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.
.svg)
