Ohio Supreme Court rejects local opposition to block 325 MW solar project

Ohio’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 350 MW Harvey Solar project after 11 residents and a citizens group appealed the Ohio Power Siting Board’s (OPSB) 2022 decision to approve the project.

Though Ohio is facing a strained grid from its surging electric demand, the case was less about adding a 350 MW project to the state’s 4,716 MW of solar capacity and more about the OPSB’s decision making of large-scale solar projects.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine said the only way the Court could have reversed the OPSB’s approval for the project would have been if the residents established the OPSB’s order was “unlawful or unreasonable.” Because the residents opposing the project were unable to do so, the Court affirmed the board’s order and granted Harvey Solar a certificate for the facility’s construction, operation and maintenance.

Ohio state law has eight criteria for approving electric generation, including environmental impact studies, water conservation, agricultural impact studies, and whether the project serves electric system “economy and reliability” as well as the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Of these eight requirements, four were at issue in the appeal:

The nature of the probable environmental impact;
That the facility represents the minimum adverse environmental impact;
That the facility will comply with state water pollution requirements; and
That the facility will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.

During his argument, Thomas Lindgren the attorney representing OPSB, said there is no rule in Ohio that requires solar projects to “come up with all possible negatives from a project. That’s really just speculation.”

The residents made seven propositions against the project:

Visual
Flooding
Wildlife
Noise
Water quality
Public Interest, Convenience, and Necessity
Glare

The Court rejected the residents’ noise proposition because Ohio does not require solar projects to submit noise modeling under day or nighttime conditions. Instead, the law requires a description of its noise levels prior to construction and stipulates projects cannot exceed 40 decibels once operational.

Even though Harvey was not required to conduct noise modeling, it did so for the daytime levels and provided a sound level assessment report. Because the facility will not generate energy at night, Harvey Solar only conducted noise modeling during daytime. Both Harvey Solar’s project manager and the primary author of the sound report testified during the evidentiary hearing that the inverters will not produce electricity at night but that they might make slight sounds as they provide ancillary services to the grid.

Even so, the residents argued on appeal that the board should have required Harvey Solar to conduct nighttime noise modeling. However, the Court rejected their claim that it was “unreasonable” not to do so, and said it would not reverse a commission order based on speculation.

Glare is among the less common complaints residents make when opposing potential solar projects. Though it is rare, concerns about glare were raised in a previous case, also in Ohio. Glare from solar panels is significantly lower than other common surfaces like steel, glass, and water. Solar panels work by capturing sunlight, not reflecting it.

After applying prior case law, the Court said that for each of the seven propositions, “the residents’ arguments lack merit.”

In October 2021, Ohio passed legislation granting county commissions the power to stop solar and wind projects from being developed. The power does not extend to oil, gas nor coal.

Following the law’s passage, solar projects in Ohio plunged. In 2023, Ohio tightened its rules further, adding additional rules such as 350-foot setbacks and sound regulations extending a mile away. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, Ohio fell from fifth in 2023 to 13^th place in 2024.

About Harvey Solar

In April 2022, Licking County entered into a pilot agreement with Harvey Solar following the OPSB’s staff report, ensuring the county would realize the maximum benefit of the solar project. The Pilot program requires 80% of construction employees to live in Ohio.

Open Road Renewables, the project’s developer, said it expects the project to bring in $3.15 million in annual property taxes and create about 300 construction jobs for the local community. The project will also partner with the local joint vocational school, C-TEC, on workforce development to help students pursue careers in the skilled trades.

Open Road Renewables said Harvey Solar will also pay an additional $700,000 per year to a general fund.

Harvey Solar will connect to Ohio’s grid on the same circuit as a nearby retiring coal-fired facility. The project will sit on about 2,600 acres of private land, but because of some of the residents complaints about the view, the solar panels will cover less than half of the site and be surrounded by about 1,6000 acres of trees, waterways and landscaping.

“This project is going to be low profile. It’s going to be fenced in. It’s going to include substantial buffer zones,” Lindgren said before the Supreme Court.

In a statement, Open Road Renewables said, “While the entire community stands to benefit one way or another from the operation of the Harvey Solar Project, we know that not everyone is excited about this outcome. If you still have questions about the Harvey Solar Project or solar in general, we are always happy to connect. You can reach us at harvey@openroadrenewables.com to set up a time to meet in person or talk by phone.”

Ohio’s Supreme Court, which has a firm 6-1 Republican control, is expected to decide the fate of a few solar projects this year. In January, Lightsource BP withdrew it’s Supreme Court case and nixed it’s plans for a 300 MW project that was highly opposed by local residents.

This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.