Ohio regulators have blocked yet another major solar project because of local pushback, even though a significant number of public comments opposing the array appear to be fabricated. It’s the latest blow to solar in a state that defers to local governments on renewable energy, but not on fossil fuels.

The Ohio Power Siting Board decided last Thursday to deny a permit for the 94-megawatt Crossroads Solar Grazing Center, which would combine solar panels with sheep grazing in central Ohio. Although the project otherwise met all legal requirements, the board concluded that it ​“fails to serve the public interest.”

Critics of the decision are troubled that the regulators basically shrugged off the fact that a substantial number of public comments filed in opposition to Crossroads Solar were duplicative, anonymous, or seemingly faked. A recent Canary Media review found that dozens of comments contained apparent lies about people’s names or residence in Morrow County, where the project site is located. The board acknowledged those concerns in its ruling but asserted that substantial public opposition existed regardless of the potentially fabricated comments.

The controversy about those false comments, along with anonymous or multiple submissions, feeds into broader criticism that the board has reduced renewable energy siting to a local popularity contest.

“When the volume of public input is prioritized over its substance, it weakens trust in the process and makes it harder to build the energy system Ohio needs,” said Nathan Rutschilling, managing director of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council.

Like many states, Ohio faces soaring electricity demand and rising power bills. Clean energy could help address those challenges — provided it can get built.

“If we’re going to deny solar the ability to compete in Ohio’s marketplace, I think that’s going to result in an artificially high price for Ohio consumers,” said Democratic state Sen. Kent Smith, who is a nonvoting member of the siting board. He described the board’s Crossroads Solar denial as ​“a dangerous thing for the state in terms of both affordability and reliability.”

An uphill battle for Crossroads Solar

State and local restrictions on renewable energy have proliferated across the country in recent years, and Ohio is no exception. The state’s wind and solar developers face hurdles that fossil fuel companies do not, thanks to a 2021 law that lets counties ban renewable energy developments — an authority they do not have over oil, gas, and coal projects.

Morrow County instituted such a ban across half of its townships last year. But because Crossroads Solar was in the regional grid operator’s queue before the 2021 state law took effect, it is exempt from the blanket prohibition.

However, for the past few years, the Ohio Power Siting Board and its staff have denied or recommended against permits for solar farms when all nearby local governments have been against the projects. The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet ruled on a legal challenge to that practice, even though oral argument was held more than a year ago.

Initially, it seemed as if Crossroads Solar might escape this fate. Although Morrow County commissioners and the boards of trustees in two townships where parts of the project would be built were against it, the board in a third township — Cardington — remained neutral. Since opposition wasn’t unanimous, the siting board’s staff recommended in early December that regulators deem the project in the public interest.

But shortly after that recommendation, meeting minutes show that one Cardington township trustee changed his position because the staff report ​“did not set well with him.” That led the Cardington trustees to pass a 2–1 resolution opposing Crossroads Solar. The switch-up ultimately led the siting board staff to reverse its stance, filing testimony in January that encouraged regulators to rule against the project.

The Power Siting Board relied on that reversal to declare that Crossroads Solar was not in the public interest. It also asserted that there was ​“strong, united opposition to the project” by people in the area. It’s worth noting, however, that many locals supported Crossroads Solar. Its developer, Open Road Renewables, found that nearly half the public comments from people in nearby towns approved of the project, once the duplicate, anonymous, and unverifiable submissions were removed.

Siting practices under fire

The Crossroads Solar case exposes deeper flaws in Ohio’s renewable energy siting process, some say.

It’s problematic that a single person’s vote on a town council ​“essentially derailed the whole project,” said Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, a professor at Cleveland State University’s College of Law. She argued that instead of reciting objections, regulators should evaluate whether those concerns have a factual basis and whether a developer’s plans already address them — and then decide whether any remaining issues actually justify denying a permit.

In the case of Crossroads Solar, Open Road Renewables agreed to address specific concerns about the project. In a late December settlement with the Ohio Environmental Council, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and various landowners, the company promised to follow best practices to keep roads clear and clean, use panels with an antireflective coating, minimize impacts to agriculture during construction, file a sheep-grazing plan to manage vegetation, work with a landscaping company to screen the panels from public view, and more.

But the Power Siting Board wasn’t swayed by the compromise, noting that the local governments and individual opponents who intervened in the case didn’t take part in the settlement negotiations, despite being invited to do so.

The board also appeared to buy into several obviously unfounded objections to Crossroads Solar, said Craig Adair, vice president of development at Open Road Renewables. For example, its ruling cited community skepticism about the company’s intention to graze sheep around the panels, since no contracts for such an arrangement had yet been signed. The board also noted opponents’ fears that the permit would later be transferred to another firm that wouldn’t make good on Open Road Renewables’ promises.

But the application’s commitment to use sheep would become part of the permit conditions, Adair noted. And, as a matter of basic contract law, any company that acquired the project would be subject to the same conditions as Open Road Renewables regarding permits, leases, easements, and other agreements.

The board also didn’t examine whether local governments’ objections to Crossroads Solar were based on misinformation, such as a laundry list of concerns about fires, contaminated drinking water, heat islands, and stray voltage.

“It’s taking fact and truth out of the equation, and it’s truly about concerns and politics,” said Doug Herling, a vice president at Open Road Renewables.

Instead, the board ​“denied a project that has no fuel requirements while we’re in the middle of an oil and gas crisis,” Herling continued, referencing the current supply disruptions caused by war in the Middle East. He also pointed out that solar can be built faster than gas plants, which face yearslong supply chain backlogs, and it doesn’t emit planet-warming and health-harming pollution.

Herling and Adair said the company plans to ask the board to reconsider its ruling. 

Meanwhile, the permit denial ​“sends a dangerous signal to investors,” Adair said.

“I wish the state of Ohio luck in meeting its power needs and keeping power prices from going through the roof,” he said. For renewable energy developers, ​“it’s now a game of Russian roulette as to whether you would get a permit and what those criteria are.”