The Ohio Power Siting Board has shifted its regulatory approach, increasingly citing local government and resident opposition as a primary factor in denying utility-scale solar projects. While the state supreme court previously ruled that local input is informative rather than determinative, the board’s recent rejections of the Crossroads and Sloopy solar farms suggest a tightening standard for what constitutes the public interest.
Ohio's renewable energy regulations have grown increasingly complex as the Ohio Power Siting Board attempts to reconcile state-level energy goals with intense local resistance. Since the Ohio Supreme Court’s December 24, 2025, decision in the South Branch Solar case, which upheld a permit for a 130-megawatt farm in Hancock County, the board has faced a series of high-stakes denials.
Shifting Standards for Public Interest
In the South Branch Solar ruling, the court clarified that local opposition, while a necessary consideration, does not automatically override a project’s public benefit. Yet, recent orders indicate the board is placing greater emphasis on the “vigor and rationale” of that opposition.
When the board denied the 94-megawatt Crossroads Solar project in Morrow County on March 19, 2026, it marked a pivot. Board staff, who initially recommended approval, switched their stance after Cardington Township moved from neutral to opposed.
The board’s rejection of the 180-megawatt Sloopy Solar project in Clark County further codified this trend. In its June 24 order, the board acknowledged that while a county resolution prohibiting utility-scale development is not strictly controlling, it remains “noteworthy.” The board ultimately found that the combination of unanimous local-government opposition and significant public pushback outweighed the project’s projected economic benefits, such as job creation and tax revenue.
Legal Battles Awaiting Court Resolution
The Kingwood Solar case, which dates back to a December 2022 denial, continues to wind through the judicial system. In a July 13 filing, the developer argued that the board is effectively allowing local positions to function as an unauthorized veto, a point the board disputes by characterizing local input as merely one component of its broad review lens.
The Circleville Solar appeal, following a November 2024 denial, is also awaiting a ruling after oral arguments were heard on January 6, 2026. Meanwhile, the most recent appeal from Sloopy Solar, filed on October 19, centers on the developer’s claim that its project was grandfathered under 2021’s Senate Bill 52. The developer asserts the board improperly applied the bill’s county-veto provisions, which were intended to be prospective rather than retroactive.
Ohio Lawmakers Consider Stricter Wind and Solar Siting Requirements
The friction between state-level permitting and local control is also manifesting in the Ohio General Assembly. Lawmakers are currently considering Senate Bill 294, a measure that could impose more stringent requirements on the siting of wind and solar installations, potentially making the approval process even more arduous for developers.
The board maintains that it retains its full decision-making authority regardless of local resolutions. In its August 20 denial of a rehearing for the Sloopy project, the board emphasized that it does not merely count local government resolutions but evaluates the substance of the opposition.
As the court considers these three active cases, the tension between the state’s energy needs and the local voice remains the defining feature of Ohio’s renewable energy transition.
The court has not yet indicated when it will issue rulings on the Kingwood, Circleville, or Sloopy appeals.
