Environmental
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.
Tags: solar development, solar energy, solar regulations, solar, Ohio Power Siting Board, Ohio Supreme Court
Comments: 0
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.
Tags: CCS, carbon capture and storage, HB 170
Comments: 0
As we move into March, we thought it’d be a good time to look back at what committees in both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly got up to in February. Committees in both the House and Senate are considering bills to regulate carbon capture, change the levy process, study the effects of data centers, and more. Here is an update on the bills we are following.
H.B. 170, Carbon Capture—On Tuesday, February 17, the Ohio Senate Energy Committee held its first hearing on House Bill 170, which would give the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) the authority to regulate carbon sequestration in the state. We previously wrote about H.B. 170, sponsored by Representatives Robb Blasdel (R-Columbiana) and Peterson (R-Sabina) when it was passed by the Ohio House in October 2025. For a more detailed discussion of the bill, please see our previous blog post, available here.
The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony from Representative Peterson, along with five proponents of H.B. 170. Most of the testimony centered on the idea of the state gaining “primacy,” or in other words, seeking approval from the U.S. EPA for the state to regulate Class VI injection wells instead of the federal government through the U.S. EPA. Basically, sponsors and proponents argued that if the state can regulate Class VI injection wells within Ohio, that will result in a faster permitting process for carbon sequestration projects within the state. Representative Peterson pointed out that by gaining “primacy,” the regulatory decisions would be more connected to the Ohio communities where the wells are located.
Several proponents of the bill also testified, including the American Petroleum Institute, the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Vault 44.01, Tenaska, and Hocking Hills Energy and Well Service, LLC. Proponents testified that states with primacy over Class VI injection wells were usually able to approve a project within 9-12 months, whereas the federal EPA process could take around two years. Furthermore, not obtaining primacy could mean that Ohio might lose projects and jobs to other states who do have primacy. Faster state approval could create jobs and economic benefits in Ohio for projects that the proponent companies are considering. Some of those projects would be centered around sequestering carbon from ethanol facilities located in Ohio. At present, North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arizona, and Texas have obtained primacy to regulate Class VI injection wells. Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are currently considering legislation to gain primacy. You can read H.B. 170 here.
H.B. 420, Property Tax—House Bill 420 had its first hearing in the House Ways & Means Committee on February 11. Sponsored by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Willis (R-Springfield), H.B. 420 would prohibit new continuous levies from being placed on ballots, require continuous levies currently on the books to be converted to fixed-term or renewed levies prior to 2030, and prohibit continuous levies in the state after 2030 unless such levies are specifically authorized by voters. The House Ways & Means Committee heard sponsor testimony from Representatives Click and Willis. Representative Click argued that “each generation deserves the right” to approve or disapprove of a levy tax, and that continuous levies prohibit this right by imposing taxes upon people who didn’t originally vote for them. Questions from members of the committee clarified that if passed, the longest levies would last 10 years, however, levies could also exceed that timeframe if they are fixed to loans for long-term investments made by a school, locality, etc. Representative Rogers (D-Toledo) expressed concerns that if passed, the bill could lead to an upheaval in local funding. You can read H.B. 420 here.
House bill 420 is part of what Representative Click has dubbed a “Taxpayers Freedom Trilogy” bill package that also includes House Bills 421 and 422. H.B. 421 would allow ballot measures to reduce inside millage, and H.B. 422 would establish higher thresholds for levy requests over 1 mill (60%) and 2 mills (66%). Neither of the second or third parts of the “trilogy” have received committee hearings yet. Of note, a second hearing on H.B. 420 was scratched from the February 18 House Ways & Means Committee agenda, and House Speaker Huffman has indicated that it is unlikely that these property tax proposals will pass the House before the summer legislative recess. You can find H.B. 421 here and H.B. 422 here.
H.B. 646, Create the Data Center Study Commission—House Bill 646 had its second hearing in the House Technology & Innovation Committee on February 24. We covered the details of H.B. 646, sponsored by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Deeter (R-Norwalk) in an earlier blog post, available here. The hearing drew interested party testimony from numerous groups and individuals, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Farm Bureau. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce supported the creation of a Data Center Study Commission but implored the committee to include representation from the tech industry on the Commission, noting that data centers would bring with them jobs, increased GDP, and increased local revenues. Ohio Farm Bureau supported the creation of a Commission to study the impacts of data centers, including the impacts on agricultural land and resources long term, water use, water quality, and other potential environmental impacts. Ohio Farm Bureau also cited the need for a robust regulatory framework for data centers and long-term land use planning, worrying that without such planning, agriculture in the state of Ohio will suffer from loss of land to development and other problems. Individual citizens testified that they would like H.B. 646 to include a moratorium on building data centers while the study takes place and noted that the Commission should consider what happens to data center property after it is no longer in use. You can find H.B. 646 here.
S.B. 285, Recoupment Charges—The Senate Ways & Means Committee heard proponent testimony for Senate Bill 285 during its February 10 meeting. S.B. 285, sponsored by Senator Schaffer (R-Lancaster), would make it explicit that agricultural land converted to certain conservation uses would be exempt from a CAUV recoupment penalty if it was previously used for agricultural purposes. Specifically, land would be exempted if it is given to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to use as a nature preserve, if it is owned or held by an organization with the purposes of natural resources protection or water quality improvement. The president of the Stream and Wetlands Foundation, based in Lancaster, Ohio, explained during his testimony that the bill would basically be a small technical clarification to previous legislation passed in 2022. Since 2022, some county governments have interpreted current law as requiring CAUV recoupment charges to be paid for land used to protect natural resources, while other counties have not. S.B. 285 would clear up this confusion and affirm that CAUV does not apply to exempted land used for conservation purposes. S.B. 285 is available here.
S.B. 361, Eminent Domain—During its meeting on February 17, the Senate General Government Committee heard sponsor testimony from Senator Schaffer (R-Lancaster) on Senate Bill 361. The bill would prohibit the taking of land by eminent domain for use as a trail for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, ski touring, canoeing, or other nonmotorized forms of travel. During his testimony, Senator Schaffer gave an example of a property owner in his district whose land would be cut in half by a recreational trail, and asserted that local government shouldn’t be able to take land from a property owner just for recreational purposes. Senator DeMora (D-Columbus) asked for clarification about whether pathways for pedestrian and bike safety along roadways would fall under this prohibition. Senator Schaffer responded that that is not the intent of the bill, and that he would be willing to work with the Committee on language if necessary. S.B. 361 is available here.
Tags: Ohio legislation, property tax, cauv, carbon capture and storage, eminent domain, data centers, land use
Comments: 0
Over the past several years, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Monsanto Company regarding the safety of its herbicide Roundup and its main ingredient glyphosate. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the Monsanto Company’s petition to review one of these cases from the Missouri Court of Appeals, Durnell v. Monsanto Company.
Background of the case
In 2019, John Durnell of St. Louis sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, arguing that exposure to glyphosate contained in Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Mr. Durnell argued that Monsanto should be found strictly liable for defective design of its product and for failure to warn users of the danger of using Roundup, as well as negligence.
At trial, the jury sided with Monsanto on the defective design and negligence claims, meaning that the company was not found liable for these claims. On the remaining claim, the 12-person jury unanimously found Monsanto to be strictly liable for its failure to warn of the risks of using glyphosate, granting Mr. Durnell $1.25 million in compensatory damages.
Eventually, Monsanto appealed the case to the Missouri Court of Appeals, claiming that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts failure to warn claims under state law. Federal preemption of state law can happen either expressly or impliedly. Express preemption happens when a federal statute contains language that specifically says that other laws or requirements cannot be imposed. Implied preemption happens when there might not be explicit language in a statute calling out the preemption, but Congress’s intent to supersede state law is implicit due to the nature of the statute. Here, the appeals court did not find Monsanto’s preemption argument persuasive; instead finding that the language in FIFRA did not expressly preempt Mr. Durnell’s failure to warn claim, and that there was no implied irreconcilable conflict between the state and federal law. You can read the Missouri Court of Appeals opinion in its entirety here.
Since the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Monsanto filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision on April 4, 2025. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court granted Monsanto’s petition, agreeing to review the case. The Court has limited its review of the case to one question: “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.”
What are each side’s arguments for the Supreme Court?
In the lead up to a Supreme Court determination to hear a case, the legal teams for both parties file documents explaining why or why not the case should be heard. The party asking the Court to hear the case (in this case, Monsanto) files a petition for writ of certiorari, laying out their reasons for asking for review. Then the respondent (Durnell), has a chance to file a brief with the Court detailing their arguments as to why the lower court’s decision should stand. These documents can give us some insight into how each party may form its arguments if the case is heard before the Supreme Court.
Between the two parties in this case, there are hundreds of pages laying out their lines of reasoning for hearing or not hearing the case. In its most basic form, Monsanto’s argument is that language in FIFRA expressly preempts state requirements for the labeling and packaging of herbicides like Roundup. The language they point to is in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Code, Section 136v(b) and reads: “state(s) shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” You can see the statute here. FIFRA requires pesticides to be registered with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can be sold or distributed in the country. Monsanto asserts that because EPA continues to accept Roundup’s product registration under FIFRA without requiring the company to include any warning or caution statement about the possible health risks of glyphosate on its labeling, any state law claim that would require such a warning should be overridden. You can read Monsanto’s petition for writ of certiorari here.
For their part, Mr. Durnell’s legal team points to a case previously decided by the Supreme Court in 2005, Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC (you can read that case here), in which the majority determined that state common-law claims like failure-to-warn are not automatically preempted by the language of FIFRA Section 136v(b). In Bates, the Court found that while FIFRA does preclude states from imposing different or additional labeling requirements for pesticides, it does not preclude states from imposing different or additional remedies. In other words, since “FIFRA does not provide a federal remedy to farmers and others who are injured as a result of a…violation of FIFRA’s labeling requirements, nothing in [FIFRA] precludes the states from providing such a remedy.” Furthermore, Mr. Durnell’s lawyers argue that EPA’s continued acceptance of Roundup’s product registration does not necessarily prevent the requirement of a cancer or health warning on the label, it just means that that Monsanto has not provided any evidence of glyphosate’s potential health effects or asked EPA to consider including such a warning. You can read Durnell’s response here.
What’s next?
While it can be fun to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases, between the language of FIFRA and case law, I can’t begin to guess where the Court will end up in this case. What is certain is that the Court will examine “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.” Oral arguments for each side will happen sometime between October 2026 and April 2027, and the Court may release an opinion on the case in May or June of 2027. Additionally, the Court’s final decision will likely have implications for similar lawsuits regarding Roundup and glyphosate throughout the country. We will do our best to keep you updated on this complicated case as it works through the system. In the meantime, additional court documents and filings on the case can be found here.
Tags: pesticides, herbicides, roundup, Monsanto, glyphosate, EPA, FIFRA, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court
Comments: 0
On November 20 of this year, the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers submitted a proposed rule which would once again redefine the term “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, under the federal Clean Water Act.
WOTUS woes
In 1972, Congress passed amendments to existing water pollution law, resulting in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Ever since the CWA’s passage in the 1970s, there has been debate over which waters fall under the definition of “waters of the United States” and are subject to federal regulation. The classification of WOTUS is controversial because if a body of water is defined as a water of the United States, the farmers, ranchers, businesses, and other property owners who own the land where the water is located are subject to additional regulations meant to keep the water clean. The fight over the definition of WOTUS eventually made it to the Supreme Court in the early 2000s, and the Court issued tests for determining whether certain bodies of water fell under WOTUS. This was followed by rulemaking from the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The Obama administration took a broad view of which waters the federal government had jurisdiction over, whereas the first Trump administration significantly narrowed the definition. The Biden administration proposed a rule that fell somewhere in between the previous administrations’ definitions of WOTUS. In 2023, the Supreme Court once again took up the issue in the case Sackett v. EPA, limiting the number of wetlands that qualify as WOTUS. The newly proposed rule is the latest in the on-going back and forth between court rulings and presidential administrations on how to tackle the definition of WOTUS. For more background on the WOTUS saga, see our numerous blog posts on the topic, available here.
Newly proposed rule open for public comment
The Trump administration’s newly proposed WOTUS rule was published in the Federal Register late last month. The text of the rule is available here, with the discussion of the revised definition beginning on page 52514 of the Federal Register, or page 6 of the linked PDF document. As with the rule submitted in the first Trump administration, the proposed rule would narrow the definition of WOTUS, resulting in fewer waters being subject to the CWA.
The public has the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule through January 5, 2026. To submit a comment, go to the Federal Register site for the proposed rule, available here, and click on the “Submit A Public Comment” button, highlighted in green near the top right-hand side of the page.
A trio of senate bills related to agriculture were introduced in the Ohio General Assembly this month. The bills touch on a variety of topics, from CAUV recoupment charges, to training an agricultural workforce, to creating a state food and agriculture policy council.
Senate Bill 285, available here, was introduced by Senator Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) on October 8 and referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The bill would exempt certain conservation uses from recoupment charges when land is converted from an agricultural use. Typically, if agricultural land is converted to another use, it is subject to a recoupment charge equal to the previous three years of tax savings it received because it was valued using its current agricultural use value (CAUV). SB 285 would not require a recoupment charge to be paid if the agricultural land is acquired by a conservation organization and is used for certain environmental response projects related to water quality or wetlands, or if it is used for an H2Ohio water project. That being said, if the land ceases to be used for conservation, recoupment charges would apply. SB 285 had its first hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee on October 28.
Sponsored by Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo), SB 287, entitled “Farming And Workforce” was introduced on October 8, and had its first hearing in the Senate Finance Committee on October 28. The bill, which is available here, would create the Farming and Workforce Development Program. This program would provide training for Ohio residents between 16 and 35 years of age to prepare them for employment in seasonal crop farming. The program would not exclude people who have been convicted or pled guilty to a felony from eligibility. The bill would require Ohio State University Extension and Central State University Extension to develop guidelines and policies for the application process, coursework, and running of the Farming and Workforce Development Program, and would appropriate $500,000 from the state general revenue fund to get the program started.
Finally, Senate Bill 288 was also introduced on October 8. Also sponsored by Senator Hicks-Hudson, the bill, available here, would create the Ohio Food and Agriculture Policy Council. The Council would be tasked with making recommendations to the General Assembly that strengthen Ohio’s food and farm economies, engaging in advocacy, education, and policy work for the health of Ohio’s citizens and the sustainability of the state’s natural resources. Specifically, the Council would be charged with delivering an annual report to the General Assembly detailing its recommendations on:
- Food security;
- Food access;
- Food production and distribution;
- Food waste;
- Economic development;
- Food procurement;
- Food chain workers; and
- Food systems resilience.
The Council would be housed under the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). The Director of ODA would serve on the council, as well as the following members, who would be appointed by the Governor:
- One member who is a representative of the Ohio Hospital Association;
- One member from Ohio State University Extension;
- One member from Central State University Extension;
- Three members from Ohio Farm Bureau;
- One member who represents urban farming;
- One member who represents rural farming;
- One member who represents statewide food banks; and
- One member who is a registered lobbyist representing Ohio Cooperatives.
Senate Bill 288 would appropriate $500,000 to create the Ohio Food and Agriculture Policy Council and has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
Be sure to stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for continuing updates on Ohio Legislation affecting agriculture!
Tags: Ohio legislation, conservation, H2Ohio
Comments: 0
A bill authorizing the capture and storage of carbon dioxide via underground storage wells has passed the Ohio House of Representatives. The nearly unanimous vote by the House now advances H.B. 170 to the Ohio Senate.
We’ve reported previously on the prospect of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) coming to Ohio. CCS is one part of a strategy to reduce airborne CO2 emissions. It’s of high interest to hard-to-abate emission sources, such as ethanol, steel, chemical, and concrete production facilities. Rather than reducing the CO2 in their emissions, CCS allows such sectors to capture CO2 from emissions and store the CO2 in pore spaces far beneath the land’s surface. But landowners must be willing to lease their “pore space” for CO2 storage. If passed, then, CCS legislation will create pore space leasing opportunities and challenges for Ohio landowners.
Refer to our Ag Law Blog posts explaining CCS and discussing how CCS requires landowners to lease “pore space.” We also reviewed the first CCS bills in Ohio, proposed last legislative session, in a third blog post. Those bills did not pass, and H.B. 170 represents a new version of the proposals, developed after additional consideration by interested parties.
What’s in H.B. 170?
H.B. 170 sets up a state regulatory framework that authorizes the storage of capture carbon dioxide into subsurface “pore space” via Class VI injection wells, which are regulated by the U.S. EPA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control Program. The bill addresses several
- Agency authority and rules. Delegates regulatory authority over CCS to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management and directs the Chief to adopt rules that carry out the legislation.
- “Pore space” interests. Defines “pore space” as the subsurface cavities and voids that are suitable for use as storage areas for CO2, outlines procedures for severing and conveying pore space, clarifies the relationship between pore space, surface rights, and mineral interests, and limits the liability of pore space owners for the injection of CO2 into their pore space.
- CCS projects. Lays out the components of “carbon sequestration projects,” which includes “storage facilities” operated by “storage operators” who inject CO2 into pore space via injection wells.
- “Pooling” of pore space. Authorizes the pooling or “statutory consolidation” of pore space for carbon sequestration projects if the storage operator obtains the consent of owners of at least 70% of the pore space and establishes rights and responsibilities for statutory consolidation.
- Project completion and closure. Provides procedures for “certificates of project completion” that apply to the closure of storage facilities and a transfer of responsibility and liability to the State.
- Fees and penalties. Establishes fees for storage facilities and funds to pay for current and post-closure care program costs and sets civil and criminal penalties for violation of CCS regulations.
- Limitations on damages. Limits claims for damages dues to injection or migration of CO2 to claims that establish direct physical injury to persons, animals, or property, limits claims to diminution of value caused by the injection or migration and prohibits punitive damages in such cases.
What’s next for CCS?
The Ohio Senate now has its turn to consider H.B. 170. The Senate President referred the bill to the Senate Energy Committee, which already has a CCS bill before the committee. The Senate’s version of CCS, S.B. 136, was introduced last March but has not received any hearings.
S.B. 136 mirrors the version of H.B. 170 first introduced in the House. But amendments to H.B. 170 occurred in the House Natural Resources Committee that created differences between the two bills. It will be up to Energy Committee Chair Brian Chavez to determine which bill to advance, if any.
For a comparison of the original introduced bills (H.B. 170 and S.B. 136) and the substitute bill for H.B. 170 that passed the House of Representatives, refer to this synopsis by the Legislative Service Commission that highlights the differences.
H.B. 170 is a step toward “primacy”
Ohio is already on its way toward seeking approval from the U.S. EPA to regulate Class VI injection wells within the state, a concept referred to as “primacy.” State-based regulation of the well permitting program would speed up the permitting process for CCS, according to proponents of primacy. However, the state regulatory program must be at least as stringent as federal requirements before the U.S. EPA will delegate the Class VI program to the state. H.B. 170 and its resulting regulations will be reviewed by the U.S. EPA when Ohio submits its application for primacy to the U.S. EPA.
To date, only five other states have obtained primacy over Class VI wells. Six other states are currently in the process of applying for such approval. By obtaining primacy, Ohio could be ahead of many states in encouraging CCS development, proponents state.
Implications for Ohio landowners: pore space leasing
We’ve heard that some companies are already out with offers of “pore space leases” to Ohio landowners. Some are offering around $25 per acre for the right to use pore space for CCS. But now is the time for caution. The legislation is necessary to clarifying legal interests in pore space and how CCS development will occur in Ohio—both important issues landowners need to know before entering into pore space leases. A third important issue in need of clarification is the value of pore space, and it’s still too early to have firm answers to that question. Experience from oil and gas leasing teaches us, however, that early lease payment offers tend to be lower than later offers.
Landowners who want to move forward now on pore space leases, however, would be wise to work with an attorney. Some attorneys across the state are already reviewing and negotiating pore space leases on behalf of the landowners. Contact the agricultural law team for help with identifying attorneys knowledgeable in this area.
Watch for more resources on CCS and pore space leases coming to our program soon.
Tags: CCS, carbon capture and storage, carbon sequestration, class VI injection
Comments: 0
Over the past month, we’ve shared several blog posts examining aspects of the State Operating Budget, HB 96 and how it makes changes to agricultural law in Ohio. Below, we note some more assorted provisions in the bill related to agriculture.
Pork Marketing
HB 96 establishes a state “pork marketing program to promote the sale of pork and pork products,” but only if the National Pork Checkoff created under federal law ceases to operate. Checkoff programs for agricultural commodities gather fees on products in order to better promote the products and to conduct research. If the National Pork Checkoff ends, the new law would require the Ohio Pork Council to accept nominees and hold elections for a state pork marketing program operating committee. The committee would consist of 12 members, including the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the executive vice president of the Ohio Pork Council, four pork producers appointed by the director, and six members from each of the six districts established throughout the state. The operating committee would be able to levy assessments on the value of animals, pork, or pork products sold or imported in the state. This provision of HB 96, which again, is only triggered if the National Pork Checkoff ceases to operate, was likely included in the State Operating Budget due to reports in February of this year that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was reviewing and possibly cutting federal agricultural checkoff programs.
Animal and Consumer Protection Fund
The Operating Budget establishes the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund, which will be used to fund the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, the regulation of captive deer producers, the regulation of wild animals and snakes, and the regulation of garbage-fed swine and poultry. The new language would channel various fees collected from permits for the possession of dangerous wild animals to go to the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund, when they previously went to the “dangerous and restricted animal fund.”
HB 96 also gives ODA the power to assess civil penalties against those who violate livestock dealer laws. The civil penalties would replace the finding of first-degree misdemeanor for violators (however, the fifth-degree felony penalty for violating certain provisions of the livestock dealer law remains). Money collected from these civil penalties would also go to the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund.
Food Processing Establishments
Under Ohio law, a food processing establishment is defined as a premises or part of a premises where food is processed, packaged, manufactured, or otherwise held or handled for distribution to another location or for sale at wholesale.” New language included in HB 96 would exempt small egg producers (those who annually maintain 500 or fewer birds) from food processing establishment requirements.
Hemp
HB 96 gives ODA permission to transfer the authority to regulate hemp cultivation in Ohio to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and requires ODA to establish a program to monitor and regulate hemp processing. On July 25, 2025, ODA started the process of transferring the regulation of hemp cultivation in the state to the USDA. As of January 1, 2026, hemp growers must be licensed through USDA, and ODA cultivation licenses will be voided. More information about the transition is available here.
Although the steps are in motion to transfer regulation of cultivation of hemp to USDA, HB 96 still allows ODA and universities with agricultural programs to cultivate and process hemp without a license for research purposes.
Finally, the budget bill allows ODA to issue hemp processing licenses if either of the following apply:
-
- The individual holds the applicable license in another state
- The individual has satisfactory work experience, a government certification, or private certification as a hemp processor in a state that does not issue the applicable license.
H2Ohio
It has been widely reported that the state budget made cuts to the H2Ohio Program. In Governor DeWine’s proposed budget released in January, he called for $270 million to fund the program, but in the final version of the budget as passed by the General Assembly, only around $165 million was allocated to the program for 2026 and 2027. ODA’s H2Ohio funds will be $107.2 million for 2026-2027, compared to $171.4 million received in 2024—2025. Bigger cuts were made to ODNR , which will have $42.4 million for H2Ohio (down from $69.4 million in 2024—2025), and Ohio EPA, which will receive $15 million for H2Ohio (down from $ 51.4 million in 2024—2025).
In the version of HB 96 delivered to Governor DeWine, the General Assembly also added a provision that money in the H2Ohio fund could not be used for the purchase of land or for the purchase of conservation easements to further the goals of the H2Ohio program. This provision, however, was vetoed by Governor DeWine.
We hope you’ve found our series on agriculture in the state budget informative thus far! You can find HB 96 in its entirety here. There has been talk of legislation to “fix” certain parts of the budget bill as passed. Please stay tuned to the Ohio Ag Law Blog, where we will be sure to update you on any changes the General Assembly makes this fall!
Tags: Ohio legislation, hemp, hemp cultivation, hemp processing, pork checkoff, H2Ohio, Ohio livestock care standards
Comments: 0
Governor DeWine recently signed H.B. 15, which repeals parts of the controversial energy bill passed in 2019, H.B. 6. Introduced by Roy Klopfenstein (R, Haviland), H.B. 15 specifically repeals subsidies for coal-fired power plants introduced in H.B. 6, but it also does much more to promote energy production within the state of Ohio.
H.B. 15 is wide-ranging, but certain provisions may be of particular interest to Ohio agriculture and those living in rural areas of the state. The bill allows county commissioners, municipal corporations, or townships to adopt legislation requesting that the director of the Ohio Department of Development “designate the site of a brownfield or former coal mine within the subdivision’s territory as a priority investment area.” When considering the designation of a priority investment area (PIA), the director of the Ohio Department of Development is required to “prioritize the designation of areas negatively impacted by the decline the coal industry.” Under the law, the property becomes a PIA when the Director of Development notifies the local legislative authority, or within ninety days if no notification is sent. Once designated as a priority investment area (PIA), a property will be exempt from taxation for five years, which encourages public utilities to use the property for energy development. The law also requires the Power Siting Board to adopt rules for the accelerated review of energy projects located in an approved PIA.
Agricultural commodity groups like Ohio Corn & Wheat, as well as environmental groups like the Nature Conservancy, have praised the bill, noting that generating power on brownfields and former coal mines will have the added benefit of protecting farmland and native habitats. The thinking is that with more PIAs available for energy generation and accelerated approval from the Power Siting Board of PIAs, the need to use farmland and other areas for renewable energy projects would diminish. Instead, under the new law, political subdivisions and energy generators would be incentivized to use brownfield and former coal mine land that has already been developed, helping Ohio to both protect farmland and meet the demand for more energy generation. H.B. 15 will go into effect on August 14, 2025. The bill is available in its entirety here.
On April 9, 2025, the Ohio House of Representatives passed its version of the state’s biennial budget, also known as House Bill 96, which introduces substantial revisions to Ohio’s pesticide application laws. These updates aim to bring the state into closer alignment with current federal regulations and carry significant implications—particularly for family farms that involve youth workers. As the school year ends and more minors begin working regularly on farms, the timing of these proposed changes raises concerns about how they may limit the roles young people can legally perform—especially when it comes to pesticide-related tasks.
Changes on the Horizon?
One of the most notable changes is the proposed restriction that only licensed commercial or private pesticide applicators may “use” Restricted Use Pesticides (“RUPs”). This would eliminate the previous allowance for trained service persons, immediate family members, or employees to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator.
Additionally, House Bill 96 expands the definition of “use” of RUPs to include not only the act of application but also:
- Pre-application activities such as mixing and loading;
- The application itself, performed by a licensed commercial or private applicator;
- Other pesticide-related tasks, including transporting or storing opened containers, cleaning equipment, and disposing of leftover pesticides, spray mixtures, rinse water, containers, or any materials containing pesticides.
The bill makes clear that no individual may use RUPs unless they are properly licensed under Ohio law, reinforcing the importance of formal certification for anyone involved in pesticide handling.
What Does this Mean for Youth on the Farm?
Under current Ohio law, immediate family members—including minors—are permitted to apply RUPs as long as they are under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. For years, agricultural families have relied on this exemption to allow youth to assist with farm duties involving pesticide use. However, the proposed changes in House Bill 96 would eliminate this exception by requiring that anyone handling RUPs be individually licensed. Because Ohio law mandates that pesticide applicators be at least 18 years old, minors would no longer be permitted to perform any pesticide-related tasks, even under direct supervision. Of course, this provision is not just geared toward youth on the farm—it also affects employees and trained service persons who previously operated under a licensed applicator’s supervision. If the proposed changes go through, a violation of the law could result in significant civil penalties.
Given the proposed changes in House Bill 96, it’s an appropriate time to take a broader look at the full range of youth labor regulations that apply to farm work. While pesticide use is just one area impacted by legal restrictions, there are numerous federal and state laws that govern what tasks minors can perform, what equipment they can operate, and how many hours they can legally work—especially during the school year versus summer months. These rules can vary based on the age of the minor and their relationship to the farm owner. With regulatory changes potentially tightening in one area, it’s essential for farm families and employers to ensure they are in compliance across the board to avoid penalties and ensure safe, lawful participation of youth in agricultural work. Read more about employing youth on the farm here.
Next Steps
Farm families and employers should begin preparing for the upcoming changes to Ohio’s pesticide rules. While these changes aren't law yet—they won’t take effect until the Governor signs the bill—they are needed to align Ohio’s regulations with federal law. If Ohio wants to keep its authority to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), these updates are a forgone conclusion.
To review the specific pesticide-related provisions in House Bill 96, begin on page 903 of the bill text. Alternatively, for an overview of the proposed budget and potential changes, you can consult the summary prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.
Tags: pesticides, restricted use pesticides, youth labor, Labor and Employment, minors on the farm, pesticides and minors.
Comments: 0
Pages
