The Ohio Power Siting Board must more thoroughly address the visual impacts of an “agrivoltaic” solar farm proposed by Oak Run Solar Project before approving the application for construction, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

Oak Run applied for a construction certificate to construct an 800 megawatt solar-power generating facility situated on 6,050 acres of land in Madison County.  The Madison County Board of Commissioners and trustees from Somerford, Deercreek, and Monroe townships contested the plan. 

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Patrick F. Fischer noted that the local governments identified four areas where Oak Run’s application for project approval was missing required information or failed to fully identify how it might address potential safety issues. Except for concerns about the visual impacts of large poles carrying electric transmission lines, the local governments failed to prove they would be harmed by other shortcomings of the application, he wrote.

Justices R. Patrick DeWine and Joseph T. Deters joined Justice Fischer’s opinion.

In an opinion concurring  in part and dissenting in part, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins wrote that the board approved the Oak Run project without the water-quality and wildlife-survey assessments required by law. The board also did not adequately address safety concerns related to the site’s battery storage systems, which pose a risk of toxic emissions if they catch fire.

Justice Hawkins stated that without the required baseline studies of the current water quality and wildlife in the area, the local governments will either not know or must determine on their own the potential impact of the solar farm’s construction.

“Oak Run is in the best position to understand the environmental harm that its proposed project poses to local communities, which is why Ohio law places the burden on Oak Run to submit an application that satisfies the requirements of the Administrative Code,” he wrote. “Expecting the local governments, at taxpayer expense, to obtain the information that Oak Run was supposed to provide with its application is the wrong precedent to set.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins’ opinion.

Chief Justice Kennedy also wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. She wrote that the local governments cannot measure the potential environmental impacts or adequately estimate risks without a thorough understanding of the project area before construction begins. She added that the local governments are harmed by Oak Run’s incomplete emergency services and response plan, which fails to address key issues, such as identifying a water source capable of preventing the spread of lithium-ion battery fires.

“These are not minute details that can be filled in later, nor are the harms these omissions could cause easily rectified after the fact, in no small part because without baseline data, the actual risks and ultimate toll of Oak Run’s proposed project are hard to know,” she wrote.

In a separate opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Fischer’s opinion, except she would have found Oak Run provided adequate information on the visual impacts. She wrote the board established that even the highest structures on the property would be nearly unnoticeable from the project borders, and the local governments have not shown that the board would have reached a different conclusion about Oak Run’s application had more detailed illustrations of the site been presented.

Dual Power Generation, Farming Facility Proposed
In 2022, Oak Run applied to construct the agrivoltaics project on privately owned land acquired in Madison County. The facility itself will cover about 4,400 acres within 6,050 acres of property, setting the project back from adjacent roads and residences. Oak Run proposed erecting solar panels to generate 800 megawatts of electricity and installing two battery storage systems on the property. Additional agriculture products will be grown on the land, and livestock will graze between the rows of solar panels.

The board staff reviewed the proposal and recommended approval, subject to 46 conditions that Oak Run agreed to incorporate. Under R.C. 4906.10(A), the board must make eight substantive determinations before it can approve a major utility facility, such as the Oak Run project. The board approved the plan despite objections from the local governments, which appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Objections to Plan
Justice Fischer explained that the Court will only overturn a board decision if it is “unlawful or unreasonable.”

The opponents argued that Oak Run’s application failed to meet a requirement that it provide “photographic simulations or artist’s pictorial sketches of the proposed facility from public vantage points.”

The facility contains several structures, including two power substations located in the middle of the project. The substations include support structures for power lines that range in height from 85 to 115 feet. The local governments argue that Oak Run did not include any simulations or sketches showing the substations and the large support structures, and that prevents the board from fulfilling its legal requirement for three of the eight key determinants: the “nature of the probable environment impact” of the project; whether the “facility represents the minimum adverse environment impact”; and whether the project serves “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

The board did not require the simulations, noting that an Oak Run witness testified during board hearings that the substations are 0.4 miles from the project boundaries and are “mostly absorbed into the agricultural landscape” at that distance.  

The Court noted that it might be true that the structures will be harder to see as one gets farther away, but that does not excuse Oak Run from failing to meet the board rules, especially for some of the project's tallest features.

Oak Run argued that the substation structures do not qualify as “facilities” under the rules, and it had no obligation to provide visual simulations. The Court rejected the argument, noting that under the rules, all associated facilities of a project, including its substations, are included in the definition of a “major utility facility.”

The Court noted that Oak Run provided an aerial photograph that depicted where the substations and overhead structures would be located, but the Court found that “does not square with the ordinary meaning of ‘public vantage point.’”

Oak Run deprived the board of information needed for the board to determine the solar farm's visual impact, the Court concluded. It remanded the application to the board to review photographic simulations or sketches with the proposed substations.

Other Missing Information Assessed
Board rules require applicants to provide preconstruction water-quality reports that describe the existing water quality of any nearby receiving streams based on at least one year of monitoring data. Oak Run did not supply water quality data, and instead presented evidence that the construction would not have any meaningful impact on nearby streams.

Similarly, the rules require an applicant to submit survey reports on plant and animal life within at least a quarter mile of the facility and to present how the project might impact threatened and endangered species, as well as species of commercial and recreational value. Oak Run identified 25 threatened species and provided an expert witness who testified about the project’s plans to protect plants and wildlife.

The Court majority found that while the information was less than the rule required, the local governments failed to establish how they would be harmed. The opinion stated that the opponents could not show what would meaningfully affect water quality or plants and wildlife in the area. The situation differs from the visual impacts, the Court noted, because constructing several structures 85 to 115 feet tall is a “significant departure in the viewshed from what the baseline is.”

Regarding the battery storage systems, which will include 328 battery containers using lithium-ion battery technology, the local governments argued the board did not go far enough to protect the area against the risk of a battery fire. The parties agreed there is no effective way to extinguish a lithium-ion battery fire, and the only recourse is to prevent a fire from spreading.

The board set several requirements for Oak Run regarding the storage systems, including developing emergency services and response plans with local authorities and providing local first responders with the proper equipment and training to respond to emergencies at the storage systems.

The Court noted that the board is not required to resolve every issue before issuing a certificate, and allowing Oak Run to develop a plan rather than present one with its application is not a failure that would require the Court to overturn the board’s decision. Any of the deficiencies in the plan alleged by the local governments “are well within the boundaries of what can be fleshed out at a later date,” the Court concluded.

2024-1477. In re Application of Oak Run Solar Project LLC, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1849.

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.