June 20 – Local governments have spent $204,513 in taxpayer money on legal bills fighting a Texas company’s proposal to build a solar power generating facility in Greene County, an investigation by this news organization shows
These legal costs could increase as Kingwood Solar I, LLC’s proposal remains active despite strong public opposition, an Ohio Power Siting Board rejection of the company’s application and an unsuccessful appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court by Kingwood Solar, a subsidiary of the Texas-based company. Vespers energy.
Kingwood Solar is pending a new appeal against the decision of the establishment council in court. And Vesper subsidiary Aviation Energy Center has proposed a new solar power generation facility in Greene County, although it has not yet submitted an application to the site board or announced the proposed location in the county.
The company is currently evaluating land options and meeting with landowners and the community about the second proposed project, said Lindsey Workman, community affairs manager at Vesper.
“If the Ohio Supreme Court rules in favor of Kingwood Solar’s appeal, we are still very interested in working with the community to review and incorporate reasonable layout changes in response to specific local feedback,” Workman said. “We believe Kingwood is beneficial to Ohio’s energy infrastructure, environment and economy.”
Kingwood Solar plans to build a 175-megawatt solar electric generating facility on 1,200 acres of land in the townships of Cedarville, Miami and Xenia between Yellow Springs and Cedarville in Greene County. The plots leased from approximately 17 landowners are not all contiguous, so different parts of the project are spread over several kilometers in the three townships.
Kingwood Solar applied to the site administration for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need in 2021, but was rejected in December 2022. A request for rehearing was also rejected.
“Town officials are not opposed to responsible solar projects. They consider utility-scale projects that adopt our local zoning resolution, placed near the power lines that take valuable land out of production, to be unresponsible solar,” said Xenia Twp. Administrator Alan Stock, whose council spent $69,479.85 on legal fees fighting the Kingwood Solar proposal.
The townships of Greene County and Cedarville, Miami and Greene County has spent $61,931.96 on legal fees to date. The county and Miami Twp. have filed merit briefs against Kingwood Solar’s latest appeal.
“We stepped in to make sure we had a seat at the table,” said Cedarville Twp. Trustee Jeff Ewry, noted that legal fees cost the council $46,075. “Our position from a council point of view is that we are not really against the solar projects. We are just against the location of them.”
Ewry said the amount of agricultural land that would be used for the project and its proximity to residential properties were major concerns.
“They’re wrapping this around too many houses,” he said.
Miami Twp. Trustee Don Hollister said he has spoken to citizens in several townships and has encountered overwhelming opposition to the plan, although many are in favor of rooftop solar or smaller-scale solar fields. Miami Twp. spent $27,026.50 in legal fees to fight the project, Hollister said.
“Kingwood’s location in Xenia Township would have taken prime agricultural lands out of agricultural production,” Stock said. “There were also concerns about the impact on adjacent properties. There were concerns about disruption to the scenic and rural character of the borough.”
Wind and solar energy restrictions
In 2022, the Greene County Commission declared the unincorporated areas of Cedarville Twp. off-limits for large-scale solar and wind energy facilities. They did the same in 2023 for unincorporated land in Xenia Twp. and for only two years in parts of Miami Twp. south and east of the Little Miami River, which includes the Kingwood Solar project area. The actions were taken at the request of county officials after public meetings, said Lisa Hale, assistant Greene County administrator.
“The only way they can build the project is if they win the appeal,” said Greene County Administrator Brandon Huddleson. “They can’t come back because of the resolutions with a smaller project that still meets the definition of large-scale solar.”
The county also limited solar and wind development in Sugarcreek, Ross and Jefferson townships at the request of those jurisdictions’ administrators, making about half of the county’s jurisdictions off-limits to large-scale wind and solar projects, Hale said . Other jurisdictions have had no impact, she said.
“The commissioners recognize that they represent people and strongly believe that those people should have their voices heard,” Hale said. “It’s a matter of where in our state and where in our county is an appropriate location for that.”
When asked if Vesper planned to fight these restrictions, Workman said there was a lot of “misinformation” about utility-scale solar when these decisions were made and that the company is trying to better communicate with the community about Kingwood Solar and Aviation Energy Center. .
“We believe that by creating strong relationships through information sharing and community involvement, the benefits of solar energy and our project will lead to change,” Workman said.
“Ohio, and the local townships, have many active community members who likely wanted to learn more about the project and felt uninformed. We now have a department and team of six people who are committed to working in communities.”
410,000 solar panels
The Kingwood Solar project includes 410,000 photovoltaic panels in linear arrays, associated equipment and structures, approximately 11 miles of roadway and a six-foot fence, according to construction board documents. Kingwood has scaled back its original proposal from 1,500 hectares to 1,200 hectares.
The facility would be connected to the high-voltage grid through an agreement with PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of wholesale power in 13 states, including Ohio, and the District of Columbia.
That transmission line runs through Greene County.
“What is golden for a company like Vesper is PJM’s approval to connect to the electric grid,” Ewry said.
Kingwood’s application said the company considered the Greene County sites because of strong solar potential, proximity to electrical connections, willing landowners, site accessibility, compatible land use and limited environmental restrictions.
“The need to diversify electricity supplies and provide a clean, safe and stable grid has never been greater. Ohio is experiencing an increase in loads, putting pressure on the electric grid, and the nation is experiencing less stable weather conditions due to climate change,” says Workman. said, “By adding solar to the grid, we can address both infrastructure needs and clean energy goals.”
In 2021, after Kingwood Solar began trying to locate the project, state lawmakers passed a law expanding the role of local jurisdictions in locating major utility projects. The branch management has the final say on these projects.
The board consists of 11 members and is chaired by the head of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. It includes directors of five other state departments, one member of the public who is an engineer appointed by the governor, and four non-voting members who are state legislators.
In denying Kingwood Solar’s application, the board cited overwhelming opposition from the public and local jurisdictions, saying the project did not serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity” as required by state law.
The site board heard from 68 opponents and supporters at a public hearing in November 2021, where 76% were against the project and 24% were in favor. An additional 222 public comments were submitted, with 63% opposed and 37% in favor of the project, according to the site council’s decision.
“The overarching issue raised by opponents of the project was the concern that the project is incompatible with local land use plans and would invariably alter the rural character of the community,” the site board decision said.
Opponents raised concerns about the loss of prime agricultural land and the impact on food supplies, saying they feared it would damage the land, reduce property values, negatively impact wildlife and aesthetics, cause noise and would not be properly dismantled.
The proponents, including landowners who had leased their land to Kingwood, advocated for the rights and autonomy of property owners over their land, saying it allowed farmers to diversify their income and protect their land from more permanent development. Project backers also pointed to the benefits of solar energy as a renewable and clean energy source, the tax revenue that would go to local schools and governments, and employment opportunities during construction and operation.
In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the board claims it correctly applied state law in denying the company a certificate to build the facility, and that this should not be questioned by the court.
Kingwood Solar argues that the board improperly rejected its proposal and that the plan met the criteria of state law, according to the company’s Oct. 11, 2023 appeal. The company also alleges that the board overruled local governments’ positions on the project has been wrongly considered.
Workman said the company wants to “work with local communities and respond to requests when possible.”
“To date, the project has committed to increasing the distance to 300 feet from public roads, property lines and public lands. In addition, we have committed to vegetative screening to limit visibility of the project from neighboring homes,” Workman said . “The entire project will be seeded with pollinator-friendly plants that have a positive impact on biodiversity. Solar energy projects also do not use pesticides.”
She said the company would comply with all state and local maintenance and decommissioning regulations.
More than 65% of a solar facility’s land is open, native grassland that can be converted to agricultural land when the facility is decommissioned, Workman said.
“In addition, there are other larger threats to important agricultural land, including residential development and climate change,” she said. “Solar projects can help preserve the agricultural character of a community and allow landowners to preserve their properties for future generations.”
Staff writer London Bishop contributed to this report.
Follow @LynnHulseyDDN on Facebook, Instagram and X.
