Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

What Three Ohio Counties Can Tell Us About a Major Obstacle to Our Clean Energy Future

My colleagues at the Center for Progressive Reform and I recently published a report and interactive map examining how local ordinances that restrict clean energy development can impose major obstacles in our efforts toward a just clean energy transition.

These constraints take many forms, such as enforced setbacks from built structures, property lines, or roads; height limits; noise limits; and constraints in the siting process that restrict where renewable projects can be built. Critically, the more expansive these restrictions are, the less likely it is that projects can find a way to make an investment that is both technically feasible and economically viable.

Among the many important findings in our report, we highlighted the high degree of variability that exists between states in the way large-scale clean energy generation is regulated. In some cases, like Illinois and Michigan, governments have empowered state authorities to override local siting measures; other states have given local governments more decision-making powers to decide if and how renewable infrastructure can be built. Among the latter is Ohio.

Ohio represents an important case study given the sharp turn state policies (and politics) have taken since 2014. During the past 10 years, the state has been riding an anti-renewable wave of legislative and regulatory actions that have created an incredibly hostile environment to renewable development. Jeffrey Tomich, E&E News reporter for the Midwest, provides an abbreviated timeline of the relevant legislative developments:

2014 — S.B. 310 put a two-year “freeze” on Ohio’s renewable and energy efficiency standards.

2014 — The Legislature adopts new wind setbacks that have stifled new wind development.

2016 — Gov. John Kasich vetoes an extended freeze on clean energy requirements.

2019 — H.B. 6 nullifies Ohio’s clean energy standards.

2021 — Gov. Mike DeWine signs S.B. 52, giving Ohio counties extended authority over siting and the determination of exclusion zones for clean energy projects.

Given its far-reaching impacts, I want to focus on S.B. 52 to showcase the potential impact of local-level ordinances in predominantly rural areas.Effective as of October 2021, S.B. 52 allows counties to designate restricted areas where wind and solar development is prohibited and to prohibit individual projects or limit their size. However, according to Peggy Kirk Hall, associate professor and field specialist in agricultural and resource law at Ohio State University, this new authority “applies only to facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid and beyond a certain production size”: 5 megawatts (MW) or more for wind energy and 50 MW or more for solar energy.

Many counties across the state have used S.B. 52 specifically to restrict development in “unincorporated” areas — the parts of the county that are outside any municipality. In these areas, where there are no town or city councils, the rulemaking authority defers to the county government for decisions regarding land use rules or other projects.

This has important ramifications, particularly in rural counties. In these jurisdictions, which are incidentally the ones with the biggest clean energy potential, unincorporated areas represent much if not most of the county area. In some cases, they can represent the overwhelming majority (90 percent or more).

To get a real sense of what this looks like, we can look at three predominantly rural counties in Ohio that enacted restrictive ordinances pursuant of S.B. 52: Auglaize, Hancock, and Medina. Using publicly available data and assessing the content of the ordinances, I’ve created three simple maps that show which areas have been excluded from renewable development. In these areas, solar (> 50 MW) and wind (>5 MW) are not allowed.

As these figures show, by excluding unincorporated areas from development, Auglaize, Hancock, and Medina Counties are imposing something close to a de facto ban on large scale renewable development. Excluded areas represent almost 90 percent of the territory in the cases of Hancock and Medina Counties, to over 95 percent in the case of Auglaize County. These ordinances represent some of the clearest efforts to purposedly ban renewable development in the country.

As we’ve made it clear in our report, local regulations are not necessarily a bad thing. But a problem arises when the emergence of ordinances like these are rooted in misinformation or coordinated anti-renewable campaigns — and there is evidence that this is happening in Ohio. Ordinances like these also represent an obstacle for landowners who seek to diversify their income sources by turning to solar power as a way to reduce their vulnerability to climate impacts and volatile crop prices.

Onerous county regulations can truly hamper our efforts toward a clean energy transition. For example, a recent paper published in Nature Energy by a group of scientists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that extrapolating the existing setbacks for clean energy development to their greatest extent — throughout the country — could reduce wind and solar resources by up to 87 percent and 38 percent, respectively.

As the authors point out, “additional zoning ordinance provisions and land-use regulations may also impact solar and wind siting, such as generally applicable zoning requirements and land-use standards,” but they do not capture the effects of these standards. This brief snapshot of three rural counties in Ohio provides an idea of what those impact could look like, if the right conditions are in place.

Editor’s note: Check out a related op-ed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, co-authored with Member Scholar Joe Tomain.

Showing 2,829 results

Federico Holm | March 25, 2024

What Three Ohio Counties Can Tell Us About a Major Obstacle to Our Clean Energy Future

My colleagues at the Center for Progressive Reform and I recently published a report and interactive map examining how local ordinances that restrict clean energy development can impose major obstacles in our efforts toward a just clean energy transition. Among the many important findings in our report, we highlighted the high degree of variability that exists between states in the way large-scale clean energy generation is regulated. In some cases, like Illinois and Michigan, governments have empowered state authorities to override local siting measures; other states have given local governments more decision-making powers to decide if and how renewable infrastructure can be built. Among the latter is Ohio.

air pollution

Victor Flatt | March 14, 2024

Op-ed: Whether the Government Requires It or Not, Greenhouse Gas Disclosures Are Here to Stay 

Last week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released its long-awaited final rule requiring publicly traded companies to report certain climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions as part of their financial risk disclosures.

James Goodwin | March 5, 2024

The Ideological Warfare Behind the Attack on Chevron Deference: Part 3

As discussed in yesterday’s post, the contemporary conservative movement is prepared to use legal battles over esoteric administrative law doctrines, such as Chevron deference, as a tool of ideological warfare. Importantly, though, these battles present progressives with a great opportunity to engage at the ideological level as well. After all, progressives have been busy developing their own competing vision of what our constitutional democracy should look like. They should seize the opportunity presented by the fight over Chevron deference’s future to articulate and advance that vision.

James Goodwin | March 4, 2024

The Ideological Warfare Behind the Attack on Chevron Deference: Part 2

In Part 1 of this three-part series, I introduced the rapidly boiling legal battle over a once-obscure administrative law doctrine known as Chevron deference. Much of the commentary to this point has focused on the political motivations behind the conservative attack on Chevron deference. In this second post, I will take a closer look at how conservatives have carefully crafted this battle (and their broader war on the administrative state) to promote their distinctive brand of ideological thought.

James Goodwin | March 4, 2024

The Ideological Warfare Behind the Attack on Chevron Deference: Part 1

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of related cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce — which could be among the most consequential decisions for U.S. democracy that the Court has ever issued. That’s because the cases urge the Court to overturn a longstanding judicial doctrine called Chevron deference. Over the last 40 years, that doctrine has provided a practical framework for mediating the growing separation-of-powers fights among the three branches for control over administrative agencies, with the preservation of the administrative state’s essential democratic foundation as its guiding star.

Robert Fischman | February 29, 2024

A Proposal to Leverage More Conservation Benefits from National Wildlife Refuges

How should the United States manage the largest biodiversity conservation system to be greater than the sum of its parts? This vexing question for the national wildlife refuges has received scant attention for the past quarter century. Now the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service), which administers the refuge system, has proposed a rule to guide specific refuge decisions to ensure they contribute to a national network rather than incrementally fray the web of conservation.

Federico Holm | February 28, 2024

New Report and Interactive Map: Communities Left Behind: How Local Ordinances Can Obstruct Energy Democracy and a Just Transition

A profound energy transition is sweeping the United States. In addition to mitigating dangerous greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, it means new economic opportunities and a safer and healthier environment for communities across the country. A better future is certainly within reach, or at least it is for some communities, which are the ones that will be able to capitalize on the green transition. But for many others, there is no guarantee that this clean energy transition will be a just and equitable one. Why is this the case? As we explore in a new report and interactive map, it turns out that one of the biggest obstacles is self-inflicted: local ordinances that restrict new renewable energy development projects, including wind, solar, and battery storage.

Federico Holm | February 22, 2024

Fine Particle Pollution: Unevenly Distributed, Driven by Heavy Traffic, and Supercharged by E-commerce

On February 7, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized new and stronger air quality standards for fine particle pollution (commonly known as soot), a harmful pollutant and byproduct of burning coal, manufacturing, oil refining, and motor vehicles. Soot is one of the nation’s most dangerous air pollutants, and one of the most widespread, though it disproportionately impacts the health of structurally marginalized communities. Multiple reports have found that people living within half a mile of warehouses have higher rates of asthma and heart attacks than residents in the area overall, increased risk of cancer, and nervous system effects.

Sophie Loeb | February 15, 2024

North Carolina Utilities Commission Should Ensure Public Participation on Proposed New Methane Gas Plants

As North Carolinians continue to grapple with rolling blackouts and rising energy bills, yet another pending environmental catastrophe is developing in our backyards. Duke Energy, our state’s monopoly utility provider, has submitted filings for two new methane gas power plants — one at the current Roxboro coal plant in Person County and another at the Marshall plant on Lake Norman.