Establishing the “Minimum Adverse Environmental Impact” and Public-Need Standard for Ohio Solar Farms

Introduction

In In re Application of Harvey Solar I, L.L.C. (2025-Ohio-1503), the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed an appeal by a citizens’ group and nearby landowners (“the residents”) challenging the Ohio Power Siting Board’s grant of a certificate permitting Harvey Solar I, L.L.C. (“Harvey Solar”) to construct and operate a 350-megawatt solar-powered electric generation facility in Licking County.

Key issues included:

• Whether the Board complied with R.C. 4906.10(A) in finding the facility would have the minimum adverse environmental impact.
• Whether Harvey Solar’s application met Ohio Adm.Code requirements on visual screening, floodplain management, wildlife surveys, noise modeling, water‐quality data, economic impact estimates, and glare analysis.
• Whether the Board’s decision was “unlawful or unreasonable” under the statutory standard (R.C. 4903.13).

Parties:

• Appellants: Save Hartford Twp., L.L.C., and eleven nearby residents
• Appellee: Ohio Power Siting Board
• Intervening Appellee: Harvey Solar I, L.L.C.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice DeWine, writing for the majority (with Chief Justice Kennedy concurring in judgment only), affirmed the Board’s order. The Court held that:

• The residents failed to prove the Board’s certificate was unlawful (i.e., contrary to applicable statutes or rules) or unreasonable (i.e., beyond the bounds of the Board’s discretion under R.C. 4906.10(A)).
• Harvey Solar’s application—augmented by a stipulation with most intervenors and by Board‐imposed conditions—satisfied the criteria in R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) (probable environmental impact), (3) (minimum adverse environmental impact), (5) (compliance with R.C. 6111 water‐pollution laws), and (6) (public interest, convenience, and necessity).
• None of the seven propositions of law raised by the residents warranted reversal.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• State v. Parker, 2019-Ohio-3848: Establishes that broad policy judgments (e.g., the value of solar farms) lie with the legislature, not the courts.
• R.C. 4906.10(A): Eight statutory determinations the Board must make before issuing a certificate for a “major utility facility.”
• R.C. 4903.13: Standard of review—Board orders stand unless they are “unlawful or unreasonable.”
• Alamo Solar I, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3778 and Firelands Wind, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-2555: Clarify the distinction between de novo review of legal questions (“unlawful”) and deferential review of discretionary factual determinations (“unreasonable”).
• Multiple Ohio Adm.Code provisions (4906-4-06 through 4906-4-08) governing application contents for siting certificates.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s review proceeded in two main steps:

1. Legal (“Unlawful”) Review: Did the Board misinterpret R.C. 4906.10(A) or its own rules? No. The Court held:
   • Former Adm.Code 4906-4-08(D)(4)(f) required a description of visual‐screening measures—not perfect or complete screening.
   • Noise rules for solar facilities do not mandate nighttime modeling under Adm.Code 4906-4-08(A)(3)(b)–(c).
   • Water‐quality rules apply only when discharges are likely; no pre-construction sampling was needed where no discharges were anticipated.
   • Economic impact rules (“an estimate”) cover positive and negative impacts; Harvey Solar’s econometric study and the residents’ testimony sufficed.
2. Factual (“Unreasonable”) Review: Were the Board’s determinations under R.C. 4906.10(A) outside the bounds of reason? No. The Court found:
   • Visual impacts: The Board reasonably approved a preliminary landscape plan, imposed conditions to finalize it with a licensed landscape architect, and required maintenance and replacement metrics.
   • Flooding: Harvey Solar analyzed flood risk, committed to following county floodplain rules, and provided mitigation conditions—reasonably delegating to local expertise.
   • Wildlife: The applicant conducted literature surveys plus multi-season field visits; the Board’s decision that no further species‐specific surveys were needed was reasonable.
   • Noise: Daytime modeling showed compliance; at night the inverters are idle—no evidence demanded further study.
   • Water quality: No anticipated wastewater or stormwater discharges beyond regulated construction runoff; compliance assured by Ohio EPA permits and erosion controls.
   • Public interest: The Board balanced millions of dollars in projected local earnings, jobs, and tax revenues against speculative local harms.
   • Glare: Harvey Solar provided a simulations‐based glare study (5° tilt, anti-reflective coating) and committed contractually to those design features.

3. Impact on Future Cases and Ohio Energy Law

This decision clarifies and cements key principles in Ohio’s renewable-energy siting regime:

• Board Discretion: R.C. 4906.10(A) grants broad, open-textured criteria. Courts will not second-guess the Board when its factual determinations rest on “sufficient probative evidence.”
• Procedural Flexibility: The Board may issue certificates subject to monitoring and may rely on other agencies (e.g., floodplain administrators, Ohio EPA) for technical enforcement.
• Administrative-Rule Scope: Solar-farm applicants need only meet the specific sub-parts of the Adm.Code rules; requirements for wind farms do not automatically extend to solar projects.
• Standard of Review Reinforced: “Unlawful” = purely legal; “unreasonable” = factual determinations within statutory bounds.
• Balancing Local and Statewide Interests: While local aesthetic and agricultural concerns matter, the Board’s mandate is to implement the legislature’s policy favoring renewable generation under general standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need: A license from the Power Siting Board required for any facility generating ≥50 MW.
• R.C. 4906.10(A) Criteria: Eight findings including environmental impact, minimum adverse impact, compliance with pollution laws, and public interest.
• Ohio Adm.Code Chapters 4906-4-06 to 4906-4-08: Detailed application requirements on economics, water, noise, wildlife, visual impacts, etc.
• “Unlawful or Unreasonable” Review:
  • “Unlawful”—the Board misread the statute or rules (review de novo).
  • “Unreasonable”—the Board’s factual judgment exceeded its statutory discretion (highly deferential).
• Stipulation: A negotiated agreement among the applicant, staff, and most intervenors setting out recommended conditions; when adopted by the Board, it carries binding force.
• Floodplain Coordination: Rather than pre-resolving every detail, the Board may require applicants to work with the local floodplain administrator for technical permits.

Conclusion

In re Harvey Solar I solidifies Ohio’s framework for siting large-scale solar facilities. It confirms that:

• The Power Siting Board enjoys broad discretion in applying R.C. 4906.10(A)’s open‐textured criteria.
• Applicants must submit targeted, rule-specific data—but need not anticipate every hypothetical concern absent statutory mandate.
• The Board may impose post‐certificate conditions, delegate technical compliance to domain experts, and rely on interagency collaboration.
• Courts will uphold Board orders unless they contravene the law or are plainly outside the realm of reason.

This precedent ensures that Ohio’s drive toward renewable energy proceeds under a coherent, administrable standard—balancing environmental safeguards, local interests, and the legislature’s policy goals.