future environmental regulations requiring clean energy, fuel diversity, and the supply of less expensive energy to consumers. The record reveals MidAmerican demonstrated Wind VII would defer a capacity deficiency from 2019 to 2020. Furthermore, because of the benefits of Wind VII, MidAmerican is able to project a capacity deficiency of a mere 21 megawatts in 2020. Further, the record contains substantial evidence Wind VII would satisfy a need for an electric supply with lower emissions, especially in light of potential future carbon legislation; a need for an electric supply that produces low-cost energy; a need for an electric supply that enhances fuel diversity; a need for MidAmerican to maintain reasonable prices for its customers; a need to promote economic development in Iowa; and a need to promote the use of renewable energy. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of the “need” requirement under section 476.53(4)(c)(2). C. Other Feasible Alternatives. The record demonstrates MidAmerican compared wind generation generally to conventional and renewable generation alternatives prior to submitting its application and, prior to the Board’s decision, MidAmerican compared Wind VII with 19 NextEra’s purchase power agreement. MidAmerican’s application for advance ratemaking principles generally compares wind power to renewable energy alternatives, including biomass energy, hydroelectric energy, solar energy, and geothermal energy based on availability, economic practicality, and maturity. It also compares wind power to coal- and gas-fired power plants in terms of cost, cost robustness, environmental reasonableness, system reliability, economic value to the local area, political uncertainty, flexibility, and diversity. The testimony of MidAmerican’s manager of market assessment further details MidAmerican’s comparison of Wind VII to conventional and renewable generation alternatives. The record contains evidence as to MidAmerican’s six-stage resource planning process, the different analytical models used during the process, and other criteria MidAmerican uses to further evaluate the attractiveness of other generation sources. Accordingly, the record supports a finding that MidAmerican compared its proposed facility to other feasible supply sources prior to receiving ratemaking principles. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that MidAmerican complied with the requirements of section 476.53(4)(c)(2) by demonstrating “to the board that the public utility has considered other sources for long-term electric supply and that the facility . . . is reasonable when compared to other feasible alternative sources of supply.”