With clean energy coming of age, perhaps it was only inevitable that grassroots efforts to stall or even stop such projects would become more organized, too.
Whatever the reason, people are mobilizing — and not just to save the planet.
Some may challenge wind and solar projects, especially in rural areas, out of a genuine concern for migratory birds or what they see as an assault on their private property rights.
Others may have a general fear of the unknown. Even others express anger at public meetings and rallies about what they perceive as bullying tactics of major corporations.
There’s almost no shortage of conflict now in northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan as more federal money pours in to promote clean energy.
Advocates such as Karin Nordstrom, Ohio Environmental Council and OEC Action Fund clean energy attorney, said that while her statewide environmental group does “certainly understand” such concerns, it would like people to remain focused on the big picture of working together to combat Earth’s changing climate.
The OEC sees climate change as the top priority because of how it impacts so many facets of life, from wildlife to fisheries to food production and air quality, to name a few.
Ms. Nordstrom said that environmental group is generally pleased by the amount of rigor the Ohio Power Siting Board and other agencies put into their review of clean energy projects, citing the OPSB’s recent decision to greenlight the controversial Icebreaker Wind project off the Lake Erie shoreline near Cleveland. After years of debate, Icebreaker Wind became the Great Lakes region’s first offshore wind project to be issued a permit.
“We think the siting process does have the appropriate mechanisms to address environmental impact and changing landscapes,” Ms. Nordstrom said.
Many naysayers take issue with that, and see the whole clean energy movement as a war they must win to keep their idyllic countryside from being compromised by the sight of behemoth, commercial-scale wind turbines. They also see it as a fight to keep the massive footprint of solar farms from crushing precious farmland.
Rural Ohioans have been empowered by what was considered a rare and stunning victory in June of 2021, when the OPSB rejected Apex Clean Energy’s plan to build the 47-turbine Republic Wind Farm across Seneca County and one township in neighboring Sandusky County.
The state board decision came in response to fierce opposition by a group of mobilized residents known as the Seneca Anti-Wind Union. One of its leaders, Chris Aichholz, acknowledged at the time how uncommon that is for the OPSB to do that, and that his group had believed the best it might do is get enough conditions tacked on a permit to discourage the developer.
Mr. Aichholz declined to comment for this story but was highly engaged with action the Ohio General Assembly followed up with four months later when it passed legislation known as Senate Bill 52. It essentially gives local townships and county commissions broader powers in self-governance over clean energy projects.
The new law, approved one year ago this month, is being used to consider zoning restrictions in other parts of Ohio, most recently in Ottawa County. Ottawa County commissioners are expected to vote on a resolution at their Oct. 25 board meeting.
In Crawford County, which is about halfway between Columbus and Sandusky, voters will decide on Nov. 8 if they want to stick with an “exclusion zone” the county board created in May as a way of designating an area as off-limits to wind developers.
That particular exclusion zone was passed to keep Apex Clean Energy from moving forward with another project, its proposed 300-megawatt Honey Creek Wind project north of the county seat of Bucyrus that calls for 50 to 80 giant turbines to be erected across the rural Crawford County landscape.
It’s a test case for SB 52, the first time since the law was passed that enough signatures were gathered for voters to decide if the county board’s action should be overturned. If it is, Apex would have the ability to apply for a permit from the OPSB.
“I think it shows folks in other counties they have mechanisms to challenge those [decisions],” Ms. Nordstrom said.
SB 52 does not apply to oil and gas exploration because it is illegal in Ohio to ban mineral rights, she said.
It would be easy to view local battles over clean energy projects as an issue split over party lines.
But that’s not necessarily the case.
Birders are defectors from the classic stereotype that all environmentalists want as much renewable energy as possible. Some prefer nuclear power over wind turbines.
There has long been a global rift among other types of environmentalists and outdoor enthusiasts as to whether they should embrace nuclear power. Some now believe nuclear power should be used in tandem with multiple sources of renewable energy to achieve the kind of reductions in carbon dioxide necessary to slow down the rate of climate change.
But ask a fledgling group called the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum if clean energy is embraced only by Democrats, and it’ll say no.
Its website states that it is “a movement of conservatives who recognize clean energy as a solution to sustaining energy dominance, keeping our economy booming, and providing power to build and sustain the American way of life.”
It differs from Democrats in that it does not support the Green New Deal. Next to a photograph of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), the group states that it does not believe in heavy-handed government rules or forcing consumers to pay for higher-priced energy sources.
“The future of clean energy must be rescued from failed socialist policies and returned to its roots in conservation and conservatism,” it states.
Former Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Craig Butler, who was in that role for both terms of Republican John Kasich’s tenure as governor, is on the group’s board.
In an interview with The Blade, Mr. Butler said there will inevitably be winners and losers in the marketplace but that people should not lose sight of the fundament opportunity clean energy brings.
“Should there be a transition to clean energy? Yes,” he said. “But it should be decided by the market, not government.”
As the debate intensifies, both sides have accused each other of being funded by dark money coming in from high-powered special interests.
Kevon Martis is the zoning administrator of Lenawee County’s Deerfield Township and a former vice chairman of the Riga Township Planning Commision, also in Lenawee County.
But his reputation admittedly goes far beyond that. He is scorned by clean energy advocates throughout Michigan and elsewhere for presentations he has made for more than a decade about what he views as the pitfalls of wind and solar energy.
He said there have been public relations campaigns to smear him, at least one of which prompted him to have his attorney issue a strongly worded cease-and-desist letter to the group that offended him.
“They have tried to isolate me and say, ‘Everyone loves renewables until Kevon Martis shows up,’” Mr. Martis said.
He said he has been falsely accused of working for the fossil fuel industry.
“I have never been funded by fossil fuels of any kind,” he said.
A self-described conservative, Mr. Martis is founder and executive director of a nonprofit called the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, Inc., which got its start by successfully rallying citizens against a proposed Lenawee County wind farm in 2011.
Since then, he has expanded his reach to projects in other parts of Michigan and Ohio, as well as solar energy. He also has become a fellow of the Washington-based Energy & Environment Legal Institute, a free-market think tank critical of the Obama and Biden administrations.
He said the people most in favor of clean energy are supporters of nuclear power.
One well-known solar energy activist, Peter Sinclair, a Midland, Mich.-based videographer affiliated with Yale Climate Connections, is sharply at odds with many assertions made by Mr. Martis and others who oppose clean energy.
Mr. Sinclair, who also is media director of the Dark Snow Project and recipient of a 2017 National Center for Science Education Friend of the Planet Award, said he’s been working with wind and solar developers for the past five years to “push back on misinformation.”
Several southeast Michigan townships, including La Salle, Erie, and Milan townships in Monroe County, have become attractive to solar developers in recent months. A group called notosolar.com is warning people to be careful.
“Solar developers have been in our community for the past 6 months trying to lease or buy agricultural ground for solar development,” it states on its Facebook page. “Please research the consequences of solar fields. Agricultural landowners are being offered substantial amounts of money for their farms. The phrase ‘It's too good to be true’ hits home when it comes to mega solar fields.”
Requests for interviews with that group were not returned.
A common strategy in fighting clean energy projects is posting yard signs with website links as soon as word spreads about developers gaining interest in an area. The yard signs direct people to websites that, according to Mr. Sinclair, are filled with misleading or inaccurate information.
“I think we’re all aware of just how weirdly addictive social media has become,” Mr. Sinclair said, adding that the problem has been exacerbated by the closure of newspapers in many parts of the country.
“Create a stir with yard signs and give them a link to a webpage,” he said. “You isolate them. Then, you keep pouring on the crazy information.”
Nicholas J. Schroeck, an associate professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law who serves as director of that school’s Environmental Law Clinic, is representing a group of La Salle Township farmers who want to maintain the right to lease some of their land to solar energy developers. The township is considering an ordinance that would impose severe limits.
“It feels almost like political opposition to solar,” he said of clean energy critics in general. “They're coming up with arguments in opposition that aren't grounded in common sense.”
Disputes are inevitable in many land-use decisions.
“But our contention is that solar is a good way to make some money for farmers who are struggling and a good source of tax revenue,” Mr. Schroeck said. “The only counter-arguments are maybe aesthetic arguments. But even with that, there's a lot you can do with landscaping and screening.”
Mr. Butler and others said they see similarities in campaigns against clean energy and those done over the years by the tobacco industry, climate change deniers, and those who have discredited the coronavirus pandemic, vaccines, and masks - the anti-science movement in general.
They said embellished social media claims have made it worse.
“I’m a recovering regulator,” Mr. Butler said. “Our mission is to be transparent and seek public input. [But with social media], it gets difficult finding out what the real public opinion is.”
Farming is difficult, even in the best of times. Many farmers need to diversify their incomes to hang onto their land, or risk losing it and having it become another example of urban sprawl, Mr. Sinclair said.
“Sprawl happens when farmers go out of business,” he said. “You’ve got to create some opportunities for farmers to stay on their land.”
Mr. Schroeck agreed.
“This is a way to keep large tracts of land together,” he said. “People do have a right to make decisions on how to use their property how they see fit.”
Mr. Schroeck said the type of opposition he sees “feels like there’s something else going on.”
“It's a disturbing trend,” he said.
First Published October 15, 2022, 2:52 p.m.
