FAQ

The term "utlity scale"  is formally known in the Ohio Revised Code as a "Major utility facility."   It is defined in Section 4906.01(B)(1)(a) of the Ohio Revised Code.  The definition of a "Major utility facility" is:

•  Electric generating plant and associated facilities designed for, or capable of, operation at a capacity of fifty megawatts or more

Therefore, any electric generation whether it be done through coal, gas, wind, solar, etc. that has a capacity of 50 Megawatts (50MW) or more falls under the governance of the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB).

So, you may hear the terms "industrial scale solar",  "industrial solar",  "utility scale solar", "solar farm", etc.  -- which are all the same as  the formal definition of a "Major utility facility."

There are currently 3 known utility scale solar projects being planned:

• Carnation Solar - located in  Amanda Township Fairfield County - approximately 1,700 acres - the formal Ohio Power Siting Board process has begun, the developer has submitted their application to the OPSB for review of completeness, once deemed complete the staff will begin their review

• Eatern Cottontail - located in Walnut Township Fairfield County - approximately1,550 acres - the developer's formal application has been filed, staff report issued, and public hearing completed.  The evidentiary hearing is set for March 4, 2025.

• Ripley Solar - located in Walnut and Liberty Townships Fairfield County  - approximately 694 acres - this project status is unclear, there is still activity on the PJM service queue for this project

See other pages and FAQ items on this site regarding additional information.

The latest information on the Carnation Solar project has now moved to its own page, the latest info can be found here (Carnation Solar News).  

Background and general info regarding the Carnation Solar project has been given its own web page and can be found here.

Get involved!

• Contact the Protect Amanda Township group via email to receive email updates

• Join the Protect Amanda Township Facebook group

• Keep your eyes open for wildlife.  We are trying to document sightings of wildlife in the project area.  If you spot a bald eagle, please note the location and time and send us an email so we can keep a record of the sightings.  Please let us know of other wildlife like pheasants, bobcats, herds of deer, etc. 

• Write to the commissioners!  This is extremely important that the commissioners hear from residents and property owners that will be directly affected by the proposed 1700 acres industrial solar project.

• 
  

• Possible areas of concern to address in your letter to the commissioners:

  • • The dust, noise, traffic, drainage issues, or other problems with construction

    •   The reduction in your property values the project would cause- Research shows this is more pronounced in rural areas like ours and with larger projects like the proposed project.

    •   Damage to field tiles causing damage to nearby farms and homes.

    •   Permanent change from an agricultural area to an industrial site. 

    •   These are not solar farms, but industrial solar complexes.

    • Any letter you write does not need to be long.  Just include your full name and address and explain how the proposed project will personally impact you and your family. Address it to all three commissioners, Steven Davis, Jeff Fix, and David Levacy at:

contact@fairfieldcountyohio.gov

or mail or hand deliver to:

Administrative Courthouse

Commissioner’s Office

210 E Main St, Suite 302

Lancaster, OH 43130

Please copy protectamandatownship@gmail.com on your email so we have a copy. This will help us a great deal.

For the latest information on the Eastern Cottontail project please see the Citizens For Fair Fields web site  here here and their Facebook group

On 05/08/2024 EDF Renewables filed a pre-application letter with the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB).  The developer is required to file this pre-application letter at least 15 days prior to the required public information meeting (at least one meeting is required).  Two public meeting have been held:

1. Wednesday, May 29, 2024 from 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. at the cafeteria of the Fairfield Union High School, 6675 Cincinnati Zanesville Road NE, Lancaster, Ohio 43130

2. Tuesday, July 2, 2024 from 5:00p.m. – 7:00 p.m.  The Liberty Center in Lancaster

Ohio Administrative Code requires the developer to have an informational meeting within 90 days of submitting their application to the Ohio Power Siting Board. 

EDF submitted their application on 07/31/2024 to the OPSB.

You can view the OPSB case documents (application, public comments, etc.) by clicking here 

Here is a list of pertinent dates for the Eastern Cottontail project (from the OPSB site):

• Administrative Law Judge Entry ordering that Staff shall file its report of investigation on or before January 10, 2025  - the report was issued January 10th 

• A local public hearing, pursuant to R.C. 4906.08(C), where the Board shall accept written or oral testimony from any person on January 27, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., at Pleasantville Elementary School, 300 W. Columbus Street, Pleasantville, Ohio 43148 - this has been completed, it actually spanned 2 days January 27-28

• On or before February 10, 2025, each party shall file a list of issue(s) citing specific concerns about which they may be interested in pursuing cross-examination of witnesses at the adjudicatory hearing

• All expert and factual testimony to be offered by Applicant shall be filed by February 14, 2025

• A status conference amongst the parties will commence on February 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. by teleconference

• Any stipulation entered into by the parties shall be filed by noon on February 24, 2025, along with the associated testimony supporting the stipulation

• Any motions to strike testimony shall be filed by February 25, 2025

• An adjudicatory hearing commencing on March 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., Hearing Room 11-A, at the offices of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 electronically filed by Ms. Donielle M. Hunter on behalf of Isabel M. Marcelletti, Administrative Law Judge, Ohio Power Siting Board.

The status of this project is unclear.  There is still activity on the PJM service queue as late as 10/2024.

In PJM the project is known as West Millersport 138kv.  And appears to have been known as West Millersport-S. Baltimore 138kv AC2-043 on PJM's service queue earlier (2018).  Also, the PJM Impact Study shows the name "Fresh Air Energy II, LLC" was initially used.

Later new PJM queue entries are seen - AG1-163 (9.14.2020 ), AG2-003 (10.2.2020 ), and AH1-032 (6.14.2021 ).

The Citizens For Fairfields site has more details on the Ripley and Eastern Cottontail projects.

Unfortunately, NO.  When it comes to things like public utilities, including utility scale solar projects, Ohio Revised Code 4906.13  doesn't allow any local jurisdiction:

"No public agency or political subdivision of this state may require any approval, consent, permit, certificate, or other condition for the construction or operation of a major utility facility..."

 Simply put,  unless it is a state agency allowance, regulation, standard, or restriction your zoning board, township trustees, county commissioners, etc. can't have a say.  This means "zoning", which is done at the township level, does not apply.  You may live in an area zoned "restricted agriculture" but that doesn't matter, you may still be surrounded by an industrial utility scale facility.  

In general, nothing below a state level agency (i.e. an allowance from the state) applies in solar project cases.  But there are some things County Commissioners can do that are provided by Ohio Senate Bill 52.  SB52  provides some abilities (among other things) that allows County Commissioners to designate "restricted areas" and/or prohibit such projects.   See the  SB 52 and abilities County Commissioners FAQ items below for more information on it and the other involvement provided for County Commissioners and Township Trustees.

The basics for a utility scale solar project have 4 primary characteristics.  

1.  A relatively close electrical grid interconnection point (i.e. high power electrical transmission lines nearby) that has sufficient capacity for the additional power to be inject and/or would require a reasonable cost to apply modifications to support the injected power.

2.  Suitable land characteristics for a solar installation -- i.e. relatively flat with little natural barriers

3.  Sufficient solar irradiance (i.e. sunlight) 

4.  Land owners that are willing to lease their land long term (25 years or more) for installation and operation of the facility.  Note, in some cases land owners sell their land to the developer but that appears to be the rare exception.

Unfortunately, for Amanda Township residents the developer feels these 4 characteristics are present (although sufficient solar irradiance and "flatness" seems questionable).  There is a 138kV bulk power transmission line nearby, an expanse of farmland adjoining to the transmission line with few  natural barriers, sufficient sunlight, and 6 land owners who have signed land leases for the adjoining land and at a scale needed for utility scale solar.

Capacity Factor (CF) is a ratio of the actual amount of power a system produces over a period of time (usually a year) to the theoretical maximum power it can produce for the same period of time.

So, why should I even care what Capacity Factor is?  Well, particularly for solar, the amount of maximum power theoretically generated and often stated by solar developers is no where close to the actual power you can realistically expect it to generate.  The actual power is only a small fraction of this maximum, and in our area it is stated to be around 22% of the maximum.  See below for an example. 

Note, the measure of power being used in calculations too.  Solar panels generate DC (Direct Current) power and must be converted to AC (Alternating Current) power for distribution and use in homes and industry.  In the example below we are using AC power/energy values.

The solar capacity factor used in our area is typically around 22%.   What does that mean?

Say a solar facility has a name plate capacity (i.e. maximum power) of 100 MegaWatts (MW).  The theoretical maximum amount of electric energy if can produce over a year is calculated as follows : 

100 MW x 24 hours/day x365 days/year = 876,000 MegaWatt hours/year = 876,000 MWh/year

But the sun does not shine 24 hours a day, the inverters that convert the DC power generated by the panels to AC power are not 100% efficient and are typically not sized to handle the maximum input power but a lower value thus wasting energy during peak generation, the panel technology matters (i.e. the panel construction - thin-film, crystalline silicon ,...), the solar irradiance of an area, array tracking, shading,  downtime, etc.  all impact the actual amount of power generated by a solar system thus making the actual power generated significantly less than the theoretical maximum.

Therefore, a solar system will never generate the theoretical maximum amount of electric energy.  This is where the Capacity Factor comes in.  Using the example above, the estimated expected energy produced by a system can be calculated by multiplying the theoretical maximum times the Capacity Factor (22% in our case):

876,000MWh/year x 0.22 = 192,720 MWh/year

As you can see the numbers are significantly different -  192,720 is significantly smaller than 876,000.  Be careful when discussing or viewing the values thrown around by solar developers.  Be sure to ask/understand what the number represents, the capacity factor used, are they referring to AC or DC power, etc.   Also, they will state the equivalent number of homes that could be powered by the system.  According the the U.S. Energy Information Agency  "The average U.S. household consumes about 10,500 kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity per year ", or in megawatts, 10.5 MWh/year.   But in some cases it appears the solar developers used much lower values for the average power consumed by a home, therefore inflating the number of homes it equivalently powers. 

 For our example, the estimated equivalent homes potentially powered is calculated as:

192,720 (MWh/year) / 10.5 (MHh/year) = 18,354 homes

The "Overiew/Background" page provides a high-level intro to PJM.  There we state that PJM is "the regional transmission operator for the electrical grid in all or portions of 13 states in the eastern US including Ohio."  Simply put, they are responsible for managing the "bulk" electrical grid we all rely upon.  They manage the flow of electricity for 65 million people in 13 states in real time - it is a very complex task - just imagine the responsibility.   We have all experienced local electric power failures, but it's rare for large scale power failures thanks to these grid managers.  And "restarting" the grid after a large scale outage is a huge undertaking, look up "black start power grid" some time to see what it takes to get the grid back online, it will make you appreciate the work of the grid managers and local power distributors.

Beyond managing the grid in real-time PJM must also manage, plan, and forecast the impact for power sources that will be shutting down and others coming online to inject power into the grid.  This is where the PJM service queue becomes important.   Among other things,  this is where new sources of energy, such as utility scale solar power facilities, must be accounted for and incorporated into plans for the bulk electrical grid.  

Before the inrush of renewable energy, such as widespread solar power generation, PJM managed the service queue from a "first come,  first serviced" model.   They have now moved to a "first-ready, first-served” clustered methodology, since trying to manage the grid planning on an individual request by request basis and having requests withdrawn late in the planning process can adversely impact planning for other projects thus resulting in churn and chaos for grid planning. Now the planning will look at clustering (i.e. grouping) requests so they can be analyzed in conjunction with one another, as well as, additional checks in place to reduce late process withdrawal.  See this web site for a succinct explanation of the new service queue process.  

Another important document from PJM is the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP ).   Ohio Power Siting Board utility projects are required to be consistent with the plan.  The document is large (297 pages) but contains a plethora of information, and it is broken down by state level.

That's nice but why does it matter?   Well, this change to the service queue process and particularly the "clustering" of projects has caused delays in  some utility scale solar projects since PJM put many service requests on "hold" while trying to work through its backlog and the need to mange the grid at a "holistic" level .  This can be evidenced by looking at the service requests for many solar generation facilities and their projected  completion dates that have long past.   And the OPSB requires "...that the facility is consistent with regional plans for expansion of the electric power grid ..."

The PJM Services Queue can be found here. 

To access the queue items for Fairfield county do the following:

1.  Select the "States" button to show the list of states drop down menu.  Then select the "None" link in the drop down, then select the "OH" check box.  You will now see the new service queue items for all of Ohio.

2. Next select the "County" button to show the list of Ohio counties in the drop down menu.  Then select the "None" link in the drop down, then select "Fairfield" check box.  You will now see the new service queue items for all of Fairfield county.

3. Currently the queue just shows "Solar" items but there could be others that appear in the future.  To restrict on "Solar" items use the "Fuel" drop down show on the right side of the table of data.  Here you can select the type of fuel, "Solar" in this case.

Once viewing the table with the service queue items it isn't exactly straight forward to make out what item applies to which project.  Here is a cross-reference:

• Harrison-Good Hope 138 kV  - these are the queue entries related to the Amanda Township/Carnation Solar project

• Muskingum-W. Millersport 345 kV  and Muskingum River-W. Millersport 345 kV  - the queue entries related to the Easter Cottontail project

Once viewing the table of data you can select the headings at the top of the table, such as, "Phases and Agreements" to show the phases of the project and by selecting the green circle with a white check mark you will be shown the document associated with that phase.

The Overview/Background page section "Utility Scale Solar Projects in Ohio - high level overview - How does this work?" provides an introduction to the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB).

The OPSB home page can be found here .

The  OPSB "about-us" page provides a concise description of what falls under the OPSB jurisdiction:

"Before construction can begin on any major utility facility or economically significant wind farm within the state of Ohio, a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need must be obtained from the OPSB. The Ohio Revised Code defines a major utility facility as an electric generating plant with a capacity of 50 megawatts (MW) or more (including solar and wind energy facilities); an electric transmission line and associated facilities of 100 kilovolts (kV) or more; or a gas pipeline that is greater than 500 feet in length, more than nine inches in outside diameter, and designed for transporting gas at a maximum allowable operating pressure in excess of 125 pounds per square inch. "

The term "Siting" in the title of the Ohio Power Siting Board means just that, the OPSB must approve the "site" for electric power generation and transmission, as well as, gas transmission.

The rules and regulations pertaining to the Ohio Power Siting Board are found in Ohio Administrative Code chapter 4906.

As noted in the Overview/Background page there are 8 criteria that must be addressed during the application process. A developer submits an application regarding these criteria and the OPSB uses the application for their investigation against these criteria.  While the applications and the associated exhibits are typically lengthy documents, review of many of the solar projects on the OPSB site find that many details for a project are at a high level and only after approval are some of the holes filled-in which is too late for any meaningful assessment.

The OPSB application flowchart  provides a nice representation of the application process and its flow.  Among other things the flowchart shows the timing of public meetings and hearings.

A "case record" is created for each OPSB application.  The case record contains all documentation associated with an application.  You will find the Pre-application letter, the application, the staff record, hearing transcripts, public comments, etc.

Why does this matter to me?  It is important that your voice be heard by the OPSB.  Once an application has been filed with the OPSB the OPSB process is THE place where the opposition by the community, the trustees, and county commissioners are formally lodged.   The process allows anyone to provide public comments at scheduled meetings and the desire of the community to be heard.  The criteria "That the facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity" has been a crucial factor in denying several recent applications, this is the area we can have the biggest impact.

Below is copy of text from the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) site that provides a concise description of an "intervenor".    This text was copied from the "Investigation" tab of this OPSB web page.  While not directly stated below, an intervenor may be subject to cross-examination, etc.  Remember the OPSB application process is a formal legal proceeding.  Also note, that anyone who submits public comments is not necessarily a formal intervenor, and from review and attendance at public meetings it is rare for intervenors to provide comments at such meetings.  Which is to say "you don't have to be an intervenor" to make your voice heard!

------------

Intervenor - the intervention process allows for an affected entity or individual to formally participate in the OPSB  proceedings on the application.  

There are two types of intervenors:

1.   Intervention as a Right OAC 4906-2-12(A)(1) certain affected municipal and county officials can formally intervene by placing an appropriate intervention notice on the docket 

2. Interventions by Motion OAC 4906-2-12(B) Any affected party may file a motion to intervene.  The affected party must demonstrate good cause to be approved to intervene. 

An intervenor, as a party to the case, can participate in all stages of the application process.  An intervenor may appeal an OPSB decision. Once they have exhausted their appeals, they can further appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The investigation of an application to the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) is performed by OPSB "staff".

Who are the staff?

• The  staff consist of career professionals drawn from the staff of the PUCO and other member agencies of the Board.

• Coordinates its investigation among the agencies of the Board and with other interested agencies, such as:

  • Ohio Department of Transporation (ODOT)

  • Ohio Historic Preservation Office (HPO)

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

• The staff report is just one piece of evidence that the Ohio Power Siting Board considers, it does not represent the views or opinions of the Board

• The report is to be published not less than 15 days prior to the public hearing

• The report is formally specified in 4906-3-6 of the Ohio Administrative Code, it states:

Staff shall conduct an investigation of each accepted, complete application and submit a written report as provided by division (C) of section 4906.07 of the Revised Code not less than fifteen days prior to the beginning of public hearings.

In summary, the staff report is a document presented to the OPSB board with their findings and recommendations after performing an investigation of an application.  The decision ultimately still resides with the OPSB board and they can chose to move forward even if the report recommends denial of the application. Often in these reports there are "findings" with  reference to recommendations to address the findings should the board choose to issue a certificate.

The OPSB process begins when an applicant contacts the OPSB, this is typically through a "Pre-application Notification Letter" to the OPSB.  The OPSB then assigns a case number.  The case number is used to contain/track all case documents (ex. the formal application, hearing transcripts, etc.), as well as, public comments and parties of record.

The OPSB case search page can be found here to look at the various documents and comments associated with a case. 

Once on the search page there are a few ways you can find cases:

1.  A simple way to search if you know the project name and/or the county where the project is located is to type it in the "Filter by Case Number or Name" field and press your Enter key or select the "Filter" button.   After doing that the list of matches will appear below the search area on the page.  Note, by default it searches more than just solar projects and shows them too.  But you can easily distinguish them in the results since they typically have "Solar" in their names.

2.  Another way to search is to go to the "By Type of Project" field, click in it.  Then scroll down and select "Solar".  When you do that all "Solar" cases will appear below the search area.   You can then look through the results and select the project desired.  To restrict further you can also select a county in the "By County" field.  Click in it and then scroll down and select the desired county or counties.  NOTE: it has been found that this method does not always show results properly for some reason.  For instance, the Yellowbud project doesn't appear when selecting "Solar" and "Pickaway" or "Ross" counties for some reason.  But if you put "Yellowbud" in the "Filter by Case Number or Name" field it will appear.

Once you have done your searching you select a case from the results below the search area.  Note, there may be too much to show on the web page and you will need to move through the result set by selecting the  page number at the bottom of the results or the right arrow to move to the next page.

After selecting a case you will be shown a "Case Details" page.  Here you will see the status of the case, the county (or counties), etc.  The case records are shown by selecting the "OPEN CASE RECORD" blue button on the upper right of the page.  You will then be shown a table.  The table columns are:

• Case Documents - under this tab you will find all of the documents associated with the case listed in chronological order.  This is everything from the initial correspondence by the applicant with the OPSB, the staff investigation report, the OPSB decision on the case, motions, appeals, etc.

• Public Comments - under this tab you will find the public comments submitted to the OPSB regarding the case.  This is typically where you will find comments made by non-intervenors in the case, such as, nearby-residents, community members etc.

• Parties of Record - under this tab you will find those participating in the formal proceeding of the case.  This will include the applicant (the applicants attorneys) and others including any intervenors.

To view a Case Document or Public Comment simply select the date field on the left side next to the document or comment.  You will then be shown the document record and a link that says "View Document", select it to view the actual document.  The documents are all in PDF form.

The OPSB provides a mapping application that is accessible through their web site  here.  Using this application you can visually see the location of the solar facilities on a map and access the case records for a project.

After accessing the page select the check box agreeing to the terms of use and select the "Ok" button.  Then two small frames will be displayed showing "about" information and the "Legend" used on the map.  Close these frames by selecting the "x" in the upper right had corner of each frame.

Now you are free to use your mouse to move around the state and "zoom" using your scroll wheel.  The projects are shown in one of four colors.  The color represents the "state" of the project.  

By "left clicking" on a project (the colored portion of the project) you will be shown a small pop-up window giving the project name, case number, status, capacity, size in acres, and application/certificate information.  You can then access the "case records" for the project by clicking on the "Case Number" link which will take you to the OPSB case docket.

Below is information regarding timelines for various tasks related to large scale solar facilities.  Here the timelines are shown for several categories.  Note, the OPSB revised their administrative rules on May 30, 2024, therefore some items below have changed, particularly in regards to the number and timing of public information meetings.

Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) application and process related timelines:

• The OPSB flowchart provides a concise description of the application process and timelines.  Note, you can "click" on the the various items in the flowchart and it will open the corresponding Ohio Revised/Administration Code sections.

• Every 5 years the OPSB is required to review their rules as defined in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 4906.  With the latest review and adoption of amended rules on May 30, 2024 there are changes to the requirements for informational meetings, among numerous other items.  The updated rule in this regard can be found here.  Now 2 informational meetings are required.  According to the administrative code the intent of each of the meetings is as follows:

The first of these informational meetings should notify the public and solicit input on the scope of the project. The second of these informational meetings is to occur not more than ninety days prior to filing the application and is intended to present the project to the public in a manner consistent with what will be presented in the application.

• At least 21 days prior to the first public information meeting the applicant must submit their pre-application letter to the OPSB.

• The 2nd public information meeting must be held within 90 days of applicaiton filing with the OPSB.

• The developer must provide various information including the type of facility,  geographic boundaries within the county, and nameplate capacity.  At least 14 days prior to the public meeting the applicant must also provide written notice of the meeting to all county commissioners and township trustees where the facility will reside.

• The applicant must give public notice via a newspaper in general circulation with pertinent data for the project and it is to be published 21-7 days prior to the date of the public informational meeting.

• At least 21 days prior to the each public informational meeting the applicant must send a letter to each property owner and affected tenant.  The letter must include describe the certification process, how to participate in the proceeding , and how to be notified of the public hearing.

• The OPSB has 60 days to complete compliance review of an application for certificate.  This is just to see that the application is complete for OPSB consideration.

• Once the application is deemed to be complete the ad hoc board members (county commissioner and township representatives) must be chosen within 30 days

• Next the staff has 60-90 days to complete their investigation of the application

• During this time the filing and hearing dates are set - the first notice of the public meeting is issued within 15 days of an accepted application, a second notice of the public hearing is issued 7-21 days before the public hearing

• The staff report must be issued 15 days before the public hearing

• The public hearing for the case is held near the project location.  Here the public can provide testimony regarding the project/case at hand.  Testimony is limited to 3 minutes per person.   Those who testify are sworn in and may be asked questions from the bench or counsel in the case.

• Next is the Adjudicatory/Evidentiary hearing held at the OPSB offices in Columbus.  The purpose of the evidentiary hearing is for the parties in the case, including the Applicant, the Intervenors, and the Board's Staff to provide testimony and other evidence regarding the project.

• Following the Adjudicatory/Evidentiary hearing additional testimony may be filed, as well as, briefs and reply briefs.

• The OPSB board then makes a decision to issue or deny the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need.

• Following the boards decision an application for rehearing may be made within 30 days of issuing the decision.  Any party or any affected person, firm, or corporation may file an application for rehearing, within thirty days after the issuance of a board order.  The request must include the grounds for rehearing.  The grounds for rehearing must state why the board order is unreasonable or unlawful.

• Within in 10 days of a request for rehearing a party to the case may file a "memorandum contra" (i.e an opposing party's response to the request) for rehearing

• If a rehearing request was made the board will issue a decision to grant or deny the rehearing request.  If  "the commission does not grant or deny such application for rehearing within thirty days from the date of filing thereof, it is denied by operation of law" (ORC 4903.10) .   Which is to say if the commission does not decide either way within 30 days of the request filing the request is automatically denied.    Note, the commission may issue an order to give themselves more time to consider the rehearing request.

• Within 60 days after any rehearing (or denial of rehearing request) an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio may be made.  The appeal request may be made by any party of the case.  Note, "The court may permit any interested party to intervene by cross-appeal."

• Similar to the rehearing request an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court must present evidence as to why the OPSB order is unreasonable or unlawful.

• The outcome of the appeal (if any) to the Ohio Supreme Court is the final decision in the OPSB case.

• Please see the flowchart for additional and companion information to that shown here. 

A SIDE NOTE: IF a project should make it as far as having a Public Informational Meeting Ohio Administrative Code 4906-3-03(4) states "The applicant shall solicit written comments from the attendees. The applicant shall summarize in its certificate application how many and what types of comments were received." Therefore, attendance and participation in the informational meeting is very important!

Prohibiting a facility:

Within 90 days after the public meeting  for OPSB application mentioned above the board of county commissioners may adopt a resolution prohibiting the construction of the facility, or limit the geographic area within the boundaries of the proposed facility.  The resolution does not prohibit the applicant from filing another proposal for the board of county commissioners consideration.

Restricted Area Resolution timeline:

Notice of a meeting to adopt a resolution to restrict unincorporated area(s) of the county by the county commissioners must be posted at least 30 days prior to the meeting.  The notice must be published in a least one newspaper, all public libraries in the county including a map of the proposed area(s),  and written notice to school districts, municipal corporations,  and township trustees in whole or part of the proposed area(s).  

Note, the difference between "prohibiting" and "restricting" a facility.  Restricting a facility means a developer may not attempt to file an application with the OPSB, prohibiting happens once a developer has started the process.

A resolution designating restricted areas by the county commissioners becomes effective 30 days after the adoption of the resolution.   Within that 30 day period a petition containing the required number of registered voter signatures may be presented to the board of county commissioners to have the resolution  put to a vote in a county wide election.   Certification of the petition (i.e. verifying the signatures etc. by the board of elections) must be completed at least 90 days prior to the election where the issue will be voted upon.  The election is to be at least 120 days after the  petition is filed with the county commissioners.  If no petition is filed then the resolution becomes effective 30 days after the resolution is passed.  Within 5 days of the resolution effective date the text and maps of the restricted area(s) must be filed with the county recorder and the county or regional planning commission.

Identification of Ad Hoc Voting members of OPSB:

After an application to the OPSB has been determined to be in compliance by the OPSB, the OPSB must provide a complete copy of the application to the township trustees and county commissioners of affected townships and counties within 3 days.  The township trustees and county commissioners have 90 days to designate the Voting Ad Hoc members once the OPSB has found the applicaiton is found to be in compliance.

Decommissioning:

At least sixty days prior to the commencement of construction of a utility facility, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive decommissioning plan for review and approval by the power siting board.  Note, this means the decommissioning plan comes after the application has been approved.

After the Ohio Power Siting Board issues its decision to approve or deny a certificate a request for rehearing may be submitted within 30 days of the OPSB's decision.  Application for rehearing is given through the following ORC 4903.10 and OAC 4901-1-35 .    A rehearing may be requested regardless of the OPSB's decision to approve or deny a certificate.  There may be multiple requests for rehearing by different parties.  The OPSB then reviews the rehearing requests and isses an order either allowing or denying request for rehearing.

An appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court can be made within 60 days of denial for rehearing or 60 days after the decision/order from a rehearing is completed.   The sections of of the Ohio Revised Code on this topic are 4903.11, 4903.13, and 4906.12.

Simply put, any case before the OPSB can eventually be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court if one so chooses.  The case can be appealed whether the OPSB approves or denies the certificate.  

Doing a search on the OPSB case search page for "Denied" solar projects returns 6 projects.  Below is a summary  for each project including a link to the projects OPSB case, reason for denial,  and what happened after it was denied including links to the related Ohio Supreme Court case if appropriate:

• Kingwood Solar - OPSB case documents can be found here.

  • Certificate denied on the criteria that the project does not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity

  • Why?  There was significant opposition to the project presented at public meeting, filing of public comments, and resolutions by townships and county intervention.

  • What happened after the OPSB denial?

    • Rehearing requests were filed by the applicant and others to the OPSB

    • Because the OPSB did not grant or deny the request for rehearing within 30 days the request is automatically denied by law.

    • Because the rehearing request was automatically denied by law the applicant then filed a case with the Ohio Supreme Court  case 2023-0513.  

    •  Some months later the OPSB issued its order denying the request for rehearing.

    • Right around the same time as the OPSB order denying rehearing the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed case 2023-0513 for lack of jurisdiction. 

    • Another appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was made by the applicant.  The case number for this appeal is 2023-1286.  

    • This case is still before the court.  The Oral Arguments for the case were held on 3/13/2025.  You may view a recording of the Oral Arguments here.

    • The case now awaits a decision by the court.

• Birch Solar - OPSB case documents can be found here.

  • Certificate denied on the criteria that the project does not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity

  • Why?  There was significant opposition to the project at all levels.  At the local, township, county, and state (Senate President Matt Huffman, and Representative Susan Manchester wrote letters of opposition) levels.

  • What happened after the OPSB denial?  

    • Rehearing requests were filed by the applicant and others to the OPSB

    • The OPSB denied the request for rehearing

    • The applicant then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.  The applicant (developer) later withdrew their appeal before the Ohio Supreme Court, thus effectively halting the project.  You can find the supreme court case documents here.

• Cepheus Solar - OPSB case documents can be found here.

  • Certificate denied on the criteria that the project does not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity

  • Why?  There was significant opposition to the project presented at public meeting, filing of public comments, and recommendations of denial by townships. villages, and county.

  • What happened after the OPSB denial?

    • A rehearing request was filed by the applicant

    • The OPSB had granted more time for consideration of the appeal by the developer.  BUT a ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court on August 27, 2024 (see the document here) found that the board/commission does not have the authority to grant an extension, therefore by law (meaning the board did not make a decision for rehearing within 30 days ) the request for rehearing is denied.  Thus, the application is denied by the OPSB too.   This was on 9/19/2024.

    • At this time (2/2025) it appears the time to file an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court has passed (60 days after the OPSB's rehearing decision - see the "Filing Deadlines" section of this document), thus effectively halting the project. 

• • Circleville Solar - OPSB case document can be found here.

    • Certificate denied on the criteria that the project does not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity

    • Why?  The local government entities, Pickaway County Commissioners, Jackson Township,  and the Circleville City Council with physical contacts to the Project acted to oppose its certification.  Additionally, "that the public comments in opposition reinforce issues raised in both the local public hearing and the local government communications that oppose the Project"

    • On 1/16/2025 the request for rehearing made by the applicant was denied.

    • The Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council, a party to the case, has filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court (OSC)  (3/13/2025).

    • The docket for the Ohio Supreme Court Case can be found here.  

    • At this time (3/25/2025) the Ohio Supreme Court case has only just begun.  Various briefs, stipulations, motions, etc. have yet to be filed.  This process could go on for a year or more.

• • Richwood Solar - OPSB case documents can be found here .

    • Certificate denied on the criteria that the project does not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity

    • Why? "Staff observes that key to this determination is the overwhelming local governmental opposition to the Project.."

    • The opinion denying the application was issued on 1/16/2025

    • The applicant had 30 days to file a request for rehearing with the OPSB.  At this time (3/25/2025) the period for a rehearing request has passed.

    • The applicant had 60 days after the decision to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.  At this time (3/25/2025) the period for appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court has passed.

    • So, one may conclude that the project will not proceed.

• • Stark Solar - OPSB case documents can be found here. 

    • Certificate denied on the criteria that the project does not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity

    • Why?  A key reason is  "..consistent opposition to the Project by each and every local government entity within the Project area.."

    • The opinion denying the application was issued on April 17, 2025

    • The  30 day period to file a request for rehearing has now passed (5/27/2025)

    • The applicant still has 60 days after the decision to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court - 60 days from April 17 (when the decision was issued) will be June 16, 2025

First, you can find the actual text of Ohio Senate Bill 52 (SB52) here.

The OPSB has a web page giving a summary of SB52 here.

SB52 amends and enacts new sections of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) related to the power siting process, specifically in regards to economically significant wind farms (defined here), large wind farms, and large solar facilities (both defined in sections (G) and (H) here).

The Ohio State University  Extension's Farm Office has a Law Bulletin on SB52  here that provides a more easy read of the points in SB52.  This Law Bulletin also contains a link to a separate Law Bulletin on the topic of decommissioning here.

So, what are the key takeaways  from SB52 in regards to large solar facilities?

• SB52 enacted ORC 303.61 - this section requires a public meeting to be held between 300-90 days prior to applying for a certificate from the OPSB in each county  where the project will be located.  The holding of this meeting starts the clock for the 2nd bullet item below this one.  Also, according to OAC 4906-3-03(4), the applicant  must solicit comments and include a summary of how many and what types of comments were received at the public meeting in their application to the OPSB.

• SB52 enacted ORC 303.53 - this section allows the county commissioners to adopt a resolution prohibiting construction of a large scale solar facility in the unincorporated areas of the county.  One or more areas may be identified.  At least 30 days prior to the meeting to adopt the resolution various notices must be published.   The resolution becomes effective 30 days after adoption.  Within those 30 days a petition with the required number of signatures may be presented to the board of county commissioners to have the voters of the county accept or reject the resolution.   Once adopted the OPSB shall not accept an application for certificate that includes a restricted area.

• SB52 ORC 303.62 - within 90 days after the public meeting prior to application submissiont to the OPSB the board of county commissioners may adopt a resolution prohibiting the construction of the facility, or limit the geographic area within the boundaries of the proposed facility.  The resolution does not prohibit the applicant from filing another proposal for the board of county commissioners consideration.

What if the facility spans multiple counties and not all of the counties have adopted a resolution prohibiting construction in the project area?

In this case, the OPSB will modify the certificate to exclude the areas prohibiting construction.

What if the county commissioners adopt a resolution that limits the boundaries of the project to a geographic area in the county completely within the proposed project area?

In this case, the OPSB shall not issue a certificate that includes an area that is outside the area approved by the county commissioners in that county.

• SB52 enacted ORC 4906.021  - subsection (2)  states " Whenever an application is made to the power siting board for a certificate or a material amendment to an existing certificate for a utility facility, the board shall include two voting ad hoc members to represent the interests of the residents of the area in which the utility facility is to be located. "   The ad hoc members are the chairperson of the township trustees and president of the board of county commissioners or their designates for the county in which the project is located.  If more than one county or township is involved a single representative is to be elected for the county commissioners and/or trustees.  The ad hoc members must be identified within 30 days of being notified that the OPSB has found the application to be in compliance and accepted.

• SB52 enacted ORC 4906.211 - this section specifies requirements regarding the decommissioning plan and estimated costs.  See the decommissioning FAQ for more detailed information.

First, here is an "Executive Summary" of the two avenues of action the board of county commissioners can take in regards to restricting large wind and/or solar that is afforded through Senate Bill 52:

1.  The county commissioners can adopt a resolution designating unincorporated areas of the county as restricted areas for large wind and/or solar facilities, thus prohibiting installation of such projects in those areas.   There must be notices issued at least 30 days prior to the meeting to designate restricted areas and there is a process that can be followed to put the issue before voters via a petition within 30 days after adoption of a resolution .

2.  Within 90 days after the public meeting required of an applicant prior to application for a OPSB certificate the board of county commissioners may adopt a resolution prohibiting the construction of the facility, or limit the geographic area within the boundaries of the proposed facility.  The resolution does not prohibit the applicant from filing another proposal for the board of county commissioners consideration.

There are some rules regarding projects in a specific state prior to enactment of Senate Bill 52, this is commonly referred to as "grandfathering-in".  See details in the "Can a project be execmpt from SB52 requirements" FAQ item.

Details on the above items

Item 1 - Restricted Area - details:

Senate Bill 52 allows the  County Commissioners to adopt a resolution designating unincorporated areas of the county as restricted areas for large wind and solar facilities, thus prohibiting those areas from use for large/utility scale wind and solar installations.  Within 30 days of resolution adoption a petition may be filed to the board of commissioners signed by at least 8 percent of the voters in the county (as counted at the last election for governor - 8% would be 4,729 signatures based on the information here ) to put the resolution up for a vote in a special election.  If no petition (or no valid petition) is submitted then the resolution takes effect 30 days after adoption. 

Below are a few additional specifics, you can find in the text of SB 52 regarding restricted areas here.  ORC Sec. 303.58(A)(B)(C)(D) apply in this area.

Senate Bill 52 (SB52)  revised Sec. 303.58(A)  and states the following:

The board of county commissioners may adopt a resolution designating all or part of the unincorporated area of a county as a restricted area, prohibiting the construction of any or all of the following:

(1) An economically significant wind farm;

(2) A large wind farm;

(3) A large solar facility.

The resolution may designate one or more restricted areas in the unincorporated area of the county.

So, what is the resolution process the board of county commissioners must follow?

• The board may adopt the resolution at a regular meeting or a special meeting for the purpose of the resolution

• At least 30 days prior to the meeting:

  • A public notice of the date and time of the meeting by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county

  • Post a map at all public libraries in the county showing the boundaries of the proposed restricted area

  • Provide written notice of the meeting to all school districts, municipal corporations, and boards of township trustees located in whole, or in part, within the boundaries of the proposed restricted area

If the  board of County Commissioners modifies a previously adopted resolution then they need to do all of the above for the modification too.

The resolution shall include a map of the restricted area and text identifying its boundaries.

The resolution and any accompanying texts and maps shall be filed with the county recorder.

As noted earlier a petition can be filed within 30 days of resolution adoption to put the resolution up for a vote.

Item 2 - Prohibit Construction - details:

A developer of a utility scale power generation facility is required to conduct a public meeting regarding the project not more than 300 days or less than 90 days prior to submitting an application with the OPSB.   Within 90 days after the public meeting the board of county commissioners may adopt a resolution prohibiting the construction of the facility. 

Senate Bill 52 added Ohio Revised Code sections 303.58(E), 303.61, and 303.62 on this topic. 

Section 303.58(E) states the following:

(E) A resolution adopted under this section shall not affect the construction of a utility facility

that was presented to the board of county commissioners under section 303.61 of the Revised Code,

and the board did not adopt a resolution prohibiting the facility within the time required under section

303.62 of the Revised Code.

Let's unpack that:

• Section 303.61 of the ORC requires an applicant for a certificate from the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) to have a public meeting not more than 300 days or less than 90 days prior to submitting the application for certificate to the OPSB.  It also requires the applicant to submit written notice to all  the county commissioners and township trustees where the facility is to be located, this must be done at least 14 days prior to the public meeting.

• Section 303.62 of the ORC allows the county commissioners to adopt a resolution prohibiting the projects construction or limit the boundaries to a smaller area of the proposed project .  This must be done within 90 days after the public meeting.  A resolution does not prohibit the submission of another proposal later.

Exemption from requirements is often referred to as being "grandfathered-in."

It is possible that a project that meets certain criteria  may be exempt from the provisions of SB 52.  

There are 2 sections of SB52 pertaining to exemptions, Sections 4 and 5. 

First, we will look at Section 4 of SB 52 that describes the conditions a large solar facility must meet to be exempt from the provisions in SB52.  Below is the text of Section 4:

SECTION 4. (A) The provisions of this act shall not apply to any application for a certificate, or

material amendment to an existing certificate, from the power siting board for a large solar facility 

that is in the PJM interconnection and regional transmission organization, L.L.C., new services queue

at the time the application is found to be in compliance with division (A) of section 4906.06 of the

Revised Code by the chairperson of the power siting board or the chairperson's designee and is

accepted by the board if, as of the effective date of this section:

(1) The applicant has received a completed system impact study from PJM for the large solar

facility; and

(2) The applicant has paid the fee for the facilities study to PJM.

(B) For any large solar facility that meets the requirements of division (A) of this section and

has multiple positions in the PJM new services queue under the same legal entity as the applicant, all

of the queue positions in effect as of the effective date of this section shall be exempt from the

provisions of this act, subject to division (C) of this section.

(C) If, after the effective date of this section, an applicant for a large solar facility files an

additional new service request with PJM, pertaining to the same facility that is in the new services

queue, the application shall be subject to review by the board of county commissioners of the county

in which the utility facility is to be located.

(D) If, after the effective date of this section, in order to participate in PJM's capacity market,

a large solar facility submits a new queue position for an increase in its capacity interconnection

rights, the change in capacity interconnection rights shall not subject the facility to the provisions of

this act, provided that the change in rights occurs without increasing the facility's nameplate capacity.

This means that a large solar facility can only be exempt (i.e. "grandfathered")  from SB 52 provisions if:

• The project is in the PJM new services queue at the time  an application for certificate has been found to be in compliance and accepted by the OPSB.

  • And prior to SB52's enactment date (October 11, 2021) each of the following is true:  

    • PJM has issued a completed impact study for the facility

    • The applicant has paid the fee for the facilities study to PJM

  • If a project meets the items above and has multiple entries in the  PJM new services queue as the same entity prior to October 11, 2021 then those queue entries are exempt

  • If after October 11, 2021 an applicant files an additional new service request with PJM for the same facility already in the new services queue the application is subject to review by the board of county commissioners where the facility is located

  • If after October 11, 2021 a new PJM queue position is filed to increase its interconnection capacity without increasing the facilities nameplate capacity then it shall be exempt

For the Carnation Solar (i.e. Amanda Township project) there have been opinions both ways, that it isn't grandfathered-in and that it is -- investigation is ongoing.    Also, please note, the ultimate decision as to whether or not a project is "grandfathered"  (or given waivers regarding certain requirements) is made by the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB). 

Now looking at the Section 5 of SB52 which states:

SECTION 5. For all power siting board proceedings under which an application for a certificate, or a material amendment to an existing certificate, for an economically significant wind farm, large wind farm, or a large solar facility that has not been found to be in compliance with division (A) of section 4906.06 of the Revised Code by the chairperson of the power siting board or the chairperson's designee and accepted by the board as of the effective date of this section, the board shall include the voting ad hoc members required by section 4906.02 of the Revised Code.

This appears to say that projects whose application if accepted by the OPSB  after the effective date of SB52 (Oct. 11, 2021) shall include the provided ad hoc voting members on the OPSB.  This appears to be separate from the exemption shown above in Section 4.  The term "partially grandfathered-in" has been bandied about in regards to SB2, it appears it means a project exempt by Section 4 but allows for ad hoc voting members. 

This requirement is called a "Renewable Portfolio Standard" (RPS).  Specific information can be found here at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).  

This is a quote from the PUCO site:

Ohio law contains a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) that requires that 8.5 percent of electricity sold by Ohio’s electric distribution utilities or electric services companies must be generated from renewable energy sources by 2026. 

Note, that renewable energy is more than solar or wind, it includes things like hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, etc.  You can find a list of renewable energy resources in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 4928.01(A)(37a).

Essentially, a company's annual electric retail sales in the state must consist of a percentage from renewable energy resources as shown in the table below.  For example for year ending 2021 the percentage is 6%.  So, a company must show that 6% of their electric retail sales came from renewable energy or pay an alternative compliance payment for any deficiency in meeting the benchmark.

How do company's show their percentage of energy coming from renewable resources?  They do this primarily through Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs).   The electric suppliers purchase the RECs through a compliance market and the RECs are proof that the energy was generated through an eligible source, 

Also note, that in the table below as of the end of 2020 there is NO requirement for energy from solar.  Solar can be used to count towards the total goal but it is no longer required.  Also,  Senate Bill 310 modified the RPS such that the renewable energy need not be generated within the state, it can also include "...resources that can be shown to be deliverable into this state."

Important Note: the passage of Ohio's controversial House Bill 6 (HB6) in July 2019 modified Ohio's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) benchmarks as shown below AND effectively repeals the RPS after 2026.

There are annual benchmarks set for the intervening years up to 2026.  Here is a copy of the table contained in ORC 4928.64(2)  showing the percentage of electricity sold by Ohio's electric utilities that must be generated from renewable sources:

By end of Year Renewable Energy Resources Solar Energy Resources

2009 0.25% 0.004%

2010 0.50% 0.010%

2011 1% 0.030%

2012 1.5% 0.060%

2013 2% 0.090%

2014 2.5% 0.12%

2015 2.5% 0.12%

2016 2.5% 0.12%

2017 3.5% 0.15%

2018 4.5% 0.18%

2019 5.5% 0.22%

2020 5.5% 0%

2021 6.0% 0%

2022 6.5% 0%

2023 7.0% 0%

2024 7.5% 0%

2025 8.0% 0%

2026 8.5% 0%

The annual RPS reports can be found here, the latest report is for year end 2021.  The benchmark for 2021 is 6.0%.

The specific cost information and design details are considered proprietary and kept from public view since the solar developers feel there is a competitive advantage in their approach and they don't want to give their competitors an advantage by using their work in designing a cost effective solution.   The information is redacted from the documents for public viewing.   Frankly, that seems fair - to a point.  The issue is the public is kept in the "dark"  as to specifics and does not allow independent public investigation for concerning items, such as toxicity, equipment noise levels, etc.

But there is some information that can help ballpark costs.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) issues a report called "Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility-Scale Electric Power Generating Technologies ."  This report covers nominal costs for various power generation technologies ranging from Coal to Small Modular Reactor Nuclear Power.  The report dated January 2024 (https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2025.pdf) shows a Solar PV facility with single-axis tracking generating 150 MW(ac) has a capital cost of $1,502/KW(ac) and a fixed yearly cost of $20.23/KW(ac).  The report details specifics about each technology estimated, but for Solar this seems to a reasonable number from looking at various resources on the web.  So, you can come up with a ballpark cost by using information from your specific project and simple multiplication.

Below is an "executive summary" of the info regarding decommissioning.  Following this section are additional details and links to the formal legal text:

• At least 60 days prior to construction of the solar facility a comprehensive decommissioning plan must be submitted to the OPSB for approval

• The plan must contain an estimate of the full cost of decommissioning, including restoration of the land to its pre-construction state.

• The estimate cannot be reduced by including the salvage value from the components of the facility.  Prior to SB52 this was allowed

• Every 5 years the total decommissioning cost must be re-calculated by the applicant.

• A Performance Bond to cover the estimated costs of decommissioning must be posted prior to beginning construction.  A Performance Bond is meant to ensure the work will be performed.

• The Performance Bond must also be updated every 5 years to reflect the latest decommissioning estimate.  If the estimated costs increase the Performance Bond must increase, if the estimated costs decrease the Performance Bond shall NOT be reduced.  Therefore, the value of the Performance Bond can never decrease.

• Facility components below ground  3 feet or more are not required to be removed.

• The facility is decommissioned when it has reached its "end of useful life."   This  is when either "no electricity is generated for a continuous period of twelve months, or if the board deems the facility to be in a state of disrepair warranting decommissioning." 

• Decommissioning is to be completed within 12 months of the facility ceasing operations

--- Below are additional details for the above bullet points ---

• While a formal/independent definition of "decommissioning" couldn't be found in the Ohio Revised and Administrative Code Ohio Senate Bill 52 (SB52) enacted a new section 4906.211 in the Ohio Revised Code  to address decommissioning.  In this section decommissioning appears as:

 "...disposal of all facility components and restoration of the land on which the facility is located to its pre-construction state."

• Ohio Revised Code 4906.21(2)(B) states that the decommissioning plan must be submitted as follows:

"At least sixty days prior to the commencement of construction of a utility facility, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive decommissioning plan for review and approval by the power siting board. "

• Ohio Administrative Code 4906-4-09(F)(4) states the following specifics regarding what must be removed during decommissioning, note the depth highlighted in yellow below (anything below 3 feet may be left behind):

"Decommissioning shall include the removal and transportation of the facility components off site. Decommissioning shall also include the removal of buildings, cabling, electrical components, access roads, and any other associated facilities, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the facility owner and/or facility operator and the landowner. All physical material pertaining to the facility and associated equipment shall be removed to a depth of at least thirty-six inches beneath the soil surface, or more for the maintenance and repair of field tile systems, and transported off site. The disturbed area shall be restored to the same physical condition that existed before construction of the facility. Damaged field tile systems shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the property owner."

So, does this mean you could come through and put a foot of topsoil over things around 2 feet below the surface and now they will be 3 feet below the surface and you don't need to mess with them??  

• Section 4906.211(B)(2)  states the decommissioning is to be done within 12 months:

"A schedule of decommissioning activities, not to extend beyond twelve months from the date the utility facility ceases operation" 

• A very important question is what or whom determines when a facility is to be decommissioned and the land return to its pre-construction state?

The following from Ohio Administrative Code Section 4906-4-09(F)(3) specifies what is considered a facilities "end of its useful life" - you can see this is rather vague and open ended and easily "gamed":

"If no electricity is generated for a continuous period of twelve months, or if the board deems the facility to be in a state of disrepair warranting decommissioning, the facility will be presumed to have reached the end of its useful life. The board may extend the useful life period for the facility for good cause as shown by the applicant. The board may also require decommissioning of individual components due to health, safety, wildlife impact, or other concerns that prevent the facility or its components from operating within the terms of the certificate."

• In addition to the term "end of is useful life" you will see the term when a "utility ceases operation"?   

• The "end of its useful life" appears to be defined in the bullet item above, but what about the term "utility ceases operation"?

  • Here too a formal definition isn't provided within the text but searching has found ORC 3751.01 "Cessation of regulated operations definitions".   Section (C) provides this definition ""Cessation of regulated operations" means the discontinuation or termination of regulated operations or the finalizing of any transaction or proceeding through which those operations are discontinued "

How long can the decommissioning take?

• According to 4906.211(2) a maximum of 12 months - "A schedule of decommissioning activities, not to extend beyond twelve months from the date the utility facility ceases operation" 

Other important points:

The Performance Bond is a maximum value, if the cost of decommissioning is actually more who pays?

Note, to date there are no examples of a utility scale solar facility decommissioning.  And when it comes to what is considered a facility "ceasing operation" and the various legal nuances of the Performance Bond one may wonder how this would all pan out in reality.

Section 4906-4-09(G(4) of the Ohio Administrative Code states the following regarding setbacks:

 "The facility design is to incorporate a minimum setback from the projects solar modules of (a) at least fifty feet from non-participating parcel boundaries, (b) at least three hundred feet from non-participating residences existing as of the application filing date, and (c) at least one hundred fifty feet from the edge of pavement of any state, county, or township road within or adjacent to the project area."

Notice that "residences" are different than "parcel boundaries".  So, if you had a parcel where your residence (i.e. home) is 300 feet or more from the parcel boundary then solar panels can be just 50 feet from your property boundary.  Also note the term "panel modules".  There is no formal definition of "panel modules" in the Ohio Code that can be found, but it doesn't appear to include "fencing" or associated structures.  Therefore, it appears the 7 foot high fencing required may abut a parcel boundary, a residence, etc. with no required setbacks.

During the OPSB recent rules review/updates it was requested that the definition of "panel modules" be formally defined and include any structure, including fencing, used in the solar project.  It appears that request has not been addressed.

The solar industry likes to state there is no or negligible impact on near-by properties, and will cite “studies” indicating such.  But, these studies are certainly not independent nor objective. For instance, you may have heard of the Yellowbud solar project southwest of Circleville near the community of Yellowbud on state route 104 in Pickaway and Ross counties. If you comb through the Ohio Power Siting Board case documentation you will find an exhibit where the solar developer references 2 sources supporting their claim.

Looking into those sources you will find that the Solar Energy Industry Association wrote one and the other was sponsored by a specific solar developer.  So, hardly unbiased.   Also, one includes references to the other – so essentially repeating the results.  The one that presents data is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison to the Yellowbud project (or any large scale solar project before the OPSB).  The Yellowbud project is 2040 acres, the solar installations addressed in the study averaged 78 acres, ranging from 160 to 13 acres, so the scale isn’t even within an order of magnitude for comparison, let alone the given location of the studied projects.

Make no mistake these are industrial power generation facilities!

Farms and open space are considered amenities and boost home values, conversion to an industrialized space causes a loss of amenities and an increase in disadvantages.  Imagine your home surrounded on all sides by one of these projects,  a 7 foot fence topped with a foot of barbed wire, and listening to an estimated 60,000* pilings being driven from sun up to sun down for months on end, they destroy the rural character of the community, and the list goes on.  This is certainly the case in the proposed Carnation Solar project area.

In fact, when a resident whose home will be surrounded by a project explained to the developer the devastating impacts it has already had and will have, said "I would feel the same way."  These projects can be life changing for nearby residents.

*The estimated number of piling was derived by extrapolating from the data on the number of pilings presented in the Yellowbud decommissioning, the number of PV panels in the Yellowbud project, the comparative MW values between Yellowbud and Carnation, and the number of panels given in the Carnation Solar application.  The Carnation developer said in their application "the dimensions of steel piles and the exact number required for Facility construction will be determined during final engineering design."

Typical utility scale solar installations today mount the solar panels on single axis tracking systems rather than mounting them in a stationary position.  This means the panels move during the course of the day to track the sun in an attempt to increase the sunlight falling on the panels, thus increasing the solar panel power output,  There are local sensors used to monitor the amount of sunlight and then adjust the panels accordingly.  

As you might imagine,  solar panels can catch a lot of  wind and act like "sails", particularly when tilted.  For example,  a nearby installation has panels that reach a peak height of 17 feet when at their maximum tilt angle.  In large scale solar facilities there are weather stations located throughout the project area, and one of the important measurements is the wind speed.   When the wind speed reaches  specific threshold(s) the panels will be moved to their "stow" position in an attempt to mitigate damage.

This can be a hot topic and often comes up.  

The Fairfield Board of County Commissioners commissioned a study regarding the toxicity of solar panels.  The report is published as an attachment to the meeting notes dated 03/29/2024.    The complete document containing the report can be found here.  The document is 482 pages, you will find the report beginning on page 34, with an Executive Summary on page 35.  The report is 51 pages in total.   The consultants summarize that it is highly unlikely that today's most commonly used solar panels would release metals harmful to the environment or contaminate groundwater in a solar "farm" setting.

Note, the summary is in regards to a solar "farm" setting, meaning while in use.  In the report it is stated that the majority of scientific studies regard the disposal of panels after their useful life, and they could only find one study that was a "field study" (meaning in a operating environment).  So, one may be skeptical regarding the conclusions but to be fair the consultant's analysis appears to be quite comprehensive and their conclusion appears to be reasoned on more than just a single study.

In regards to the scarce "field study" data, I suggest large scale solar projects be mandated to provide independent long term analysis of soil toxicity on a periodic basis (such as biannually)  and the data must be publicly reported through the OPSB or other public agency (ex. EPA).  I would also suggest the analysis includes water analysis of adjacent property owners using well water.   If at any point analysis shows acceptable thresholds exceeded or an increasing trend then mitigation measures must be enacted immediately.