[ad_1]
On March 21, 2024, state regulators in Ohio permitted the Oak Run Photo voltaic Challenge, an 800-megawatt (MW) photo voltaic technology challenge that can embody 300 MW of battery storage, in addition to 4,000 acres of crops and 1,000 sheep on web site. This weblog put up will spotlight key options of the challenge, in addition to the opinion approving it, explaining: (a) what’s essential concerning the challenge; (b) who the important thing constituencies opposing and supporting it are; (c) how the Ohio Energy Siting Board (Siting Board) decides whether or not to approve or deny photo voltaic tasks; and (d) how the Siting Board determined that this challenge “will serve the general public curiosity, comfort, and necessity,” as required for approval.
What Is Essential In regards to the Oak Run Photo voltaic Challenge?
Oak Run is a solar-plus-storage challenge that can span 6,050 acres of personal land in Madison County, Ohio. The challenge is an business chief alongside three dimensions: technology capability, battery storage capability, and the incorporation of agrivoltaics (i.e., dual-use farming and photo voltaic technology) into challenge design.
First, with 800 MW of technology capability, Oak Run is the most important photo voltaic technology challenge ever permitted in Ohio. It is going to produce practically thrice as a lot energy as the most important accomplished photo voltaic facility, Yellowbud (274 MW), and virtually 40% extra energy than the subsequent largest permitted challenge, Fox Squirrel (577 MW).
Second, Oak Run’s 300-MW battery storage system is likewise the most important battery system ever permitted in Ohio. No different permitted system has a capability better than 200 MW.
Determine 1: Map of the Oak Run Photo voltaic Challenge space (Credit score: Ohio Energy Siting Board)
Third, and most significantly, Oak Run can be—by far—the most important agrivoltaics challenge in the US. (Opinion ¶ 220.) The developer beforehand dedicated to together with at the least 2,000 acres of crops within the 6,050-acre challenge web site. Nevertheless, within the choice approving the challenge, the Siting Board set benchmarks which can be much more bold. The choice stipulated that, after one 12 months of operation, Oak Run should embody 1,000 sheep and a pair of,000 crop acres; after eight years of operation, “at the least 70 % of the farmable Challenge Space, or 4,000 crop acres, shall include agrivoltaics.” (Opinion ¶ 221.) For context, on the time of the evidentiary listening to on Might 15, 2023, the most important agrivoltaics challenge within the nation was Madison Fields (additionally in Ohio), the place 150 acres of soybeans had been planted amongst rows of photo voltaic panels three days earlier. Earlier than Madison Fields, the most important agrivoltaics challenge within the nation was lower than 5 acres.
Who Opposes Oak Run—and Who Helps It?
Like many tasks throughout the nation, Oak Run encountered native opposition. Opponents embody three township boards of commissioners (the Townships), which issued resolutions towards the challenge and intervened within the Siting Board continuing to file testimony and briefs towards it. The county board of commissioners additionally issued a decision towards the challenge and intervened within the continuing, but it surely by no means submitted testimony or briefs. Opponents emphasised visible impacts (or, as they put it, “the inconsistency of the commercial photo voltaic facility with the agricultural character of the realm”), in addition to considerations concerning the lack of farmland.
However this opposition, Oak Run additionally discovered vital native help. The Sabin Heart, by means of the Renewable Power Authorized Protection Initiative (RELDI), partnered with Ohio lawyer Trent Dougherty to assist an area supporter named Dr. John Boeckl intervene within the Siting Board continuing to advocate for approval of the challenge. As an intervenor, Dr. Boeckl submitted written testimony and two briefs (see his opening temporary right here and reply temporary right here) explaining why he helps the challenge. Others who intervened in help of the challenge have been the native chapter of the Worldwide Brotherhood of Electrical Employees (IBEW), the Ohio Environmental Council, and Ohio Companions for Inexpensive Power. Supporters primarily emphasised financial and environmental advantages of the challenge.
Others intervened with out taking a stance on whether or not the challenge ought to be permitted or denied. Specifically, the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and the Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District intervened for the extra restricted goal of advocating for measures to guard agricultural soils, the farming business, and water high quality. Along with those that formally intervened within the continuing, state and native residents submitted at the least 890 public feedback expressing a variety of views concerning the challenge.
How Are Photo voltaic Initiatives Authorised in Ohio?
Photo voltaic tasks in Ohio with a technology capability of at the least 50 MW and wind tasks of at the least 5 MW require approval from the state Siting Board. Smaller tasks are permitted on the county stage.
Renewable power tasks face vital disadvantages within the siting course of in comparison with fossil gasoline tasks resulting from a three-year-old state legislation that permits counties to dam giant photo voltaic and wind tasks—however not giant fossil gasoline tasks. S.B. 52, enacted in 2021, empowers counties to dam photo voltaic tasks of at the least 50 MW and wind tasks of at the least 5 MW by: (a) vetoing functions for particular person tasks; and/or (b) establishing restricted areas the place any such challenge is prohibited. As proven under, at the least 16 counties have now created restricted areas the place photo voltaic is prohibited.
Determine 2: Ohio counties with restricted areas the place photo voltaic tasks of at the least 50 MW are prohibited
Importantly, nevertheless, as a result of Oak Run was already within the interconnection queue on the time S.B. 52 was handed, it’s considered one of a dwindling variety of tasks which can be “grandfathered in” to the Siting Board’s unique management and exempt from county veto or restrictions. The one provision of S.B. 52 that applies to Oak Run is the requirement to incorporate two advert hoc voting members nominated by the townships and county among the many 9 voting members of the Siting Board.
To approve a challenge, the Siting Board should “discover and decide,” in related half:
***
(2) The character of the possible environmental impression;
(3) That the power represents the minimal antagonistic environmental impression, contemplating the state of accessible expertise and the character and economics of the assorted options, and different pertinent concerns;
***
(6) That the power will serve the general public curiosity, comfort, and necessity;
(7) [W]hat its impression can be on the viability as agricultural land of any land in an present agricultural district …
(8) That the power incorporates most possible water conservation practices as decided by the board, contemplating accessible expertise and the character and economics of the assorted options.
Ohio Rev. Code 4906.10(A).
What Is Vital In regards to the Siting Board’s Opinion?
In its March 21 opinion, the Siting Board discovered that Oak Run happy the entire statutory standards for approval. Essentially the most vital a part of the choice was the Siting Board’s evaluation of whether or not the challenge will “serve the general public curiosity, comfort, and necessity,” a criterion that’s notoriously opaque. 4 key features of the Siting Board’s choice are significantly fascinating.
First, even supposing all three townships and the county through which the Oak Run challenge is to be positioned issued resolutions towards the challenge, the Siting Board discovered that opposition from native governments was not unanimous—and due to this fact didn’t compel rejection. For context, in a 2023 choice rejecting one other challenge, the Siting Board held that “the unanimous opposition of each native authorities entity representing the realm through which the Challenge is to be positioned is controlling as as to whether the Challenge is within the public curiosity, comfort, and necessity.” Between October 2022 and January 2023, the Siting Board rejected a complete of three photo voltaic tasks on this foundation, abruptly shifting gears after having permitted 34 photo voltaic tasks in a row since 2018.
Within the Oak Run case, the Siting Board didn’t constrain its evaluation as to whether township and county commissioners had issued resolutions for or towards the challenge. As a substitute, the Siting Board checked out how particular person commissioners had voted, in addition to expressions of help from different elected and appointed native officers. The Siting Board famous that the county commissioners have been “persistently not unanimous” of their decision towards the challenge, explaining that one of many commissioners, Mark Forrest, had testified in help. (Order ¶ 226.) The Siting Board additional famous that challenge “obtained help from the elected President of the London Metropolis Faculty Board, the Superintendent of London Metropolis Colleges, the Treasurer and Chief Monetary Officer of the Jefferson Native Faculty District, the Superintendent of the Jefferson Native Faculty District, and the Superintendent of Benjamin Logan Native Faculty District.” (Order ¶ 226.) This holding reveals that there’s a excessive bar for opponents of a challenge to display unanimous opposition by native governments, and it’s not ample merely to point out that the township or county boards of commissioners issued resolutions towards a challenge.
Second, the Siting Board examined the deserves of the arguments for and towards the challenge and located that most of the arguments towards the challenge have been uninformed and with out advantage. For instance, in assessing the opponents’ argument that the battery storage system can be unsafe, the Siting Board defined that it “[did] not discover proof to help the Townships’ competition that the proposed [battery storage system’s] related dangers outweigh the advantages it presents.” (Order ¶ 227.) Particularly, the Siting Board discovered that the Townships’ considerations about bodily hurt have been unfounded in gentle of (a) the Townships’ concession that public publicity to lithium was unlikely so long as the battery system was correctly maintained and (b) the developer’s dedication to adjust to relevant rules and business finest practices. (Opinion ¶ 227.) Extra usually, the Siting Board additionally discovered that “some native opposition . . . will not be totally conscious of the commitments agreed to within the Stipulation and Utility.” (Opinion ¶ 228). In reaching that dedication, the Siting Board appeared to just accept Dr. Boeckl’s argument that the Townships “didn’t substantiate their opposition to the Challenge”—a degree exemplified on the evidentiary listening to, when the Townships’ witnesses admitted on cross-examination “that they’d not reviewed the Utility and have been unaware of situations relevant to Oak Run.” (Opinion ¶ 213.)
Third, the Siting Board discovered that the challenge would have vital and long-lasting financial advantages, together with offering $8.2 million of annual income to native authorities and colleges. (See ¶ 222.) The Siting Board additionally famous that the challenge “is projected to create 500 or extra electrical development jobs and 63 long-term upkeep positions, along with long-term jobs that can be created by the agrivoltaics program.” (Opinion ¶ 222.) Right here, the Siting Board appeared to just accept Dr. Boeckl’s argument that the financial advantages of the challenge have been “not momentary,” because the opponents had argued. (Opinion ¶ 204.)
Fourth, in rebutting considerations that the challenge would contribute to a lack of agricultural land, the Siting Board leaned on the agrivoltaics part of the challenge. The Siting Board discovered that “the dual-land use potential that agrivoltaics unlocks addresses a main concern of Challenge skeptics: the conversion of land to a use aside from agriculture.” (Opinion ¶ 220.) The Siting Board defined that beekeeping, planting crops between rows of panels, and grazing sheep would permit as much as 70% of the farmable land to remain in manufacturing. (Opinion ¶¶ 220-21.) The Siting Board additional concluded that “Oak Run’s sturdy dedication to agrivoltaics is extra proof of Oak Run’s responsiveness to suggestions from the area people.” (Opinion ¶ 221.)
Along with addressing the methods through which using agrivoltaics mitigates considerations concerning the lack of farmland, the Siting Board emphasised the bold nature of the challenge (describing it the “nation’s largest agrivoltaics challenge”) and the chance to place Madison County and the state of Ohio “on the forefront” of an “progressive” observe. (Opinion ¶ 220.) The Siting Board additional emphasised the tutorial partnership with Ohio State College (OSU), noting that “[t]he collaboration between Oak Run’s sister firm and OSU is not going to solely enhance the effectiveness of agrivoltaics at this Facility, however it’s going to assist to ascertain BMPs [best management practices] for the cultivation of crops alongside utility-scale photo voltaic operations, which can additional profit future tasks within the state of Ohio and around the globe.” (Opinion ¶ 220.)
Finally, the Siting Board concluded that, “as a complete bundle, . . . Oak Run presents distinctive alternatives that would supply vital advantages to the state, which outweighs opposition that’s nonunanimous on an area authorities stage and a few native opposition that will not be totally conscious of the commitments agreed to within the Stipulation and Utility.” (Opinion ¶ 228.) The Townships may have a chance to request a rehearing by the Siting Board and enchantment to the Ohio Supreme Courtroom.
Matthew Eisenson is a Senior Fellow on the Sabin Heart for Local weather Change Regulation, the place he leads the Renewable Power Authorized Protection Initiative (RELDI).
[ad_2]
Source link
