The Supreme Court of Ohio today held that the Ohio Power Siting Board properly authorized the construction of a large-scale solar farm in Licking County.

The Supreme Court affirmed the siting board’s order that granted a certificate to Harvey Solar to construct a 350-megawatt solar facility on 2,630 acres of private property in Hartford and Bennington townships. A citizens group, Save Hartford Twp., and 11 residents living near the proposed facility appealed the siting board’s decision to the Supreme Court.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine explained 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 residents opposing the facility failed to prove the board acted unlawfully or unreasonably, so the Court affirmed the board’s order granting Harvey Solar a certificate for the facility’s construction, operation, and maintenance.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Jennifer Brunner, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice DeWine’s opinion.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in judgment only because the opponents failed to present sufficient evidence showing that the project was not in the public’s interest. She wrote separately because the board should have required Harvey Solar to submit evidence of not only the project’s estimated positive economic impacts but also evidence of its negative impacts.

She stated that the residents opposing the facility provided the potential negative economic impacts, which the board considered. But in future cases, the board may not have a challenger submitting such information. In her view, without evidence of a proposed project’s positive and negative impacts, the board could not properly evaluate whether a proposed project was in the public’s interest.

Residents Challenge Project’s Impact on Community
In 2021 Harvey Solar proposed building the solar farm on property it leased from private landowners. Multiple parties participated in the siting board certification process, including the Village of Hartford, the Hartford Township Board of Trustees, the Licking County Engineer, and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. The board investigated the project and issued a certificate, which included 39 conditions the facility must meet to operate.

Under R.C. 4906.10(A), the board must make eight substantive determinations before approving construction of a new major utility facility. The residents challenged four of the eight standards, arguing the board did not adequately determine the probable environmental impacts of the facility, its impact on water pollution, and whether the facility will “serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

Court Analyzed Board’s Actions
The opponents contend the board lacked the necessary information to determine if the project was in the public interest. Justice DeWine explained the law states the company must “provide an estimate of the economic impact of the proposed facility on local commercial and industrial activities.” Harvey Solar submitted a report prepared by Kent State University and the University of Akron. The report touted the increased income the project will generate for the local area and an increase in demand for goods and services.

The authors estimated the solar farm will bring $161 million in spending to the area, generate 1,092 full-time jobs, and produce $3.3 million annually in additional taxes along with other benefits. The residents argued the report was inadequate because it failed to address the negative impacts of not using the land for farming, the opinion noted. The residents claim there will be economic losses by businesses who provided goods and services to those farming the land, the loss of value of agricultural crops, and the loss of income to farmers who rented the land to farm.

The Court explained the ultimate question is whether the board acted unreasonably when finding the project was in the public’s interest. The board stated it was examining the economic impacts through a “broad lens,” and balanced the projected benefits against the potential consequences.

“However, considering the record as a whole, the board determined that the evidence had shown that Harvey Solar had proved that by creating both construction and operational jobs, along with associated earnings and economic output, its facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, in compliance with R.C. 4906.10(A),” the opinion noted.

“Because the record demonstrates that the board considered both positive and negative economic impacts in reaching its determination that the facility ‘will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity,’” Justice DeWine wrote, the residents had not shown that the board acted unreasonably.

Court Considered Other Potential Harms
In addition to negative economic impacts, the residents raised six areas of concern regarding environmental and community impacts, including whether the solar panels will cause harmful glare to nearby residents and travelers on local roads. They also questioned whether the solar farm was taking the necessary steps to place vegetation around the property to minimize the facility’s visual impact on the area.

The opinion noted the board imposed 39 conditions that Harvey Solar must meet, including several addressing the visual impacts, glare, water discharge, and impact on wildlife. The Court found the board put in place adequate provisions to minimize any potential environmental impacts.

Board Should Require More Economic Information, Concurrence Stated
In her concurring opinion, Chief Justice Kennedy wrote that Harvey Solar should have submitted evidence of its proposed project’s negative impacts.

She wrote that the board’s rules that an applicant “provide an estimate of the economic impact of the proposed facility,” requires both positive and negative impacts. She stated the term “estimate” is defined as “the act of appraising or valuing” something, and that requires weighing the costs and benefits, including positive and negative impacts. The proponent of a facility should provide that information because it would be “arduous for the board” to properly assess the project’s effects if only evidence of the positive impacts is provided, the concurrence stated.

In this case, the residents provided the negative impacts for the board to consider, but the chief justice noted the board could face a proposal in which no one provides evidence of the negative economic impacts.

“A decision in which the agency does not consider economic evidence could result in prejudice,” she stated.

2023-0793. In re Application of Harvey Solar I, LLC, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1503.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.