Court Opinion

ID: 9801936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:56:42.608271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:27.047755
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
concurring.
{¶ 37} I concur in judgment and write separately to express concerns about the priorities of the Ohio Power Siting Board.
{¶ 38} The Power Siting Board comprises extremely busy public officials who rely heavily on staff members. I am concerned that the board may not be giving appropriate consideration to aesthetic values.
{¶ 39} Geauga County is one of Ohio’s most beautiful counties. Forbes Magazine considers Geauga County the fourth-best place to raise a family in America, http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/27/schools-places-family-forbeslife-cx_zg_ 0630realestate_slide_18.html. According to its own website, Geauga County has “the fourth largest population of Amish in the world,” an indication of the value placed on nature by the residents of Geauga County. Geauga County’s beauty should not to be taken for granted or needlessly squandered. In reviewing the limited record before us, I find little reason to believe that the Power Siting Board places substantial value on preserving nature or maintaining aesthetics.
{¶ 40} As our state grows, more utility resources will be needed and built, whether wind farms, electric lines, natural-gas lines, or some other type of utility facilities. Many factors must be considered when determining the locations of these vital resources. Aesthetics and nature preservation should not necessarily trump other considerations, especially when they are cost-prohibitive. When an economically reasonable alternative is available, however, the impact on nature and aesthetics should be of paramount importance, especially in a place as *341beautiful as Geauga County. In this case, an apparently reasonable alternative was available, along an existing highway, where the aesthetic impact would have been minimized.
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., Thomas J. Lee, and Julia A. Crocker, for appellant, Citizens Advocating Responsible Energy.
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Thomas G. Lindgren, Duane W. Luckey, and Thomas W. McNamee, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee, Ohio Power Siting Board.
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Christopher J. Schraff, Robert J. Schmidt, and L. Bradfield Hughes; and Morgan E. Parke, for intervening appellees, American Transmission Systems, Inc., and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
McNees, Wallace & Nurick, L.L.C., Samuel C. Randazzo, Lisa G. McAlister, and Joseph M. Clark, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Industrial Energy Users-Ohio.
{¶ 41} Any utility involved in a siting decision will invariably be better organized and able to devote more resources advocating its preferred route than any group opposing the utility. For instance, in this case, American Transmission submitted a 1,300-page application advocating its preferred route and applied for trade-secret status. The power imbalance between utilities and ordinary Ohioans is another reason for the Power Siting Board to ensure that it carefully considers all relevant factors before reaching its decisions.
{¶ 42} I am concerned that hearing officers will continue to follow the path of least resistance, where the line is straightest or cheapest, without giving proper consideration to other values prized by Ohioans. The members of the Power Siting Board should ensure that their staff members are aware of the importance of preserving nature and scenery when considering sites for utility resources, without of course unduly sacrificing economic impact. Our state will need to develop more utility resources while endeavoring to retain its natural beauty. The Power Siting Board must endeavor to achieve both objectives.