The state of Ohio is quickly becoming a leader in cloud services and other digital infrastructure. With the arrival of Intel, Amazon Web Services, Meta, and other technology companies, the state faces a sharp rise in energy demand. The surge in data center capacity demand is now a nationwide trend, as is the loud vocal opposition to development of renewable energy sources. A 2024 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law report identified 19 state-level and 395 local-level restrictions on renewable energy development. By the end of 2023, 22 Ohio counties had adopted resolutions restricting solar and wind development under the authority of Senate Bill 52 (SB 52).
With the passage of SB 52 in 2021, county officials gained significant influence over the Ohio Power Siting Board’s (OPSB) approval process for utility-scale solar projects. Developers are now required to obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need from the OPSB prior to construction. This involves pre-application public informational meetings, a formal application, staff investigations, and public hearings. The OPSB then reviews the application in collaboration with state and federal agencies, weighing eight criteria outlined in the Ohio Revised Code 4906.10(A). Once the OPSB issues a decision approving, denying, or conditionally approving a certificate, parties may request a rehearing to challenge the decision. Final rehearing decisions may be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
SB 52 granted county commissioners the authority to prohibit, limit, or designate “restricted areas” for siting of utility-scale solar (and wind) energy projects. Additionally, SB 52 amended the OPSB process to require a pre-application public meeting in a proposed project’s county, allowing county commissioners to adopt a resolution prohibiting the project within 90 days. The bill also added two ad hoc voting positions on the OPSB for local county and township officials. Consequently, the influence of local opposition in utility-scale solar siting has become contentious. Two cases before the Ohio Supreme Court raise an important question: how much deference should be granted to OPSB when it approves or denies a utility-solar project in light of local opposition?
In affirming the approval of two solar farms in 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court articulated in Alamo Solar that the court may not reverse an OPSB order unless the approval or denial is found to be unlawful or unreasonable. The court will never grant deference to an agency’s interpretation of law but will rather defer to OPSB’s factual determinations in approving or denying a project, unless the court finds such determinations were made against the manifest weight of evidence.
In late 2022, OPSB denied a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction of the 175-megawatt Kingwood Solar project. On appeal, Kingwood Solar argued that OPSB acted unlawfully and unreasonably by relying on local opposition to deny the certificate despite meeting technical requirements for approval. Kingwood Solar argued that OPSB’s finding that the project was not in the “public interest, convenience and necessity” represented an unprecedented reliance on local opposition. Furthermore, the company asserted that, because its solar project was already pending when SB 52 took effect, it was grandfathered under the previous regulatory framework and therefore exempt from the county approval process now mandated by OPSB.
Notably, members of the Ohio Senate Democratic Caucus submitted an amicus brief in support of the developers, arguing that SB 52 does not mandate or even comment on the weight to be given to local opposition in determining the “public interest.”. Instead, the caucus argues that, by definition, the public interest requires “broad concern for general welfare” and cannot be interpreted to grant local opposition a “‘de facto veto” over beneficial solar projects. The caucus adds that in 44 previous OSPB decisions on solar facilities, OPSB had never considered public opinion to be controlling; therefore, the sudden shift in the Kingwood Solar denial is unprecedented and inconsistent.
In contrast to Kingwood, where local opposition contributed to the denial of a certificate, the Oak Run Solar case presents the inverse scenario—where OPSB approved the project despite significant resistance from local governments and residents. Opponents of the 800-megawatt project argue on appeal that OPSB acted unlawfully and unreasonably by granting the certificate without adequate environmental assessments, visual impact mitigation, and necessary emergency response for battery storage risks. Appellants, including county board of commissioners and trustees from three separate townships, further contend that the project failed to comply with statutory requirements under ORC 4906.10(A), including failing to serve the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” The court could now determine whether to remain consistent with the deference set forth in the Alamo Solar case or impose a new standard that endorses the unilateral veto power of local opposition over state-approved renewable energy projects.
Together, the Kingwood and Oak Run cases test how the Ohio Supreme Court will balance deference to OPSB’s authority with the heightened influence of local opposition in the post–SB 52 landscape. Their outcomes will not only clarify the scope of local authority in solar project approvals but could also set a standard affecting the broader energy landscape in Ohio. The fact that local opposition has been granted the power to unilaterally halt renewable energy development—despite widespread public support for renewable energy expansion in Ohio—may ultimately challenge the state’s ability to meet rising energy demands and maintain grid reliability.
