The Ohio Supreme Court partially sided with local governments in Madison County, ordering the Ohio Power Siting Board to take another look at the 6,050-acre Oak Run Solar Project after finding the visual plan needed deeper review and other required information
For local officials in Madison County, the case didn’t end in March 2024—it restarted.
The Ohio Supreme Court partially overturned an approval by the Ohio Power Siting Board for the Oak Run Solar Project. a 6. 050-acre development on land owned in part by Microsoft founder Bill Gates. In the court’s view. the board must revisit key details—starting with the visual plans for proposed buildings—and consider whether the application provided enough of what regulations require.
The stakes are tangible in a rural area where the project would span multiple townships and where residents and officials say they are being asked to absorb long-term impacts they can’t fully see or measure.
At the heart of the ruling is the court’s directive that the siting board needs to more thoroughly consider the project’s visual plan. The justices sent the case back. requiring the board to review photographic images or sketches of the proposed buildings before deciding whether construction should be approved.
The court majority also agreed that the applicant shared less information than regulations require. The local governments, however, did not persuade the majority with enough evidence that the plan would be harmful.
Local governments had pushed back on multiple fronts. They argued the board did not adequately consider factors including battery storage safety, water quality data, and wildlife surveys. In practical terms. those disputes go beyond aesthetics: officials said safety and environmental studies were not handled with the level of detail the situation demands.
Justices Patrick DeWine and Joseph Deters joined Justice Patrick Fischer’s majority opinion. Justice Jennifer Brunner— the only Democrat on the court—wrote separately. She agreed with most of Fischer’s opinion but added that Oak Run shared enough information on the visual impact because the highest structures would be unnoticeable from the project’s borders.
Justice Daniel Hawkins wrote another separate opinion, joined by Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justice Megan Shanahan. Hawkins said the board approved the project without the water quality and wildlife studies required. and that the plan did not address safety concerns about the battery storage systems that could be toxic if they catch on fire.
Kennedy, also writing separately, focused on emergency preparedness. She said the project’s “incomplete” emergency response plan harms local governments. “These are not minute details that can be filled in later. nor are the harms these omissions could cause easily rectified after the fact. ” Kennedy said.
The fight is about more than paper compliance. The Oak Run Solar Project spans more than 6. 000 acres in rural Madison County. about 35 miles from Columbus. and includes land in Monroe. Somerford and Deercreek townships. The project is being positioned as one of the largest solar developments in the United States.
It is also designed as an agrivoltaic project, combining solar panels with crops and grazing livestock. The plan requires that at least 70% of the farmable project area include agrovoltaics within the first eight years of operation.
Financially, the project is expected to generate $8.2 million annually for local governments and schools—money that communities are likely to weigh against the concerns the justices addressed in their opinions.
The Supreme Court’s order means the Ohio Power Siting Board will have to slow down and re-examine the application with renewed attention to visual materials and other regulated requirements. For Madison County. that return to the board is a reminder that approval doesn’t just depend on ambition—it depends on how completely applicants meet the standards meant to protect surrounding communities.
Ohio Supreme Court Oak Run Solar Project Ohio Power Siting Board Madison County Bill Gates land Microsoft founder battery storage safety water quality wildlife surveys agrivoltaic emergency response plan solar project approval
So they’re just looking at pictures again? That seems pointless.
I saw “Bill Gates” and immediately knew it was gonna be a mess. Like how does it take a whole Supreme Court to decide if solar panels look ugly? Meanwhile people in those towns still have to deal with construction.
Wait, they sent it back because the visual plan needed more review… does that mean the solar is approved eventually or they’re just dragging it out? Also the article says battery safety and water quality were brought up, but it sounds like the justices didn’t care enough about that part? Confusing.
This whole thing is “review some sketches” while the project is like 6,050 acres which is insane. If the county says water and wildlife aren’t handled right, why isn’t that the main issue? Feels like the court sided with the solar folks but then pretended it was for the locals. And Microsoft founder land or not, they still gonna build batteries somewhere, so what’s the point of redoing visuals again?