How NIMBYism and Republican politics killed a $500M solar farm in Ohio

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A pressure campaign from local activists, backed by state and local Republican politicians, killed a 500-megawatt solar project planned in Logan County.

The death of Grange Solar, a $500 million project that would have generated enough power for tens of thousands of homes while driving up to $5 million in local revenue, is the latest showing in how Ohio’s NIMBY-friendly permitting rules for renewable projects is choking out solar development.

Grange is just the most recent utility scale solar project to die a regulatory death, as the planet records its hottest years in recorded history, domestic oil and gas production reaches all time highs, and the state and nation face a looming energy shortfall driven by AI, electric vehicles, cryptocurrencies, and a recent manufacturing boom.

The developers withdrew their project application after Ohio Power Siting Board staff formally recommended that the commissioners reject the project application. While the board noted no environmental, land use, water use, or other technical shortcomings, they found the project will not serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity” as required by state law.

Staff based their finding off the opposition to the project. The Logan County commission and five townships that contain the project, seated in a county President Donald Trump won with more than 75% of the vote, submitted letters of opposition. The “public interest, convenience and necessity” phrase, undefined in state law, coupled with local political opposition has proven to be a death knell for solar developments. That’s true even for those like Grange that predate a new law making it easier for local governments to kill specific renewable projects or ban them in town outright.

Doug Herling, vice president of Grange developer Open Road Renewables, said in an interview that Ohio’s laws leaves far too much power in renewable siting issues with local politicians who have their own provincial agendas.

While local control has its merits, he said Ohio leaves siting decisions of pipelines, gas plants, transmission lines and other power projects in the hands of state-level appointees who are insulated from “insulated from political risks of neighbors more concerned about viewsheds and property values than a stable energy grid

“It’s really quiet on renewable energy front in Ohio because they have sent a clear signal that these projects are not wanted,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that it has been set up this way, because it empowers a vocal minority in the community.”

Logan County Board of Commissioners President Michael Yoder joined with the all-Republican commission in opposing the project. He said while the project would drive up to $5 million in annual payments to local government in lieu of taxes, it would drive up real estate taxes by decreasing the pool of local taxable real estate. He also mentioned concerns of preserving longstanding farmland and the summertime tourism around the area’s main draw, Indian Lake.

“Many people felt that 2,600 acres of solar panels was going to be not real good for the community,” he said. “They let us commissioners know that very clearly. We took it from there.”

Alongside the government, the Indian Lake Advocacy Group formed as a nonprofit to oppose the project. It hired Jack Van Kley, an environmental attorney who fights wind and solar projects around the state, at the OPSB. He wrote a list of 22 concerns ranging from viewshed, to drainage, to possible impacts to bald eagles. The group didn’t respond to an interview request with Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer.

“Although we may not be against solar energy as a whole, we strongly believe that Indian Lake and its surrounding areas are not appropriate sites for Utility Scale Solar installations. We believe in preserving the natural beauty and agricultural heritage of this region for future generations,” the group writes on its website.

Herling said he felt like the OPSB holds developers to a rigorous standard requiring engineering reports and environmental reviews while ignoring economic benefits of a project. The board, he said, is too deferential to misleading claims from opponents.

He said the company put in a good faith effort to tailor the project around locals’ needs. Yoder said this was true, although he said the relationship deteriorated significantly after he told the company about the commission’s plans to oppose the development.

Withdrawal comes at an economic cost. Open Road Renewables estimated it would spent $500 million on design, development and construction. It projected construction would create 1,156 temporary jobs. Once operational, Grange would employ 10 full time solar workers and six to nine agricultural jobs – the project design called for sheep grazing on site to preserve some agricultural sensibilities and cut costs on mowing the grass.

Given the employment on the table, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 32 intervened in the case to support the project.

Support and opposition of Grange fell on partisan lines.

Logan County’s three commissioners, all Republican, opposed the project, as did the local townships.

Five Republicans in the state legislature submitted letters of opposition to the project, including Senate President Rob McColley, who sponsored the new Ohio law that has allowed one in four counties to ban wind and solar outright in their jurisdictions.

In an interview last week, McColley said local governments that opposed wind and solar projects were getting “steamrolled” in spite of unanimous, political opposition at the local level.

“The suggestion I would make to solar developers across the state is: do better at getting local buy in before you bring these projects to the Ohio Power Siting Board,” he said.

State Sen. Casey Weinstein, a Hudson Democrat, issued supportive public comments to the board, as did two other Statehouse Democrats. Solar energy, Weinstein said, is a good thing. For all the “clamoring” at the Statehouse about a looming energy shortfall, he said Republicans are going out of their way to stifle the clean energy economy in Ohio. And they’re succeeding.

“When we have made it so that local communities can kill solar and wind projects, but not coal and gas, that is the Republican party weighing in to pick winners and losers,” he said. “We’re doing a political hit job on renewables in Ohio.”

The Ohio Power Siting Board almost always heeds its staff’s recommendations. The developers could have chosen to stick out the process and appeal any rejection to the Supreme Court.

Other projects have tried. Birch Solar, a 300-megawatt proposal in northwest Ohio, recently dropped its Supreme Court appeal of an OPSB rejection on grounds of local opposition. Kingwood Solar, a 175-megawatt project in Greene County, is up before the justices for oral arguments this month.

Herling declined to give specific figures for the Grange project, but said a typical project at the same stage of development would have cost about $10 million by now. The project has been in the works since 2020. Litigating through the Supreme Court would have meant years in legal costs, grid queue fees, and payments to landowners, all for an unpredictable end result.

“It’s unfortunate that it has been set up this way, because it empowers a vocal minority in the community,” he said.

Jake Zuckerman covers state politics and policy for Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer.