PUBLISHED ON June 9, 2026
COLUMBUS, Ohio — On Tuesday, May 26, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a slip opinion, In re Application of Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C. The decision concerns a proposed 800-megawatt, 6,050-acre solar project in Madison County. The proposed facility would also include a 300-megawatt alternating-current battery-energy storage system and allow for crops and livestock grazing among the solar panels. In 2022, Oak Run applied for approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board to construct their proposed project. Ultimately, the Power Siting Board approved the project, and the Board of Trustees for Somerford, Deercreek, and Monroe Townships, along with the Madison County Board of Commissioners appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.
What were the local governments’ objections to the project?
The three boards of township trustees and the Madison County Board of Commissioners, which the court refers to as “the local governments,” cited four different reasons why the Ohio Power Siting Board should have rejected Oak Run’s application. Firstly, the local governments asserted that Oak Run failed to take steps to minimize adverse visual impacts as required under the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), arguing that Oak Run should have included a “vegetative screening plan” and comprehensive outreach to residents regarding the screening plan in its application. Secondly, the local governments argued that the Power Siting Board did not obtain the required visual-impact information to assess the proposed facility from public vantage points, as is required under the OAC.  In their third claim, the local governments alleged that the Power Siting Board erred in approving the project because Oak Run’s application did not contain enough information about how the project would affect water quality, which is required for the Board to make its legally required determination about the environmental impacts of the project. Finally, the local governments feel that because the Power Citing Board did not obtain plant and wildlife information required under OAC, the Board could not make an informed decision about the environmental impacts of the project as required by Ohio law.
How did the Ohio Supreme Court respond to the local governments’ objections?
Ultimately, the majority of the Court only found the second argument persuasive.  OAC 4906-4-08 requires applicants to provide “photographic simulations or artist’s pictorial sketches of the proposed facility from public vantage points that cover the range of landscapes, viewer groups, and types of scenic resources found within the study area” when providing information on the visual impacts of the proposed project. You can read the OAC section here.  The local governments specifically pointed out that Oak Run did not provide the Power Citing Board with photographs or sketches showing the project’s substations, with structures ranging in height from 85 to 115 feet.  Without these simulations, the local governments argued that the Power Citing Board could not make the determinations required under the Ohio Revised Code (ORC). ORC 4906.10, available here, requires the Ohio Power Citing Board to determine the nature of the probable environmental impact of a utility facility, whether the facility has the minimum amount of environmental impact possible, and whether the facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. In response, Oak Run made several claims, including the argument the substations do not count as “facilities” under Ohio law and the administrative code.
The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Oak Run’s arguments, including their contention that the substations are not “facilities,” noting that  ORC 4906.01 specifically includes “associated facilities” in its definition of a “large solar facility,” and OAC 4906-01-01 specifically includes substations in its definition of “associated facilities.” The Court reasoned that “[w]hen considering these definitions together, it is clear that the substations for Oak Run’s project are facilities and Oak Run was therefore required to provide the board with the visual impact information.”
The Court found that the substations on the Oak Run Project were “facilities,” and for the Power Citing Board to determine the environmental and public impacts of a facility, the administrative rules require those applying to build a solar facility to provide “photographic simulations or artist’s pictorial sketches of the proposed facility.”  Since Oak Run did not include photo simulations or sketches of the substations, the Court reversed the Ohio Power Siting Board’s approval of the project, sending the matter back to the Board to obtain more visual information from Oak Run before approval.
How will this decision affect solar projects going forward?
Although the Ohio Supreme Court’s majority opinion reversed part of the Ohio Power Siting Board’s approval of the Oak Run solar project due to the lack of photographic simulations and pictorial sketches of the substations, the ruling is hardly a strike against all current and future solar projects in Ohio. The Court remanded the decision back to the Power Siting Board, who will give Oak Run more time to provide photographic and pictorial evidence of all the proposed facilities. If, after considering the additional information, the Power Siting Board determines that the facility has minimal environmental impact and serves public interest, convenience, and necessity, the Board can approve the project and construction can go forward.
To understand how this decision might affect future solar projects in Ohio, it’s also important to examine the other local government claims that the Court did not find persuasive. In particular, the majority opinion’s treatment of the local governments’ claims that Oak Run did not adequately address possible effects on water quality and plants and wildlife is interesting. Although the Court found that visual simulations of all the facilities are required, the same is not the case regarding evidence of water quality and environmental impacts. The Court found that even if Oak Run “did not strictly comply” with the OAC in including all the required information to the Power Siting Board about how the project might affect water quality or plants and wildlife in the surrounding area, the local governments did not show that they suffered harm due to these omissions. This indicates that future groups appealing Power Siting Board solar decisions cannot just rely on the fact that environmental impact information required by the OAC is missing, but that they will have to prove themselves why the project is harmful to local water quality, plant, and animal life.
Finally, it’s important to note that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in this case was far from unanimous. Only three of the seven justices—Fischer, DeWine, and Deters—completely signed on to the majority opinion. Justice Hawkins concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that more information on the environmental, water, plant, and wildlife impacts was required by law, and that Oak Run also did not adequately address safety concerns. Justices Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins, as did Chief Justice Kennedy, who also included her own opinion. Justice Brenner joined Justice Fischer’s opinion in part, but found Oak Run’s visual evidence sufficient.  Given this narrow majority, a Court with a slightly different makeup could result in a completely different ruling on these questions.
If you’d like to dig in deeper to the case, the Ohio Supreme Court’s slip opinion (“slip” means that it is not final and is still subject to formal revision), is available here.
— Ellen Essman, Senior Research Associate, Ohio State University CFAES
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Over the past several years, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Monsanto Company regarding the safety of its herbicide Roundup and its main ingredient glyphosate. On Jan. 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the Monsanto Company’s petition to review one of these cases from the Missouri Court […]
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Each winter, OSU Extension holds a “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” Zoom webinar series to help families with farm transition planning. We invite you and your farm family to attend this series from the comfort of your home on March 2, 9, 16 and 23, 2026, from 6 to 8 […]
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Although farm transition planning often focuses on passing assets smoothly from one generation to the next, in some cases, it may be preferable to skip a generation and distribute assets to the following generation. A Generation Skipping Trust (GST) is an estate planning tool that allows a farm owner to do so. […]
COLUMBUS, Ohio — As we move into March, we thought it’d be a good time to look back at what committees in both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly got up to in February. Committees in both the House and Senate are considering bills to regulate carbon capture, change the levy process, study the effects […]
Applications Open for America 250-Ohio Agritourism Trail








Click subscribe to receive a confirmation email.
We have sent you an email with a personalized link. Please click the link within 10 minutes to complete your subscription.
Pick your region or specialty and stay in the know.
Free. Fast. Farmer-approved.
Subscribe now → Click here to Subscribe
Photo Contest

source