Ohio Supreme Court dismisses Kingwood Solar appeal

The road to building a 175 MW 1,200 acre solar development project in Greene County just became a bit longer for Vesper Energy, the company behind the project.  On September 6, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the company’s appeal of a ruling by the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) that denied a certificate of approval for the project.  The Supreme Court dismissed the case for “lack of jurisdiction.”

The Ohio Power Siting Board denied the Kingwood Solar application last December on grounds that the project would not serve the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” due to general opposition from the community, and especially the clear opposition of the Greene County commissioners and the three townships where the project would locate.  As permitted by Ohio law, Kingwood Solar and several other parties to the case requested a rehearing on the OPSB’s decision. 

The OPSB granted the rehearing request on Feb. 7 “for the purpose of affording more time to consider the issues raised.”  However, Kingwood Solar appealed the board’s decision, stating that the OPSB failed to issue its decision on the rehearing request within the thirty days required by Ohio Revised Code 4903.10.  Kingwood Solar raised ten arguments against the OPSB’s denial of the project, asking the Ohio Supreme Court to declare that denial to be “unlawful or unreasonable.”

The OPSB asked the Court to dismiss the Kingwood appeal, arguing that until the OPSB issued a decision on the rehearing, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.  The Supreme Court granted the OPSB’s motion to dismiss.  The Court did not issue a full opinion in support of its decision to dismiss the case, but referred to a 1988 Ohio Supreme Court opinion holding that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over a case while a rehearing request is pending with the OPSB,

What does the dismissal mean for Kingwood Solar?  Vesper Energy must now wait for the OPSB to make a decision on the rehearing requests.  The OPSB could affirm its earlier decision to deny the permit or could reverse that decision.  Currently, the OPSB has not scheduled a new hearing for the application.

Follow the Kingwood Solar application on the OPSB website.

Our upcoming webinar series on Solar Development in Ohio

Do you want to learn more about Ohio solar energy development?  If so, consider dropping in on our upcoming webinar series, where my colleague Eric Romich and I will discuss trends, procedures, and legal issues in Ohio solar development. The five-part webinar series covers solar development from start to finish and will take place May 23, 24, 25, 30, and 31 from 9 to 10:30 a.m. The series includes the following sessions:

May 23:  Solar Development Overview and Trends

• Ohio solar development, industry and technology trends, dual use of land for solar energy and agriculture, community and regulatory issues.

May 24: Leasing Land for Solar Development

• Pre-leasing considerations, solar lease phases, common legal terms, and best management practices for leasing.

May 25: Connecting to the Electric Grid

• Overview of the electric utility system, regulatory jurisdiction, and interconnection procedures and timelines.

May 30:  Solar Project Approval in Ohio

• Solar project application procedures, state oversight, and new laws allowing county and township oversight of solar development.

May 31:  Construction and Post-Construction

• The construction process, common issues, regulatory oversight, and decommissioning a project in the future

Registration and additional information about the free Zoom webinar series is available at go.osu.edu/solarwebinars.   Those unable to attend can view webinar recordings on the Farm Office energy law library at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/our-library/energy-law.

When can a county or township prohibit renewable energy facilities from locating in the community?

The siting of renewable energy projects on Ohio farmland is a divisive issue these days, pitting neighbors against neighbors and farmers against farmers.  Some support expanding renewable energy capacity while others oppose losing productive farmland or changing the rural landscape.  A common question arising in this conflict is this:  when can a county or township say “no” to a proposed renewable energy development?  Several new laws, old laws, and recent court cases can help answer this question, although the answer is not always clear.

The “public utility exemption” from zoning.  A long-standing provision of Ohio law that limits county and township land use power is the “public utility exemption” from zoning. Ohio Revised Code Sections 303.211(counties) and 519.211 (townships) specifically state that counties and townships have no zoning authority “in respect to the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, change, alteration, maintenance, removal, use, or enlargement of any buildings or structures of any public utilities.” The historical reason for this exemption is to keep local regulations from interfering with the provision of public utility services to Ohio residents.  But what is a “public utility”?  The exemption does not define the term, leaving Ohio courts to determine what is and is not a public utility on a case-by-case basis.  More on that later.

New powers in Senate Bill 52.  Effective in October of 2021, Senate Bill 52 gave new powers to county commissioners over certain renewable energy developments, setting aside the “public utility exemption” in those situations.  The new law states that counties can designate restricted areas where wind and solar development is prohibited and can prohibit an individual proposed wind and solar facility or limit its size.  These new powers, however, apply only to facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid and beyond a certain production size.  For solar facilities, that size is 50 MW or more of energy production and for wind facilities, it’s 5 MW or more. Facilities that aren’t connected to the grid or are beneath those amounts are not subject to the new powers granted in S.B. 52.  Additionally, facilities that had reached a certain point in the state approval process aren’t subject to the new law.  Several Ohio counties have already established restricted areas or worked with townships to determine whether the county will approve individual projects as they come forward.

Authority over “small wind farms.”  New wind power development in Ohio a decade ago led to the “small wind farm” provision in Ohio Revised Code Sections 303.213 (counties) and 519.213 (townships).  This law allows counties and townships to use their zoning powers to regulate the location and construction of publicly and privately owned “small wind farms,” regardless of the public utility exemption.  A “small wind farm” is any wind turbine that is not subject to Ohio Power Siting Board jurisdiction, meaning that it produces less than 5 MW of energy.  Some counties and townships have utilized this provision of law to establish setback distances for wind turbines in residential areas.

The “bioenergy” exemptions.  Yet another Ohio law limits county and township zoning authority over bioenergy facilities.  Found in the “agricultural exemption from zoning” statute, Ohio Revised Code Sections 303.21(C) (counties) and 519.21(C) (townships) states that county and township zoning cannot prohibit the use of any land for biodiesel production, biomass energy production, electric or heat energy production, or biologically derived methane gas production if the facility is on land that qualifies as “land devoted exclusively to agricultural use” under Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Valuation program and if, for biologically derived methane gas, the facility does not produce more than 5 MW or 17.06 million BTUs of energy.  Ohio now has several facilities that fit within this exemption from zoning authority.

Two recent cases examine when a renewable energy facility a “public utility.”  The “public utility exemption” from county and township zoning was at issue in two similar Ohio cases concerning biodigesters, facilities that process manure and other solid wastes into methane gas that is used to generate electricity.  The most recent is Dovetail Energy v. Bath Township.  The township claimed that the Dovetail biodigester located on farmland in Greene County was an “industrial use” that violated township zoning regulations.  The owners argued that the biodigester was exempt from township zoning under both the “public utility” exemption and the “bioenergy” exemption. 

The case reached the Second District Court of Appeals, which focused a large part of its analysis on the issue of whether the biodigester is a “public utility” that is exempt from township zoning under Ohio Revised Code 519.211.  Relying on earlier cases from the Ohio Supreme Court, the court explained that an entity is a public utility if “the nature of its operation is a matter of public concern” and if “membership is indiscriminately and reasonably made available to the general public” as a public service. 

The court analyzed the “public service” and “public concern” factors for the Dovetail biodigester, examining first whether Dovetail provides a public service, which requires a showing that the facility indiscriminately provides essential goods or services to the public, which has a legal right to demand or receive the goods or services, and that the goods or services can’t be arbitrarily withdrawn.  Because Dovetail generates electricity that is sold into the wholesale energy market and used to provide energy to local utilities and customers and because Dovetail is also required to provide renewable energy credits that it cannot arbitrarily or unreasonable withdraw, the court concluded that the facility is a “public service.”

Factors determining whether Dovetail’s operation is also a matter of “public concern” that the court analyzed included whether Dovetail “serves such a substantial part of the public that its rates, charges and methods of operation become a public concern.” The court looked to Ohio’s incentives for renewable energy development, the lack of competition in the electric grid, the “heavy” regulatory environment for Dovetail, and its payment of public utility taxes as indications that Dovetail and the energy it produces are “public concerns.”  Meeting both the “public service” and “public concern” components, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s ruling that Dovetail is a public utility and is exempt from Bath Township zoning regulations.

The Dovetail decision echoes an earlier decision in the Fifth Appellate District, Westfield Township v. Emerald Bioenergy, where the appellate court examined a biodigester on farmland in Morrow County and found that the township could not regulate it because it is a “public utility.”  The court cited factors such as Emerald’s provision of electric to the general public through interconnection agreements that distribute the energy to the energy grid, its lack of control over which customers receive or use the energy, its renewable energy credit requirements that can’t be arbitrarily or unreasonably withdrawn, its acceptance of waste from any customer, its governmental regulations and oversight, and its public utility taxes.  The court also noted that it need not address the “bioenergy” exemption because it found the enterprise to be a “public utility.”

Both townships in the Dovetail Energy and Emerald Bioenergy cases requested a review of the decision by the Ohio Supreme Court.  But the Supreme Court decided not to hear either case, although several of the justices dissented from that decision in each case.  Without further review by the Supreme Court, the appellate court decisions stand.

These cases are relevant for solar energy facilities under 50 MW.  Recall that S.B. 52 allows counties to prohibit or restrict solar facilities that are 50 MW or higher, but no other law addresses solar facilities with a single interconnection point to the energy grid that produce less than 50 MW.  Would such a facility be a “public utility” under the public utility exemption?  As with Dovetail and Emerald, a court would have to examine the solar facility and determine whether “the nature of its operation is a matter of public concern” and if “membership is indiscriminately and reasonably made available to the general public” as a public service.  If so, a county or township could not use zoning to prohibit or regulate the location or construction of the solar facility. 

Learn more about Senate Bill 52 in the Farm Office Energy Law Library at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/our-library/energy-law.

When can a county or township prohibit renewable energy facilities from locating in the community?

The siting of renewable energy projects on Ohio farmland is a divisive issue these days, pitting neighbors against neighbors and farmers against farmers.  Some support expanding renewable energy capacity while others oppose losing productive farmland or changing the rural landscape.  A common question arising in this conflict is this:  when can a county or township say “no” to a proposed renewable energy development?  Several new laws, old laws, and recent court cases can help answer this question, although the answer is not always clear.

The “public utility exemption” from zoning.  A long-standing provision of Ohio law that limits county and township land use power is the “public utility exemption” from zoning. Ohio Revised Code Sections 303.211(counties) and 519.211 (townships) specifically state that counties and townships have no zoning authority “in respect to the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, change, alteration, maintenance, removal, use, or enlargement of any buildings or structures of any public utilities.” The historical reason for this exemption is to keep local regulations from interfering with the provision of public utility services to Ohio residents.  But what is a “public utility”?  The exemption does not define the term, leaving Ohio courts to determine what is and is not a public utility on a case-by-case basis.  More on that later.

New powers in Senate Bill 52.  Effective in October of 2021, Senate Bill 52 gave new powers to county commissioners over certain renewable energy developments, setting aside the “public utility exemption” in those situations.  The new law states that counties can designate restricted areas where wind and solar development is prohibited and can prohibit an individual proposed wind or solar facility or limit its size.  These new powers, however, apply only to facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid and beyond a certain production size.  For solar facilities, that size is 50 MW or more of energy production and for wind facilities, it’s 5 MW or more. Facilities that aren’t connected to the grid or are beneath those amounts are not subject to the new powers granted in S.B. 52.  Additionally, facilities that had reached a certain point in the state approval process aren’t subject to the new law.  Several Ohio counties have already established restricted areas or worked with townships to determine whether the county will approve individual projects as they come forward.

Authority over “small wind farms.”  New wind power development in Ohio a decade ago led to the “small wind farm” provision in Ohio Revised Code Sections 303.213 (counties) and 519.213 (townships).  This law allows counties and townships to use their zoning powers to regulate the location and construction of publicly and privately owned “small wind farms,” regardless of the public utility exemption.  A “small wind farm” is any wind turbine that is not subject to Ohio Power Siting Board jurisdiction, meaning that it produces less than 5 MW of energy.  Some counties and townships have utilized this provision of law to establish setback distances for wind turbines in residential areas.

The “bioenergy” exemptions.  Yet another Ohio law limits county and township zoning authority over bioenergy facilities.  Found in the “agricultural exemption from zoning” statute, Ohio Revised Code Sections 303.21(C) (counties) and 519.21(C) (townships) states that county and township zoning cannot prohibit the use of any land for biodiesel production, biomass energy production, electric or heat energy production, or biologically derived methane gas production if the facility is on land that qualifies as “land devoted exclusively to agricultural use” under Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Valuation program and if, for biologically derived methane gas, the facility does not produce more than 5 MW or 17.06 million BTUs of energy.  Ohio now has several facilities that fit within this exemption from zoning authority.

Two recent cases examine when a renewable energy facility a “public utility.”  The “public utility exemption” from county and township zoning was at issue in two similar Ohio cases concerning biodigesters, facilities that process manure and other solid wastes into methane gas that is used to generate electricity.  The most recent is Dovetail Energy v. Bath Township.  The township claimed that the Dovetail biodigester located on farmland in Greene County was an “industrial use” that violated township zoning regulations.  The owners argued that the biodigester was exempt from township zoning under both the “public utility” exemption and the “bioenergy” exemption. 

The case reached the Second District Court of Appeals, which focused a large part of its analysis on the issue of whether the biodigester is a “public utility” that is exempt from township zoning under Ohio Revised Code 519.211.  Relying on earlier cases from the Ohio Supreme Court, the court explained that an entity is a public utility if “the nature of its operation is a matter of public concern” and if “membership is indiscriminately and reasonably made available to the general public” as a public service. 

The court analyzed the “public service” and “public concern” factors for the Dovetail biodigester, examining first whether Dovetail provides a public service, which requires a showing that the facility indiscriminately provides essential goods or services to the public, which has a legal right to demand or receive the goods or services, and that the goods or services can’t be arbitrarily withdrawn.  Because Dovetail generates electricity that is sold into the wholesale energy market and used to provide energy to local utilities and customers and because Dovetail is also required to provide renewable energy credits that it cannot arbitrarily or unreasonable withdraw, the court concluded that the facility is a “public service.”

Factors determining whether Dovetail’s operation is also a matter of “public concern” that the court analyzed included whether Dovetail “serves such a substantial part of the public that its rates, charges and methods of operation become a public concern.” The court looked to Ohio’s incentives for renewable energy development, the lack of competition in the electric grid, the “heavy” regulatory environment for Dovetail, and its payment of public utility taxes as indications that Dovetail and the energy it produces are “public concerns.”  Meeting both the “public service” and “public concern” components, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s ruling that Dovetail is a public utility and is exempt from Bath Township zoning regulations.

The Dovetail decision echoes an earlier decision in the Fifth Appellate District, Westfield Township v. Emerald Bioenergy, where the appellate court examined a biodigester on farmland in Morrow County and found that the township could not regulate it because it is a “public utility.”  The court cited factors such as Emerald’s provision of electric to the general public through interconnection agreements that distribute the energy to the energy grid, its lack of control over which customers receive or use the energy, its renewable energy credit requirements that can’t be arbitrarily or unreasonably withdrawn, its acceptance of waste from any customer, its governmental regulations and oversight, and its public utility taxes.  The court also noted that it need not address the “bioenergy” exemption because it found the enterprise to be a “public utility.”

Both townships in the Dovetail Energy and Emerald Bioenergy cases requested a review of the decision by the Ohio Supreme Court.  But the Supreme Court decided not to hear either case, although several of the justices dissented from that decision in each case.  Without further review by the Supreme Court, the appellate court decisions stand.

These cases are relevant for solar energy facilities under 50 MW.  Recall that S.B. 52 allows counties to prohibit or restrict solar facilities that are 50 MW or higher, but no other law addresses solar facilities with a single interconnection point to the energy grid that produce less than 50 MW.  Would such a facility be a “public utility” under the public utility exemption?  As with Dovetail and Emerald, a court would have to examine the solar facility and determine whether “the nature of its operation is a matter of public concern” and if “membership is indiscriminately and reasonably made available to the general public” as a public service.  If so, a county or township could not use zoning to prohibit or regulate the location or construction of the solar facility. 

Learn more about Senate Bill 52 in the Farm Office Energy Law Library at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/our-library/energy-law.

New laws and new resources on wind and solar development in Ohio

Large-scale wind and solar energy development has generated both opportunity and conflict across Ohio in recent years.  For several months, we monitored the progress of Senate Bill 52, a proposal intended to address community and landowner concerns about wind and solar facilities.  This past Monday marked the effective date for Senate Bill 52, passed by the Ohio Legislature in June, and we’ve been busy developing new resources to help explain the laws that are now effective. 

The legislation expands local involvement in the siting and approval of large-scale wind and solar facilities in several ways:

• County commissioners may designate “restricted areas” where such facilities may not locate.
• County citizens may petition for a referendum to approve or reject restricted area designations.
• Developers must hold a public meeting overviewing a proposed facility in the county where it would locate.
• County commissioners may prohibit or limit a proposed wind or solar facility after learning of it at the public meeting.
• County and township representatives must sit on the Ohio Power Siting Board committee that reviews facility applications.

The new laws also require wind and solar developers to submit decommissioning plans and performance bonds to address removal of a facility at the end of its lifetime. 

Our two law bulletins and video series on Senate Bill 52 are now available.  The resources work through each part of Senate Bill 52 and explain which types of facilities will be subject to the laws.  You’ll find the new resources in our energy law library on the Farm Office website at go.osu.edu/energylaw.

Ohio legislature passes solar and wind project siting and approval bill

It’s been a long and winding road to the Governor’s desk for Senate Bill 52, the controversial bill on siting and approval of large-scale wind and solar facilities in Ohio.  The bill generated opposition and concern from the outset, requiring a major overhaul early on.  A substitute bill passed the Senate on June 2 after six hearings and hundreds of witnesses testifying for and against the bill.  It took the House five hearings to pass a further revised version of the bill earlier this week, and the Senate agreed to those revisions the same day.  Now the bill awaits Governor DeWine’s action.  If the Governor signs the bill, it would become effective in 90 days.

S.B. 52 generates conflicting opinions on property rights and renewable energy.  It would grant counties and townships a voice in the siting and approval of large-scale wind and solar projects, allowing a community to go so far as to reject facility applications and prohibit facilities in identified restricted areas of the county.  Supporters of the bill say that new local authority would allow local residents to protect their individual property rights as well as the fate of the community.  On the other side, opponents claim that the bill interferes with the property rights of those who want to lease their land for solar and wind development and unfairly subjects renewable energy to stricter controls than other energy projects.

The bill itself is lengthy and a bit tedious but we’ve organized it into the following summary.  An important first step is to understand the types of projects subject to the law, so we begin with the definitions section of the bill.

Definitions – Ohio Revised Code 303.57

The bill defines several key terms used to identify the types of wind and solar projects and applications that would be subject to the new law:

• “Economically significant wind farm” means wind turbines and associated facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid and designed for, or capable of, operation at an aggregate capacity of five or more megawatts but less than fifty megawatts, excluding any such wind farm in operation on June 24, 2008 and one or more wind turbines and associated facilities that are primarily dedicated to providing electricity to a single customer at a single location and that are designed for, or capable of, operation at an aggregate capacity of less than twenty megawatts, as measured at the customer’s point of interconnection to the electrical grid.
• “Large wind farm” means an electric generating plant that consists of wind turbines and associated facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid that is a “major utility facility.”
• “Large solar facility” means an electric generating plant that consists of solar panels and associated facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid that is a major utility facility.
• “Utility facility” means all of the above.
• “Major utility facility” means (a) electric generating plant and associated facilities designed for, or capable of, operation at a capacity of fifty megawatts or more, (and also includes certain electric transmission lines and gas pipelines).
• “Material amendment” means an amendment to an existing utility facility certificate that changes its generation type, increases its nameplate capacity or changes the boundaries outside existing boundaries or that increase the number or height of wind turbines.

Designation of utility facility restricted areas in a county – ORC 303.58 and ORC 303.59

The bill would allow the county commissioners to designate “restricted areas” within the unincorporated parts of the county where economically significant wind farms, large wind farms, and large solar facilities may not be constructed.  

• The commissioners may take this action at a regular or special meeting.
• The commissioners must give public notice of the meeting and proposed restricted areas at least 30 days prior, including to all townships, school districts and municipalities within the proposed restricted areas.
• The restricted area designations shall not apply to utility facilities that were not prohibited by the commissioners in the county review under ORC 303.61, described below.
• The restricted area designations become effective 30 days after the commissioners adopt the resolution unless a petition for referendum, described below, is presented to the commissioners within 30 days of adoption.
• Once effective, a restricted area designation prohibits anyone from filing an application for a certificate or a material amendment to an existing certificate to construct, operate or maintain a utility facility in the restricted area.

Referendum on designation of utility facility restricted areas – ORC 303.59

If a county approves a restricted area, the bill sets up a referendum procedure to allow voters to have a say in the designation.  Residents may file a petition for referendum and request the county commissioners to submit the designation of a utility facility restricted area to a vote of the electors in the county.

• At least 8% of the total vote cast for governor in the most recent election must sign the petition.
• The petition must be presented to the commissioners within 30 days of the resolution adopted to designate the restricted areas.
• Within two weeks of receiving the petition and no less than 90 days prior to the election, the county commissioners must certify the petition to the county board of elections, who must verify the validity of the petition.
• The utility facility restricted area designation must be submitted to electors for approval or rejection at a special election on the day of the next primary or general election that occurs at least 120 days after the petition is filed.
• If a majority of the vote is in favor of the restricted area designation, the designation shall be effective immediately.

County review of proposed wind and solar utility facilities — ORC 303.61

Local residents and officials have expressed concerns that they’re the last to know of a proposed large-scale wind or solar development proposed for their community.  Under the bill, utility facilities must hold a public meeting in each county where the facility will be located within 90 to 300 days prior to applying for or making a material amendment to an application for a certificate from the Ohio Power Siting Board.

• The facility applicant must give a 14 day advance written notice of the public meeting to the county commissioners and to trustees of townships in which facility would be located.
• At the meeting, the facility applicant must present in written form the type of utility facility, its maximum nameplate capacity, and a map of its geographic boundaries.
• Up to 90 days after the public meeting, the county commissioners may adopt a resolution that prohibits the construction of the facility or limits its boundaries to a smaller part of the proposed location.  If the county commissioners do not prohibit or limit the facility, the applicant may proceed with the application.

Ohio Power Siting Board Composition – ORC 4906.021 to ORC 4906.025

The bill also responds to concerns that community members do not have a voice in the facility approval process overseen by Ohio’s Power Siting Board (OPSB).  For every utility facility application or material amendment to an application, the bill would require the OPSB to include two voting “ad hoc” members on the board to represent residents in the area where the facility is proposed.

• The ad hoc members shall be the chair of the township trustees and the president of the county commissioners in the township and county of the proposed location, or their elected official or resident designees, or a trustee and commissioner chosen by a vote of the trustees and commissioners if the application affects multiple townships and counties.
• An ad hoc member or the member’s immediate family members cannot have an interest in a lease or easement or any other beneficial interest with the applicant utility facility and cannot be an intervenor or have an immediate family member who is an intervenor in the OPSB proceeding.
• The ad hoc members must be designated no more than 30 days after the county or township is notified by the OPSB that the application has been submitted and meets statutory requirements.
• An ad hoc member may not vote on a resolution by its county commissioners or township trustees to intervene in the application proceeding.
• An ad hoc member is exempt from restrictions on ex parte communications with parties in the case but must disclose the date and participants of ex parte conversations and shall not disclose or use confidential information acquired in the course of official duties.

OPSB Authority – ORC 4901.101; ORC 4906.30

There are parameters in the bill for projects that the OPSB may not approve.  The OPSB may not grant a certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of or material amendment to an existing certificate for a utility facility in these situations:

• If the utility facility is prohibited by a restricted area designation.
• If the county commissioners have prohibited the utility facility by resolution.
  • Where the utility facility would be in multiple counties, the OPSB must modify a certificate to exclude the area of a county whose commissioners prohibited the facility.
• For any areas outside the boundaries of the utility facility that were changed by action of the county commissioners.
• If the facility has a nameplate capacity exceeding the capacity provided to the county commissioners, has a geographic area not completely within the boundaries provided to the county commissioners, or is a different type of generation than that provided to the county commissioners.

Decommissioning Plans for Utility Facilities – ORC 4906.21 to ORC 4906.212

The question of what happens to a facility when its production life ends has been another issue of voiced concern.  The bill establishes decommissioning procedures for facilities.  At least 60 days prior to commencement of construction of a utility facility, an applicant must submit a decommissioning plan for review and approval by the OPSB.

• A state registered professional engineer must prepare the plan, and the OPSB may reject the selected engineer.
• The plan must include:
  • A list of parties responsible for decommissioning of the utility facility.
  • A schedule of decommissioning activities, which cannot extend more than 12 months beyond the date the utility facility ceases operation.
  • Estimates of the full cost of decommissioning, including proper disposal of facility components and restoration of the land on which the facility is located to its pre-construction state, but not including salvage value of facility materials.
    • The estimate of the full cost of decommissioning a utility facility must be recalculated every five years by an engineer retained by the applicant.

Performance Bonds – ORC 4906.22 to ORC 4906.222

How to and who pays for facility decommissioning is also addressed in the bill.  Before beginning construction of a utility facility, the applicant must post a performance bond to ensure that funds are available for the decommissioning of the facility.

• The utility facility must name the OPSB as the bond oblige.
• The bond shall equal the estimate of decommissioning costs included in the facility’s decommissioning plan.
• The bond shall be updated every five years according to the most recent costs of decommissioning the facility and shall increase if estimated costs increase but shall not decrease if estimated costs decrease.

OPSB Provision of Approved Application — ORC 4906.31

Under the bill, local governments would formally know if a project receives OPSB approval.  The OPSB must provide a complete copy of an approved application for or material amendment to a certificate to each board of trustees and county commissioners in the townships and counties of the facility location.

• The copy must be provided within 3 days of the OPSB’s acceptance of the application and filing fee payment by the applicant.
• The copy may be in electronic or paper form.

Effect on Utility Facility Applications in Process – Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act

Many wind and solar facility projects are currently in process, so the bill addresses what happens to those projects should the law go into effect.

• The new law would apply to all applications for a certificate or a material amendment to an existing certificate for an economically significant wind farm or large wind farm that is not accepted by the OPSB within 30 days after the effective date of the legislation. 
  • An application for an economically significant wind farm or large wind farm that is not approved within 30 days after the effective date would be subject to review by the county commissioners, who would have 90 days after the effective date to review the application and act according to the provisions of the new law.
• If an application for a certificate or material amendment to a certificate for a utility facility has not been accepted by the OPSB as of the new law’s effective date, the OPSB must include “ad hoc” members in further OPSB proceedings on the application.
• The new law would not apply to an application for a certificate or material amendment to a certificate for a large solar facility that, as of the effective date of the new law, is in the new services queue of the PJM interconnection and regional transmission organization at the time the application is accepted by OPSB and the applicant has received a completed system impact study from PJM and paid its filing fee.
  • If the facility has multiple positions in the PJM new services queue, all queue position in effect on the law’s effective date are exempt from the new law.
  • If the facility submits a new queue position for an increase in its capacity interconnection rights, the change shall not subject the facility to the new law as long as the facility’s nameplate capacity does not increase.

We’ll keep an eye on the Governor to learn where S.B. 52’s road will end.  Read the full text of S.B. 52 and further information about it on the Ohio General Assembly’s website.

Ohio legislature spending energy on energy legislation

Energy is a hot topic at the statehouse these days.  The Ohio General Assembly is reviewing several proposals dealing with energy sources, including solar and wind facilities, oil, gas, and gas pipelines.  The proposals raise a critical question about where control over energy production activities should lie:  with the state or with local communities?  The proposals offer contrasting views on the answer to that question.

Solar and wind projects.  We reported in March that companion bills H.B. 118 and S.B. 52 were on hold due to conflicts with the proposals, which would have allowed citizens to use the referendum process to reject proposed large scale wind and solar energy developments in their communities.  On May 12, the bill sponsors offered a substitute bill to the House Public Utilities Committee.   The new approach in the substitute bill would allow a township to adopt a resolution designating all or parts of the township as “energy development districts.”  Doing so would allow wind and solar facilities to be constructed within the designated district(s) and would prevent the Ohio Power Siting Board from approving any projects that are not within a designated district.  The residents in a township, however, would have the right to petition an energy development district designation and submit it to a vote by township residents.  Sponsor Sen. Rob McColley (R-Napoleon) explained that the new approach would allow a township to let energy developers know “up front” that the community is “open for business.”  The committee will hear responses to the substitute bill in additional hearings, not yet scheduled.

Fossil fuel and gas pipelines.  A proposal regarding energy generation from fossil fuels and gas pipelines takes an opposite approach on local control.  H.B. 192, sponsored by Rep. Al Cutrona (R-Canfield) would prohibit counties, townships, and municipal corporations from prohibiting or limited the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation and the construction or use of a pipeline to transport oil or gas.  About a dozen opponents testified against the bill at its third hearing before the House Energy and Natural Resources last week, with most arguing that the proposal removes rights of local communities to control their energy sources and violates the home rule authority for municipalities provided in Ohio’s Constitution.  The bill is not yet scheduled for an additional committee hearing.

Natural gas.  A bill that guarantees access to natural gas passed the House of Representatives on May 6, largely along party lines.  H.B. 201, sponsored by Rep. Jason Stephens (R-Kitts Hill), guarantees that every person has a right to obtain any available distribution service or competitive retail natural gas service from gas suppliers, and bars a political subdivision from enacting laws that would limit, prevent, or prohibit a consumer within its boundaries from using distribution services, retail natural gas service, or propane.  Opponents argue that the bill violates home rule authority and is unnecessary, since no community in Ohio has ever banned the use of natural gas.  The bill was referred to the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee on May 12.

We’ll keep you posted on the progress of these bills as the Ohio General Assembly continues to deal with the question of local versus state control of energy production and distribution in Ohio.

Ohio legislation on the move

The Ohio General Assembly is off and running in its new session.  Many bills that affect agriculture in Ohio are already on the move.  Here’s a summary of those that are gaining the most momentum or attention.

Tax Conformity Bill – S.B. 18 and H.B. 48.  The Senate has already passed its version of this bill, which conforms our state tax code with recent changes to the Internal Revenue Code made in the latest COVID-19 stimulus provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.  Both the Senate and the House will also exempt forgiven Paycheck Protection Program second-draw loan proceeds from the Commercial Activity Tax.  The Senate version additionally exempts Bureau of Workers Compensation dividend rebates from the Commercial Activity Tax beginning in 2020, but the House bill does not.  Both bills include “emergency” language that would make the provisions effective in time for 2020 tax returns.

Beginning farmers tax credits –H.B. 95.  A slightly different version of this bill is returning after not passing in the last legislative session.  The bi-partisan bill aims to assist beginning farmers through several temporary income tax credits:

• Businesses that sell or rent agricultural assets such as land, animals, facilities or equipment to certified beginning farmers can receive a 5% income tax credit for sales, a 10% of gross rental income credit for cash rents, and 15% of gross rental income for share rents.
• Certified beginning farmers can receive an income tax credit equal to the cost of participating in a certified financial management program.

Beginning farmers, among other requirements, are those in or seeking entry into farming in Ohio within the last ten years who are not a partner, member or shareholder with the owner of the agricultural assets and who have a net worth of less than $800,000 in 2021, which adjusts for inflation in subsequent years.  The House Agriculture and Conservation Committee will discuss the bill at its meeting on February 16.

Wind and solar facilities – S.B. 52.  In addition to revising setback and safety specifications for wind turbines, this proposal would amend Ohio township zoning law to establish a referendum process for large wind and solar facility certificates.  The bill would require a person applying for a certificate for a large wind or solar facility to notify the township trustees and share details of the proposed facility.  That notification sets up opportunities for the township trustees or residents of the township to object to the application and submit the proposed application to a vote of township residents.  A certificate would not take effect unless approved by a majority of the voters.  A first hearing on S.B. 52 will be held on Tuesday, February 16 before the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee.

Grants for broadband services – H.B. 2 and S.B. 8.  The Senate passed its version of this bill last week, which sets up a $20 million competitive grant program for broadband providers to extend broadband services throughout the state.  The proposal would also allow broadband providers to use electric cooperative easements and poles, subject to procedures and restrictions.  The bill had its second hearing before the House Finance Committee last week.

Eminent domain – H.B. 63.   Based on a similar bill that didn’t pass last session, this bill changes eminent domain law in regard to property taken for the use of recreational trails, which include public trails used for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, ski touring, canoeing and other non-motorized recreational travel.  H.B. 63 would allow a landowner to submit a written request asking a municipality or township to veto the use of eminent domain for a recreational trail within its borders.   The bill would also allow a landowner to object to a use of eminent domain for any purpose at any time prior to a court order for the taking, rather than limiting that time period to ten days as in current law.   The bill had its first hearing before the House Civil Justice Committee last week.

Minimum wage increases.  S. B. 51 and H.B. 69.  Bills on each side of the General Assembly propose gradually increasing the state minimum wage to $15, but have different paths for reaching that amount.  S.B. 51 proposes increasing the wage to $12/hour in 2022, followed by $1/hour increases each year and reaching $15 by 2025, which is when a federal bill proposes to establish the $15 minimum wage.  H.B. 69 begins at $10/hour in 2022 with $1/hour increases annually, reaching $15 in 2027.  S.B. 51 was referred last week to the Workforce and Higher Education Committee and H.B. 69 was referred to the Commerce and Labor Committee.