Back
A new analysis shows that a clear majority of people submitting comments on a planned central Ohio solar farm support the project — a stark contrast with how opponents have portrayed public sentiment.
Open Road Renewables, the developer seeking a permit to build the Grange Solar Grazing Center in Logan County, reviewed more than 2,500 comments submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board through Feb. 11 regarding its permitting case. After accounting for repeat commenters who submitted multiple times, the company found 80% of commenters expressed support for its project.
A project’s popularity is a potential factor in site permit decisions, but how regulators use that information is the subject of a pending case before the Ohio Supreme Court. Until the question of how state regulators should measure “public interest” is resolved, solar advocates and developers say it’s critical to closely examine public comments before drawing conclusions.
“Anyone can file 10 different comments, but if you’re using that to determine public opinion, just based on nominally how many comments there are, that’s kind of missing the mark,” said Doug Herling, vice president for Open Road Renewables.
Herling took issue with people “gaming” the system, submitting multiple comments to make it appear that the project has more naysayers. The company’s analysis identified more than 600 repeat comments that should not be considered in attempts to quantify support or opposition to the project. As of early February, it found 16 individuals who collectively submitted more than 140 comments, mostly opposing Grange Solar.
Solar opponents, some with ties to fossil fuel groups, have used town halls and other forums to portray utility-scale solar projects as deeply unpopular in rural Ohio. Sustained opposition has led developers to drop plans for at least four large solar developments in Ohio within the past 15 months. Nationally, research released last June by Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law documents hundreds of renewable energy projects facing significant opposition across 47 states.
Permitting in Ohio has become especially contentious since passage of a 2021 law that adds hurdles for siting most wind and solar projects over 50 megawatts. Under the law, counties can block new utility-scale projects before they even get to the state siting board. The law doesn’t apply to fossil fuel or nuclear power projects.
The 2021 law exempts Grange Solar and some other projects because they were already in grid operator PJM’s queue when the law took effect. However, Grange Solar isn’t exempt from a provision in the law calling for two local ad hoc board members to join the state siting board’s seven voting members when it deliberates on the project.
Ohio law requires any new generation project to meet eight criteria. They include consideration of impacts on the environment, water conservation, and agricultural land. Other factors include whether a facility “will serve the interests of electric system economy and reliability” and “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”
Ohio statutes don’t spell out what “public interest” means, and the power siting board declined environmental advocates’ requests to define the term when other rule revisions took effect last year.
Yet the board has denied multiple permit applications for solar projects based entirely or primarily on a large percentage of public comments or local governments opposing them. The developer in one such case, Vesper Energy, challenged the siting board’s popularity-contest approach in denying its Kingwood Solar project. The case is now before the Ohio Supreme Court, with oral arguments set for March 13.
That backdrop prompted Open Road Renewables to take a closer look at the comments in the Grange Solar case.
“Given that the siting board puts a weight on local public opinion and any resolutions made by local public bodies, we just felt it deserved that scrutiny,” Herling said.
The company submitted an initial analysis of public comments through Feb. 4 and found three-quarters of 806 unique commenters in the docket favored the project, compared with one-fourth in opposition. Among the commenters within Logan County, supporters still outnumbered opponents by about two to one.
A flurry of filings more than doubled the total number of comments, and the developer prepared an updated analysis through Feb. 11. Among nearly 2,000 commenters, supporters outnumbered opponents four to one. Opinion was more divided within Logan County, but allies still exceeded critics, Open Road Renewables’ most recent analysis said.
Supporters’ reasons for backing the project include jobs and economic benefits. Commenters also approved of the company’s commitment to minimizing impacts on the environment while preserving soil and drainage and screening panels from public view.
“The economic impact is undeniable — jobs for our neighbors and much-needed funding for our schools and public services,” wrote Russells Point resident Sharon Devault in a Jan. 10 comment. “Misinformation about solar energy concerns me. Let’s base decisions on facts, not fear.”
“I support solar energy because of the price of fossil fuels and the problems with them,” said Logan County resident Roger Blank in a Dec. 10 comment.
Some supporting commenters also dismissed project foes’ claims that Grange Solar would hurt tourism in the area. A Jan. 13 comment by Sharon Lenhart said they would continue to visit Logan County and Indian Lake. “The substantial investment in public services will likely make the area a more attractive destination,” Lenhart wrote.
The Ohio Chamber of Commerce also filed a supportive comment on the Grange Solar project, reflecting the business group’s more vocal advocacy for clean energy as a tool for economic development and grid resiliency.
Yet more comments have been submitted in the Grange Solar case, including additional duplicates and comments by opponents who have already weighed in. For example, Logan County resident Shelley Wammes contributed 14 comments in a Feb. 12 packet and another on Feb. 14. Wammes, who did not respond to questions sent via email by Canary Media, also filed 13 comments against the project last August and September.
“I am happy to see that Grange is really trying to take these things into account and recognize that there is support for this project within the community and that it shouldn’t just be outweighed by [a] few loud voices who are shouting a lot of misinformation,” said Shayna Fritz, executive director of the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum. In her view, people’s ability to lease their land for energy projects is a property rights issue.
Nolan Rutschilling, managing director of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council, said it’s important that state regulators consider the substance of comments, not just use them as a straw poll for measuring popularity.
Instead of just counting comments, “each perspective and comment must be considered for its substance — especially the truth of any claims — and who the comment represents,” Rutschilling said.
In another solar permitting case last summer, half the unique arguments presented during local public hearings lacked factual support, said Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, a professor at Cleveland State University College of Law who served as an expert witness for the Ohio Environmental Council.
In her view, numbers can provide a sense of the extent of support for particular arguments opposing or supporting a project. But if 1,000 people support a specific point for or against a development, that’s still just one issue for the power siting board’s consideration. An argument based on false information may not deserve weight at all. Other comments are just statements of opinion without evidentiary support, she noted.
“The value of the arguments is as important, or arguably much more important, than the numbers,” Robertson said. “All of this, of course, assumes the agency really wants to know.”
The power siting board’s staff investigation of the Grange Solar project is due by March 3, and the evidentiary hearing is set to start on April 7.
When a solar energy developer approached Halifax County, North Carolina, in the early 2010s about renting its former airfield in Roanoke Rapids, community leaders had a condition.
“If they were willing to lease this land for the very first solar project in the area, the county needed to get something back in return,” said Mozine Lowe from her office, which overlooks the 20 megawatt solar farm now atop the old airport. “What they got was this building.”
Of course, it’s more than a building. It’s the headquarters for the Center for Energy Education, the nonprofit Lowe has run since 2016 that works to maximize the benefits of large solar farms in rural America — one community, one school child, and one worker at a time.
Lowe, who grew up about five miles from where she now works, had graduated from Greensboro’s North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University but worked across the country, from California to Washington, D.C.
When she returned to this rural county of less than 50,000 near the Virginia border, formerly a hub of farming and textiles, she said she didn’t see a lot of change.
“The jobs were the same,” she said. “I didn’t see people making the connection between solar energy and what’s happening with the climate and the impact on rural communities, and I just wanted to try and help from that angle.”
The Center conducts educational programs for children of all ages, who come in by the busload from surrounding schools both public and private. It holds a Solar Fest every year to celebrate clean energy with community leaders, drawing hundreds.
Through collaborations with local educational institutions like community colleges, the center has also helped to train a new workforce in jobs that pay roughly twice what workers are earning at the fast-food chains off Interstate 95.
“We have trained more people than most other people around here to become solar installers,” Lowe said. “We want them to be first in line for our jobs.”
And there’s outreach to solar companies themselves in North Carolina as well as Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, where the Center also has offices. The goal is to help them become better community partners.
Geenex, the Charlotte-based developer who built the solar farm at the airport and over a dozen others in the vicinity, is still involved in the Center, and the company’s chairman also chairs the nonprofit’s board.
But Lowe and other staff at the organization say not every solar developer is committed — at least at first — to working with community leaders in Eastern North Carolina.
“Geenex is a very good partner,” said Reginald Bynum, the Center’s community outreach manager. “They’re a good player. But there are only a few of them. Other companies will say, ‘This is your ordinance? Great. This is all I have to do.’”
Some county ordinances, like that in Halifax, need to be updated, Bynum said. Many still call for a 75-foot buffer between the rows of solar panels and neighboring properties. That figure is “so 2018,” said Bynum. It should be doubled, he said.
Most solar farms are also built on private land — often bits of farmland that can help cotton growers and other farmers guarantee income. But developers usually obtain the leases first, before airing the project in public.
“That’s the backwards process of solar,” Bynum said. “They’re talking to landowners and securing that land, and then they’re coming to commissioners.”
What’s more, simply following ordinances isn’t enough, Bynum says. What’s needed is for solar developers to work with local residents to develop community benefits agreements — documents that memorialize pluses to the area, from minimizing construction impacts to providing jobs.
“It’s a 30-year commitment to the community,” he said, “because your farm’s going to be here 30 years. They’re asking for that, and they deserve that.”
Critically, say Bynum and other advocates, solar developers need to work with community leaders to provide benefits beyond tax revenue — an undeniable good, but one that isn’t “seen” by anyone except county bookkeepers.
And though a recent study from the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association shows that solar farms today take up a fraction of a percent of the state’s farmland, the figure is a full 1% in Halifax County, and on pace to triple in the coming years, according to the Center’s research.
“From rural citizens’ standpoint, that’s a lot,” Bynum said. “You have to really understand what they’re seeing.”
Part of what they’re seeing is the result of a simple fact: solar farms aren’t just growing more abundant in parts of rural America. They’re also much larger.
In North Carolina up until 2016, the average utility-scale solar development was 5.8 megawatts covering 35 acres of land, per the Sustainable Energy Association. After a 2017 state law made larger solar farms easier to build, the average system size increased to 13.6 megawatts and covered 115 acres of land.
“Projects have gotten bigger,” said Carson Harkrader, the CEO of Durham-based Carolina Solar Energy, who appeared on a recent clean energy panel with Bynum. “As they’ve gotten bigger, people freak out a little bit.”
And while many folks’ worries about the visual impact of solar panels can be mollified — with tree buffers, setbacks, and information about the safety of the structures — some are easy targets for opponents.
“The opposition has become much, much, more organized. There are national groups, funded by the oil and gas industry,” Harkrader said. “With this opposition that is more organized and has more resources, it’s much harder.”
In some cases, opponents may fill a vacuum left by solar companies who lined up projects before the pandemic and have only recently begun to start construction.
That’s what happens, said Bynum, “when you miss steps in keeping citizens updated with the project — particularly when you started talking about it five years before. Commissioners change, a lot of tribal knowledge evaporates.”
And sometimes, it only takes one or two community members to force the issue with local politicians. Both neighboring Northampton and Halifax counties have passed moratoriums on new solar farms recently. Halifax acted after just a few people appeared at their meeting, concerned about the loss of trees.
Having talked with county commissioners, staff at the Center are hopeful the moratorium will end quickly as planned, after the county has updated its ordinance. But the “pause” on solar farms is an example of the constant game of whack-a-mole solar developers and their advocates must play.
Lowe says that’s why the Center is so vital.
“What makes us unique is that our work is mainly community engagement,” she said. “Our stance is to be neutral, and to provide factual information. I think we need to tell more success stories.”
SOLAR: Colorado and California researchers find community solar programs have expanded clean energy access to renters and lower-income communities. (Canary Media)
ALSO:
GRID: A remote Alaska community is left without power for weeks after mechanical failures disable the diesel generators it relies on. (KYUK)
CLIMATE: California officials warn an extended heat wave forecast to grip the state this week and next could raise wildfire risk and ozone pollution, pose health hazards and strain the power grid. (Los Angeles Times)
UTILITIES:
HYDROGEN: A California startup working to develop hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft shuts down after failing to secure adequate financing. (Canary Media)
WIND:
OVERSIGHT: Analysts predict the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine could have significant ramifications for federal energy and climate regulations in the West, but it may take decades for the consequences to become clear. (High Country News, WyoFile)
OIL & GAS:
GEOTHERMAL: A southwest Colorado craft beer company powers its operations with 100% geothermal energy. (Denver 7)
NUCLEAR:
HYDROPOWER: A California firm looks to design high-performance, fish-friendly hydropower turbines that could extend the life of some facilities slated for decommissioning. (MIT Technology Review)
.svg)
