COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court is deliberating several high-stakes challenges to large-scale solar developments, cases that could clarify how the state weighs statewide clean-energy benefits against local opposition when assessing whether projects serve the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

Decisions in these disputes are likely to shape the future of renewable energy expansion in Ohio, the influence of community input on permitting, and the balance struck between local land-use concerns and broader grid reliability needs.

Circleville Solar appeal highlights debate over local opposition

One of the most prominent cases involves Circleville Solar Facility LLC’s proposed 70-megawatt solar array on approximately 1,289 acres in Jackson Township, Pickaway County. The developer submitted its application in December 2021, but encountered opposition through resolutions from township trustees, county commissioners, and the City of Circleville. In November 2024, the Ohio Power Siting Board denied the certificate, determining the project did not meet the public-interest standard due to unanimous and consistent local resistance.

The board’s record included some backing for the project. In April 2024, former Circleville Mayor Don McIlroy submitted written comments in support. McIlroy, who served three terms starting in 2012, described multiple meetings with NextEra Energy Resources representatives and a 2021 City Hall gathering to review project maps and discuss potential effects. He indicated that community views on solar were initially neutral or positive, with significant opposition emerging only after two separate, larger solar proposals generated controversy elsewhere. McIlroy pointed to the project’s substantial setbacks from roads and structures, projected tax revenue for schools and local governments, planned educational partnerships, and advantages for landowners in maintaining long-term farm ownership.

During oral arguments on January 6, 2026, attorneys for the developer and the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council argued that widespread local disapproval alone should not suffice to block a project. They stressed the need to balance site-specific concerns with statewide advantages, such as expanded clean-energy generation, and cautioned that prioritizing generalized anti-solar views could undermine Ohio’s regulatory process. Justices inquired about the proper role of community sentiment in light of potential power shortages and whether the denial hinged exclusively on local views. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks or months.

Fountain Point Solar challenge questions evaluation of support

The court is also reviewing an appeal of the OPSB’s September 2024 approval for Fountain Point Solar Energy LLC’s 280-megawatt facility on about 2,100 acres (within a 2,768-acre project area) in Bokescreek Township, Logan County. Opponents, including Citizens Against Fountain Point, argue the board gave excessive weight to endorsements from a limited number of local officials while underplaying broader community opposition, emergency response concerns, and claims of procedural issues. The board has defended its comprehensive review of testimony. Oral arguments took place in November 2025; no decision has been issued yet.

Harvey Solar ruling upholds board’s discretion

These ongoing cases build on recent precedents outlining the OPSB’s authority. In May 2025 (Slip Opinion 2025-Ohio-1503), the Supreme Court affirmed the board’s approval of Harvey Solar I LLC’s 350-megawatt project on 2,630 acres in Hartford and Bennington townships, Licking County. A citizens group, Save Hartford Twp., and 11 nearby residents had challenged the decision.

Justice R. Patrick DeWine, writing for the majority, concluded that challengers did not demonstrate the board acted unlawfully or unreasonably. The OPSB had attached 39 conditions to address environmental, visual, and operational impacts, and it reasonably considered both positive and negative economic factors—including potential losses in agricultural use—before concluding the project served the public interest.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in the judgment only, writing separately to recommend that applicants provide evidence of both positive and negative economic impacts in future proceedings. She noted that lacking such balanced information could impair the board’s ability to accurately assess public interest.

Hancock County project approval affirmed

On December 24, 2025, the court upheld the OPSB’s approval of South Branch Solar LLC’s roughly 130-megawatt (precisely 129.6-130 MW) facility on about 700 acres in Hancock County near Arcadia. Challengers, including a local firefighter, contended the board relied on inadequate or biased evidence, but the court found the developer had appropriately reduced the project’s scale, accepted rigorous conditions, and that claims of unproven harms were unsupported.

Growing stakes for Ohio’s renewable future

Collectively, these cases reflect persistent tensions between localized worries—such as impacts on farmland, visual character, and community identity—and statewide objectives to increase renewable capacity.

The court’s forthcoming rulings may establish clearer guidelines on how much local opposition can legitimately influence outcomes without creating an effective veto over projects that otherwise satisfy technical and regulatory criteria, potentially affecting the location, timeline, and viability of future solar developments across the state.