Residents press Ohio County leaders for details on 'Scout' solar project; county says state permit process still pending

Several residents at the Ohio County Fiscal Court’s February meeting urged county officials to share more information about a proposed large solar project by a company referred to in the meeting as Scout.

Residents cited outside studies and raised economic and environmental concerns. One resident quoted a February 2023 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory analysis, saying homes within a half-mile of large solar farms can see property-value drops of 5%–8%, and referenced an EPA report about toxic-film contamination risks from some solar panels. Other residents asked whether Scout had misled the court about neighbor support and whether the county had received any payments or secured long-term benefits.

Court officials said the project had not completed state-level environmental and permitting filings. The county’s representative said the state would review environmental studies and hold public hearings after Scout submits required documents; the earliest public-hearing timeframe mentioned at the meeting was no earlier than December (the court said possibly January 2026) depending on when Scout submits materials and when state reviewers complete studies.

The court said it had not received direct payments from Scout. Officials told residents that tax revenue and occupational-tax receipts from construction and increased property valuations were expected but not guaranteed: at the meeting the court estimated “a few hundred thousand dollars a year” in ongoing property-tax revenue and said occupational-tax receipts tied to construction could amount to “up to about a million” (construction-period occupational tax), language the chair used to describe potential revenues. The chair also said the permit process and any public hearings would be posted in local newspapers and on the county website and Facebook page; postings inside the courthouse were also confirmed.

Residents asked whether the county had performed due diligence on Scout’s ownership, litigation history or credit rating; court officials said the county had negotiated and been in contact with the company and that some documentation (including a letter of credit reference) existed, but the county did not provide detailed third-party company analyses at the meeting. Officials said they would notify the local community when the state environmental reviewers post public-hearing notices.

Several residents urged a moratorium; the court noted that neighboring counties had enacted temporary pauses but said their advisors had indicated moratoriums might not hold if companies have existing contractual rights and if state law preempts local actions. The court reiterated that the county would share public-notice information and that interested residents could speak to state environmental reviewers when those studies and hearings are scheduled.

The court took no formal regulatory action on the solar project at the meeting; the court advised residents that most of the permitting and environmental review will be handled by state agencies once Scout completes and submits its application materials.