A massive, local political opposition is on the cusp of killing a nearly 1,700-acre solar farm planned in a rural stretch of Fairfield County, just southeast of Columbus.
The $160 million development, if built, would be capable of powering tens of thousands of families’ homes.
The fate of Carnation Solar farm lies in the hands of the Ohio Power Siting Board, a panel of commissioners that almost always heeds the formal recommendation of its staff, which, in this case, is to reject the project.
Rejection would add Carnation to a trash heap of six planned large-scale solar developments in Ohio – together capable of producing enough power for hundreds of thousands of people – torpedoed by the siting board since 2021.
The Power Siting Board is set to rule on the fate of another Fairfield County project, Cottontail Solar, on Thursday. Staff recommended they grant the permit in that case despite some political opposition.
In every one of those six cases, regulators found no technical faults with the projects in terms of current land use or their environmental impact. However, because of local political and grassroots opposition, the regulators said the projects failed to comply with a law requiring them to meet the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”
Killing solar projects comes as demand from data centers skyrockets
The rejections come as massive new demands for electricity by arena-sized data centers popping up in the region are spiking power bills. Grid officials have warned that the new demands are outstripping the current power supply, causing the price jump.
The companies behind solar developments face restrictive laws in Ohio that don’t apply to gas or coal competitors. This, plus a hostile attitude toward solar farms in rural parts of the state, has significantly chilled solar industry demand here. And with the death or lost opportunities of solar projects comes lost local property tax revenue for schools and lost personal income to farmers who leased their land to the solar companies.
But that’s just fine for Laura Steele, a board member of new nonprofit Protect Amanda Township, who handed out lapel buttons at a public hearing hosted by the Power Siting Board. More than 100 locals, almost all wearing red in opposition, packed Amanda-Clearcreek High School’s gymnasium earlier this month to oppose the project at a public hearing.
“What we’re seeing is still a lot of problems with the drainage, with the runoff, with the sightings, the viewsheds and everything,” she said in an interview. “The one thing we’re trying to say is we have rights as property owners to also be able to say, ‘We don’t want this in our yard. We don’t want this here. We’re not against solar, but there’s a lot better places to have it.’”
Land owners cut deals with solar companies to generate income from farmland
Geronimo Power (rebranded from National Grid Renewables) is planning Carnation’s 347,000 photovoltaic panels over 1,650 acres of land in the county. The company reached deals with landowners of 23 large stretches of property around the area. And in lieu of traditional property taxes, Geronimo struck an agreement with the county to pay a flat $1.28 million per year over an estimated 30-year lifespan.
It promised to keep the project at least 300 feet from non-participating landowners and 150 feet from public roads.
Guy and Michelle Skinner agreed to allow the solar developers to use 67 acres of their farmland, which they expect will earn them about $9,000 per year if the project comes to fruition. They were among a minority of people speaking in favor of the project at the public hearing.
Since signing that deal, they’ve been “public enemy number one” in Amanda, Michelle Skinner said in an interview.
“We have completely felt targeted over this,” she said.
They say it’s a lot of controversy over nothing. Michelle Skinner said she’s lived near solar farms. They look fine. They’re cool on an engineering level, she said. They’re just mirrors turning the power of the sun into viable electricity.
Plus, it’s a new, reliable revenue stream in a farming economy dominated by “corporate,” large-scale operators with access to much cheaper capital than she has. She said the developers have listened for local input, and no one wants to see runoff or erosion damaging neighbors. Opponents just don’t want to hear it.
“I’ve always been a fan of solar energy in general. But now that we live close to one, it’s a great neighbor,” she said. “They’re quiet. They’re safe. They’re minimum maintenance.”
A legal fight
Protect Amanda Township pulled any lever it could find to stop Carnation.
Its members pressed the Fairfield County Commission to pass a resolution opposing the project. And they did the same with the village of Amanda, plus the Berne, Madison, Richland, Rushcreek, and Walnut Township Boards of Trustees, which all filed objections to the project.
From the county, commissioners cited concerns about “infrastructure impacts, strain on emergency services, construction practices, project timelines, general environmental impacts,” and others. They said the project was “incompatible with the general health, safety, and welfare” of the village.
According to Steele, the nonprofit raised more than $75,000 from locals to fund legal opposition. They hired a lawyer named Jack Van Kley, who fights solar projects in regulatory hearings and the Ohio Supreme Court.
That helped the nonprofit and its 74 local members intervene in the case at the Ohio Power Siting Board, which agency staff noted in their recommendation that commissioners reject the project.
“[We believe] that any benefits to the local community are outweighed by the overwhelming documented public opposition and, therefore, the project would not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity,” the agency staff wrote.
At the public hearing, opponents said the solar farms could depress the property values of their homes (some research suggests this worry is unfounded). Some mentioned drainage and erosion concerns. Most said they weren’t “anti-solar,” they just think it should only go on rooftops or shelters over parking lots.
Protect Amanda Township ran from a well-worn playbook. The Ohio Power Siting Board since 2021 has rejected six solar farms. In each case, commissioners identified no technical faults, only local political opposition.
That includes:
- Birch Solar in Allen County
- Kingwood Solar in Greene County
- Cepheus Solar in Defiance County
- Circleville Solar in Pickaway County
- Richwood Solar in Union County
- Stark Solar in Stark County
In all six instances, associations of locals killed the projects at the Power Siting Board. Four of those groups shared the same lawyer as Carnation.
Suggested Reading
Local control
By the Ohio Power Siting Board interpretation, when enough local government officials object to a proposed solar project, then it doesn’t serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity” as state law requires.
The Ohio Supreme Court is currently considering cases that challenge this interpretation. And environmentalists have criticized this and other state laws that provide local governments with veto power over solar projects only, not gas or coal plants.
The contrast widened in 2021 with passage of a new state law that gave counties power to preemptively ban all large scale wind or solar projects in town – a power the locals lack for gas or coal. Since that law took effect, more than 24 of Ohio’s 88 counties have done so.
Steve Davis has been a Fairfield County commissioner for 14 years. He was one of two (the third commissioner abstained) to vote to oppose Carnation Solar. He said this is in the top three in terms of the most controversial issues he’s dealt with.
The other two, in no order: siting of a county jail and what he described as “controversy” over how a local shelter was treating dogs.
“To have this all trickle down to county commissioners all over the state picking and choosing projects, that’s not an energy policy,” he said. “It seems like ducking, you know? Like, ‘We don’t want to decide so we’ll just keep kicking the can down to the lowest common denominator and put it on them.’ Well, here I am.”
An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Ohio Power Siting Board staff recommended rejection of the Cottontail Solar project. They recommended approval.