In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St. 3d 43

Appellants appeal the Power Siting Board's certificate for Black Fork Wind Energy to site a wind farm in Crawford and Richland Counties.
The project would include up to 91 turbines and related infrastructure across about 24,000 acres with 14,800 acres of leased land involving 150 landowners.
Staff investigation recommended 71 conditions; intervenors included county boards, township trustees, the Ohio Farm Bureau, and appellants.
An ALJ informed the parties that the evidentiary hearing would involve sworn testimony subject to cross-examination and the opportunity to cross-examine other parties’ witnesses.
Black Fork and staff prefiled multiple witnesses; only Pawley (staff) testified at the hearing, and appellants cross-examined Pawley; no objection was raised to the absence of other staff.
Appellants sought rehearing; the court ultimately affirmed the board’s order, rejecting due-process challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the board violate due process by limiting cross-examination of staff?	Appellants contend they were denied cross-examination of seven staff members who drafted the staff report.	No mandatory attendance requirement compelled those seven to testify; Pawley testified and others could have been subpoenaed but appellants did not compel or object.	No due-process violation; appellants failed to prove compulsory attendance or timely objection.
Was the attendance of seven staff members required or can their absence be compelled by subpoena?	Appellants rely on rights to cross-examination and presentation of evidence based on staff attendance.	Appellants could have subpoenaed staff under the rules but did not, and the absence does not bar evidence.	Attendance was not required; failure to subpoena defeats the claim.
Did appellants have a fair opportunity to present evidence and be heard overall?	Cross-examining seven staff members was necessary to present their side fully.	Appellants participated throughout, cross-examined witnesses, testified themselves, and the board's order considered their concerns.	Appellants had a full opportunity to be heard; no due-process violation.

Buckeye Wind, L.L.C. v. Pub. Utils. Comm., 131 Ohio St.3d 449 (2012-Ohio-878) (standard of review for power-siting determinations)
Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 362 (2009-Ohio-604) (complete and independent power of review in board appeals)
Parma v. Pub. Util. Comm., 86 Ohio St.3d 144 (1999) (preservation of objections and agency cure opportunities)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (preclusion from cross-examination when witness subpoena not pursued)
Duff v. Pub. Util. Comm., 384 N.E.2d 264 (1978) (prefiled testimony becomes evidence when sworn at hearing)