Do Rural Ohioans Support New Solar Farms? Depends On Who You Ask

BY NICK ROGERS

STATEWIDE - Over the past 15 months, five potential solar farm projects in Ohio have been scrapped due to local opposition. Solar advocates claim that the Ohio Siting Board – the government entity with the power to approve or deny these projects – is relying too heavily on public opinion rather than weighing all the facts. Those fighting the solar installations believe “public interest” is of the utmost importance. The question of whether or not Ohioans actually want these facilities in their home towns comes down to who you ask.

Proposed solar and wind facilities must meet eight different criteria for the Siting Board to approve them. These criteria include environmental impact, agricultural impact, “maximum feasible water conservation,” and whether or not the facility will “serve the public interest.” That final point has become a rather contentious one between solar companies and locals opposed to the installations.

In January, Birch Solar 1, LLC filed an application with the Ohio Supreme Court to withdraw its appeal of the Siting Board’s decision to deny their 2,000 acre, 300 megawatt solar farm in Lima. The Siting Board had originally denied LightHouseBP (Birch’s parent company)’s application in 2022 due to what the Board deemed best for the “public interest, convenience, and necessity as required by Ohio law.”  Prior to the decision, citizens had loudly voiced their concerns over the potential of property values being affected and the loss of farm land.

Clark Spieles, a Shawnee Township Trustee, said, “That’s some of our best farm ground in Shawnee Township. But one of the worst things was telling someone what they can and can’t do with their land.” 

This “property rights issue” has become a hot-button topic for wind farm applications as well as solar; the two iterations of power plants in which local opposition has proven successful. A 2021 law gives counties enough power to often block these facilities before the applications even make their way to the Siting Board.

Another Ohio Supreme Court case is ongoing. This one involves Vesper Energy, the company trying to build the 175 megawatt Kingwood Solar farm in Greene County.

Michael Settineri, a lawyer for Vesper Energy said, “All of Ohio’s energy infrastructure will be affected by this decision.” Like Birch, Vesper’s application was denied in 2022 due to issues with the public interest; i.e. severe public backlash at the proposed facility. Settineri claims that public opinion is being weighed far more strongly than the more important debates of energy efficiency, financial benefit, etc. “If I yell loud enough, does that give me a win?” he asked the court.

Lindsey Workman, community affairs manager for Vesper Energy said, “Public opinion is not public interest.” 

Most recently, Open Road Renewables’ application for its Grange Solar Grazing Center in Logan County was denied by the Siting Board for identical reasons to the previously mentioned cases. Despite the $5 million in potential annual local tax revenue lost by this decision (according to Open Road), the Board listened to local opposition and ignored all the potential benefits of the project. 

However, Open Road Renewables – sensing how much weight was being given to public opposition – went a step further than other companies in their same predicament and conducted their own internal analysis of the public comments. According to the company, 75% of public comments actual showed support for the project. 

Doug Herling, Vice President of Open Road Renewables, said, “There is no fact-checking of the onslaught of anti-solar propaganda, which caused local officials to make statements against solar.” Apparently the “onslaught” was more of a whimper, according to his own company, and yet it was still enough to sway the Siting Board.

Renewable energy opposition does not stop at Ohio’s borders, though Ohio is considered one of the toughest hurdles for renewable energy companies. Not surprisingly, a report claims that fossil fuel interests are fighting to kill wind and solar farm expansion across the country. This is a game with many players and many agendas. Verifying the validity of the origins of both opposing and supporting comments and/or letters for high stakes developments is all-but impossible.

A major issue some in higher levels of Ohio government have taken with the proposed renewable energy paradigm is that of “base load energy.” In short, wind and solar are unpredictable power generators in that they are weather dependent, as opposed to more traditional forms of energy creation such as coal and natural gas. The latter two would be considered base load energy creators.

House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 2 attempt, among many other energy industry shakeups, to address the issue of potential grid inadequacies (due to huge swaths of data centers setting up shop in Ohio) through the creation of more base load power plants (SB 2 does, however, include a provision for rooftop solar panels on schools). 

A lot is riding on the Vesper Energy case as far as future solar farm precedent goes. At the moment, for better or worse, and for whatever the reason, the Ohio Siting Board is siding with local solar opposition above all else.