The decision leaves intact the board’s February 2023 order approving the project, subject to more than 50 conditions related to stormwater management, wildlife protection, setbacks, and visual screening.
In its opinion, the court reiterated the limited standard it applies when reviewing Power Siting Board decisions. Under Ohio law, the court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the board. Instead, it assesses whether the board’s order was unlawful or unreasonable and whether it was supported by sufficient probative evidence.
The justices concluded that the board acted within its authority and relied on an extensive evidentiary record, including staff investigations, environmental studies, agency consultations, and expert testimony submitted during the certification process.
A central focus of the appeal was whether the board properly evaluated the project’s environmental impacts, including effects on wildlife, drainage, and flooding. The court found that the applicant complied with applicable administrative rules by submitting literature reviews, field surveys, and mitigation plans addressing ecological resources.
The ruling clarifies that Ohio’s siting statutes do not require applicants to document every species present near a project site or eliminate all environmental impacts. Instead, the board must determine whether impacts are adequately characterized and mitigated in light of available technology and alternatives.
With respect to flooding and drainage, the court cited stormwater analyses, commitments to comply with state construction permits, and drain-tile mitigation plans as sufficient to support the board’s findings.
The court also addressed arguments that the board discounted public and local-government opposition. While acknowledging that the project generated significant public comment, the court emphasized that public input is informative but not determinative under Ohio law.
Notably, the court highlighted the role of a negotiated stipulation between the developer, board staff, county commissioners, and agricultural interests. That stipulation, which included enhanced conditions, was treated as evidence that local concerns were considered during the regulatory process.
Economic impacts were another point of contention. The court found that the board reasonably relied on economic studies estimating construction jobs, operational employment, and local tax revenues. It rejected claims that the board was required to quantify specific negative economic impacts, such as lost agricultural production, concluding that existing rules require an estimate of economic impact rather than a comprehensive accounting of every potential downside.
A concurring opinion, however, noted that while the board has discretion, future applicants may be expected to more explicitly assess both positive and negative economic effects depending on local context.
The decision reinforces several aspects of Ohio’s power-siting framework:
For stakeholders tracking solar development in Ohio, the ruling provides additional clarity on how courts are likely to treat challenges to board-approved projects, particularly as utility-scale solar continues to expand across agricultural regions.
For brands and agencies looking to reach the decision-makers who read E+E Leader:
Request the media kit and learn more about advertising and partnership opportunities.
