Solar projects continue to eye Auglaize

Agriculture and Natural Resources Law Professor Peggy Hall said over the past three years she has seen solar development explode across Ohio. “It started in the southern part of the state and moved northwest,” Hall said. Proximity to transmission and flat land is driving development. “What’s been driving the speed of developments is the sunsetting of some of these (tax) incentives,” Hall said. “We do have enough sun in Ohio to make this work and more importantly we have access to transmission facilities. We are seeing more development than we originally anticipated. Hall spoke during the monthly Ag Breakfast coordinated by the local Cooperative Extension Service. Solar developments have been in the news lately, with more and more companies approaching land owners for acreage to place solar panels. Retired Commissioner Don Regula of Pusheta Township expressed his concern with liability for drainage issues on area being developed. Hall encouraged review of drainage tile maps with the developers during planning phases to mitigate potential drainage issues. Hall said provisions are being added to leases to mitigate drainage interferences. “The concern is we may not know about it until it happens,” Hall said, adding she has seen good neighbor agreements, and offers of payment to surrounding neighbors to address nuisance impacts. Farm Service Agency Director Anita Green had concerns about whether the planning for these developments was sufficient and how quickly development was moving forward. Hall said there was a lot of planning the developer has to do to submit to the Ohio Power Siting board and it can take a year to gather all of the information. “What we have seen is that the planning is all about the project and not enough, according to many people, about placing that project in the midst of farmland or in the midst of an unincorporated township, with little input from those people who live in that area.” Hall discussed Senate Bill 52 and called it highly controversial. The bill gives the authority to county commissioners to designate an area for wind or solar development. Hall said the Ohio Township Association is upset that the power lies with the county; however, citizens can petition to put a referendum on the ballot to ask voters to decided the fate of that decision. The bill also requires a public meeting be held prior to submitting an OPSB application. “(The bill) tries to address this issue of planning for these facilities,” Hall said. She said because the General Assembly goes on a summer recess in July it would be unlikely for the bill to move forward until the fall. She said there was an unusual amount of attention on the bill. “We don’t ordinarily see this many people testifying,” Hall said, showing a long list of names at committee meetings. “We are starting to see this issue divide the agricultural community,” Hall said. “Those who have been approached by developers stand to have a pretty good revenue stream and may be in favor of this type of development. Those who don’t want it, haven’t been approached, or who lease land and fear losing that farmland may be opposed to it.” She said there is friction among neighbors, especially those who don’t want the development in their backyards. “They don’t want to live with it, they don’t want to look at it,” Hall said. Hall was uncertain if the bill would make it through the House because it is divisive and controversial. Hall noted no applications to the OPSB have been rejected because of the impact to farmland and prime soils. Hall saw room to raise questions about that aspect in the siting process. County Agriculture Extension Agent Jamie Hampton asked about reclamation. Hall said reclamation could take one to three years. “I will say that every lease that I’ve seen has a provision in there that the developer may terminate this lease at any time,” Hall said. She did say there was a large cost to infrastructure for panels that encourages developers to keep those agreements. “The technology for those panels just keep Hall said. The ground would be taxed commercially and lose its agricultural tax benefits. Hall warned the loss of agricultural tax benefits in some cases could be permanent. She said to make sure developers account for tax benefit loss in their lease agreements. Green asked if anyone has asked about studies if it was ecomically beneficial to keep the land in production, sell the land and invest the money, or to lease the land for a solar development. Hall said that was still being studied, although the question has been raised. Green was also concerned about companies dissolving and avoiding liability for legal matters. Hall said there is so much money invested in the infrastructure it creates a higher incentive to ensure it is used to its full capacity. She also encouraged those with concerns about liability and decommissioning to carefully review lease agreements and negotiate them. She said decommissioning bonds, which assure money is available to take down the projects, should go toward land owners and not the state. She encouraged landowners to negotiate terms in the lease. “It’s so important what the lease language says,” Hall said. Hampton asked about what about natural disasters, such as a tornado and potential contamination risks. Hall said her colleague Associate Professor Eric Romich has looked into environmental contamination liability and he feels natural disasters are not a high risk.