Richland County, Ohio, will vote May 5 on whether the county’s utility-scale wind and solar ban should remain in place, after an effort backed by local residents qualified a referendum for the ballot. The measure grew out of a decision made last July by the county’s three commissioners, who added Richland to a growing list of Ohio counties that have adopted bans aimed at certain utility-scale wind and solar developments.
Under Ohio’s 2021 law, local officials have a specific role in blocking individual wind and solar projects, even though state siting officials are generally intended to make those decisions for other energy types such as oil wells and gas plants. In Richland, the referendum campaign says it collected just enough signatures—more than 3,300 valid signatures in the required 30 days after the commissioners’ vote—to force voters to weigh in.
The referendum pits a farmland-preservation case against a property-rights and government-overreach argument. Supporters of the ban describe it as a way to keep land from being converted to industrial solar and wind, while opponents argue that the county government should not dictate how landowners use their property. Morgan Carroll, a Shelby-area mother who described working on the referendum at night after the commissioners’ vote, said she viewed the ban as an infringement on farmers’ rights and told reporters that “Government overreach is impeding on that.”
The two campaigns also show sharp differences in the mix of funding and messaging. Pro-ban supporters formed the Richland Farmland Preservation PAC, with its website urging voters to keep the bans in place for “farmland preservation” and warning against what it described as “out of state, special interests.” The group has also warned about impacts such as birds killed by wind turbines and has promoted figures it describes as illustrating land-use demands of solar and wind.
Campaign finance records obtained through a request indicate that Republican-aligned establishment interests have supported the existing ban through the pro-ban PAC, while progressive grassroots organizations have staffed and resourced the effort to overturn it. On the pro-ban side, disclosures reported donations including $1,500 from Republican state Sen. Mark Romanchuk and $2,500 from Whatman Farms, and campaign reports listed Majority Strategies—run by Tom Whatman—as charging more than $12,000 for digital advertising and text messaging. On the anti-ban side, Richland County Citizens for Property Rights & Job Development reported raising nearly $84,000 in cash, including $74,000 from Ohio Citizen Action and smaller contributions from local supporters, while the Natural Resources Defense Council provided $250,000 in in-kind contributions toward ads and media and Ohio Citizen Action provided another $56,000 in-kind support for staff, message testing, food, consulting and canvassing.
The May referendum is the second direct popular challenge to a renewable ban in Ohio. Crawford County voters approved a wind power ban in 2022, and Richland’s May 5 vote will determine whether the utility-scale renewable restrictions remain in place in the county after the signature drive.
Nearby counties illustrate how local political opposition has interacted with state siting rules for renewables. In Crawford County, developers began construction of Sycamore Creek Solar, a 117-megawatt project described as spread over 917 acres, while the Crawford County commission voted to ban further solar development in its jurisdiction. In Morrow County, the Ohio Power Siting Board voted last month to kill Crossroads Solar, a $98 million, 726-acre development, after local opposition persuaded the board to reject the project even though the board said the project met technical requirements.
Richland’s vote also draws attention to how county officials are interpreting the purpose of the ban. Commissioner Daryl Banks, who has served on the commission for 10 years, said he was suspicious of outside funding into Richland from groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ohio Citizen Action. Banks also argued the county only banned industrial-scale solar on the kinds of sites requested by elected leaders and said he believed the farmland-impact concern is decisive, adding, “We want to preserve farmland,” and warning that once land is converted to solar or wind, it will not return to being farmland.
By night, some labor-backed supporters of the referendum have been collecting signatures, including Brian McPeek of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 688 in Mansfield. McPeek said he has been trying to counter what he described as misinformation about solar, including fears repeated by some opponents, and argued the vote is about government overreach rather than the technology itself. He said the referendum also reflects a history of development in Richland and described May 5 as a chance for the county to decide whether future growth should be determined by voters at the ballot.