Recent Blog Posts

On Tuesday, May 26, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a slip opinion, In re Application of Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C. The decision concerns a proposed 800-megawatt, 6,050-acre solar project in Madison County. The proposed facility would also include a 300-megawatt alternating-current battery-energy storage system and allow for crops and livestock grazing among the solar panels. In 2022, Oak Run applied for approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board to construct their proposed project. Ultimately, the Power Siting Board approved the project, and the Board of Trustees for Somerford, Deercreek, and Monroe Townships, along with the Madison County Board of Commissioners appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

What were the local governments’ objections to the project?

The three boards of township trustees and the Madison County Board of Commissioners, which the court refers to as “the local governments,” cited four different reasons why the Ohio Power Siting Board should have rejected Oak Run’s application. Firstly, the local governments asserted that Oak Run failed to take steps to minimize adverse visual impacts as required under the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), arguing that Oak Run should have included a “vegetative screening plan” and comprehensive outreach to residents regarding the screening plan in its application. Secondly, the local governments argued that the Power Siting Board did not obtain the required visual-impact information to assess the proposed facility from public vantage points, as is required under the OAC.  In their third claim, the local governments alleged that the Power Siting Board erred in approving the project because Oak Run’s application did not contain enough information about how the project would affect water quality, which is required for the Board to make its legally required determination about the environmental impacts of the project. Finally, the local governments feel that because the Power Citing Board did not obtain plant and wildlife information required under OAC, the Board could not make an informed decision about the environmental impacts of the project as required by Ohio law.

How did the Ohio Supreme Court respond to the local governments’ objections?

Ultimately, the majority of the Court only found the second argument persuasive.  OAC 4906-4-08 requires applicants to provide “photographic simulations or artist's pictorial sketches of the proposed facility from public vantage points that cover the range of landscapes, viewer groups, and types of scenic resources found within the study area” when providing information on the visual impacts of the proposed project. You can read the OAC section here.  The local governments specifically pointed out that Oak Run did not provide the Power Citing Board with photographs or sketches showing the project’s substations, with structures ranging in height from 85 to 115 feet.  Without these simulations, the local governments argued that the Power Citing Board could not make the determinations required under the Ohio Revised Code (ORC). ORC 4906.10, available here, requires the Ohio Power Citing Board to determine the nature of the probable environmental impact of a utility facility, whether the facility has the minimum amount of environmental impact possible, and whether the facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. In response, Oak Run made several claims, including the argument the substations do not count as “facilities” under Ohio law and the administrative code.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Oak Run’s arguments, including their contention that the substations are not “facilities,” noting that  ORC 4906.01 specifically includes “associated facilities” in its definition of a “large solar facility,” and OAC 4906-01-01 specifically includes substations in its definition of “associated facilities.” The Court reasoned that “[w]hen considering these definitions together, it is clear that the substations for Oak Run’s project are facilities and Oak Run was therefore required to provide the board with the visual impact information.”

The Court found that the substations on the Oak Run Project were “facilities,” and for the Power Citing Board to determine the environmental and public impacts of a facility, the administrative rules require those applying to build a solar facility to provide “photographic simulations or artist's pictorial sketches of the proposed facility.”  Since Oak Run did not include photo simulations or sketches of the substations, the Court reversed the Ohio Power Siting Board’s approval of the project, sending the matter back to the Board to obtain more visual information from Oak Run before approval. 

How will this decision affect solar projects going forward?

Although the Ohio Supreme Court’s majority opinion reversed part of the Ohio Power Siting Board’s approval of the Oak Run solar project due to the lack of photographic simulations and pictorial sketches of the substations, the ruling is hardly a strike against all current and future solar projects in Ohio.  The Court remanded the decision back to the Power Siting Board, who will give Oak Run more time to provide photographic and pictorial evidence of all the proposed facilities. If, after considering the additional information, the Power Siting Board determines that the facility has minimal environmental impact and serves public interest, convenience, and necessity, the Board can approve the project and construction can go forward.

To understand how this decision might affect future solar projects in Ohio, it’s also important to examine the other local government claims that the Court did not find persuasive. In particular, the majority opinion’s treatment of the local governments’ claims that Oak Run did not adequately address possible effects on water quality and plants and wildlife is interesting. Although the Court found that visual simulations of all the facilities are required, the same is not the case regarding evidence of water quality and environmental impacts. The Court found that even if Oak Run “did not strictly comply” with the OAC in including all the required information to the Power Siting Board about how the project might affect water quality or plants and wildlife in the surrounding area, the local governments did not show that they suffered harm due to these omissions. This indicates that future groups appealing Power Siting Board solar decisions cannot just rely on the fact that environmental impact information required by the OAC is missing, but that they will have to prove themselves why the project is harmful to local water quality, plant, and animal life.

Finally, it’s important to note that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in this case was far from unanimous. Only three of the seven justices—Fischer, DeWine, and Deters—completely signed on to the majority opinion.  Justice Hawkins concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that more information on the environmental, water, plant, and wildlife impacts was required by law, and that Oak Run also did not adequately address safety concerns.  Justices Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins, as did Chief Justice Kennedy, who also included her own opinion. Justice Brenner joined Justice Fischer’s opinion in part, but found Oak Run’s visual evidence sufficient.  Given this narrow majority, a Court with a slightly different makeup could result in a completely different ruling on these questions.  

If you’d like to dig in deeper to the case, the Ohio Supreme Court’s slip opinion (“slip” means that it is not final and is still subject to formal revision), is available here.

Throughout the first half of this year, we have reported on the rising costs of fertilizer and other inputs here on the Ag Law Blog. We talked about the introduction of the Lowering Input Costs for American Farmers Act here, we’ve discussed the class action lawsuits making price fixing allegations against fertilizer companies here, we’ve shared a blog post about the Iran conflict and its contribution to rising costs here, and we’ve discussed the issue on Farm Office live (you can view our previous videos and upcoming schedule here).  The problem of rising input costs is certainly top of mind for many producers this Spring. It also appears to be on the mind of members of Congress. In addition to the Lowering Input Costs for American Farmers Act, the Homegrown Fertilizer Act was also introduced in March with the aim of increasing domestic fertilizer production and thus lowering fertilizer costs. The bill is bipartisan and co-sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Marshall (R-KS). 

How would the bill boost domestic fertilizer production?

If passed, the Homegrown Fertilizer Act would provide USDA grants and direct or guaranteed loans to “assist eligible entities in increasing or expanding the manufacturing, processing, and storage of fertilizer and nutrient alternatives in the United States.”  An “eligible entity” must be located in the U.S. and must be one of the following: an independently owned and operated business, a nonprofit organization, a producer-owned cooperative or corporation, a certified benefit corporation, an Indian Tribe, or a State or local government.  In an effort to increase competition, the bill expressly bars fertilizer manufacturers, processors, and distributors above a certain market share from receiving funds.

Under the bill, USDA grants of up to $100,000,000, could be awarded to eligible entities. However, those businesses, nonprofits, governments, Tribes, and cooperatives who are awarded grant money would also be responsible for procuring non-federal matching funds equal to the amount of the grant they receive. The bill prioritizes projects that improve fertilizer production methods, efficiency, and competition within the ag nutrient market, increase the number of fertilizer products available, reduce prices for farmers, and benefit agricultural commodity production in the United States.  Fertilizer and nutrient businesses, nonprofits, cooperatives, etc. eligible for grants would be able to use the money for the following purposes:

• Building a new facility, buying an existing facility, or purchasing land for a facility;
• Covering predevelopment costs, such as engineering and other professional fees;
• Providing working capital to expand capacity or increase outputs;
• Modernizing or expanding an existing facility, including making updates to existing buildings or constructing new buildings on site;
•  Purchasing or modernizing processing and manufacturing equipment;
• Developing, customizing, and installing equipment, devices, and technology to improve processing functions, worker conditions, or safety;
•  Installing or updating equipment that reduces emissions, increases fertilizer use efficiency, or improves air and water quality;
•  Ensuring legal compliance with packaging and labeling requirements, such as sealing, boxing, labeling, and conveying;
• Confirming legal compliance with occupational and safety regulations;
• Engaging in workforce recruitment, training, apprenticeships, and retention to ensure expansion projects are adequately staffed;
• Increasing domestic storage of fertilizer or nutrient alternatives; and
• Such other activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

The hope of the sponsors is that USDA grants and loans used for the above purposes would bolster domestic fertilizer production, creating a more competitive marketplace for fertilizer, resulting in lower prices for farmers. You can read full text of the bill here. We will continue to follow this important issue for our readers.

Legislation introduced over a year ago to allow for carbon capture and storage (CCS) activity in Ohio has progressed through the Senate, but in a different version than passed by the House.  Deliberation in the Senate Energy Committee led to a substitute bill that unanimously passed the Senate on May 20. We reported previously on the version of the bill the House passed on October 8, 2025.

Like the House-passed version of the bill, Sub H.B. 170 authorizes CCS activity in Ohio, which is the process of injecting carbon dioxide into the “pore space” of a sub-surface storage facility through a permitted Class VI underground injection well.  Read more about CCS in our earlier article.  Sub-H.B.170 follows the House version by clarifying landowner rights in pore space, the right to separately convey pore space, and the relationship between pore space and other property interests.  It charges development of the regulatory program for CCS to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management and provides guidelines for program regulations. The bill also authorizes statutory consolidation or “pooling” of pore space interests, sets fees and penalties, and addresses project closure and liability for injected carbon dioxide.   

The primary differences in the Senate’s Sub H.B. 170 passed on May 20 include:

Drainage systems.  Requires CCS project owners, when ground disturbance is necessary, to review rather than map field drainage systems and determine ways to mitigate or avoid drainage system damages and repair or restore drainage conditions.

Innovation with CO2.  Authorizes the Chief of ODNR to create a program to incentivize innovation for the use and reutilization of capture carbon dioxide.

Host community fund.  Establishes a three-cent per metric ton fee to support a fund directed to the treasurer of the host county, to be used by county commissioners or disbursed to townships, municipalities, schools, or other political subdivisions for use pertaining to infrastructure, parks and recreations, education, and public safety.

Statutory consolidation or “forced pooling” applications.

• Requires  a CCS project operator to make three separate attempts to contact all known pore space owners, to engage in good faith negotiations to obtain pore space rights, to obtain the consent of at least 75% of pore space owners within a proposed project prior to applying for statutory consolidation of pore space interests.  The House version contains a lower requirement of 70%.
• States that an order approving a statutory consolidation application must ensure a fair and reasonable manner of compensation and equitable terms and conditions.
• Clarifies that a grant of statutory consolidation does not also grant rights to surface use or access absent a surface use agreement.
• A $50,000 fee for statutory consolidation applications.
• Allows drilling permit applications when a statutory consolidation application is pending.

Fees.  Reduces the injection fee a storage operator pays to the State from 5.25 cents per ton to 5 cents per ton.

Appeals.  Establishes a process for appealing any order under the CCS program to the oil and gas commission.

Financial assurance instruments.  Expands CCS project operator financial assurance instrument options beyond surety bonds, to also include letters of credit, insurance, escrow, or self-insurance.

Sub-H.B. 170, must now return to the House for concurrence with the Senate-approved language. Industry supporters behind the legislation are encouraging the legislature to act soon on reconciling the two different versions of the bill.  We'll keep an eye out for what happens next with CCS legislation.

We’re thrilled to invite you to the Fourth Annual Cultivating Connections Conference, proudly presented by The Ohio State University’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program and Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation, in partnership with the National Agricultural Law Center. 

Whether you’re a legal professional, tax advisor, farm transition planner, student, industry partner, or simply passionate about the future of family farms, this conference is designed for you. Over the dynamic multi-day conference, you’ll gain timely insights, practical strategies, and valuable connections to help navigate today’s evolving landscape of farm transition and succession planning. 

Mark your calendar: August 3-5, 2026
Location: The Grand Event Center, just steps from The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. 

Cultivating Connections is offered in a convenient hybrid format, giving you the flexibility to join us in person or participate virtually from anywhere. No matter how you choose to attend, you’ll be part of an inviting, collaborative community focused on sharing knowledge and building meaningful connections. 

Registration:
- In-person | $375
- Online | $325
- Student | $100 (see more below)

Link to Register: https://go.osu.edu/cultivatingconnections

Why Attend?

Whether you are advising clients, shaping policy, or building your legal career, this conference offers: 

• In-depth education on emerging legal issues
• Continuing Education opportunities
• Networking with practitioners, academics, and professionals
• Practical tools you can apply in your own practice

Agenda Highlights

Participants can look forward to a rich program featuring sessions such as: 

• Reverse Mentoring: The Invisible Org Chart
• Identifying and Addressing Mental Health Issues in Farm Families
• Farm Transition from a Farm Manager’s Perspective
• Agricultural and Conservation Easements in Farm Transition Planning
• Incorporating Divorce Protection in Business Entities
• Dealing with Farm Assets Trapped in Corporations
• Managing Tax Basis in Estates
• Reviewing Available Resources for Your Clients
• The State of the Farm Economy
• An Interactive Case Study
• Responsibilities in Assessing Client Capacity

In-person Attendees

Attendees joining us in person on August 3 will enjoy several exciting networking opportunities, including: 

• A behind-the-scenes tour of Ohio Stadium
  • Attendees receive a complimentary tour; guests are welcome at a discounted price of $20/each
• A 1.0-hour Ethics CLE session focused on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) representation at Hofbrauhaus
• Following the Ethics CLE, a welcome reception at Hofbrauhaus to connect with fellow attendees and speakers 

Please note: these experiences are available only to in-person participants. We are unable to livestream the Ethics CLE from Hofbrauhaus currently. 

Online Attendees 

The conference is designed as a hybrid event: 

• The opening day (August 3) features in-person programming
• The remaining two days of the conference (August 4-5) will be simulcast, allowing virtual attendees to participate fully in the educational sessions

Special Student Pricing

Students are encouraged to attend and engage with current professionals and industry partners working in the area of farm transition and succession planning. 

• Student Registration: $100
• To register at this reduced rate, students must contact: 
  • Peggy Hall at hall.673@osu.edu 

Link to Register: https://go.osu.edu/cultivatingconnections

Questions?

For additional details about the conference, agenda, or registration, please contact: 

• Ellen Essman at essman.23@osu.edu