Roughly 50 people took the mic under oath last Thursday in Springfield, turning a routine Ohio Power Siting Board hearing into a full blown local showdown over Invenergy’s proposed Sloopy Solar project. The plan, a roughly 180 megawatt solar energy center in Harmony Township, has neighbors lining up on opposite sides: union supporters touting jobs and apprenticeships versus residents warning of lost farmland, drainage problems and traffic headaches. Staff at the Ohio Power Siting Board has already recommended that the application be denied, but the board will still hear from expert witnesses before issuing a final ruling.
Project footprint and developer claims
According to a notice from the Ohio Power Siting Board and materials on the developer’s site, Sloopy Solar Energy LLC is proposing ground mounted photovoltaic arrays on tracking racks, underground electric collection lines, inverters, transformers, access roads and a collector substation, all wrapped inside a seven foot perimeter fence. Invenergy lists the project at 180 megawatts on about 1,879 acres within a 3,152 acre project area and says it could power roughly 33,000 homes while supporting hundreds of construction jobs at peak construction.
Local hearing turns into a clash over farms and jobs
Farmers, students, union members and nearby residents packed the School of Innovation cafeteria for the local public hearing, with about 50 people giving sworn testimony on the record. As reported by the Springfield News-Sun, opponents warned that the project would eat up prime farmland, threaten water and wildlife, and bring heavier traffic to rural roads. Union representatives countered that Sloopy Solar would deliver apprenticeships, family sustaining wages and commitments to hire locally.
The same reporting notes that OPSB staff investigated the application and recommended denial while also laying out 64 conditions that should apply if the board decides to approve the certificate. Those conditions range from limits on construction hours and clear decommissioning standards to protections for drainage tile and nesting areas for the northern harrier.
County pushback and intervention filings
Clark County commissioners have already planted their flag. Earlier this year they formally objected to the project, passing a resolution in January after previously adopting a temporary restriction on large wind and solar projects in unincorporated townships, according to WYSO. On the other side of the docket, participating landowners and other parties have begun filing petitions to intervene in the OPSB case, with March filings showing individuals and groups seeking party status.
A March 9 petition to intervene is among the documents on file, signaling that the proceeding has shifted from general public comment into a more formal adjudication phase.
What happens next
The OPSB has set an evidentiary hearing for 10:00 a.m. on April 16 at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio offices in Columbus. There, the applicant, OPSB staff and any approved intervenors will put expert testimony and other evidence on the record. The procedural notice from the Ohio Power Siting Board also explains how members of the public can submit written comments to the docket and notes that the board’s final decision will follow the evidentiary record from that hearing.
Whatever the outcome, locals and energy watchers around Ohio will be paying attention, treating Sloopy Solar as another test case for how state siting rules, county level restrictions and neighborhood priorities collide.
Why the decision matters
The Sloopy project is part of a broader trend in Ohio, where large renewable energy proposals are increasingly running into intense local scrutiny, legal fights and a shifting regulatory climate. The Ohio Environmental Council and others tracking statewide solar trends note that recent denials and project withdrawals have made outcomes harder to predict. Invenergy, for its part, points to local tax revenues and economic investment as key benefits of moving ahead.
Whichever way the OPSB rules, the Sloopy case is poised to influence how Clark County navigates the balance between preserving farmland, asserting local control and welcoming new energy development in the years ahead.
