Renewable AI

Carbon Neutral Regulation in AI Training

Clean energy siting across the nation is facing enormous challenges. Local opposition is widespread and rapidly increasing in many areas. One example is Ohio, where government opposition is a byproduct of state legislation and also the result of coordinated campaigns spreading mis- and dis-information about the impacts of renewable energy projects.

By the end of 2025, all 88 counties in Ohio had adopted ordinances restricting wind projects and 31 counties had restrictions or bans on solar projects. This was the local governments’ response to a state law enacted in 2021 (Senate Bill 52) which allows county commissioners to ban utility-scale wind and solar projects. Adding to the obstacles faced by project developers, recent news articles reported on false comments filed with the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) – the state energy siting authority – in the Crossroads Solar I Project, a 94-megawatt (MW) facility proposed in Morrow County. Dozens of anonymous public comments with unverifiable addresses expressed opposition to the Project, presenting a threat to the integrity of the public engagement process.

While local opposition, mis- and dis-information, and fabricated public comments are real challenges, there is yet another major issue impacting the siting of renewables in the Buckeye State. That is, the OPSB’s current practice of giving undue deference to local governments’ opposition to clean energy projects when assessing whether a proposed project serves the “public interest.” That is the focus of this blog. We explain the OPSB’s approach and the flaws inherent in it and discuss a case currently pending before the Ohio Supreme Court – In re Application of Kingwood Solar I, LLC, 2023-Ohio-1286 – which could result in major changes to how clean energy projects are assessed in Ohio.

The Ohio Siting Framework

The OPSB is the state agency vested with the authority to decide whether to grant a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (Certificate) for renewable energy projects in Ohio. Developers must obtain such a Certificate before constructing any wind projects that are 5 MW or larger in size and solar facilities that are 50 MW or larger. State law requires the OPSB to apply eight criteria, listed in Section 4906.10(A) of the Public Utilities Code, when making its decision. One of those criteria, subsection (A)(6), is “[T]hat the facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

And what serves the public interest one might ask? Well, the statute provides no definition, and the OPSB has failed to articulate a clear standard. In fact, as explained below, the OPSB has applied the public interest criterion in vastly different ways in recent decisions.

The Role of Local Governments in Siting Renewable Energy in Ohio

Although the OPSB is the state siting authority, Senate Bill 52 gave local governments authority to: (i) establish restricted areas where wind and solar projects are prohibited or (ii) veto individual projects, even those utility-scale projects under the OPSB’s jurisdiction (Section 303.62). Notably, however,  a local government cannot veto a project if:

  • A wind project had an application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need filed with the OPSB that had been deemed complete within 30 days of October 11, 2021 (the effective date of Senate Bill 52); or
  • A solar project: (i) was in the PJM interconnection new service queue, had received their system impact study from PJM, and paid the PJM application fee by October 11, 2021; or (ii) had adjusted its position in the PJM queue, but not increased its nameplate capacity by October 11, 2021.

These projects are said to be “grandfathered” under Senate Bill 52 and are not subject to local veto. But, a number of grandfathered projects have recently been denied Certificates of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need by the OPSB on the basis that local governments in the area where they will be developed oppose the projects. The OPSB is thus, effectively, doing what Senate Bill 52 did not – giving local governments veto power over these projects.

Since 2021, the OPSB has denied Certificates for seven grandfathered projects on the sole basis of local government opposition. These are:

In each of these decisions, the OPSB indicated that it was using a “broad lens” to examine whether the project will serve the “public interest,” but ultimately denied the Certificates based solely on local opposition.

Consider Crossroads Solar, for example. That project involves the development of a solar energy facility spanning three townships within Ohio’s Morrow County – Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield. Each of the three townships ultimately passed resolutions formally opposing the project. However, Cardington had remained neutral during the application process. It was not until after the OPSB Staff – its advisory body – recommended approval of the Certificate that Cardington officials belatedly changed their position and passed a resolution rejecting the project. Morrow County – in which all three townships are located – did not pass a resolution rejecting the project, but two of three county commissioners filed a public comment with the OPSB expressing their opposition. Adding to the wavering, the OPSB Staff also reversed its own position after Cardington rejected the project, and retroactively recommended denial via a witness at the evidentiary hearing.

In the end, the OPSB denied Crossroads a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need based on what it described as “strong, united opposition” to the project (Order, pp. 8, 9, 32, 39). But, in the OPSB proceedings, many local community members expressed support for the project. Moreover, as the OPSB acknowledged, the project would have statewide benefits and positive local impacts such as local energy generation, tax revenue, income and increased employment during construction. Nevertheless, the OPSB concluded that the project “fail[ed] to serve the public interest” (Order, pp. 33, 43) and deemed it “unnecessary” to examine each of the remaining statutory criteria in Section 4906.10(A)(1) through (A)(8). This narrow and selective analysis is also evident in the OPSB’s denials of Certificates for other projects, including Birch Solar, Circleville Solar, Richwood Solar, and Stark Solar.

Interestingly, though, the OPSB has taken a different approach to some grandfathered projects. For example, as previously reported on this blog, in 2024, the OPSB approved the Oak Run Solar project despite it facing local government opposition. Notably, in Oak Run, all three townships and the county involved had adopted resolutions rejecting that project. Yet, the OPSB concluded that Oak Run will indeed serve the public interest given the significant and long-lasting local and statewide economic benefits it will provide and its novel agrivoltaics component. While the OPSB did consider the resolutions in opposition to the project, it did not take them at face value, and instead looked at how individual commissioners had voted, finding that opposition was not unanimous. The OPSB also examined the arguments against the project and found them to be uninformed and without merit.

This more balanced review is, undoubtedly, what is required for the OPSB to comply with its statutory obligations. The OPSB cannot decide whether a project serves the public interest, as statutorily required, simply by looking at local resolutions opposing that project. Indeed, as the Ohio Supreme Court declared in 2025, “while local-government and public input regarding the project are informative, they are not determinative of whether the proposed facility will serve the ‘public interest, convenience, and necessity’ under R.C. 4906.10(A)(6).” (In re Application of S. Branch Solar, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-5679 (Order, p. 19)). The Ohio Supreme Court now has another opportunity to make this clear to the OPSB.

“while local-government and public input regarding the project are informative, they are not determinative of whether the proposed facility will serve the ‘public interest, convenience, and necessity’ under R.C. 4906.10(A)(6).”

The Kingwood Solar Appeal

The developer of Kingwood Solar, one of the grandfathered projects for which the OPSB denied a Certificate in 2022, appealed that denial to the Ohio Supreme Court on this very issue. Oral argument on the appeal was heard over a year ago, on March 13, 2025, but the decision remains pending.

The specific legal questions before the court are:

  • Did the Ohio Power Siting Board redefine the definition of “public interest, convenience, and necessity” in R.C. 4906.10(A)(6) to deny the construction of a large-scale solar energy facility in Greene County?
  • Did the Power Siting Board rely too much on the positions of local officials in interpreting the meaning of “public interest” under R.C. 4906.10(A)(6)?

Kingwood Solar is a 175-MW facility proposed to be developed on approximately 1,500 acres spanning three townships – Cedarville, Miami, and Xenia – in Greene County. When deciding whether to grant a Certificate for the project, the OPSB determined that the facility met all of the statutory requirements, except the “public interest” criteria. The OPSB stated in its denial that unanimous local government opposition is “controlling.” But that is not the statutory standard.

In the Kingwood appeal, the developer argued that the Board has narrowed its interpretation of the “public interest” criterion and ignored the local and statewide benefits of the project. The developer also asserted that “public opinion” is not the same as “public interest” and that the Board changed its criteria by stating for the first time that local governments’ opposition is “controlling.” (Appellant’s Br., pp. 1-2, 9, 15).

The OPSB responded by arguing, among other things, that it did not find the resolutions adopted by the local governments to be the controlling factor but one of many it considered, though it did focus on the “vigor” of the resolutions, including allegations that the project was incompatible with local land use and would unalterably change the rural nature of the community. (Appellee’s Br., pp. 3, 21, 31, 35).

Contrary to these arguments on appeal, the OPSB in its denial of the project concluded that “(1) the [F]acility’s probable environmental impacts have been properly evaluated and determined, and (2) the [F]acility, subject to the conditions described in the Stipulation, represents the minimum adverse environmental impact.” (Order, p. 50).

The Kingwood Solar appeal presents an important opportunity for the Ohio Supreme Court to reiterate how the OPSB should evaluate whether a proposed utility-scale renewable energy facility serves the “public interest.” The Court should make clear that, in applying the public interest criterion, the OPSB should not simply defer to local governments that oppose a project but conduct a more holistic review that accounts for the project’s economic and environmental benefits. Failure to do so would only aggravate the uncertainty in Ohio’s clean energy siting process.

Conclusion

The OPSB’s current practice of treating local government opposition as dispositive is not only contrary to state law and an impermissible retroactive application of the county veto on grandfathered projects but also contravenes a binding Ohio Supreme Court holding. This trend threatens to erode the state siting authority framework and undermine the public interest that the agency is charged with advancing.

The outcome of the Kingwood Solar appeal could significantly shape the future of renewable energy development in Ohio and extend far beyond the fate of a single solar project – particularly where increasing local opposition may be the result of widespread misinformation or compounded by false public comments.