The battle waged by some Ohio Republican lawmakers for more than a decade to limit wind and solar development is back on the front burner, this time with the support of some rural voters who say the decisions of the state’s Power Siting Board (PSB) on utility-scale projects should be put to a vote at the township level.

A pair of bills introduced last month both in the House of Representatives and Senate to give townships the last word on renewable projects had their third public hearings before utility committees this week and are expected to quickly move to floor votes.

House Bill 118, introduced Feb. 16 by Northwest Ohio Reps. Dick Stein (R) and Craig Riedel (R), has been presented as a way for local government to pull back control of renewable projects from the PSB, characterized as distant and paying little attention to local issues in proponent testimony earlier this month. Senate Bill 52, introduced Feb. 9 by Sens. Bill Reineke (R) and Rob McColley (R), both also representing the state’s northwest, takes a similar tack.

But an unexpected surge of opposition orchestrated by the solar industry to the bills, buttressed by pro-solar farmers worried about the politicization of their property rights in ballot fights, appears to have stalled momentum on the legislation.

Well over 120 people, including farmers, school districts administrators, economic development organizations and solar developers, logged objections to the proposed legislation this week. The committee hearings, which lasted nearly five hours each, ended with neither votes nor an announcement of further hearings.

GOP leadership has successfully reduced Ohio’s renewable mandate since it was initiated in 2008 at 12.5% by 2025, to 8.5% by 2026. A second, abolished mandate required another 12.5% of power sold in Ohio by 2025 to be generated by “advanced energy” technologies, including fuel cells and advanced nuclear plants.

Renewables generated about 5% of the power produced in Ohio in 2019, according to the Public Utilities Commission, using data from PJM. About 2.5% of that was wind-generated.

Wind development has been stymied since 2014 when GOP leadership, participating in an 11th hour conference committee preparing the state budget, slipped language into the final legislation extending the distance a wind turbine must be from adjacent properties that are not part of a wind development.

But the pace of solar development, especially large utility-scale projects, has accelerated in recent years. Currently there are 23 applications totaling 4,279 MW pending before the PSB. The agency has already approved another dozen projects with a total generating capacity of more than 2,000 MW.

The growth of solar, typically welcomed by local schools and government because of the millions of dollars in guaranteed long-term payments they bring for up to 40 years, appears to have prompted the proposed legislation — as well as the pushback against it.

Michael Lutmer, who owns a farm in Highland County in southwest Ohio, summed up his disgust with the legislation in testimony before the House Public Utilities Committee: “I was surprised to read the bill sponsors believe they are ‘allowing citizens of a township the ability to exercise their property rights through a public referendum with regards to solar projects.’ What’s next, where I can park my truck, build my barn or how big my house can be?

“The property rights referred to in HB 118 are held by the person who writes the mortgage check,” Lutmer said. “As a farmer, I take on all the risk brought by Mother Nature. Diversification into a solar project represents a unique opportunity to supplement my volatile farming income with an income stream that is fixed over the life of the project. This is simply a good business practice.”

On March 9, another farmer, Joanna Clippinger of Preble County, also told the committee that she was a strong believer in private property rights. For that reason she supported HB 118 to allow local voters an up or down vote on the huge solar projects.

“My husband is a full-time farmer, and our livelihood depends on the productivity of our land. Yes, my neighbor certainly has property rights, but so do we,” she said, adding that her family has owned and farmed the property for more than 100 years.

Clippinger said she had to hire a lawyer to intervene in a case before the PSB for a 1,000-acre solar farm adjacent to her farm after learning that elected officials had little say over the project. “I had to spend thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer for someone in our government to hear my opinion. That goes against the very principles of democracy,” she said.

“I personally have many concerns about a large-scale solar facility being built next to me. However, if I knew, through a ballot initiative, that the majority of my fellow township residents supported its construction, I would be willing to accept the will of the people in my community. This bill embodies my core political beliefs: property rights, small government and, most importantly, local control,” she told committee members.

The Utility Scale Solar Energy Coalition of Ohio, a relatively new trade group organized by solar developers to answer the charges that developers and the PSB ignore the complaints of farmers who oppose solar farms, led the coordinated testimony opposing the legislation.

“In Ohio, data centers like Amazon, Facebook and Google are buying the energy from entire solar projects in an attempt to meet their sustainability goals,” Jason Rafeld, executive director of the coalition, told the committee. “Solar developers are racing to meet skyrocketing demand for clean energy, uniquely positioning the state to benefit for decades.

“If this opportunity is realized, the state will become a solar powerhouse, bringing thousands more jobs and billions of critically needed investment dollars and economic growth to municipalities.”

Others pointed out that the solar installations, which leave no permanent structures behind when they are decommissioned, are a way to give the farmland a rest. One witness noted that in some regions farmers have allowed sheep to graze between the rows of solar panels.

Jared Wren, a development associate with Hecate Energy, a global solar development company with projects under development in Ohio, including a 300-MW solar farm that will be built in Highland County, described the PSB licensing process as “fact-based, robust, rigorous and equitable.”

“When I am discussing solar development with folks in a project area, either around the kitchen table or standing outside around my pickup truck in the driveway, there are a few concepts that I work very hard to convey,” he said.

“First of all, that my company, and the project we intend to develop, is not a nameless, faceless entity, attempting to approach by stealth and drop a project next door without their knowledge. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I am there to give a face and a name to the projects and let folks know that I am there to hear their concerns, that I understand and respect their property and way of life,” he said.

Both Wren and competitor Mike Volpe, vice president at Open Road Renewables, another solar developer working in Ohio, noted that getting through the PSB process typically takes 12 to 16 months and that their companies typically spend money months before they even file an application with the agency.

Volpe said Open Road’s first Ohio project, the 200-MW Hillcrest project in Brown County, now nearly complete, will pay $1.8 million annually to local schools and government. He said Open Road hired 400 Ohio-based workers to build the solar farm.

Both developers also noted that they already contact local governments before they file applications with the PSB.