Solar Power World

  • Home
  • Top Solar Contractors
  • Articles
    • Most Recent Posts
    • News
      • Latest News Items
      • SPW State News Hub
      • IRA/OBBBA coverage
      • Solar tariffs
      • U.S. manufacturing updates
    • Featured
      • Latest Feature Stories
      • Benchmarking U.S. Solar Manufacturing
      • SPW’s Rising Stars
      • Trends in Solar
      • The Solar Explorer
  • Policy
    • Latest policy headlines
    • IRA/OBBBA Coverage
    • Tariffs and Court Cases
  • Markets
    • Residential
    • Commercial
    • Community Solar
    • Utility
    • Storage
  • Products
    • 2026 Top Products application
    • Winners of SPW’s 2025 Top Products
    • Batteries and Storage
    • Electric Vehicle (EV)
    • Inverters
      • U.S. solar inverter manufacturers
    • Racking and Mounting
      • U.S. solar mounting manufacturers
    • Software
    • Solar Panels
      • U.S. solar panel manufacturers
  • Resources
    • About SPW
    • Digital Issues
    • Event Coverage
    • Podcasts
    • Product Manufacturing Locations
      • U.S. solar inverter manufacturers
      • U.S. solar mounting manufacturers
      • U.S. solar panel manufacturers
    • Solar Classrooms
    • Suppliers
    • Videos
    • Views
    • Voices
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Whitepapers
  • 2026 Leadership
    • 2025 Winners
    • 2024 Winners
    • 2023 Winners
    • 2022 Winners
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe

Ohio power board cancels 94-MW agrivoltaic solar project

By Billy Ludt | March 20, 2026

Share

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) voted unanimously to deny the construction of a 94-MW agrivoltaic solar project proposed for Morrow County, Ohio.

Open Road Renewables was developing the co-located Crossroads Solar Grazing Center on 570 acres of land sited between Cardington, Lincoln and Westfield Townships. The solar project would have been built on several different plots in Morrow County and hosted a sheep grazing operation. Open Road initially filed for project permitting in February 2025, with a project timeline to start construction in 2027 and start operations in 2028.

Crossroads had reportedly progressed through the permitting process toward possible approval, but was met with local opposition during public comment periods in the last few months. Most of the comments submitted anonymously during this period opposed Crossroads’ construction, and Canary Media reported that 34 other comments in opposition were submitted under false names.

“[The Ohio Environmental Council] intervened in this case to ensure that decisions are based on facts, fairness and the long-term interests of Ohioans. When objective analysis is overridden, and the volume of public input is prioritized over its substance, it weakens trust in the process and makes it harder to build the energy system Ohio needs,” said Nolan Rutschilling, managing director of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council. “To put it plainly: Ohio needs more clean energy generation now to address soaring costs tied to data centers and geopolitical pressures on energy supply chains. Staff’s last-minute reversal on this decision creates an uncertain regulatory environment that will discourage energy developers from future investment.”

While the OPSB voted unanimously to oppose Crossroads’ continued development, non-voting member State Sen. Kent Smith said he’s concerned that the board would deny a solar project during a time of rising energy costs. During the same session, OPSB voted to approve an extended three-year waiver with natural gas provider Columbia Gas of Ohio, and amended certificates for proposed energy storage and solar projects. On Wednesday, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) also approved a rate increase for utility customers with AEP Ohio.

“The goal of the PUCO and this organization is to have both adequate supply and affordable power supply, and if we’re going to deny solar the ability to compete in Ohio’s marketplace, I think that’s going to result in an artificially high price for Ohio consumers … I’m concerned that this project was initially approved and was eventually denied. I think this is a dangerous thing for the state in terms of both affordability and reliability,” Smith said.

Another source of solar opposition is happening in state legislature. State Sens. George Lang (R-52) and Mark Romanchuk (R-22) have co-authored a bill that if passed would alter Ohio’s definition of a “clean energy source,” which does not include wind, energy storage or solar power. SB 294 would consider nuclear power and natural gas as clean energy sources. The bill is currently under review by a Senate committee.

About The Author

Billy Ludt

Billy Ludt is managing editor of Solar Power World and currently covers topics on mounting, inverters, installation and operations.

Comments

  1. Kevin Welch says

    March 22, 2026 at 7:41 am

    It’s hard to unite someone concerned about reliability and affordablilty when talking about solar power that relies on a sunny day. Lol. Night cycles and cloudy days are reliably not going to have energy output!

    Reply
    • Dan Hancock says

      March 23, 2026 at 10:52 am

      The NREL has been monitoring and recording weather, including cloud cover and solar insulation for 20 years. For the last decade we’ve been projecting energy production using Typical Meteorological Yearly (TMY) data. The production from solar projects that used these weather sets for modeling have consistently performed as projected. So while it’s true there are cloudy days, that is taken into account when looking at energy and financial performance over time. It simply means solar without storage is not a baseload generation facility – it was never meant to be.

      Reply
  2. Jeremy says

    March 21, 2026 at 3:00 pm

    Makes sense when you realize how dumb the inhabitants of this State are. Born and raised here but I swear this place’s stupidity and self-destructive tendencies are only rivaled by, maybe a crap hole like Alabama. The intelligent people here are outnumbered by rebel flag flying, inbred, cousin loving, flat earthers. These people will reliably crap on the table where they eat and blame the results on California or Minnesota.
    Several years ago after Biden got the infrastructure bill passed, crews were trying to replace the lead water service pipes in a small town here in NE Ohio and a bunch of the residents weren’t allowing the workers on their property because they didn’t want that “Biden money” taking away their lead pipes.

    Reply
  3. Leonard Burg says

    March 21, 2026 at 12:36 pm

    The big energy companies are getting what they paid for in Ohio. Sell out politicians hosing the public for political gains.

    Reply

Tell Us What You Think! Cancel reply

Related Articles Read More >

Solar + storage construction starts on Project Sterling in Arizona
4-hour battery storage is cheaper to install than gas turbines all across globe
900-MW portion of Indiana’s Mammoth solar project coming online
AMMP launches AI coworker for renewable energy asset managers
“spw
 
“the-informed-solar-installer”
“solar
“spw
Don't miss a thing!
SPW brings you the must-read stories each morning in our special newsletter.

SPW Podcast

“solar
Solar Power World
  • Top Solar Contractors
  • Top Products
  • Leadership
  • Solar Articles
  • About/Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Advertising
  • Arrowfly LLC

Copyright © 2026 Arrowfly LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Arrowfly LLC
Privacy Policy | RSS

Search Solar Power World

  • Home
  • Top Solar Contractors
  • Articles
    • Most Recent Posts
    • News
      • Latest News Items
      • SPW State News Hub
      • IRA/OBBBA coverage
      • Solar tariffs
      • U.S. manufacturing updates
    • Featured
      • Latest Feature Stories
      • Benchmarking U.S. Solar Manufacturing
      • SPW’s Rising Stars
      • Trends in Solar
      • The Solar Explorer
  • Policy
    • Latest policy headlines
    • IRA/OBBBA Coverage
    • Tariffs and Court Cases
  • Markets
    • Residential
    • Commercial
    • Community Solar
    • Utility
    • Storage
  • Products
    • 2026 Top Products application
    • Winners of SPW’s 2025 Top Products
    • Batteries and Storage
    • Electric Vehicle (EV)
    • Inverters
      • U.S. solar inverter manufacturers
    • Racking and Mounting
      • U.S. solar mounting manufacturers
    • Software
    • Solar Panels
      • U.S. solar panel manufacturers
  • Resources
    • About SPW
    • Digital Issues
    • Event Coverage
    • Podcasts
    • Product Manufacturing Locations
      • U.S. solar inverter manufacturers
      • U.S. solar mounting manufacturers
      • U.S. solar panel manufacturers
    • Solar Classrooms
    • Suppliers
    • Videos
    • Views
    • Voices
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Whitepapers
  • 2026 Leadership
    • 2025 Winners
    • 2024 Winners
    • 2023 Winners
    • 2022 Winners
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe