The Ohio Power Siting Board rejected a permit for the 94-megawatt Crossroads Solar Grazing Center in Morrow County earlier this year, citing "consistent and substantial opposition" even after staff identified dozens of opposing submissions as fabricated.

The denial bars developer Open Road Renewables from building one of central Ohio's largest agrivoltaic facilities — a project designed to pair photovoltaic arrays with sheep grazing on the same acreage.

What did the board actually decide?

The board ruled that the solar project "fails to serve the public interest" on the strength of opposition from local governments and neighboring residents, despite the developer meeting every other legal test. Staff had received Open Road Renewables' evidence flagging fabricated submissions before the vote; the board declined to refer the matter to the Ohio attorney general.

Open Road Renewables responded with an analysis showing that, once duplicate, anonymous, and unverifiable comments were stripped out, nearly half of nearby residents supported the project. The firm has filed two reconsideration requests. Both failed.

"Fabricated comments corrupt public decision-making by diluting the impact of genuine people who take the time to share their views," said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio.

How deep does the fake-comment problem run?

Ohio regulators first hit the pattern in 2023. Pro-fracking submissions to the state's Oil and Gas Land Management Commission included roughly 150 names of people who denied signing them. The commission refused to weigh the contested comments but still authorized drilling under state park and wildlife areas.

An attorney general investigation traced the operation to a subcontractor working for the Consumer Energy Alliance, a fossil-fuel-aligned group. Melissa Wright, then-section chief for consumer protection, wrote that the solicitation "did not disclose the consumers would be signing a letter, and failed to provide the language of the letter." No civil or criminal charges followed.

Then-CEA vice president Bryson Hull told board members the resolution protected the group's "reputation and ability to influence how CEA is described publicly by others."

The Energy and Policy Institute has since linked the Consumer Energy Alliance to allegedly fraudulent comments on Ohio's Nexus pipeline, a Wisconsin net-metering petition, and South Carolina emails seeking legislative support for a Dominion Energy acquisition.

New York's response set a different bar. In 2023, Attorney General Letitia James announced a $615,000 settlement with companies responsible for millions of fake comments opposing net neutrality rules. California is now weighing Senate Bill 1159, which would ban the knowing use of AI to falsely attribute comments to real people, after a campaign targeted South Coast rules phasing out fossil-fueled heaters.

Why hasn't Ohio prosecuted?

The Ohio Power Siting Board has not referred any fake public comments for prosecution in the past 10 years, spokesperson Matt Butler said. The agency's standing practice is to "clean up the docket" rather than escalate, he added.

John Kulewicz, a Columbus-area attorney running for Ohio attorney general, drew a sharper line. "Misleading public officials through known false testimony is illegal and should be prosecuted. Full stop," he said. "Agencies should refer false comments for prosecution."

A 2024 revision to the Ohio Administrative Code folded online fine-print and similar deception into the state's consumer-sales laws. Steve Irwin, communications director for Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson, said the office has yet to file any enforcement action under the updated rule.

What filtration tools are available?

Metadata analysis could flag submissions drafted from a common origin, said Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute. Automated confirmation emails could demand that commenters verify authenticity, with bounce-backs prompting removal.

Turcer of Common Cause Ohio recommended captcha-style verification at comment portals. "These and other methods would assure real individuals that their input was received, while frustrating some AI bots or other dubious tactics," she said.

What decides the next milestone?

Two days after the board's denial, S.A. Linden, a Franklin County resident, wrote to the agency accusing it of relying on fake comments. Crossroads Solar's docket remains open to further motions from Open Road Renewables.

California's SB 1159 is the closest state-level legislative marker on AI-generated docket fraud. The Ohio attorney general race — with Kulewicz making prosecution of fabricated comments a campaign plank — will test whether state voters want enforcement to catch up with the new administrative rule.

Whichever side wins in November, both tracks will set the precedent that renewable project siting dockets across the Midwest apply when fraudulent comments surface in the public record.