Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supporters and developers back a 1,500‑MW community solar pilot in Senate Bill 247; developers flag brownfield challenges
Summary
Proponents said SB 247 would establish a 1,500‑MW Ohio community solar pilot (1,000 MW general, 500 MW for distressed/commercial rooftops) to expand access to solar without rooftop installations; developers highlighted economic benefits and, conversely, implementation challenges on brownfields and landfills.
Proponents of Senate Bill 247 told the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee the bill would create an Ohio community solar pilot totaling 1,500 megawatts — 1,000 MW designated for general deployment and 500 MW reserved for distressed sites and commercial rooftops — to give households and businesses an option to subscribe to locally produced solar without installing panels on their roofs.
Carlo Cavallaro, Midwest regional director for the Coalition for Community Solar Access, described community solar as a voluntary program that enables multiple subscribers to receive a bill credit for their share of a project’s generation. He said the pilot does not require state subsidies and would cover all four electric distribution utility territories in Ohio. Cavallaro cited an Ohio University study (submitted with written testimony) projecting $5 billion in economic impact across the program term and $490 million in additional taxes.
Jeanette MacDonald, a Capital University professor who testified as a four‑generation Appalachian farmer, urged passage so small family farms could host arrays on portions of their land while continuing agricultural use. She said community solar would provide lease income, local jobs, and tax revenue and could help rural households reduce electricity bills.
Developers also testified in support. David Murray of Turning Point Energy said community solar projects (typically 40–60 acres) can deploy quickly to help resource adequacy and that subscribers often see 10–15% monthly bill savings. Carlo Cavallaro and others said the legislation includes provisions addressing project size, colocation, decommissioning, local control, and credit rates to account for distribution costs.
CEP Renewables’ Kurt Princik (senior project development manager) provided a cautionary perspective about on‑the‑ground brownfield and landfill development. He described CEP’s nine Ohio sites that could total 70 MW, with estimated construction costs of about $160 million and a projected increase in local property tax revenue; he said the program can be an economic win but also requires realistic planning for more challenging distressed sites.
The committee recorded multiple written submissions and closed the second hearing on SB 247; no committee vote or amendment occurred on the floor that day.
