The Ohio Power Siting Board voted 7-2 on Thursday to approve a permit for Oak Run Solar, an 800 MW solar array paired with 300 MW of battery storage in Madison County developed by Savion.

The decision closes a regulatory cycle that began in 2022 and ran through a March 2024 approval, an Ohio Supreme Court appeal, and a court-ordered remand limited to substation visual impacts.

What did the Ohio Supreme Court decide?

The court issued a split decision this spring, rejecting every objection to Oak Run except one: the absence of renderings showing expected visual impacts from the project's substations.

The court sent the case back to the Power Siting Board for further evidence on that single issue. Savion submitted a report with pictures and testimony.

Board staff recommended approval based on that filing. The Ohio Environmental Council and intervening resident John Boeckl filed briefs supporting the project. Madison County and three townships continued to object.

"The Court's remand directive was narrow in scope," the board's order stated. "The only question remaining was the substations' specific visual impact."

What does the project include?

Oak Run pairs 800 MW of solar generation with 300 MW of battery storage. The Madison County site carries an agrivoltaics component with roughly 1,000 sheep grazing among the panel rows.

Savion first sought the permit in 2022 and won board approval in March 2024 before Madison County and three townships appealed later that year.

Savion asked the court to expedite the ruling to allow construction to start in time to meet obligations under a contract with grid operator PJM Interconnection.

The court complied on the remand. Savion now faces a separate timeline to satisfy PJM requirements for commercial operation.

Why did local governments oppose the project?

The board's two dissenting votes came from a Madison County representative and a township representative.

Under Senate Bill 52, a 2021 Ohio law, local governments gain ad hoc voting rights on siting decisions for renewable projects but not for fossil fuel developments.

Madison County and the three townships argued that Savion should have undergone additional procedural steps for meetings and notices, as though filing a new permit application. The board rejected that argument.

Ohio has tightened conditions on renewable energy over the past twelve years. The legislature more than doubled wind turbine setbacks, rolled back clean energy standards, and imposed extra procedural hurdles on wind and solar projects.

Since 2021, the Power Siting Board has increasingly relied on local government opposition to deny solar permits.

What comes next?

Madison County and the three townships could seek reconsideration from the Power Siting Board or appeal again to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Jack Van Kley, the attorney representing the local governments, and Madison County prosecutor Nicholas Adkins did not respond to requests for comment.

The next major test sits with the Ohio Supreme Court in a separate case. Kingwood Solar, a 175 MW project in Greene County developed by Vesper Energy, was rejected by the Power Siting Board in late 2022.

The board determined that unanimous local government opposition meant the project did not meet the statutory public interest requirement. The board largely ignored whether the opposition rested on fact, misinformation, or political pressure.

Vesper Energy appealed in 2023. The court heard oral argument in early 2025 but has not ruled.

The developer asked the court in February to expedite the decision to meet a July PJM contract deadline; the court declined.

The case will determine whether the Power Siting Board can apply Ohio's public interest standard in a way that effectively cements local opposition as a veto over renewable development.

What are advocates saying?

Chris Tavenor, general counsel for the Ohio Environmental Council, framed the Oak Run approval as a signal that large-scale renewable projects retain a viable path through Ohio's regulatory system.

"Oak Run's win emphasizes that bold renewable projects have a place in Ohio's electric generation portfolio," Tavenor said.

Tavenor urged the same court to move quickly on Kingwood.

"Given the electric affordability issues we're seeing across Ohio and the nation, as well as the need for clean energy to counter the causes of climate change, we encourage the Ohio Supreme Court to decide any solar case before it as quickly as possible."

Samantha Sawmiller, Savion's senior development manager for Oak Run, said the company is pleased by the decision and thanked the Power Siting Board and others for advancing the project.