I joined hundreds of fellow neighbors and Ohioans at OPSB’s public hearing for Frasier Solar on April 4. Over seven hours of public testimony, we heard a lot of views, concerns, and arguments that have been circulating around our community over the last year.
What we heard from many opponents was a desire to preserve the project land in agricultural use. We also heard from opponents their desire to see the same land converted to housing developments and annexed for other future development.
Frasier supporters pointed out that Frasier Solar would keep the project acreage in active agricultural use (thanks to sheep grazing across the entire project) and is the only land use that would actually preserve the project acreage for future farming while respecting the farmer’s property rights.
We heard many opponents’ concerns that weather events or financial issues would leave solar panels abandoned in the field.
Frasier supporters pointed out that solar panels can withstand large hail and even if broken or abandoned, OPSB imposes a condition that requires a decommissioning bond be placed and updated regularly to ensure that any cleanup and restoration of the site is fully funded.
When asked about that condition at the public hearing, one Frasier opponent acknowledged that they had not read OPSB’s decommissioning condition.
We heard some opponents express their concern about potential negative impacts to property values from the views of solar panels or sounds of their power inverters.
Frasier supporters pointed out that the project conditions require setbacks, screening, and sound limits to mitigate the impact to neighbors, and that numerous large studies have shown that projects like Frasier, sited in rural areas and properly set back and screened from nearby homes, do not negatively impact property values.
We heard from many opponents their concerns that solar panels would break and leach chemicals into our groundwater and into our food supply.
Frasier supporters pointed out that not only are those concerns not supported by science or experts, but also that those fears are being actively flamed by a well-funded misinformation campaign targeting our community, by paid speakers, anonymous mailers, text messages, and social media posts designed to scare us into opposing Frasier Solar. Supporters pointed out that Frasier’s application and OPSB’s proposed conditions require that only solar panels that pass EPA leaching tests are used on the project. And Frasier supporters also pointed to the actual chemical pollutants that our community is exposed to from fossil fuels and intensive crop farming, which may explain why Knox County currently has a higher rate of cancer than Ohio’s average cancer rate.
In short, we heard a back and forth between opponent concerns, fueled by misinformation and fear, vs. supporter views, informed by facts, studies, experts, and OPSB’s own conditions, which are designed to address opponent concerns.
When one opponent who had expressed concerns about impacts to drainage tile and topsoil was asked whether he was familiar with the specific OPSB requirements that would directly address those concerns, his response was: "No" and “I don’t care.”
We’re likely to hear a lot more from the project’s opponents at the next OPSB public hearing. When we do, remember that, whether opponents want to acknowledge it or not, whether they know much, whether they “care” whether their concerns have already been addressed, many of the opposition’s concerns are driven by misinformation, and most of those concerns have, in fact, already been specifically addressed by Frasier Solar in their application and/or by OPSB in their proposed required conditions.
We should not allow ignorance, fear, and misinformation to determine the fate of a well-designed and well-regulated project that among other benefits would make historic investments in our community’s schools for decades.
Steve Rex, Sr.
Fredericktown, OH
