The Ohio Supreme Court is weighing a high-profile energy dispute that could have major implications for future renewable projects across the state: whether the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) acted lawfully when it denied a construction permit for a large solar farm in Pickaway County based largely on local opposition.
The case centers on Circleville Solar LLC, which applied in December 2021 to build a 70-megawatt solar facility on roughly 1,289 acres in Jackson Township. The land, historically used for agriculture, was secured through agreements with private landowners. According to the developer, the project exceeded state siting requirements, with most solar structures set back well beyond minimum distances from roads and neighboring homes.
The project had backing from the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC), which represents about 240 Ohio communities and agreed to purchase all electricity generated by the facility. However, opposition quickly formed at the local level. Both the Pickaway County Board of Commissioners and Jackson Township Trustees passed resolutions opposing the project, citing concerns about farmland loss, safety, and community impacts. The City of Circleville later joined in opposition.
After public hearings and staff review, the Ohio Power Siting Board denied the application in November 2024, ruling that the project failed to meet the statutory requirement that it serve the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” under Ohio law. The board cited what it described as unanimous and consistent local opposition as a key factor in its decision.
Circleville Solar has appealed that ruling directly to the Ohio Supreme Court, which is required to hear such cases. NOPEC and the Jackson Township trustees were also permitted to intervene and present arguments.
Developer: Denial Based Solely on Local Opposition Is Unlawful
Circleville Solar argues that the siting board improperly created a new standard by allowing local opposition alone to outweigh broader public benefits. The company contends that “public interest” under state law must include statewide considerations, not just local sentiment.
The developer maintains it met all technical and regulatory requirements and disputes the claim of unanimous opposition, pointing to endorsements from some local officials and community leaders. Circleville Solar also highlights projected economic benefits, including $63.3 million in economic impact and $560,000 in local tax revenue over the project’s 30-year lifespan. Plans for a STEM education center tied to the solar facility were also cited as a local benefit.
NOPEC echoed those arguments, stating that local interests should only outweigh statewide interests if a project fails to demonstrate broader value. The organization argues the siting board failed to consider the needs of its 500,000 Ohio customers, many of whom seek locally produced renewable energy and long-term price stability.
Siting Board: Decision Was Lawful and Precedented
The Ohio Power Siting Board counters that its decision followed state law and long-standing precedent. Board officials argue they properly weighed the project’s benefits against community impacts, including concerns about fire safety, traffic, and the loss of productive farmland.
The board notes that local opposition has played a role in rejecting other solar and wind projects in recent years and that Ohio statutes explicitly allow consideration of local government input. It also argues courts should defer to the board’s discretion when determining what serves the public interest.
Watch the argument below
Jackson Township trustees, supporting the board, say the project threatens the township’s agricultural character and could harm farmers and businesses dependent on crop production.
Business Groups Weigh In
The Ohio Chamber of Commerce filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Circleville Solar, raising an additional constitutional concern. The chamber argues that denying the permit could amount to a regulatory taking, requiring the state to compensate the developer for preventing economically viable use of the property.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could clarify how much weight local opposition can carry in Ohio energy siting decisions and may shape the future of renewable development statewide.
