By: Amanda Pirani
Posted on: Tuesday, February 10, 2026
MCARTHUR, Ohio (WOUB/Report for America) — On a snowy Tuesday evening, over 30 people squeeze into a small corner room of the Vinton County Courthouse, lining the walls and doorway. 
Those who can’t fit tilt their heads in from an adjoining office, hoping to catch a word or two. 
They’re gathered for a special commissioners’ meeting to talk about a solar farm proposed for Clinton township, just 10 minutes down the road. 
Many hail from an online Facebook group of nearly 200 members called “Vinton County against solar farms” founded by resident Teresa Everly. 
Everly grew up in a military family. She’s lived all over the world, but dreamed of one day returning home to Vinton County. 
What she loves most about the area is its natural beauty — beauty she believes could be threatened by a solar farm.

“All I wanted to do was come home … I feel like this is destroying my home,” she said. 
The solar development in question, known as the Hamden Energy project, would be built on the former Sands Hill strip mine property, owned by Cheyenne Resources. Cheyenne is a Kentucky-based coal and mining company. 
The site could be up to 1,440 acres and have the capacity to produce 180 megawatts — that’s the energy ready to go directly to the grid. One megawatt can power several hundred to a thousand homes depending on the location and energy use. 
It will be operated by Recurrent Energy, a subsidiary of global renewable energy company Canadian Solar. 
Ohio has seen significant growth in the presence of solar in recent years, and ranks 11th nationally for its installed solar capacity. That could grow as the state’s energy demands increase and solar infrastructure costs lower. 
“The big part of solar’s growth that we’ve seen and we’re going to continue to see is because battery storage costs as well as solar costs continue to fall,” said Mat Roberts, who manages special programs for the Sustainable Ohio Public Energy Council. “If those cost curves continue to fall, it’s going to increasingly look like solar and storage are the cheapest form of energy.”
At the same time, solar developments are held to strict standards before the Ohio Power Siting Board and often face local opposition in Ohio’s rural communities, especially if they’re competing with viable farmland. 
The Ohio Power Siting Board has squashed six large-scale projects due to opposition from residents or local government. A case before the Ohio Supreme Court could change to what extent public opposition would be considered in the approvals process. 
The Hamden Energy project is currently in its preapplication phase, and Recurrent Energy will submit a full application to the Ohio Power Siting Board in March. Vinton County Commissioner Kevin Cozad said the commissioners have not yet decided whether they will vote to approve it. 
Many of those in opposition to the Hamden project were surprised to learn there’s already plans for a solar farm in their county. 
The Vinton Solar Energy Facility in Elk Township was approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board in 2018, before the passage of Senate Bill 52 in 2021. 
Now, companies are legally required to provide public notice of incoming solar developments. 
Two public meetings were held by Recurrent Energy about the Hamden Solar Project in November and December. Letters were also sent to 32 nearby property owners notifying them of the project and the first public meeting.
The first meeting was advertised in The Vinton-Jackson Courier, while the second was advertised in The Telegram. Both newspapers have paywalls online, limiting access to the notices.
The project first came before the county commissioners last spring according to Cozad. WOUB could not locate any information about the Hamden Energy project or the two public meetings on the Vinton County Commissioners’ Facebook page or website. 
Senate Bill 52 also changed the degree to which local officials and the public are involved in the approvals process of large energy projects. 
In Ohio, any solar developments over 50 megawatts must submit an application to be approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board. Then, the Siting Board will conduct an investigation and analysis of the application, followed by a public hearing in a location near the proposed development and an adjudicatory hearing at the Siting Board office. 
Finally, the board will vote upon whether or not to approve the application during a public meeting. That decision must include two voting members who represent local interests: the president of the county commissioners and the chairperson of the township trustees in the area affected by the development being considered.
Despite the name of her Facebook group, Everly said she’s not opposed to solar entirely. She doesn’t mind it in parking lots, or on the roofs of people’s homes. 
But she believes the former coal mine property that would be used for the Hamden Energy project still provides significant wildlife habitat and should be protected. 
“Even then when it was an active mine, we would watch for deer, the turkeys,” she said. 
She also worries about whether the sight of solar panels could turn off tourists who come to the county for its outdoor recreation. 
“Our town created festivals to bring more tourists in and encourage them to spend their money in town,” she said. “I can assure you they are not coming to see the miles of solar panels.” 
Adam Peterson, a senior manager for Recurrent Energy, said the project’s plan will include the use of vegetative screening such as trees or shrubs to mitigate any effects on the view from nearby properties. 
Resident Justin Hitte compared solar to the coal and timber industries, suggesting solar could be another extractive industry exploiting the county. 
“They’re going to continue to let these corporations come in here and just take and take like they have for generations,” he said. 
He noted that the county commissioners have the ability to prevent the construction of large solar and wind projects in unincorporated areas. Commissioner Cozad said they are considering that step but have not come to a decision. 
Hitte and others also expressed concerns that the solar panels could pose health risks. He described solar farms as poisonous, comparing their presence to coal plants and the Austin Powder dynamite plant, which leaked toxic nitric oxide gas into the area in June. 
Damaged or decommissioned solar panels can become hazardous materials, though that’s typically a greater concern for industry workers and during the recycling process. 
The Hamden Energy project is expected to have a lifespan of 40 years, and will be required by the state to have a decommissioning plan in place before construction. 
Damage to solar panels while in use is rare. Research suggests the risk of community exposure to toxic materials as a result of the presence of solar panels is low. 
Another concern was the fire risk of lithium batteries to store solar energy. Peterson of Recurrent Energy said the project may include a battery storage system depending on the final design. 
“These battery systems have extensive testing before deployment, are required to be designed to high safety standards, and include multiple layers of risk monitoring and mitigation in place,” he said.
Peterson added the project will be monitored remotely at all times.
Not all county residents oppose the Hamden Energy project. Some say they don’t see the harm, because the land, formerly home to the Sands Hill Coal Mine, doesn’t have many other uses. 
“I’m supportive of it, but especially if they’re using reclaimed mine land or land that’s already been damaged in some way,” said resident Molly Fite. 
She grew up in Vinton County and said they’ve seen developments with more potential harm. Like Hitte, she named the powder plant as an example. 
The solar farm approved in Elk County nearly a decade ago will also be constructed on reclaimed strip mine land. 
Scott Claypool, another county resident, said he doesn’t like when solar takes over prime farmland, but doesn’t see that happening with the developments in Vinton. He’s also unsure if the community should tell someone what to do with their land. 
“There’s … the issue of respect, property rights to deal with as they please on their property,” he said. 
Critics of the project, like Everly, are right to say the solar farm won’t necessarily have a big economic impact on the county — at least when it comes to employment. 
During construction, the Hamden Energy Project might provide as many as 300 jobs. But in the long term, Peterson said it will only require five positions.
Others point out that Vinton County, over 50,000 acres of which is protected park and forest land, doesn’t get many opportunities to generate tax revenue. 
“We only have a 14,000 population because half of our land, nobody is ever going to live on,” said Cindy Waugh, the county’s auditor. “I want to keep it that way, don’t get me wrong, but that’s zero tax revenue.” 
When solar developments come to town, county governments have two options for tax revenue. The developer can pay the public utility tax at a rate determined by the state, or they can negotiate what’s known as a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement. 
Waugh said a PILOT agreement typically provides more consistent income, because unlike a public utility tax, it doesn’t depreciate over time. 
The minimum rate for PILOT agreements is $7,000 per megawatt of energy produced by a solar farm, and the maximum is $9,000.
At a rate of $7,000 or greater, the Hamden energy project could bring the county as much as $1.26 million annually, which would be distributed at current millage rates. 
For example, the rate for the Vinton County Local School District is 19.2 mills. That means the district would see $565,894 as a result of a PILOT agreement.
Any payments made over $7,000 per megawatt go directly to the county’s general fund. At minimum, the general fund could receive about $132,631 and at maximum it could receive $492,631 each year. 
Commissioner Cozad said there are many needs the commission could use those funds to address, if the solar farm is ultimately approved. 
“Our infrastructure is extremely poor,” he said. “We still have a lot of people that do not have drinking water.” 
He added the income could make the county eligible for more state grants that require local matching funds. 
Everly said she understands the project could be a significant financial opportunity for the county and Clinton Township, but she believes that’s by design. 
“I understand that money is going to schools, infrastructure,” she said. “But I think that’s exactly why they came … they knew the town is desperate for money.” 
Everly is determined to prevent any more large-scale developments where she lives. With the support of her group, she hopes to put an initiative banning solar farms of a certain size or larger from Vinton County on the ballot in November. 
Amanda Pirani is WOUB’s Report for America Journalist covering Economic Livelihood. For more information about Report for America, you can click here.

source