Residents press concerns as National Grid Renewables previews 142 MW "Carnation Solar" north of Amanda

National Grid Renewables representatives presented the proposed Carnation Solar project and answered questions from residents and Amanda-Clearcreek board members at a board meeting where public comment also included organized opposition.

Chris Snyder, who identified himself as a National Grid Renewables representative, described the company’s Ohio portfolio and said the Carnation project would be roughly 142 megawatts, bounded in the materials shown by Amanda Northern Road to the east, Cedar Hill Road to the west, Ridge Road to the south and Regal Road to the north. He told the board the permitting process would begin this fall, construction would start in 2027 if approved, and the facility could enter operation in 2028. Snyder said peak construction crews could include “125 to 150 workers” and that the company expects to hire many Ohio-based union and local contractors.

Jane Hart, introduced by Snyder as also representing National Grid Renewables, outlined the company’s proposed local payments and charitable commitments: the company uses a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) model across its projects and maintains a community fund funded at about $250 per megawatt per year. Hart estimated the Carnation project’s community-fund contribution would be roughly $35,500 per year and said most PILOT tax revenue would be directed to local schools and services.

Local resident Jerry Sterner, speaking for a local steering committee that opposes the project, told the board he and others in the township had organized public information meetings and urged board attention. “We’ve known about the Carnation solar project for about two and a half years,” Sterner said, and he invited trustees to an open house meant to share details and community concerns.

Board members and members of the public pressed National Grid on several points. One trustee cited a Lawrence Berkeley study and asked about potential property-value declines, referencing figures “1.5% up to 5%” reported in the study; Hart and Snyder said academic findings vary by study, proximity to projects and over time, and that negative effects tend to lessen as markets adjust. Snyder said the company’s review of literature showed wide variation and emphasized proximity and time as major factors.

Attendees also questioned who would benefit directly from the project’s electricity and whether local residents would see reduced retail bills. Snyder and Hart said the project is designed to serve nearby load and deliver energy into the regional grid; they added that retail-bill impacts depend on customer-provider contracts and cannot be guaranteed by the developer. On decommissioning, company representatives said panels, pilings and equipment are removed at end of life, that the project carries bonding for decommissioning, and that no permanent concrete foundations remain after removal.

Residents pressed the company on visual screening and setbacks; presenters said they aim to work with landowners on setbacks and landscaping and noted that some projects incorporate pollinator plantings or grazing (the company said goats are generally discouraged because of equipment risks). The presenters also described examples of local philanthropic engagement—YMCA tours, Habitat-for-Humanity support and school-related donations—saying the company seeks to invest in community activities beyond direct payments.

Why it matters: the project’s tax and PILOT revenue, how revenue would be split among local districts and the potential effect on property values and farmland use are directly relevant to the district’s funding outlook and to neighbors’ property and land-use concerns. Board members asked for details about the PILOT split between affected school districts; company representatives indicated splits are project-dependent and provided a rough, project-specific allocation during the discussion.

What happens next: National Grid officials said they will start the state permitting step in the coming months and hold public information meetings. Community members continue to organize and the township and county trustees have already taken opposing positions, according to public comment at the meeting. The board did not take a formal vote on the project; the session served as an informational presentation and public Q&A.