Knox Smart Development, LLC:

Big Corporate Dark-Money Is Misleading Knox County about Frasier Solar

In November 2023, a shadowy corporate dark money group was formed in Ohio last year with the sole purpose of spreading misinformation about solar development in Knox County and the Frasier Solar project in order to avoid competition from new energy sources at the expense of local property rights and economic development. As this group, so-called “Knox Smart Development” (KSD), continues its misinformation campaign, Frasier Solar is responding and setting the record straight on the many false and misleading claims and conspiracy theories employed regularly by KSD.

Below, Frasier Solar debunks some of the worst claims made by KSD at a propaganda event dubbed as a “Town Hall,” hosted by KSD in November 2023. We also debunk claims on KSD’s website and in publications since that event, including a lengthy op-ed published in the Mount Vernon News in late December 2023.

We hope that KSD’s continued efforts to mislead the public about solar are unsuccessful in scaring local residents and leaders about the net benefits that Frasier Solar can bring to Knox County.

You can also download a version of this website for printing and sharing.

Frasier Project Size

False Claim: As of January 2024, KSD’s website claims that Frasier will install solar panels on “…on over 1,395 acres of Knox County farmland…”

Fact: As stated in Frasier’s permit application, which is binding and available on the OPSB’s website, Frasier’s solar panels and other surface equipment will occupy a maximum of 840 acres, which is less than 0.5% of farmland in Knox County.

The So-called “Town Hall”

False Claim: KSD claimed it was surprised that Frasier representatives did not attend their event. “Open Road Renewables was invited . . . and was more than welcome to come…” but chose not to attend the event. KSD’s representatives repeated this false claim directly to Miller Township Trustees at a public meeting in January 2024.

Fact: A Frasier Solar representative, Craig Adair, obtained a ticket and attempted to attend, but was denied entry at the door by a KSD representative.

Frasier’s Approved PILOT

False Claim: KSD has repeated false claims by the Buckeye Institute that Knox County erred in approving Frasier’s “payment-in-lieu-of-taxes”, or PILOT, which was approved by County Commissioners in August 2023.

Fact: As Open Road has extensively documented and as has since been verified by Ohio State University’s economics department, the Buckeye Institute’s analysis, funded by the same dark money energy interests that are behind KSD’s formation in November of 2023, is deeply flawed. Not only does KSD ignore the verifiable fact that Knox County earns millions more from the PILOT vs. traditional taxation, they omit the reality that the PILOT represents a 47-fold increase in revenue to the county vs. the current land use on the project acreage.

Solar Farms and Property Values

False Claim: Solar farms reduce local property values, and “there are zero studies that show living close to a solar farm raises your property values.”

Fact: Several studies of potential impacts to property values from the construction of utility-scale solar facilities have been conducted over the years, and none have shown that solar facilities like Frasier Solar, sited in rural areas, have had significant negative impacts on surrounding property values. A study by the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers found generally no negative impact, and sometimes a positive impact. A University of Rhode Island Study that analyzed 400,000 transactions near solar projects over 15 years found no negative impact on property values from solar farms like Frasier located in rural areas. A study of 1.8 million home sales near solar projects in six states by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory found a range of impacts, with the highest negative impact in the states with the highest population density (e.g. New Jersey), and a positive impact on property values in the state with the most solar installed which represented over half of the sales transactions in the dataset. And finally, a survey of residential home assessors by the University of Texas found that: “…the majority of respondents believe that proximity to solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values.”

Positive impacts found could be attributed to a solar project’s substantial economic investment in a local community, which can be invested to improve local services and schools or to keep taxes lower than neighboring jurisdictions.

False Claim: Solar projects negatively impact nearby property values. A study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showed that solar projects reduce neighboring property values 4-6%.

Fact: The data for the Lawrence Berkeley study was from small solar facilities, which usually are in higher density areas, which is why the study authors said: “Our results should not be applied to larger projects . . . .” The Lawrence Berkeley study of 1.8 million home sales across 6 states actually found no statistically significant impact in the vast majority (69%) of the transactions included in the study. In fact, over half of the sales transactions studied occurred in a single large state, and the study actually showed a positive (though statistically insignificant) property value impact in that state from nearby solar projects. Several studies examining data of nearby property sales before and after construction of large-scale solar facilities have been conducted over the years. None has shown that solar facilities like Frasier Solar sited in rural areas have reduced property values in the surrounding area. Reliable information on this subject is available on the Frasier Solar website.

Solar Waste

False Claim: Solar farms represent toxic/hazardous waste concerns, and the cost of managing solar waste will be astronomical.

Fact: According to the Ohio Department of Health, there is no public health impact from solar panels used in solar facilities. This is why most solar panels pass EPA-approved leaching tests (TCLP) that classify them as non-hazardous waste at the end of their useful life.  Frasier Solar has committed to only using solar panels that pass the TCLP test. 

It is also important to put future solar waste in context: As highlighted in a 2023 study in the Journal Nature, globally, we produce and manage approximately the same mass of toxic coal ash per month as the total amount of solar module waste we expect to produce over the next 35 years.  And as annual solar panel installations grow, so does the infrastructure to recycle them. The vast majority of a solar panel’s materials are recyclable.

Decommissioning

False Claim: Frasier Solar’s decommissioning bond will not be enough to fully pay to remove the project in 30-40 years.

Fact: Ohio law requires that Frasier Solar’s decommissioning bond cover an estimate made by a “professional engineer registered with the state board of registration for professional engineers and surveyors” to “ensure that funds are available for the decommissioning of the facility.” The estimate must cover “the full costs of decommissioning the utility facility, including the proper disposal of all facility components and restoration of the land on which the facility is located to its pre-construction state.” To keep it current, the bond amount must be recalculated every five years that the facility is in operation.

Solar Panels Are Fragile

False Claim: Solar panels are “delicate” pieces of equipment, and “only experienced, highly specialized workers are required to detach and remove solar panels, otherwise, they shatter to smithereens…”

Fact: Solar panels are made of tempered glass, a thick poly backing, and rigid aluminum frame.  They are not only not delicate, they can resist impact from golf-sized hail and do not shatter when broken. Here is a video of driving vehicles over solar panels without panel breakage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T6VbzC889k. 

And here is a video of a solar panel being dropped on a cement floor and being jumped on without panel breakage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR0dHl58zwE   

Solar and Water Quality

False Claim: Solar farms are bad for water quality.

Fact: Some early solar facilities on particularly wet sites have experienced construction related stormwater issues.  However, this has been the exception, not the rule, and both government regulations and industry best practices on new projects have incorporated lessons learned from those rare instances.  It has also become common practice for solar project opponents to blame any flooding event with an adjacent solar project, even if installation of the solar project has improved local flooding patterns.

In the long run, solar projects offer substantial improvements to local water quality vs. active row crops.  By planting and stabilizing a native grass ground cover that sits undisturbed for decades, solar projects allow the underlying soil to rest and rejuvenate, boosting the biodiversity of beneficial insects while reducing the use of tons of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, which means less erosion and water pollution than active row crops for decades. 

Solar panels are so safe that they are installed nationwide on millions of homes, schools, hospitals, barns, farms, churches, and businesses.  There are even floating solar projects that are installed on drinking water reservoirs, including on a reservoir owned by the Delco Water Company in neighboring Delaware County!

Solar Panel Fire Risk

False Claim: Solar panels have a high risk of catching on fire.

Fact: Solar fire risk is minimal and does not threaten neighbors. Solar panels are made mostly of glass and aluminum and are not flammable. According to North Carolina State University, “[c]oncern over solar fire hazards should be limited because only a small portion of materials in the panels are flammable, and those components cannot self-support a significant fire.” Most of the news items referenced online related to fire and solar are either from rooftop solar fires, where roofs or other building material can support a fire near or under a solar panel, or battery-related fires, which have their own fire-risk profile unrelated to any adjacent solar equipment. For example, an often-referenced 2023 fire at a solar facility in Jefferson County, New York was actually a battery fire, a nuance that was missing in a number of media headlines about the event.  

Good Neighbor Agreements

False Claim: Good Neighbor Agreements (“GNAs”) prevent signers from complaining if problems arise during construction or operations.

Fact: Ohio law encourages GNAs. The content of a GNA is left to the parties who sign it. A copy of Frasier Solar’s GNA, which is the same for every neighbor, is on its website. Frasier Solar’s GNA is for supporters or those who are neutral about the project and whose questions and concerns have been addressed. Not only does the GNA not prohibit participants from complaining about any problems that may arise during construction, it explicitly allows participants to raise questions, concerns, and complaints during construction, operations, and decommissioning of the project.

False Claim: A GNA prevents participants from disclosing whether or not they are getting paid and prevents them from speaking up.

Fact: Frasier Solar’s GNA has no such provision, and anyone can read it to confirm that.

“Flooding” and “Contamination”

False Claim: Frasier Solar requested a waiver “to forgo having to take measures to prevent flooding in Knox County.”

Fact: Frasier Solar did nothing of the sort. It is seeking confirmation from OPSB that requirements to collect water quality data for wastewater pollution caused by other types of power generation facilities regulated by OPSB (such as coal and natural gas plants) simply do not apply to solar facilities, which do not create wastewater. Frasier Solar will fully comply with all applicable Ohio law that protects waterways. 

False Claim: Hillcrest Solar caused severe flooding of neighboring properties with “catastrophic” impact to neighboring farms.

Fact: Four complaints were made to OPSB about flooding, none of which involved “severe” impacts.  Three of them were addressed within a week, and resolution of the fourth is in process. Staff of the Brown County Soil and Water Conservation District reported in November 2023 that they were not aware of any “severe flooding” resulting from the project. Notably, the area in which Hillcrest Solar is located is historically wet and has always been prone to flooding. Also, OPSB recently updated its standard approach to require solar facilities to prevent adverse drainage problems on neighboring properties.

False Claim: Solar projects cause well-water contamination.

Fact: This baseless claim is made without any evidence whatsoever. In fact, according to the Ohio Department of Health, solar facilities pose no public health burden. (See “Solar Farms and Photovoltaics Summary and Assessments” available on Frasier Solar’s website.) Solar panel design "ensures that the cells and solder are completely encapsulated and protected from rain and other elements that might corrode or damage them, and also means that the general public would not come into contact with any potential toxic elements contained in the panel unless . . . purposefully ground into a fine dust.“ When concerned “Town Hall” attendees asked for more information about this claim, the speaker admitted: “none of us are qualified to answer these questions . . . we don’t have the expertise.”

Topsoil Removal

False claim: Frasier Solar will strip and remove topsoil from site. The land will not be farmable after the panels are removed.

Fact: Frasier Solar’s application to the Ohio Power Siting Board (“OPSB”) commits to not remove any topsoil from its project area, and permit conditions recently issued by OPSB for other projects require the same.  In fact, on some recently constructed solar projects in Ohio, areas that were used temporarily during construction and where topsoil was stockpiled and reapplied after construction (such as for parking and equipment laydown areas) are already back in crop production.

Solar vs. Food

False claim: Frasier Solar will take food out of many mouths.

Fact: Frasier Solar would use less than ½ of 1% of the farmland in Knox County to power the equivalent of 14,000 Ohio homes and businesses with electricity that is less than half the price of solar power from a residential rooftop or parking lot. While farming food is incredibly important to feed our country, roughly 40% of Ohio’s corn crop currently goes to create ethanol fuel which requires 100 acres to generate the same amount of energy as a single acre in solar panels.  Find out more about solar vs. ethanol energy efficiency here: https://www.cleanwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Corn-Ethanol-Vs.-Solar-Analysis-V3-9-compressed.pdf Also, around 50% of Ohio’s soy bean harvest is exported to China.

Electricity Markets

False Claim: Grid reliability issues have led to brownouts and blackouts because of increased renewable generation and less generation with natural gas.

Fact: Renewable energy is often criticized as “variable,” but its variability is highly predictable. Fossil fuel resources, in contrast, often have unexpected production outages, which pose a greater risk to the grid. Grid operators know when the sun will set—but they do not know when a critical component might break at a gas or coal power plant, or when severe weather or a global crisis will suddenly reduce fossil fuel supplies. For example, according to the Texas grid operator, the biggest contributor to Texas’s blackouts in 2021 was the combination of natural gas power plant failures and frozen natural gas fuel supply systems (at the gas wells and pipelines.) More recently, solar power has been credited with helping keeping the lights on during both heat waves and winter events in Texas while helping keep costs low for ratepayers. Reliable information on this subject is posted on the Frasier Solar website.

False Claim: Solar power cannot compete on the free market without subsidies.

Fact: Like many industries, including agriculture, manufacturing, and automobiles, all types of power generation (including coal, gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power) receive economic support from federal and local policy incentives, and solar is no exception. The financing of the project construction would include an up-front 30% federal tax credit. In contrast to solar’s up-front one-time federal tax credit, fossil fuels have received trillions of dollars of direct subsidies over many decades, including taxpayer-funded bailouts in Ohio, annual production and exploration subsidies, valuation discounts, and various other tax breaks.

A key benefit of solar power is that the fuel is free.  This means that once constructed, there are very few costs required to operate a solar facility for decades, which is not the case for coal, gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear power plants.  Another key benefit of solar power is that it avoids fossil energy’s huge societal costs, which affect all of our pocketbooks. These range from increased health care costs to environmental damage, and constitute massive indirect subsidies for coal and gas.

According to financial advisory firm Lazard’s “Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis” in 2023, solar power costs have declined more than 80% over the last decade.  Solar facilities can now produce power cheaper than coal, nuclear, and gas peaker plants and are competitive with many baseload gas plants, especially when comparing the unsubsidized economics of each of these types generation.

False Claim: Renewables increase the cost of power for consumers.

Fact: Every day, Ohio’s grid operator forecasts power demand for the next day and schedules generators to meet that demand. Certain power generators (such as fast-starting gas, oil-fired generators, and hydroelectric plants) that meet electricity demand at peak usage times of the day tend to provide the most expensive power. The grid operator accepts offers from the lowest-to-highest-priced generator until the forecasted electricity demand for each hour of every day is met. As more solar power is added to the grid, its $0 fuel cost means that it is almost always scheduled for the daylight hours. Solar produces power during some of the most expensive hours of the year (for example, a hot July afternoon), which means that the grid operator can avoid scheduling expensive gas or oil power during those hours and save consumers money. For instance, estimates in Texas show that solar and wind saved Texas consumers ~$1 billion per month in 2022! More recently in January 2024, solar power helped lower prices Texas during record demand and unusually frigid temperatures. As soon as the sun came up, wholesale power prices dropped from $421/MWh to $71/MWh, saving Texans millions of dollars.

Purchasing vs. Leasing Land

False Claim: Solar developers only lease land from farmers; they will never agree to purchase land because they know the land will be “worthless in 40 years.”

Fact: Frasier Solar gave all of its participating landowners the option to lease or sell their land for the project, and only one chose to sell. Although most landowners prefer to lease because they want to keep land in the family, Open Road is always happy to follow the landowners’ preference and has agreed to purchase land from dozens of Ohio landowners for its projects.

Property Values

False Claim: Solar projects negatively impact nearby property values. A study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showed that solar projects reduce neighboring property values 4-6%.

Fact: The data for the Lawrence Berkeley study was from small solar facilities, which usually are in higher density areas, which is why the study authors said: “Our results should not be applied to larger projects . . . .” The Lawrence Berkeley study of 1.8 million home sales across 6 states actually found no statistically significant impact. In fact, over half of the sales transactions studied occurred in a single large state, and the study actually showed a positive (though statistically insignificant) property value impact in that state from nearby solar projects. Several studies examining data of nearby property sales before and after construction of large-scale solar facilities have been conducted over the years. None has shown that solar facilities like Frasier Solar sited in rural areas have reduced property values in the surrounding area. Reliable information on this subject is available on the Frasier Solar website.

Hillcrest Solar

False Claim: Hillcrest Solar was sold 5 times.

Fact: Hillcrest Solar was developed and permitted by the Open Road team for several years before it was acquired by the current owner, Innergex.

False Claim: Hillcrest Solar scraped and hauled off 1 to 12 inches of topsoil from the project area.

Fact: According to several landowners participating in Hillcrest Solar with whom Open Road checked, no topsoil was removed from their properties, and none is aware of topsoil having been removed from others’ land. Frasier Solar’s application to the Ohio Power Siting Board (“OPSB”) commits not to remove any topsoil from its project area, and permit conditions recently issued by OPSB for other projects require the same.

False Claim: Due to damage caused to the land during construction of Hillcrest Solar, the project area will never be suitable for farming again.

Fact: Construction of large-scale solar facilities involves significant land disturbance and due to record rainfall when Hillcrest was constructed, some rutting occurred from heavy construction equipment. Open Road understands that these rutted areas were de-compacted and largely restored to pre-construction conditions. Hillcrest landowners told Open Road that they disagree with the claim that the land will not be suitable for farming after the project is removed. In fact, some areas that were used temporarily during construction and where topsoil was stockpiled and reapplied after construction (such as for parking and equipment laydown areas) are already back in crop production.

False Claim: The Hillcrest Solar project, which is now owned and operated by Innergex, was significantly late in making QEP payments.

Fact: The first QEP payment was one month late due to a miscommunication about the payment procedure, and full payment was made plus a hefty 10% late fee. Hilcrest Solar has not been late in making any other payment to Brown County. As a QEP, Hillcrest Solar will pay Brown County taxing authorities $1,800,000 every year for 40 years.

False Claim: If Hillcrest Solar had failed to comply with its QEP payment obligations to the county, the participating landowners would have been forced to pay the outstanding real and personal property taxes owed to the county.

Fact: Under Open Road's lease agreements, real and personal property tax obligations that result from solar use are the responsibility of the solar project, not the landowner. In fact, Open Road has developed solar projects in Ohio outside the QEP program, and any increase in property taxes that are assessed due to the presence of solar equipment is paid by the project, not by the landowner.

False Claim: Hillcrest Solar “submitted fraudulent drivers’ licenses to avoid hiring local workers.”

Fact: This claim is a defamatory attempt to damage Open Road’s integrity by implying Open Road had a role in the situation and by omitting key facts about it. The Ohio Department of Development oversees the QEP program, which requires that at least 80% of construction workers be Ohioans. Although a small number of the Hillcrest construction workers submitted drivers’ licenses that were questioned, the Department thoroughly investigated the in-state labor compliance obligation, concluded that Hillcrest Solar had met the 80% requirement, and confirmed that Hillcrest Solar’s QEP status is in good standing. Importantly, all of this occurred after Open Road was developing Hillcrest Solar.

False Claim: Hillcrest Solar caused severe flooding of neighboring properties with “catastrophic” impact to neighboring farms.

Fact: Four complaints were made to OPSB about flooding, none of which involved “severe” impacts.  Three of them were addressed within a week, and resolution of the fourth is in process. Staff of the Brown County Soil and Water Conservation District reported in November 2023 that they were not aware of any “severe flooding” resulting from the project. Notably, the area in which Hillcrest Solar is located is historically wet and has always been prone to flooding. Also, OPSB recently updated its standard approach to require solar facilities to prevent adverse drainage problems on neighboring properties.

Solar Leases

False Claim: The author of a document titled “Leasing Land to Solar Companies Can Have Risks” makes a number of false our outdated claims about solar leases.

Fact: The author of this document is misinformed, writing about a place other than Ohio, and/or writing about solar leases from years ago. Most of the information is simply incorrect, at least about utility-scale solar leases now currently in use in Ohio, and specifically on Frasier Solar. Please find a comprehensive response to the claims regarding solar lease risks here.