Latest news with #GrangeSolarGrazingCenter
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why is an Ohio board overriding a 4-to-1 public majority on a local sheep-grazing solar project?
Aerial view of a flock of sheep grazing in a solar farm with solar panels.(Getty Images.) At a time when the future of our children demands a phase out of the fossil fuels that a firmly united global scientific community says are guaranteed to escalate in impact until massive droughts imperil the world's food supply bringing levels of hunger not seen in centuries, the sad defeat of another Ohio solar farm is nothing to celebrate. Instead, the forced withdrawal of the Grange Solar Grazing Center is a true tragedy that must be investigated and brought 'into the light of day.' The public deserves to know the extent to which Ohio solar projects are being manipulated by vested interests in favor of fossil fuel. Another big Ohio solar project bites the dust The place to start is the appearance of Ohio Senate Bill 52. This was a bill that purported to allow more 'local democratic control' over solar and wind siting decisions. In reality, this shift was a giveaway to a fossil fuel industry looking for a way to serve its profit motive by knocking out a competing energy source. Those interests saw it as an opportunity to pick highly vulnerable targets — small towns in rural areas — and then overwhelm them with sophisticated and well-funded disinformation campaigns aimed at manipulating public opinion. The classic example of this dynamic at work is Knox County, where the heavy involvement by the fossil fuel corporation called Ariel has been exposed by both a documentary and an investigation at the national level by the Pulitzer Prize-winning anti-corruption watchdog ProPublica reported in this news story. The strategy has been to identify a local concern and then twist that issue into one that serves the fossil fuel interest. The primary issue chosen has been the concern about preserving prime farmland. On the surface, this seems a very legitimate concern. What renders it illegitimate is the totally dishonest way it has been manipulated. The solar project just cancelled serves as the supreme case in point. Right from the start, the developer Open Road Renewables made a deep commitment to integrate the concept of 'agrivoltaics' — whereby solar panels and agriculture are integrated so they continue to coexist on the same land — into its proposal, even naming it the 'Grange Solar Grazing Center' in order to make this intent explicit. Sheep grazing was going to take place across the entire project. Dual-use of land for solar panels and farming can propel clean energy forward in Ohio This full adoption of agrivoltaics then in turn fostered a truly dramatic shift in the public comments being submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board for its public hearing process. Those comments were now coming in at a stunning 80% in FAVOR of the project. This translated to a remarkable 4-to-1 ratio. One would certainly assume from these numbers that this project was well on its way to approval. What actually happened however was that it alarmed the fossil fuel forces into overdrive. There are indications that a pressure campaign was enacted to find a mechanism by which to squash this project. As if on cue, one appears — what is called the 'unanimous stance of local officials rule.' What it does is confer a weighted advantage on those local officials so that their stance can actually be used to run right over the expressed interests of the citizenry at large and turn the outcome upside down. It is a so-called 'rule' that can be used to blatantly circumvent and defeat the democratic process. With local officials already 'in their pocket,' it becomes a tool for fossil fuel interests to stop a project that with a 4-to-1 majority in public support seemed destined to succeed. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The next step becomes the response by the Ohio Power Siting Board. The process is that its staff members recommend a yes or no vote to the full board before an official decision is rendered. These recommendations are almost always followed. It is revealed that — largely because of a major deference given to this so-called 'unanimous local officials rule' — the staff startlingly recommends a denial of permit. The solar developer is stunned. Solar advocates in central Ohio and statewide are stunned. The investors in the Grange project — who already spent a large amount to develop and promote its highly eco-friendly design and fully expected success — are stunned. The project was reluctantly forced toward a withdrawal. I close with an 'Open Letter' appeal directed specifically to the members of the Ohio Power Siting Board: Members of the Ohio Power Siting Board, It is extremely instructive to look at how your board handled the approval of Oak Run, a larger agrivoltaics solar project in Madison County. In your favorable ruling, it was said, 'the dual-land use potential that agrivoltaics unlocks addresses a primary concern of project skeptics: the conversion of land to a use other than agriculture.' It went on: 'Oak Run's strong commitment to agrivoltaics is additional evidence of Oak Run's responsiveness to feedback from the local community.' The project 'presents unique opportunities that would provide significant benefits to the state … the opportunity to put Madison County and the state of Ohio 'at the forefront' of an 'innovative' practice.' The question begs to be asked: How is it that the Grange Solar Grazing Center does not qualify for all the positive attributes that were praised about Oak Run? How does it not further the very same principles listed in your own mission statement — to 'protect the environment and land use'? It was designed from day one to be dual use. My second question to you: In recent decisions, your board has moved toward placing more importance on the *numbers* in regard to public comments. There is a strong case that what should carry the day should be the overwhelmingly documentable truth presented by the global scientific community about the threat to the entire planet from fossil fuels. But if you are going to prioritize numbers over scientific urgency, then here with Grange there is a 4-to-1 majority of public comments in favor. WHY would you startlingly switch your criterion and now say that the voices of a small number of local officials are suddenly much more important than a large majority of the public? How does this square with your sense of democracy and fair play? My final question: How does one avoid the question that asks what this has to do with the fact this project location happened to be in the home district of not only the president of the Ohio Senate — Senator Rob McColley — but someone who was one of the two prime sponsors of the earlier described SB 52 bill trying to shut down solar farms ? One cannot 'prove' there was a connection, but the situation looks awfully suspicious. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Another big Ohio solar project bites the dust
Months of proactive community engagement appeared to be paying off for the developer of the Grange Solar Grazing Center agrivoltaics project in central Ohio. Open Road Renewables knew it faced an uphill battle before the state energy-siting board, whose recent deference to local opponents has helped make Ohio one of the most challenging places in the country to build large solar arrays. So the company showed up early and often in Logan County, listening to residents' feedback and committing millions of dollars in donations for community investments. As public comments rolled into state regulators, the developer reviewed the submissions last month and found a clear majority of those weighing in supported its plan. The analysis filtered out hundreds of repeat comments, at least 140 of which came from just 16 people who mostly opposed the project. Optimism around Grange Solar lasted only days, however. On Feb. 21, staff at the Ohio Power Siting Board recommended denying the project's permit: 'Staff believes that any benefits to the local community are outweighed by the overwhelming documented public opposition and, therefore, the project would not serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.' Open Road Renewables withdrew its application for Grange Solar late last week, making it at least the fifth large solar project in Ohio to be canceled over the past 15 months. The case highlights the power that local opponents have to block renewable energy projects in Ohio, even when they otherwise check all the boxes for regulatory approval. It also raises the question: What more can developers do? Open Road Renewables held listening sessions last spring for its up to 500-megawatt solar farm to learn about community concerns and address them even before applying for its permit. Beyond the $5 million in annual local tax revenue the development was expected to generate, the company committed $10 million in donations for a community center, public safety, a river cleanup, job training, and other programs. 'All legitimate concerns about the project were addressed and the benefits would have been spread far and wide,' Doug Herling, vice president of Open Road Renewables, said in an emailed statement. The section of the siting board staff's report that focuses on whether Grange Solar serves the public interest does not discuss local benefits. Nor does it address statewide public-interest issues, such as growing energy needs, efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and projected positive economic impacts. The staff report also does not address conflict-of-interest issues and procedural problems raised by the developer about some of the local governments' filings. And it doesn't mention the company's analysis of public comments, showing that three-fourths of those who had commented on the project supported it. The staff recommendation also does not consider the merits of opponents' reasons for not wanting Grange Solar to move ahead. '[T]he dozens of pages of the [Power Siting Board] staff report represent rigorous analysis and thorough fact-checking of every aspect of Grange's planned project,' Herling said. 'But there is no such fact-checking of the onslaught of anti-solar propaganda, which caused local officials to make statements against solar.' Renewable energy developments face increasing headwinds across the country, often fueled by misinformation. Research released last June by Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law identifies hundreds of projects encountering significant opposition across 47 states. And a July 2024 report from the watchdog organization Energy and Policy Institute lists multiple fossil-fuel companies with links to anti-renewable front groups and activists. Withdrawing the Grange Solar application was a difficult business decision, Herling said in a phone interview with Canary Media. Management at the company felt it could have eventually won, if not at the Ohio Power Siting Board then perhaps on appeal. But even if the company did prevail, it had no guarantee on how long that would take. And Grange Solar is not the only site Open Road Renewables has been working on. 'The decision to withdraw the application is not surprising when you consider the cost of the administrative proceedings, hearings, and appeals that lay ahead and the challenge of persuading the Ohio Power Siting Board to override the recommendation of its staff to deny the application,' said Matthew Eisenson, a lawyer with Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. He represented two landowners who had agreed to lease their property for the Grange Solar project. The Ohio Power Siting Board's staff report acknowledges that Grange Solar is exempt from terms in a 2021 law, Senate Bill 52, which let counties block most large new solar projects. Two representatives from the host county and townships would still have served as ad hoc siting board members for deciding the case. 'However, the [Power Siting Board] staff's recommendation to deny the application when the only purported defect was the existence of local opposition, particularly opposition from local government officials, is analogous to giving local government officials veto power,' Eisenson said. 'Our voices were heard,' said Aubrey Snapp, a representative of the Indian Lake Advocacy Group, which has opposed Grange Solar and applauded its demise in a Feb. 28 statement. Other stakeholders had very different reactions. The regulatory staff's recommendation to block the Grange Solar Grazing Center 'not only disregards the needs of Logan County workers and their families, but also squanders the potential for Logan County to become a leader in renewable energy and attract further investment,' said a statement from IBEW Local 32, the local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which its lawyer in the case, Daniel Loud, provided to Canary Media. The union also found fault with the local government leaders who opposed the solar farm. 'Local decision-makers have a fundamental responsibility to prioritize the economic well-being of their communities. By rejecting the Grange Solar project, they have failed to uphold this responsibility and have jeopardized the livelihoods of countless workers and families.'
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rural Ohioans oppose solar farms, right? Not so, developer finds
Aerial view of a flock of sheep grazing in a solar farm with solar panels.(Getty Images.) This story was originally published by Canary Media. 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. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
