By Kathiann M. Kowalski for Canary Media.
Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

A regulatory board’s rejection of a permit for a large solar farm in southwestern Ohio has “essentially rewritten” state law to give local governments veto power over clean energy projects, an attorney for the project’s developer argued last week before the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Power Siting Board’s 2022 decision denying Vesper Energy the right to build a 175-megawatt solar facility in Greene County is the subject of a high-stakes legal challenge with potentially “devastating” consequences for the state’s ability to grow its electricity generation capacity, the developer’s attorney said.

“All of Ohio’s energy infrastructure will be affected by this decision,” said Michael Settineri, who represents Vesper’s Kingwood Solar project, in an oral argument before the court on March 13.

The company claims the siting board failed to follow state law in its analysis of whether its project is in the public interest — one of eight criteria that power generation projects must meet to receive a site permit. Instead of evaluating the merits of opponents’ arguments, the board used the mere existence of local government opposition as reason to deny the permit, Kingwood Solar’s attorney said.

A lawyer for the Ohio Power Siting Board argued that it has wide discretion to make policy judgments and that members used “a broad lens” to make their decision.

Local criticism has killed multiple Ohio solar projects 

Renewable energy permitting has become especially difficult in Ohio over the last four years. A 2021 law lets counties block most new utility-scale wind and solar energy projects before they even get to the Ohio Power Siting Board. Others, like Kingwood Solar, have been denied based on local opposition, even though they are exempt from that part of the law because they filed permit applications or got in the grid operator’s queue prior to the legislation’s passage.

In 2022, the board found that the proposed Kingwood Solar facility met all the other legal requirements for a permit, yet it concluded “that the unanimous opposition of every local government entity” bordering the project was “controlling” on the public interest question. The board denied the permit.

Settineri urged the court to reverse the Ohio Power Siting Board’s decision, arguing that it was clearly not supported by evidence. And, as a legal matter, the board essentially rewrote the law for granting or denying a permit in a way that gives local governments control that they shouldn’t have, he said.

Justice Jennifer Brunner noted another part of Ohio law that says local governments can’t require their own consent for the construction of power facilities. When the board’s Kingwood Solar decision said “that unanimous opposition is controlling, that actually infers that consent is required by the locality. Isn’t the board violating the statute?” she asked Settineri.

He answered,“The way I read the board’s decision, it is giving the local governments veto power … contrary to the concept of a state siting regimen.”

Renewable developer says Ohio regulators failed to consider evidence 

The board’s ruling was also “internally inconsistent,” Settineri said. The board claimed it gave weight to the “vigor and rationale” of local governments’ objections, which included worries about visual impacts, preservation of agricultural land, and construction.

But the solar developer presented experts and other evidence addressing those topics during a 2022 hearing in the case. It was also willing to accept permit conditions to minimize any impacts. As a result, the board sided with the developer on those issues in its findings on statutory criteria other than public interest, including considerations related to agriculture and the environment, Settineri said.

“There has to be evidence, and the board has to consider the evidence,” Settineri said, arguing that the fact some people say they don’t want the project shouldn’t be enough to decide the case.

Judge Marilyn Zayas, a court of appeals judge sitting in for Justice Patrick DeWine, who recused himself, asked Stephen Funk, the lawyer representing the Ohio Power Siting Board, whether the board is “able to weigh the factors any way they wish.”

Funk told Zayas that the board has broad discretion, and it “made a policy judgment that this would not serve the public interest” after considering the vigor and rationale of arguments by the local opposition.

Brunner appeared skeptical of Funk’s efforts to make it seem as if the board members did more than cede to local governments’ opposition. The board didn’t say it was giving those governmental entities veto power, “but in effect they did,” she countered.

Responding to questions from Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, Funk said each permitting case is considered individually. He also said public comments weren’t used as evidence by the board and didn’t determine the outcome.

On rebuttal, Settineri stressed that, in light of the rest of the board’s decision on Kingwood Solar, there is no evidence backing up the claim that the vigor and rationale of local governments’ opposition meant that the project would not serve the public interest. “If I yell loud enough, does that give me a win?” he asked.

The board appeared to accept local objections at face value, said Chris Tavenor, general counsel at the Ohio Environmental Council, which is not a party to this case. “The evidence on the record needs to be interrogated closely to see whether what the government is bringing forward is factually accurate and correct.”

“The board needs to actually weigh reasons for opposition,” Tavenor added. “The mere existence of opposition or support shouldn’t be enough.”

A looming decision

The Ohio Supreme Court will debate the case and is expected to come out with a decision in the coming months.

A decision against Kingwood Solar would establish a legal precedent that makes it much harder for companies to overcome local pushback, which has often been fueled by misinformation. An adverse ruling for the solar developer also would continue the uncertain regulatory standards and framework from the past several years.

Layne Ashton, a senior project development advisor focused on utility-scale solar at Engie North America, said his company would be very cautious about moving ahead with new facilities in Ohio.

“We’d do some significant due diligence up front” for any potential projects in the state, he said. That would include testing whether local officials would welcome them. The court’s judgment will also impact the broader legal question of whether Ohio Power Siting Board decisions must be based on evidence, versus politics or opinions.


Kathiann M. Kowalski wrote this article for Canary Media.


get more stories like this via email

Some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Nick Begich, R-Alaska, are considering repealing the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy incentives. Supporters of the measure say cuts would threaten jobs in Alaska. The efforts come as Alaska's liquid natural gas supplies will not be enough to meet demand in the state. That means the state may have to begin importing gas causing prices to rise.

Jennifer Hyde, federal infrastructure coordinator at the Alaska Center, hoped clean energy projects could begin benefitting the state before the crisis takes hold.

"We're hoping that communities can seize on IRA funds in order to actualize on solar projects, on wind projects, on hydro projects, on a number of other alternatives before this crisis happens," she explained.

Begich and other Republicans signed a letter arguing that the clean energy subsidies in the IRA will undermine America's energy dominance - and inflate energy costs. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has supported the clean energy incentives.

Anchorage business owner Ben Kellie is concerned about the impacts of the possible repeal of clean energy incentives on Alaska's economy, and said the incentives can mean major savings for Alaska families.

"This isn't just saving a few cents off of a bill. A lot of these projects are in communities where people are paying over a thousand dollars to heat and light small homes off the road system," Kellie said. "This is real money that not only stays in the community and circulates, but helps families make ends meet through cold winters."

In 2023, about a quarter of all Alaska energy came from renewable sources.

A bill before Indiana legislators that would have prevented city officials from requesting energy information from large commercial buildings failed in this year's legislative session.

One nonprofit believes if Senate Bill 197/House Bill 1389 had become law, Hoosiers would have faced higher utility bills. The Thriving Buildings Program relies on utility usage data gathered between 2021 and 2025 to help lower utility bills.

Paula Brooks, justice director for the nonprofit Hoosier Environmental Council, said conversations between community stakeholders, public officials and residents about building environments are key to the program's success.

"It gave building owners the opportunity to benchmark -- which is, make comparisons of their energy and water usage -- to be able to identify ways to save money on utility costs and most importantly, improve the air quality, reduce carbon emissions," she explained.

A building environment consists of building and construction materials and is a major contributor to global gas emissions. With the program's collected data, it is predicted that public health savings in Indianapolis could reach $77 million by 2030. Indianapolis is responsible for 66% of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions.

Brooks applauds the Thriving Buildings Program because residents feel their voices are being heard as their communities develop. But these voices also oppose President Donald Trump's recent executive orders to build more coal plants to boost electricity generation, and to ensure the EPA is assisting in promoting America's energy security.

Brooks believes there is another alternative to using coal as a power source.

"Renewables is not only the future, but it's happening now. This distribution model that we have now, where the energy companies hold all the power, it's only about 75 years old," she continued.

Renewable energy creates opportunities to look at new energy delivery models or "energy democracy," with solar for microgrids. So, rather than having a huge power plant somewhere, she noted, the electricity could be in a community and owned by the community, while contributing to the electric generation for industrial use.


get more stories like this via email

A new report from the Ohio River Valley Institute argued the oil and gas industry, not taxpayers, should cover the cost of plugging up hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil wells across Appalachia.

Plugging wells in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia could cost nearly $40 billion, with most of the burden coming from shale wells.

Dwayne Purvis, founder and principal consultant at Purvis Energy Advisors in Fort Worth, Texas, and co-author of the report, said he analyzed the Ohio River Valley along with other states, finding old shale wells are often unable to fund their own decommissioning.

"Of course, there are some shale wells are getting older and depleting, producing at slower rates, and even some that are shut in or marginal," Purvis explained. "What we did in this study that was new for the first time, was to offer ideas on how financial assurance reform can address this disparity."

Purvis pointed out there are currently more than 265,000 unplugged non-shale wells across the three states too, many of which also pose environmental risks. He added hundreds of thousands more were plugged decades ago but often to outdated standards, meaning they may still leak.

Purvis noted the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law jump-started efforts to plug oil wells but the funding was never meant to be permanent. He contended operators should pay for decommissioning the wells but acknowledged many cannot afford to do it.

"The next best option is what we've offered, that it needs to come from, the money for decommissioning, needs to come from other companies in the oil and gas business, who do have the income necessary to cover the liabilities of the industry as a whole in order to protect the public," Purvis outlined.

According to the report in the three states studied, Purvis' proposal would directly increase oil and gas employment by an estimated 32% and create more than 19,000 new jobs.


get more stories like this via email