Ohio’s largest proposed solar-and-storage project, the 800-megawatt Oak Run development in Madison County, now sits in the hands of the Ohio Power Siting Board after a key legal deadline passed last Friday without resolution of pending objections. The board’s initial March 2024 approval was challenged through a statutory rehearing process that has stretched the timeline by more than a year, and the final order will determine whether state-level siting authority can override county-level opposition enabled by Senate Bill 52. For developers and grid planners, the decision will signal whether Ohio’s largest utility-scale projects can survive the state’s unique hybrid permitting regime.
Ohio’s Hybrid Siting Regime and the Oak Run Timeline
The Oak Run Solar Project, developed by Savion (a Shell subsidiary), proposes 800 MW of photovoltaic capacity paired with 300 MW of battery storage across roughly 6,000 acres of primarily agricultural land southeast of Columbus. The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) granted a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need in March 2024 after an 18-month adjudicatory proceeding that included extensive testimony on agricultural impacts, drainage, decommissioning surety, and visual mitigation. That certificate, however, triggered a 30-day window for any party to file an application for rehearing – a procedural step that multiple intervenors, including Madison County commissioners and a landowner group, exercised.
The rehearing process has consumed the intervening months. Under Ohio Revised Code 4903.10, the OPSB must rule on rehearing applications within 90 days unless it issues an order extending the deadline. That statutory deadline fell last Friday. The board has not yet issued a final order on rehearing, but the expiration of the deadline means it can now issue its decision at any time without further procedural constraint. If the board denies rehearing or affirms its original certificate with modifications, the project clears its most significant state-level hurdle. If it reverses or substantially modifies the certificate, Savion would face the choice of accepting reduced scope, appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court, or abandoning the development.
Complicating the picture is Senate Bill 52, enacted in 2021, which grants county commissioners the authority to designate “restricted areas” where utility-scale wind and solar projects are effectively banned and to veto individual projects via resolution. Madison County commissioners passed a resolution opposing Oak Run in 2022, before the OPSB application was complete. The OPSB’s initial approval explicitly overrode that local objection, citing the project’s compliance with state siting criteria and the statutory requirement that the board weigh “the need for the facility” against adverse environmental impacts. The rehearing applicants argue the board gave insufficient weight to the county’s home-rule authority and to cumulative agricultural land loss in a region already seeing multiple large solar proposals.
Cross-Cutting Analysis: State vs. Local Control in the Midwest Energy Transition
Ohio’s SB 52 framework sits at the center of a broader Midwest tension between state clean-energy goals and local land-use autonomy. Illinois and Michigan have recently moved in the opposite direction: Illinois’ 2023 Climate and Equitable Jobs Act stripped counties of zoning authority over wind and solar projects above certain thresholds, vesting siting decisions in a state-level process. Michigan’s 2023 clean energy package similarly created a state permitting pathway for large-scale renewables that preempts local ordinances. Ohio, by contrast, reinforced local veto power even as its regulated utilities – AEP Ohio, Duke Energy Ohio, Dayton Power & Light – face resource adequacy pressures inside the PJM Interconnection footprint.
That points to a structural mismatch. PJM’s 2024 capacity auction cleared at $269.92/MW-day for the 2025/26 delivery year, a tenfold increase from the prior year, driven by thermal retirements and load growth from data centers. Ohio sits in the PJM West zone, which cleared at the same price but faces acute capacity shortfalls as coal plants retire. The Oak Run project’s 800 MW of solar plus 300 MW of four-hour storage would contribute roughly 400 MW of accredited capacity under PJM’s Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) rules for solar-storage hybrids – a meaningful but not decisive increment. If the OPSB denies or drastically curtails Oak Run, the next marginal capacity in Ohio likely comes from out-of-state imports or new gas peakers, both of which carry higher emissions and, in the case of gas, exposure to fuel price volatility.
By comparison, the typical utility-scale solar-plus-storage project entering the PJM queue in 2023-24 requested interconnection at a 4:1 solar-to-storage ratio with four-hour duration, and median queue dwell times now exceed four years. Oak Run’s relatively advanced status – it holds a signed Interconnection Service Agreement and has completed PJM’s Facilities Study – makes it unusually valuable as a near-term capacity resource. A denial would not only remove ~400 MW of accredited capacity from Ohio’s supply stack but also signal to developers that even projects with executed interconnection agreements and OPSB certificates remain vulnerable to late-stage political intervention.
Who This Affects
- Utility resource planners (AEP Ohio, Duke Energy Ohio, AES Ohio): Oak Run’s 300 MW of four-hour storage provides firm capacity credit that directly reduces the need for new combustion turbines or capacity purchases in the 2026-2028 window; a denial forces re-optimization of integrated resource plans with higher-cost alternatives.
- Solar-plus-storage developers with Ohio pipeline: At least 12 projects exceeding 200 MW each sit in various stages of OPSB review or county permitting; the Oak Run precedent will determine whether SB 52 county vetoes become de facto fatal or merely a negotiating lever.
- PJM Interconnection market operators: Loss of 400 MW of accredited hybrid capacity tightens the PJM West supply-demand balance and increases reliance on capacity imports or demand response, affecting capacity price formation for the 2026/27 auction.
- Madison County landowners and agricultural interests: The project’s agricultural impact mitigation agreement – including a $15,000/acre decommissioning bond and prime farmland avoidance measures – sets a template for future negotiations; a reversal weakens leverage for landowners seeking favorable lease terms.
- State legislators and the Governor’s office: The outcome will inform whether the General Assembly revisits SB 52 in the 2025-26 session, particularly as economic development officials court data center investments that require clean energy procurement.
What to Watch Next
- OPSB final rehearing order (expected within 30-60 days): The board’s written opinion will reveal how much weight it assigns to SB 52 county resolutions versus the statutory “need for the facility” standard, establishing precedent for pending cases like the 600 MW Madison Solar and 400 MW Yellowbud Solar projects.
- Potential Ohio Supreme Court appeal: If the OPSB affirms, rehearing applicants have 30 days to appeal; the court’s docket and any stay request will determine whether construction can begin in 2025 or slides to 2026.
- Madison County commissioner actions post-decision: Even with an OPSB certificate, the county could pursue injunctive relief in common pleas court alleging procedural defects, adding another 6-12 months of delay.
- PJM interconnection milestone compliance: Savion must meet engineering and financial milestones in its Interconnection Service Agreement; any delay beyond 12 months risks termination of the queue position, which would be difficult to replace given current queue backlogs.
- Legislative response in the 2025 General Assembly: Watch for bills to amend SB 52 – either strengthening county authority (if Oak Run is approved) or creating a state override pathway (if denied) – especially as Intel’s semiconductor campus and hyperscale data center announcements increase clean energy demand forecasts.
Bottom Line
The Oak Run decision will function as a referendum on whether Ohio’s current siting framework can deliver the capacity resources its utilities and grid operator need, or whether the state has effectively ceded control of its energy transition to county commissions – one project at a time.
Read the full report at Canary Media
Note: facts and figures attributed above to Energy News Network reflect that outlet's original reporting. Broader context, cross-sector connections, and forward-looking scenarios reflect independent analysis by our editorial team.
About this article: Drafted by Energy Ai with AI-assisted research and writing based on public reporting, then reviewed under our editorial process before publication.
Leave a Reply