Discussions were passionate, personal, full of research, and sometimes, brought on a few tears, during the Wednesday evening, Dec. 14, hearing on the Fountain Point Solar Energy Center hosted by the Ohio Power Siting Board, with sworn testimonies from Logan County residents continuing for six straight hours, until after 11 p.m. at the Benjamin Logan High School auditorium.
Out of approximately 70 individuals who provided their testimonies during their allotted five minutes, an overwhelming majority voiced their strong opposition to the solar-powered electric generating facility proposed for Bokescreek and Rushcreek townships. Neighbors to Fountain Point detailed their many concerns and questions for the OPSB, and people living in other parts of the country also relayed their issues with industrial solar.
However, some speakers also called for the OPSB’s approval of the 280-megawatt project on 2,768 acres as a way to provide future opportunities and funding for Logan County, including for the schools and public safety services.
Invenergy officially submitted its application for Fountain Point Solar Energy earlier this year. Nov. 29, the OPSB released its official Staff Report, which recommended the project. Following the public hearing this week, the project now must move through an OPSB evidentiary hearing in January prior to the official OPSB vote on the case.
Fountain Point has been reduced from its formerly proposed footprint of 3,860 acres after the applicant removed the area of Perry Township from the project, the OPSB reports.
The OPSB looks at eight different criteria while preparing their Staff Report and recommendations whether to approve or deny a project. One of those criteria is “that the facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity,” which many of those providing sworn testimony Wednesday drew on to make their statements.
Christina Daniel, who lives in West Mansfield, said her family just moved to the village four months ago from Marysville with their young daughter to enjoy the rural setting.
“We moved here so our daughter would have much more room to run around,” the Lake Avenue resident said during an emotional testimony. “Now our backyard is scheduled to become part of a large solar farm….This is not what is best for Logan County.”
A fellow Lake Avenue resident in West Mansfield also expressed her frustrations with the large corporation attempting to move the solar project into the area.
“Living by a large solar farm, we are not the ones receiving the energy from this; it has no benefit for us,” said Kristy Skidmore.
“But we are the ones who are sacrificing. It is big money coming in with no regard for our their neighbors..Please don’t let big money be more important than our future.”
Ruth Tetirick, who resides near Zanesfield, stated that no matter what side a person stands on regarding industrial solar, “we have to agree that this project will drastically change the landscape.”
“It will alter the ecosystem above and below ground,” she said, relating the 103,000 steel piles that will be driven into the ground for the solar panels, and the 31 miles of buried cable to be installed for the underground collector system.
“The Department of Agriculture also designates this area of Ohio as having one of the most prime soils in the United States. Top soil in Logan County is a valuable resource.”
Tetirick also expressed her concerns regarding the solar farm’s potential impact on the local watersheds, with the Scioto and the Mad River head waters located not too far away.
A number of farmers also spoke up with their disapproval of the solar farm taking prime, fertile farm land. In addition, fourth generation farmer Nick Cronkleton of West Mansfield said he is worried about the steel piles in the ground causing damage to drainage tiles in his nearby fields.
Cronkleton’s daughter Kaylin Wenger provided sworn testimony as well, stating she and her husband recently purchased land to farm.
“As a next generation farmer, I’m worried about the land prices and land rent prices soaring even higher with the solar companies coming in and convincing farmers to sign lease agreements.
“It’s getting harder and harder for younger generations to start farming. I believe this is an occupation worth protecting.”
Two other speakers, Lorre Culp and Linda Hughes, both of whom own properties adjacent to Fountain Point, noted their displeasure with Invenergy, stating they have still not been officially notified about the project.
“Invenergy has been here three-plus years working on this project and talking with lease holders, but so far, they have yet to notify us about the project. Transparent and honorable? This has not been our experience,” Hughes said.
“I have yet to be approached by Invenergy, despite me reaching out and contacting them,” Culp said. “This does not instill confidence in the OPSB nor in Invenergy.”
On the other side, individuals supporting Fountain Point voiced the potential benefits to sustaining the county and moving forward with the renewable energy.
“For me, it’s a business decision,” lease holder Jerry Regula said. “Some day, we’ll drive electric cars. It all has to start somewhere.”
West Liberty area resident Karla Kauffman said she supports the project and would look forward to financial and environmental benefits for the county. She and other pro-solar speakers noted that future industrial solar farms in Logan County would be limited because of Senate Bill 52 and the action of the county commissioners to restrict these types of industrial solar or wind developments in 16 of the 17 townships.
“I’m excited for the income that will help Logan County, and the chance to decrease the herbicides and pesticides applied to fields,” Kauffman said. “It is a small percentage of the overall farmland in Logan County that would be used for this purpose as a solar farm.”
Dr. Susan Seeley also voiced her support of Fountain Point, stating “we need this money for our schools so that the kids can graduate with skills to benefit their community.
“We could do these things without having to raise property taxes. Union and Hardin counties are benefiting from solar money for their schools and their community.”
Engineer Thomas Seeley of Zanesfield also shared about the convenience of solar technology and its efficiencies. Thomas Moreland of Bellefontaine also noted he is in favor of the project and the growth and development it encourages, giving property owners the opportunity “to explore creative options for their land.
“I’d love to look out my window and see a solar farm,” Moreland said.
“It could be a real game-changer,” fellow speaker Joe Parmer said of the solar project.
“Let’s not get left behind.”
The evidentiary hearing is the next step in the application process, and it is set for 10 a.m. Jan. 23 at the Ohio Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 180 E. Broad St., Columbus.
During the evidentiary hearing, the applicant, OPSB staff, and intervening parties provide expert testimony and evidence regarding the facility and cross-examine each other.
Interveners for the case include: Paul Schaller; Kara Slonecker; Jeny Hammer; Jocelyn Kavanagh; Logan County Board of Commissioners; Rushcreek Township Board of Trustees; the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation; and Citizens Against Fountain Point LLC, Brent Vermillion, Jim Culp, Jocelyn Kavanagh, Alyssa Rice, Cliff Cronkleton, and Anthony Cogossi, according to the Staff Report.
Those who have filed requests to act as interveners will be able to speak at the hearing. The public is invited to attend the proceedings, but are not able to speak unless they are an intervener for this case.
After the completion of the evidentiary hearing, a nine-member OPSB board will vote at one of its monthly meetings to either approve or deny the project application. Senate Bill 52’s provisions incorporate two local ad hoc members on the board who are able to cast their votes. The Board of Logan County Commissioners appointed Michael E. Yoder as its ad hoc member on the board, and the boards of trustees of Bokescreek and Rushcreek townships appointed Jeff Spencer as its ad hoc member.
The detailed Staff Report and other documents for the case are available to view at the OPSB’s website, www.OPSB.ohio.gov, by searching the case number, 21-1231-EL-BGN.