Missed opportunities
Doug Herling, a vice president at energy developer Open Road Renewables, has a question for the court: “Why did you run out the clock?”
Herling’s company isn’t a party in Kingwood Solar, but it had cases of its own last year and this year in which the OPSB or its staff likewise deferred to local government opposition and denied permits.
Vesper Energy declined to comment at this time. Under the Ohio Supreme Court’s rules, its response to the OPSB’s dismissal motion is due by July 13, but the court could rule before then.
“The court’s delay and rejection of Kingwood’s motion for expedited ruling has complicated this case in a way that wasn’t necessary,” said Karin Nordstrom, an attorney with the Ohio Environmental Council, which has been a party in several related cases. Regardless of PJM’s deadline, though, “getting a resolution and clarity from the court on this issue remains a matter of great public interest,” Nordstrom said.
The potential ruling on Kingwood Solar comes at a critical time for Ohio, which is seeing growing energy demand due to data centers and other factors, coupled with rising energy costs. Despite the state’s appetite for energy, it continues to stymie renewable energy developments.
“A substantive review of the public interest, including a substantive review of the reasoning for public support and opposition, remains incredibly important, because Ohio does need more energy,” Nordstrom said. Both developers and environmental advocates “need Kingwood for clarity on this issue.”
Otherwise, building solar or wind projects in Ohio remains highly risky and stressful for developers.
“It just sends a message that right now it is not safe to invest in new development in this state, because what should be a three- to five-year development timeline could stretch past fairly reasonable interconnection deadlines,” Herling said. “No one can make an investment decision with this type of uncertainty facing you, along with the rest of the regulatory climate now facing renewables in the state.”
After SB 52 took effect, opponents of renewable energy began pushing counties not only to adopt bans against new solar and wind development, but also to oppose even “grandfathered” projects that were exempt from the law. Greene County and the three townships where Kingwood Solar would be built all passed resolutions against it.
Meanwhile, the OPSB diverged from its prior practices and began treating local government pushback as sufficient to deny permit applications, even though SB 52 did not alter the legal definition of “public interest.”
The OPSB’s decision on Kingwood Solar focused on whether government opposition was unanimous and noted when objections were vigorous, but largely ignored whether any arguments against the project were based in fact or on misinformation, resistance to change, or political pressure. The regulators failed to clarify the public interest standard when they updated their rules in 2024, despite requests from industry and environmental groups.
The Kingwood case offers an opportunity to make the law clear, if the court decides not to dismiss it.
Even if the court does dismiss the case, the issue isn’t going away: An appeal filed in March 2025 for NextEra Energy’s Circleville solar farm raised similar arguments to those in the Kingwood Solar case. There has still been no ruling in that case either, even though the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral argument more than six months ago.
