Overview

Below is some background on how "we" got here and  a high-level overview of utility scale solar projects in Ohio

Background Summary:

Around May of 2022 some non-participating residents of Amanda Township (Fairfield county Ohio) became aware of a utility scale solar project being planned in their township and adjacent to their homes.  The planning and recruitment of landowners had been going on for quite some time before this, at least 2  years prior, without community knowledge.  This was quite a surprise and shock to the non-participating residents of the community.   The project came to light when a local community member who had been approached several times by the developer to participate took the time to talk to other residents impacted by the project.

Once non-participating residents who became aware of the project sought out additional information and educated themselves on utility scale solar the project's negative impact on the community came into focus.   As awareness spread a local grass-roots group called "Protect Amanda Township" was formed to educate and inform other non-participating residents and concerned citizens.  

The name of the utility scale solar project in Amanda Township is called "Carnation Solar."  The developer is Carnation Solar, LLC,  it is a subsidiary of National Grid Renewables.  There are 6 land owners who have signed leases with Carnation Solar totaling approximately 1,700 acres in Amanda Township.   National Grid Renewables also developed a nearby solar project called "Yellowbud" located in Pickaway and Ross counties (Ohio).  

In September of 2024 a corporation, Protect Amanda Township Inc., was formed.   Protect Amanda Township Inc. and willing members will become an "intervenor" in the formal OPSB permitting process.  The OPSB is a formal legal process and through contributions Protect Amanda Township Inc. has retained an experienced attorney for representation before the OPSB.  Protect Amanda Township Inc. also continues its outreach to lead opposition to the Carnation Solar project.

A map of the leased parcels can be found here.

Carnation Solar began the formal approval process with the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) on September 18, 2024 by filing their pre-application letter.  The developer has estimated construction to begin as early as 2026 and operation as early as 2027 -- NOTE:  this assumes approval by the Ohio Power Siting Board.

There is a large grass-roots opposition to the Carnation Solar project and to the other projects being planned in Fairfield County.  A corporation, Protect Amanda Township, Inc., has been formed to raise awareness, educate the community, inform the community, and participate in the OPSB process regarding the Carnation Solar project in Amanda Township.  

Your support and participation in opposition to the project is critical.

See the FAQ page for more information and how you can support opposition to the project.

Utility Scale Solar Projects in Ohio - high level overview - How does this work?

In Ohio,  solar power generation projects with a nameplate capacity of 50 Megawatts (MW) or greater are known as  a "major utility facility" and fall under the governance of the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB).   

Before a major utility facility can be constructed a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need must be obtained from the OPSB.    The application for a certificate is a formal process that incorporates public comments and legal proceedings allowing cross-examination of the applicant and intervenors.

The OPSB primarily consists of 11 board members, 4 of which are legislative non-voting members, plus 2 ad hoc voting members .

The 7 permanent voting board members are:

• Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO)  - who is also the Chairman of the Ohio Power Siting Board

• Director's of the following state agencies:

  • EPA

  • Agriculture

  • Development

  • Health

  • Natural Resources

• Public member - an engineer appointed by the Governor

Additionally, since passage of Ohio Senate Bill 52 (SB52)  2 additional ad hoc voting  members are included in the board, they are:

• The chairperson of the board of township trustees of the township in which the utility facility is to be located or the chairperson's designee.  If the project spans multiple townships only one person can be designated.

• The president of the board of county commissioners of the county in which the utility facility is to be located or the president's designee.  If the project spans multiple counties only one person cab be designated.

Therefore, there are a total of 9 voting members of the OPSB - the 7 permanent members plus 2 ad hoc members related to the project. 

According to Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 4906.02(A)(1) - A quorum of the board is a majority of its voting members.

As part of the OPSB application process the developer must submit an application for review then an investigation is performed by the OPSB staff.   The staff consists of career professionals drawn from the staff of the PUCO and other member agencies of the Board, they are not board members.

Upon completion of the staff investigation they will provide a report with its finding, recommendation, and conditions to the board.  The board then uses the report, formal judicial hearings, etc. to then render its decision to accept or reject the application.   Among various other conditions there are 8 criteria used in determining application acceptance.  The 8 criteria shown below are as found in ORC 4906.10 (A)(1)-(8):

(1) The basis of the need for the facility if the facility is an electric transmission line or gas pipeline;

(2) The nature of the probable environmental impact;

(3) That the facility represents the minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and other pertinent considerations;

(4) In the case of an electric transmission line or generating facility, that the facility is consistent with regional plans for expansion of the electric power grid of the electric systems serving this state and interconnected utility systems and that the facility will serve the interests of electric system economy and reliability;

(5) That the facility will comply with Chapters 3704., 3734., and 6111. of the Revised Code and all rules and standards adopted under those chapters and under section 4561.32 of the Revised Code. In determining whether the facility will comply with all rules and standards adopted under section 4561.32 of the Revised Code, the board shall consult with the office of aviation of the division of multi-modal planning and programs of the department of transportation under section 4561.341 of the Revised Code.

(6) That the facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity;  <-- the key criteria where local opposition has a large impact

(7) In addition to the provisions contained in divisions (A)(1) to (6) of this section and rules adopted under those divisions, what its impact will be on the viability as agricultural land of any land in an existing agricultural district established under Chapter 929. of the Revised Code that is located within the site and alternative site of the proposed major utility facility. Rules adopted to evaluate impact under division (A)(7) of this section shall not require the compilation, creation, submission, or production of any information, document, or other data pertaining to land not located within the site and alternative site.

(8) That the facility incorporates maximum feasible water conservation practices as determined by the board, considering available technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives.

To be clear, the Staff report is just a recommendation to the OPSB.  The report may recommend denial or acceptance of the application, along with stipulations, etc. but the board still makes the final decision.  The report is just one input (albeit a very important one) the board uses.  The OPSB process typically ranges from 1-2 years before a decision is rendered.

See more on the FAQ page about the OPSB.

So, what about injecting the power generated (be it solar, gas fired, coal fired, ...) into the grid - read on about PJM.

PJM:

Another entity that comes into play here is "PJM."  PJM is the regional transmission operator for the electrical grid in all or portions of 13 states in the eastern US including Ohio.  They are task with various duties including monitor and control of the electrical grid in real time,  provide the regional transmission plan to guide the forecast and planning for the bulk power grid, and  process service requests,  including the interconnection to the grid of  new power generation such as new solar power generation facilities to the grid.  They also provide the  coordination with the transmission owner (i.e. who owns the transmission lines) and other facilities.

As one can imagine, the power generated by a utility scale solar facility must interconnect to the electrical grid for distribution of the power it generates.  For the Carnation Solar project (and other solar projects planned in Ohio)  PJM controls the interconnection and the solar developer makes a request to PJM for study and analysis of the planned power forecast to be injected into the grid and its location.   For the Carnation Solar project AEP owns the actual transmission lines the solar project will connect into. The service requests to PJM enter a "service queue".  PJM then issues reports containing the costs, requirements, etc. for the service requested (ex. interconnecting a solar facility) and it transitions through various interconnection phases.

The Carnation Solar project goes by the name Harrison-Goodhope 138kV (the interconnection point has 138 thousand volt transmission lines) in the PJM service queue.  The names are derived from names given to the transmissions lines already in place.  There are two project IDs in the PJM service queue for the Carnation Solar project:

• AF2-371 - this is the initial service queue project entry - this was for a total capacity of 84 MW with 50.4 MW recognized as capacity for PJM.  

• AG1-351 - later an "uprate" (i.e. an increase)  to the above project was submitted.  The increase is to add 58 MW with 34.8MW recognized as additional capacity.  Thus, resulting in the overall capability of 142 MW with 85.2 MW of this output being recognized by PJM as capacity.

(There is more about dates of the service queue items above on the Amanda Township/Carnation Solar Project page)

The reason for the increase is not stated but one can surmise it was due to an increase in leased land for the project and not a nearly 70% increase in efficiencies of solar panels, inverters, etc..

See the FAQ page for more info.