The Supreme Court of Ohio today upheld the granting of a permit to construct a large-scale solar farm in Hancock County near the village of Arcadia.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ohio Power Siting Board’s decision to grant a certificate to South Branch Solar to construct a 130-megawatt electric generation facility on 700 acres.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Jennifer Brunner noted South Branch originally proposed a 230-megawatt facility that would operate on 1,000 acres of land in Washington Township, but reduced the footprint during the certification process. The siting board also subjected the permit to 50 conditions that must be met during construction and operation.

Travis Bohn, a Washington Township resident living near the proposed facility, appealed the board’s approval to the Supreme Court, raising several objections, including its impact on the local community.

“Because Bohn has not established that the board unlawfully or unreasonable applied the statutory criteria and because the board’s determinations were supported by sufficient probative evidence, we affirm the board’s order,” the Court stated.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy stated that project applicants must provide an estimate of the economic impact of their facilities on local commercial and industrial activities. While the majority opinion noted the rule does not explicitly require an analysis of any one negative impact, an application should include both the assessment of the positive and negative economic impacts of a proposed facility, the chief justice wrote.

She found South Branch met the standard by presenting evidence of both the positive and negative impact of the proposals by reporting home sales in the vicinity of another solar farm. Homes sold from a range of 2.2% below list price to 12.6% above list price, she noted.

Board Assessed Project
South Branch applied for the certificate in July 2021. Several local governments were provided a copy of the application, including the Washington Township Board of Trustees, the Hancock County Board of Commissioners, and the Hancock Regional Planning Commission. Of the local government entities, only the county commissioners intervened to be a party in the board’s certification process.

In April 2022, the board staff recommended issuing a certificate subject to 50 conditions.  A local public hearing drew comments in support of the project and opposing it. The board received over 285 public comments.

In May 2022, a joint recommendation supporting board approval was filed by several parties, including South Branch, the board staff, the county commissioners, and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. Bohn intervened to participate in the case and opposed the proposal. In February 2023, the board issued the certificate. Bohn appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Application
Among Bohn’s eight objections to the permit was the board’s decision to find the project had a “net positive” impact on the local community. Bohn argued the board did not require South Branch to provide information on the potential negative economic consequences of the project, such as the possible loss of local businesses from converting agricultural land to a solar facility.

Justice Brunner wrote the rules used by the board at the time included a requirement to provide “information regarding the economic impact of the project.” Those rules included estimates of the value of the project’s payroll, how many people will be employed during the construction and operation, any increases in local tax revenue, and the economic impact on local commercial and industrial activities.

She wrote South Branch provided what was required, “an estimate,” which included some potentially negative impacts. The developer submitted an economic impact study conducted by Ohio University, which estimated the construction of the facility would create 234 full-time positions and would support another 463 jobs. The total impact from construction would reach $125.2 million, and operating the facility would provide $3.9 million in annual economic output.

 A separate company, CohnReznick, which specializes in property value impact studies, looked at home sales near another solar facility. With some homes selling for 2.2% less than list price and others for 12.6% more, the firm concluded that there is no “consistent measurable negative impacts to home values” that can be attributed to being located near a commercial-scale solar facility, the opinion noted.

“As it stands, Bohn’s claims about the negative impacts of the project are unsubstantiated theories,” the Court stated.

The Court concluded that nothing was unreasonable or unlawful in the board’s decision that the project would serve the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

2023-1020. In re Application of S. Branch Solar LLC, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5679.

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.