The proposed facility would consist of large arrays of photovoltaic modules, also known as solar panels, ground-mounted on a tracking rack system, according to the OPSB. It would include associated facilities such as access roads, underground electric collection lines, inverters and transformers, and a collector substation.
A seven-foot-tall perimeter fence would secure the facility with access through gated entrances. Solar modules would be set back a minimum of 300 feet from non-participating residences, 150 feet from the edge of pavement of roads, 150 feet from non-participating property boundaries and 50 feet from active drinking water wells, according to the OPSB.
Ryan Van Portfliet, senior director of development of Invenergy, thanked everyone who participated in the hearing and shared their perspectives.
“Sloopy Solar represents an opportunity to deliver reliable, Ohio-generated energy to meet rapidly increasing energy demands with affordable energy, support the region’s economic growth, and respect property rights,” he said. “We remain committed to being a responsive partner to the Clark County community and look forward to the Ohio Power Siting Board’s continued, thorough review of the project.”
Manette Asta, Zachary Clark and Will Brailer, administrative law judges in the board’s legal department, conducted the hearing. About 50 community members spoke at the hearing, including those who are union members, farm and land owners, coalition members and students.
Members of local unions were all in support of the project, stating the opportunities it would bring related to apprenticeships, students and young workers, benefits and wages.
“This solar project will open the door to high-paying, family-sustaining careers with benefits and ongoing training, ensuring that Clark County residents can build lasting careers in construction,” said Vincent Irvin, Ohio Laborers’ Training & Apprenticeship Program. “Large projects like this are critical to introducing new workers through registered apprenticeship and the construction industry, strengthening Clark County and Ohio’s workforce and supporting the skilled members of my craft.”
Phillip Hooten said Sloopy Solar developers “made a commitment” to the local union that the work on the project would be done by locals.
“When our members are on these projects, they earn stable pay and benefits that allow us to buy homes and put children in extracurricular activities and stay involved in local community activities,” he said. “When this project comes to town, they’ll do more than just add jobs. They’ll boost the local economy ... The cost of saying no to this project is just too high.”
Others in support included lifelong Clark County resident Eric Bradley who said “change is coming whether they like it or not.”
Robert Seman of Springfield said it’s a good opportunity.
“Things could be much worse ... I believe in live and let live. What a person likes to do with their land is okay by me. Solar may have its downside, but the opposite may be true,” he said. “I personally think that if landowners want the solar on their properties, they should be allowed to do so.”
“There’s continuous contributions through the lifetime of the project to the local community ... There’s not a lot of industry coming into Clark County. This is a great opportunity to spur that economic activity to enable us to educate our children,” Seman said.
Residents who are against the project raised concerns such as losing farmland, toxic chemicals, water, wildlife, traffic congestion and road safety, and more.
“It concerns me that we’re seeing all of our land disappear, not just for solar projects, but for housing and other things. I know there’s a necessity but we’re losing our farmland and you can’t get that back,” said Mary Adkins. “I’m not against solar. I’m against solar on farms. There’s plenty of other places that those power lines are available that they could put solar panels and still benefit the company, Clark County, the laborers, but not take our farm land away from us.”
Stephanie Ramsey of South Vienna said local leadership and elected officials are opposed to the project. She said, “It would be a disservice to our community to not listen to us and our leaders. We respectfully asked for you to deny this project as it certainly does not serve the needs of our community or land.”
Courtney Hoffmaster of South Charleston lives directly across the road from where the project would be and is concerned about heavy traffic, drainage, soil and severe weather.
“This land is classified as prime farmland, some of the most fertile in the country. We do not know yet if land used for large-scale solar can truly be restored ... There’s only so much prime farmland left. We should not risk losing it through an industrial experiment,” she said.
Jordan Flax, a junior at Southeastern schools, said the solar facility would be right next to his family’s farm and is worried he won’t get to fully work on the farm after he graduates.
“If they start construction on this solar project, I won’t be allowed to help move equipment or deliver stuff like I do now. My parents said there will be too much traffic ... I don’t think it’s fair. I’m going to live here my whole life and farm. I don’t think it’s right that they want to do this and I’ll have to always farm and live next to this,” he said.
The project is partially grandfathered in, according to the OPSB, because they received a system impact study and paid fees before October 2021. It was already in motion before passage of Senate Bill 52 in the fall of 2021, which allows a board of county commissioners to prohibit the construction of utility-scale wind or solar facilities altogether or in certain designated zones in unincorporated areas.
Clark County commissioners will not have any control over this project, though they had the ability to appoint Charles Patterson as an ad hoc board members to represent the commissioners on the OPSB while that agency has oversight of the project.
OPSB staff investigated the application for the proposed solar facility and recommended it be denied, according to the staff report. If the OPSB approves the certificate for the proposed facility, staff recommends 64 conditions for the board’s consideration.
An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. April 16, at the offices of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio in Columbus. During this hearing, the applicant, OPSB staff and intervening parties will offer expert testimony and evidence regarding the proposed facilities.
Once the evidentiary process is complete, the OPSB will schedule the project for a decision at a future monthly board meeting.
About the Author
