The Power Siting Board relied on that reversal to declare that Crossroads Solar was not in the public interest. It also asserted that there was “strong, united opposition to the project” by people in the area. It’s worth noting, however, that many locals supported Crossroads Solar. Its developer, Open Road Renewables, found that nearly half the public comments from people in nearby towns approved of the project, once the duplicate, anonymous, and unverifiable submissions were removed.
Siting practices under fire
The Crossroads Solar case exposes deeper flaws in Ohio’s renewable energy siting process, some say.
It’s problematic that a single person’s vote on a town council “essentially derailed the whole project,” said Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, a professor at Cleveland State University’s College of Law. She argued that instead of reciting objections, regulators should evaluate whether those concerns have a factual basis and whether a developer’s plans already address them — and then decide whether any remaining issues actually justify denying a permit.
In the case of Crossroads Solar, Open Road Renewables agreed to address specific concerns about the project. In a late December settlement with the Ohio Environmental Council, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and various landowners, the company promised to follow best practices to keep roads clear and clean, use panels with an antireflective coating, minimize impacts to agriculture during construction, file a sheep-grazing plan to manage vegetation, work with a landscaping company to screen the panels from public view, and more.
But the Power Siting Board wasn’t swayed by the compromise, noting that the local governments and individual opponents who intervened in the case didn’t take part in the settlement negotiations, despite being invited to do so.
The board also appeared to buy into several obviously unfounded objections to Crossroads Solar, said Craig Adair, vice president of development at Open Road Renewables. For example, its ruling cited community skepticism about the company’s intention to graze sheep around the panels, since no contracts for such an arrangement had yet been signed. The board also noted opponents’ fears that the permit would later be transferred to another firm that wouldn’t make good on Open Road Renewables’ promises.
But the application’s commitment to use sheep would become part of the permit conditions, Adair noted. And, as a matter of basic contract law, any company that acquired the project would be subject to the same conditions as Open Road Renewables regarding permits, leases, easements, and other agreements.
The board also didn’t examine whether local governments’ objections to Crossroads Solar were based on misinformation, such as a laundry list of concerns about fires, contaminated drinking water, heat islands, and stray voltage.
“It’s taking fact and truth out of the equation, and it’s truly about concerns and politics,” said Doug Herling, a vice president at Open Road Renewables.
Instead, the board “denied a project that has no fuel requirements while we’re in the middle of an oil and gas crisis,” Herling continued, referencing the current supply disruptions caused by war in the Middle East. He also pointed out that solar can be built faster than gas plants, which face yearslong supply chain backlogs, and it doesn’t emit planet-warming and health-harming pollution.
Herling and Adair said the company plans to ask the board to reconsider its ruling.
Meanwhile, the permit denial “sends a dangerous signal to investors,” Adair said.
“I wish the state of Ohio luck in meeting its power needs and keeping power prices from going through the roof,” he said. For renewable energy developers, “it’s now a game of Russian roulette as to whether you would get a permit and what those criteria are.”
{
if ($event.target.classList.contains(‘hs-richtext’)) {
if ($event.target.textContent === ‘+ more options’) {
$event.target.remove();
open = true;
}
}
}”
>
