‘Anti-solar activists’ may have undermined 94MW Ohio solar plant

In exclusive comments to PV Tech Premium, Craig Adair, vice president of development at Open Road, said that the rejection was a backwards step for the state’s energy security, its farming community and the function of its permitting process.

OPSB denied the Crossroads solar project on the grounds that it would “fail to serve the ‘public interest, convenience, and necessity’ as required under Ohio law”, citing “consistent and substantial opposition” from local residents and government. Yesterday, PV Tech reported that the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) said the move “raises serious questions about the OPSB’s interpretation of ‘public interest’”.

Now, Open Road has said that the board’s decision undermines the Ohio Supreme Court’s state permitting process.

Defining the public interest

Adair told us: “The case record is clear that OPSB staff’s revised recommendation and the board’s decision were based entirely on opposition by the four local government bodies, even though the Ohio Supreme Court has said unequivocally that such opposition cannot be determinative of whether a proposed project will serve the public interest.”

Representatives from Perry, Lincoln, Westfield and Cardington Townships, along with Morrow County commissioners, state senator Bill Reineke and representative Riordan McClain, filed public oppositions to the project.

There are state laws in Ohio that prevent local authorities from opposing power projects, though other laws have granted counties more power to block projects and the OPSB has precedent for giving sway to local government opposition. The OPSB said it had taken a “broad lens” approach in determining whether the site was in the public interest.

In March last year, the OPSB rejected a 175MW solar PV project in Greene County, Ohio, also on the grounds of public interest. The attorney for the developer in that case said that the board used the existence of local government opposition as a reason to deny the project, rather than assessing the merits of opposition arguments; the lawsuit ultimately failed to assess whether the opposition was based on evidence. The attorney in that case said that “All of Ohio’s energy infrastructure will be affected by this decision.”

The opinion and order document from the Crossroads solar consultation lists opposition based on factors like visual aesthetics, the cost-effectiveness of solar energy, agricultural impacts and fire risk—all highly disputed claims, with evidence suggesting that solar PV is a cost-effective energy source in the US, with low associated fire risks, and that agrivoltaics can be of benefit to both farming and energy generation.  

‘A gut punch to Ohio farmers’

“The decision is also a gut punch to Ohio farmers already squeezed by rising input costs and trade war uncertainty,” Adair said. The project proposed to include sheep grazing alongside the solar array, which it claimed would allow greater access to grazing land for local farmers through collaborative schemes.

The same OPSB document says that OPSB staff concluded “that the facility would have minimal recreation or aesthetic impact on the surrounding area … and would protect farmland from permanent conversion to non-agricultural uses.”  

Adair continued: “Worse, [the rejection] was predicated on a permitting process that ignored Ohio Supreme Court precedent and couldn’t distinguish legitimate public opposition from fabricated comments. Ohio deserves better.”

Canary Media reported last month that the project may have been hamstrung by fake comments in its consultation, as certain names and addresses were not verifiable with local voter records or other information. The OPSB’s opinion and order document recognised ““debate as to the ‘unique’ or verified character of some of these comments,” but there is no concrete verification of this claim.

“Proposed land use changes always face some amount of opposition, and solar development is no exception,” Adair told us. “In the case of Crossroads, there is also significant support within the local community, as well as many who are indifferent to solar but support a farmer’s right to decide how to use his private land.

“My concern is not that some in the community oppose the project, but rather that OPSB is effectively delegating its authority to local officials and a small group of anti-solar activists. That delegation undermines the intent of a state-administered permitting process and will make it extremely difficult for the state to ensure adequate, reliable, and cost-effective power for Ohio homes and businesses.”

OSPB’s response

In response to Open Road’s comments, OPSB pointed to its opinion and order document, which states: “As the board has indicated in recent decisions, the determination of public interest, convenience, and necessity must be examined through a broad lens and in consideration of impacts, local and otherwise, from the project.”

It adds that the benefits of the project “are outweighed by the consistent and substantial opposition to the project by the local population and as expressed through the local governmental entities.

“We find that the consistent, prominent opposition by individuals and unanimous opposition by the jurisdictional governments, whose duty is to act in the name of public health, safety and welfare, outweighs those discussed benefits offered by the project.”

Open Road Renewables said it is “reviewing our legal options and next steps” regarding appealing the rejection.

Growing power demand

Beyond the intrigue of this particular project and the power, or otherwise, of anti-solar local government, Adair argued that opposition to renewables is a dangerous game in the current climate.  

“Ohio is playing Russian Roulette with its energy future,” he said. “At a moment when electricity demand is rising, ratepayers’ bills are climbing, and foreign intervention is driving gas prices higher, the state is choosing to forgo low-cost solar and instead increase its dependence on natural gas. Ohio consumers will pay the price.”

The effects of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran and the ensuing war are already being felt in global oil and gas prices, and the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned of a looming energy crisis worse than the shocks of 1979 or 2022.

Last week the US Department of Energy announced plans to build a new data centre in Ohio powered by a 9.2GW gas plant connected to the local grid, through a public-private partnership with utility AEP and Japan’s SoftBank Group. Local Ohio media reported back in December that electric bills are due to rise thanks in part to the expansion of data centres in the state, and before the effects of international fossil fuel shocks were known.

The state is one of the largest US producers of natural gas, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), which could act in its favour price-wise. But the likelihood is that gas prices will increase both globally and in the US, both from conflict in the Middle East and the inflationary effect data centres can have on power prices.

While the rejection of the Crossroads solar project is a relative drop in the ocean, regular opposition to new renewable energy projects and barriers to building new capacity to meet growing electricity demand is certainly unlikely to lower power prices.