MOUNT VERNON — A coalition of property owners is appealing the Ohio Power Siting Board’s approval of the Frasier Solar project in Miller and Clinton townships.
Preserve Knox County Ohio LLC (PKCO), along with 17 property owners in Miller, Clinton, and Morgan townships, filed an appeal on July 25.
The OPSB approved Open Road Renewables’ 120-megawatt solar-power electric generation facility by an 8-1 vote on June 26.
Galen Smith, the representative from Clinton and Miller townships to the OPSB ad-hoc board, cast the no vote.
“The township residents were opposed to the Frasier project. They did not want industrial solar in the township, so I voted according to their wishes,” he said at the time.
PKCO and the landowners based their appeal on six points under Ohio Revised Code 4906.10 provisions (A) 2, 3, and 6.
Specifically, they allege the OPSB acted unlawfully when the board found that:
•The solar project serves the public interest despite overwhelming public opposition from Knox County residents.
•Solar Frasier represents minimal environmental impact despite ORR’s failure to provide measures that minimize adverse visual impacts
•That the facility serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity, even though it will displace crop production on valuable farmland and cause flooding and drainage problems on surrounding properties
• That the facility serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity, even though Open Road has not provided an anticipated impact to roads and bridges associated with construction
“Even if there is a small chance of victory we have to go for it. If we don’t continue to fight, there is a 0% chance we will prevail.”
Ben Dean, Preserve knox county ohio
Additionally, the appeal states that the OPSB erred in evaluating the probable environmental impact because Open Road Renewables did not provide the necessary information to determine the potential impact on wildlife.
Craig Adair, vice president of development for Open Road Renewables, believes the siting board made the correct decision.
“The Board carefully reviewed the facts of the case and resoundingly rejected every one of Preserve Knox County’s arguments,” he said.
” It’s unfortunate that they have chosen to continue their efforts to thwart the fundamental right of Knox County farmers to use their property as they see fit. I’m confident that OPSB’s decision will stand.”
Serving the public interest
According to the appeal, the OPSB has set a precedent of placing particular significance on a project’s impact on individuals most directly affected, primarily residents living near the project.
The appeal notes that when analyzing public comment, more people opposed Frasier Solar than supported it. More specifically, it states that Open Road inflated the number of county residents supporting the project because it included Kenyon College students, even though they did not demonstrate an intent to become residents by registering to vote.
Additionally, the appeal notes the opposition of Morgan and Miller township trustees, the City of Mount Vernon, the Knox Soil and Water Conservation District, Knox County Airport Authority, and various state officials representing Knox County.
‘Most persuasive evidence’
According to the appeal, however, the “most persuasive evidence of Knox County’s view on the project manifested itself in the Republican primary votes on March 19, 2024, for two county commissioner nominations.”
Candidates Drenda Keesee and Bob Phillips collected 40% and 33% of the votes, respectively, over incumbent Thom Collier (27%). Keesee and Phillips based their campaigns primarily on their opposition to large solar projects.
Keesee was unopposed in the November General Election and assumed her commissioner duties in January. Her husband, Gary, is a party to the OPSB appeal.
The appeal also notes that Knox County Commissioner Barry Lester opposed large-scale solar during his 2024 primary campaign. He won the primary with 27% of the votes over three other candidates.
Incumbent Commissioner Bill Pursel was appointed to the OPSB’s ad-hoc committee under the previous Board of County Commissioners. He supported the OPSB judges’ decision to approve Solar Frasier.
Because Commissioner Keesee’s husband is an intervenor, she must recuse herself from any decisions made by the commissioners relating to Frasier Solar. That would leave the commissioners deadlocked on any vote.
According to the appeal, the siting board erred when it interpreted the lack of an official vote from the commissioners opposing Frasier Solar as meaning county residents were not overwhelmingly opposed.
“Whenever Knox County citizens had a chance to express their views on the Frasier Solar Project, they opposed it by a wide margin,” said Ben Dean of PKCO.
“We were not represented well by the former commissioners. So, when we had the chance, our county put in two new commissioners that strongly oppose the Frasier Solar project.”
Solar projects arise in nearby regions
Frasier Solar is not the only solar project Miller Township residents are facing.
In May, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the OPSB’s approval of Harvey Solar in Licking County’s Hartford and Bennington townships. Harvey Solar abuts Hilliar and Miller townships in Knox County.
Open Road proposed Harvey Solar in June 2021. The siting board approved the 350-megawatt facility in October 2022. However, a coalition of landowners appealed the decision on grounds similar to PKCO’s appeal.
According to Court News Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the board’s decision because the “court’s only task is to determine whether the siting board complied with state law when authorizing the solar farm, and the Court can only overturn the board if it finds that the board’s decision was ‘unlawful or unreasonable.’”
The court’s decision did not deter Knox County landowners.
Dean noted that the siting board never denied a solar project until the Birch1 Solar Project in Northwest Ohio.
“They have denied or the staff has recommended denial on six-plus since then. So, even though the Supreme Court has been hesitant in the past to overrule the OPSB, there is still a chance they will. We believe that we have a valid and strong case,” he said.
The OPSB denied Birch1 Solar because it was not in the public interest. Birch Solar appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, but dropped its appeal in January.
“Even if there is a small chance of victory we have to go for it. If we don’t continue to fight there is a 0% chance we will prevail,” Dean said.
“It is our community, our quality of life, our way of life, our homes, and our well-being at stake. From the beginning, we have been neighbors standing up for and alongside neighbors. We are not ready to give up on each other yet.”
