A one year chronicle of what happened when local opposition met the Solar Industry.

Summary

The learning curve I have personally gone through during our County's first industrial solar farm (ISF) project has probably been felt by others in Ohio and the US. I simply was not in tune with the topic or impact of ISFs. Knieve may be a better term.

One particular aspect is how media and the internet amplify opposition with a persistent negative slant. It certainly appears coordinated and at the direction of the industry as a whole, the project developer, their marketing teams and climate activists. I can only speculate about search engine algorithms.

Additionally, my surprise at the number of varying "news" internet sites just willing to re-post any negative story about ISF opposition without making sure the story is true, false or somewhere in between. Whereas, the reverse, a true downside story of how ISF impacts a community, gets lost in the digital world - never to be heard or seen again.

This story maybe helpful to you if an ISF is coming to your area, what to expect and leave you to consider how to prepare, mobilize and vocalize. My advice if you oppose, the only public comment you should make, whether by letter or at a public hearing, is "No to the Industrial Solar Project". Your reasons are your own.

In case this impacts reading further.

When I started to learn and understand about the Frasier ISF I had an open mind but I did lean on the "no" side. I had two competing problems. I was concerned about property rights and infringement. And, I couldn't wrap my brain around the zoning/land use implications for a commercial activity occurring on AG ground wherever it wanted to be sited. I became hungry for information from all sources regarding industrial solar because I really wasn't sure how I would come down. From a zoning perspective, AG is a defined term in ORC 519.01 - you won't find "solar farm" in the definition. I live in an AG community and work in the AG Industry.

I came to the conclusion early on that I was offended by the business deal both at the corporate and government level. I was more offended at the pittance being offered to local landowners and local government entities compared to the money being made at the top of the food chain. The rest really didn't impact my view. I felt it was a bad deal for American/Ohio taxpayers and a bad business deal for the locality at large.

Having said that, as some one who cares about land owners rights and local zoning, I am interested in how to incorporate via land use planning and zoning techniques, a conditional use permit structure for projects under 50MW that actually serve the community's electric needs.

Background

In August, 2023 through August, 2024 Knox County went through the meat of the process of how an ISF gets approved in the State of Ohio. This particular project is called Frasier Solar, a 120MW project with an approximate 1,400 acre footprint.

When you cut through all the various LLC's involved, Frasier is joint venture with Open Road Renewables and Eolian. Eolian is owned by Global Infrastructure Partners IV (GIP IV), which is owned by Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) which is owned by Black Rock (Deal announced in January, 2024, closed fall of 2024). GIP IV is a private equity fund which required a minimum of $25mm to become a partner, boasts of 15% annual returns and closed its syndication raising approximately $22bn in 2019. Black Rock being the largest asset manager in the world. Eolian is the financial backer of the development of the Frasier Project and, I believe, has never introduced any executive to Knox County residents and governments. ORR has the "boots on the ground" role. ORR ownership is still a bit of a mystery.

Two local opposition groups were formed as a result of Frasier: Preserve Knox County (PKC) and Knox Smart Development (KSD). A pro-solar group was formed called Knox County For Responsible Solar (KCRS). I follow all three groups on Facebook. PKC and KSD are heavily followed locally and people are well behaved - not a mudslinging site. Lots of stories I would not have seen otherwise and I appreciate the information. KCRS, not so much. I also follow Frasier Solar's FB page.

Ohio is a true hotbed of ISF development partly due to a friendly regulatory scheme - partly due to the data center building explosion. But, as people became aware and these projects came closer to "home", community members did what they can do: banded together and spoke up. Its now common for every new solar project proposed, there is an organized group in opposition and one for proponents.

Ohio's Supreme Court has 3 cases in front it because the legal findings by the OPSB as to "public interest, necessity and convenience" has been challenged. Ironically, an ORR sister project called Harvey Solar is one of the 3 cases. Its been sitting in front of the Court for more than a year, along with the other 2. I happen to reside in the middle of the Harvey and Frasier projects, almost an equal distance, mile wise, to both project sites in either direction. Harvey would pose more of a nuisance to me than Frasier.

In the fall of 2021, Ohio passed SB52 which changed the playing field to giving local communities more input into ISF projects and provided the communities an ability to have 2 votes on the OPSB - a county commissioner and a township trustee. When this bill passed, the local landscapes changed because people now felt they had a strong voice in the process. It has become very obvious the solar developers recognized this and started to change tactics and approaches - "Listening Tours" are all the rage now, as an example. They were no longer going to get a "rubber stamp" at the OPSB. It was also clear, our Governor, State House and Senate had heard enough from the electorate and acted. They acted again in April of 2023 by giving townships direct zoning authority on small scale solar projects (49.99MW or less).

In August of 2022 the Knox County Commissioners agreed to ban industrial wind facilities in the County but did not ban ISF's. What residents didn't widely know at that time was that Frasier was coming and what it meant. So while Frasier is considered a grandfathered project and only some of the rules of SB 52 apply to it, people were still basically in the dark as to what was happening in the County.

Generally speaking, if you want to be an Intervenor in front of the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), either for or against a project, you have to have a specific legal interest. Examples: direct land participant, direct land adjacent, Union representative for workers on the project, or a voice for a group of concerned citizens from the entire County area. PKC and KSD are a group of concerned citizens and were granted Intervenor status and legal rights in the Frasier process.

In the case of Frasier, ORR/Eolian and their lawyers felt it was legally important to put forth, in front of the OPSB and the public at large, that everything offered by KSD was not valid or rooted in non-biased points, but rather was at the behest of the oil and gas industry.

Embedded in their legal theory is the simple thesis: No one would oppose this ISF but for the oil and gas industry and its misinformation; hence, everyone would love us to build our ISF and welcome us with open arms.

As a part of effectuating this legal theory they (ORR/Eolian) enlisted helpful media outlets to amplify there desired effect: discredit through whatever means possible. This started in December, 2023 and reached a fever pitch in October, 2024. They also engaged consultants to canvass pro renewable groups in order to write letters of support for the project. When it was all said and done, of the 4,000 plus comment letters submitted, approximately 3,200 came from people outside of Knox County. Something no other ISF and community had experienced up to the Frasier project. Of the comment letters submitted from outside the County, magically, a high percentage of them supported the project. Yet comment letters from Knox residents opposed the project - apprx. 65%/35%.

The Dumb Cheap Country Boy and a Faulty Thesis

For a good story to work you have to have a villain. The darker, the better. In the case of renewables and this particular ISF, big oil and gas was the stated villain whose front group was KSD with Mr. Yost leading the charge and corrupting the minds and thought processes of everyone who opposed Frasier.

I have never met Mr. Yost, I would like to and I definitely support and respect what he has done to speak up in a County of people who are generally polite to a fault and don't get vocal in public settings. Hat tip to PKC as well. For the record, good for KCRS embracing their right to organize.

What always troubled me about ORR's theory was something very simple: If KSD was a "dark money funded group" why is Mr. Yost working for free? ORR apparently didn't prove during discovery, depositions or at the OPSB hearing that he was being compensated; otherwise, the dollar amount would have been splashed somewhere for the public to see. ORR's lawyers didn't even try to put a dollar amount on the value of whatever Mr. Yost's friend did do for KSD during his cross examination in front of the OPSB. Just "that it happened". It's also important to note, the lawyers didn't try to pin down a reason for two opposition groups.

The second thing regarding ORR's odd thesis (which one can easily research): Some of the top ten largest renewable developers in the USA and the World are owned by some of the largest oil, gas and energy companies in the World. Further to the point, in Ohio, Savion (owned by Shell) just had its 6,000 acre Oak Run project approved and Lightsource (owned by BP) currently has ISF's up and running in Ohio with more on the drawing board. Lightsource is also a party to one of the cases in front of the Ohio Supreme Court - Kingswood. Oak Run may also end up in front the Court if the Court accepts Madison County's appeal.

The next problem with ORR's thesis: ORR is a broker, not a true developer. They could easily sell their development rights to Savion or Lightsource, if the certificate is approved.

The final problem with the thesis goes to the financial backers of the Frasier Project: Eolian/Black Rock. Per a July 9, 2024 article by Investing in Climate Chaos - Black Rock has $431bn invested in the fossil fuel industry - the 2nd largest investor in the US, only trailing Vanguard. GIP, through all of its private equity partnerships is heavily invested in the LNG market and transmission pipelines. So it begs the question: Why would the financial backers of the project, who also support fossil fuels, sabotage their own investment in Frasier, Harvey and Grange? Said another way, if Frasier, Grange and Harvey are bad for business, why support it in the first place?

It's not really clear how the oil and gas industry ISN'T benefitting from the push to renewables. Frankly, it appears quite the contrary and they are fully operating in Ohio. It's also clear the financial backers of the project invest in the energy business, as a whole - they go where there is money to be made.

But, it certainly seems, there has to be a villain, no matter the truth. And the fossil fuel industry was so devious they found this dumb cheap country boy to do their work for free.

In Walks Kathiann

In December, 2023 a story goes on line at the Energy News Network by Kathiann Kowalski. It's obvious from the by-line its about Knox County and Frasier.

Here are the links to the 4 stories presented by Ms. Kowalski in chronological order:

1 - https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/12/20/anonymously-funded-group-stokes-local-opposition-to-ohio-solar-project/

2 - https://energynews.us/2024/02/23/ohio-county-sees-dueling-studies-on-solar-project-payments-but-only-one-disclosed-its-data/

3 - https://energynews.us/2024/03/21/ohio-landowners-say-solar-opposition-groups-threaten-their-property-rights/

4 - https://energynews.us/2024/08/26/connections-confirmed-between-grassroots-ohio-solar-opposition-and-dark-money-natural-gas-group/

1 - December, 2023 Article:

The broad point about this article is the oil and gas villain seed is planted. "Misinformation and Disinformation" are being spread and "climate deniers" have come out of the woodwork to scare everyone. I would submit, it was very clear to ORR, local opposition would be loud and organized and they knew they had to react.

Some things of note in the 1st Article: Logan and Madison County don't really appear to be listening to the fossil fuel industry much when it comes to getting solar projects approved - Fountain Point, Oak Run and another ORR project is in the development approval process covering 4,000 acres called Grange Solar Grazing Center. So again, not sure how successful the oil and gas lobbying has been in stopping these things.

The humorous part of the article is the fascination about cost to put on such an event and who is paying for it . My thought was: "Okay private equity backed solar developer, that seems like an odd concern given you have $22bn backing you - throw your own event - I think you can do better than a pizza party if you wanted to".

Another humorous issue the article fails to acknowledge is the head of the Republican Central Committee for Knox County, has a long accomplished career in politics in Ohio and Washington DC and, oh yeah, has ground being leased in the project site. That seems like important information given the slant of the article.

Given the fascination with who is backing KSD, its surprising the lack of interest in who owns ORR. No one really knows. There are rumors but nothing "on the record". Since you are representing transparency, why not report on the ownership of ORR in this article? Seriously, at a true minimum you could honestly say that ORR is backed BY the very fossil fuel industry you are demonizing.

Finally, a theme that is consistent in all articles - no examples of mis/dis information are provided that, if corrected, would result in positive support for the project. Diagnosing ORR's response of its False/Fact sheet would require another conversation.

2 - February, 2024 Article:

While the thrust of this article was to support a PILOT arrangement made between the County and Frasier regarding property tax revenue, it was also to throw water on a study done regarding PILOT revenue and contending the County would be better off without the PILOT.

I read the Buckeye Institute study and the study from OSU (Mr. Sohngen) and obviously what ORR presented as the benefits of the PILOT versus straight property tax revenue. Frankly, I liked Mr. Sohngen approach the best of the 3. If I recall correctly, the County would cumulatively collect more through year 21 with straight property taxes versus the PILOT (ORR's presentation showed the same thing), even after school need based funding adjustments. So at 21 years, you are half way through the project life and equipment starts to be replaced.

But here is the thing this article or the numbers provided by ORR don't provide for: Equipment replacement over a 40 year span. It also doesn't acknowledge there are no non-cancellable 40 year contracts involved in the transaction - 40 years is truly an arbitrary time frame not rooted in contractual fact. ORR could get this up and running and at year 10, shut it down. In that simple scenario, the County was foolish to take the PILOT and ORR made off like a bandit since the PILOT lowers their front end costs.

But back to Equipment replacement. The average life of panels, batteries and inverters is less than 40 years. Inverter and battery storage estimates seem to be about 20 years. Solar panels have estimates of 25-30 years. When you replace old equipment with new equipment, property taxes go back up - there is no straight line down in tax collections over 40 years.

The real missing data from ORR was modeling that shows the effects on taxes as equipment is replaced so a full dynamic 40 year comparison could be made. Unfortunately it doesn't appear the County considered this dynamic in its decision process.

I asked Mr. Sohngen about this missing component and its effect. He did agree with me but couldn't incorporate it because it wasn't provided by anyone. Obviously, ORR didn't offer this analysis itself.

And of course the "fossil fuel interests" reference has to be present in the article.

What isn't presented in the article, is ORR's $100k grant donation to OSU a month before the modeling analysis by OSU was completed and released. Again, I agree with Mr. Sohngen's work, but the timing couldn't look worse. Maybe Ms. Kowalski wasn't aware of this contribution by ORR.

3 - March, 2024 Article

Property Rights! Don't forget about the fossil fuel interests working in opposition! But wait, something new: "agrivoltaics". The real thrust of the article was to broadcast how ORR was incorporating agrivoltaics into the design and operation of Frasier (Note..agrivoltaics isn't mentioned in their Harvey Project). A letter of intent was signed with a sheep company to provide grazing - YEY! Did Ms. Kowalski read the letter of intent before championing this revelation? If she did, given her background, it would be clear its merely an agreement to talk in the future about something with no obligation to do anything - not even return a phone call.

In fairness to ORR, sheep grazing is mentioned in the initial project application sections for Frasier but not elaborated on. I contrast this with the Grange Solar project application. Agrivoltaics "is so central", its stated in the Summary of the Project description.

But why would ORR want this new development put on "blast". Its the shifting seas in getting community buy in and OPSB approval - projects need to incorporate some level of AG and Solar on the project site.

A simple search of this topic, agrivoltaics, will show that every ISF developer is now championing the practice in Ohio, how they are going to achieve it, etc...OSU has a fully taxpayer funded study on the topic at an existing Lightsource ISF. If you search this topic for pre-2024 ISF approvals, it's not apart of any press releases and barely talked about until March, 2024. What happened in March, 2024, besides this article - Oak Run Solar. One of the central approval planks was the incorporation of traditional AG, with milestones, within the project area. Solar developers have gotten the message from the OPSB.

Ms. Kowlaski is apparently a practicing attorney with a degree from Harvard. I wonder what she thought about the Good Neighbor Agreements (GNAs) Mr. Adair referred to in the article - if she read them. I wonder why Ms. Kowalski hasn't yet acknowledged the complaint filed with the Ohio Attorney General regarding "bribery charges" against ORR and interfering with a public proceeding? I am wondering if she is curious enough to see how ORR has modified these agreements for the Grange Solar project in order to comply with Ohio law versus the Frasier project GNAs?

4 - August, 2024 Article

This article takes the cake I think and probably got the most bounce at internet sites everywhere. The Villain has finally been found! We have proof!

The first problem with this article is the date. August 26, 2024. In fairness, its a very extensive article with lots of references, quotes and details. I had no idea so many "experts" are out there studying all the influences "dark money" has in its efforts to stop renewables. I wonder who pays them?

The problem is all the references to Mr. Yost's testimony and other testimony. His testimony was not released to the public until around noon on August 26, 2024. Approximately 1,000 pages of hearing transcripts & exhibits were released at the same time. Ms. Kowalski doesn't state if she attended the hearings in person and took notes. It would be nice to know when Ms. Kowalski had time to read the transcripts, email Mr. Yost interview questions, get a response and pump this article out all in the same day. Notice, no dollar amount is stated.

Or, it was already written. Mr. Yost had a deposition prior to the hearing. Good lawyers would have pre-screened hearing questions in the deposition so there would be no surprises in court. Ms. Robertson testified without being deposed prior to the hearing (expert for ORR). ORR employees would have been at both the deposition and hearing. Sorry to be conspiratorial but this article smells "pre-written and coordinated to the hilt". Given the previous 3 articles, their genesis, thrust and content, one does have to wonder.

This article was so moving even the founder of KCRS, Ms. Gamble, felt compelled to submit it twice to the public comment section of the project application as her own submitted comments in late August, 2024. Our own on-line public newspaper, The Knox Pages, had to write a "gotcha" article on September 9, 2024 based solely on this article.

The saddest thing about this article is the impression it has given to anyone who read it. It leaves such a negative impression of the people of Knox County, who for whatever their reasons, just don't want the Frasier project completed. That we are all "stupid people who don't know no better" and get led around like imbeciles. Mr. Yost is correct: "It's insulting".

To close on Ms. Kowalski: How come Ms. Kowalski hasn't focused on any other ISF and opposition to any other ISF in Ohio, in articles from 2023 or 2024. Why just Frasier? There is plenty of opposition going on in the State: Stark County, Madison County, Logan County, Fairfield County, etc. Plenty of Counties around Ohio are banning ISF. Why talk exclusively about Knox?

It's my view ORR found itself a renewable PR pit bull and fed her information to write stories on their behalf with one purpose in mind - destroy Mr. Yost and KSD and make anyone in opposition look uninformed. The "expert" testimony of Ms. Robertson was strictly sought out so she could provide her opinion that most comments or testimony in opposition to the Frasier project were not rooted in any fact or reality. See, we are just dumb Knox County people as Ms. Robertson "expertly" proved! If you are ORR, why take the PR risk of directly attacking Ariel yourself?

The Crescendo: Floodlightnews, ProPublica and Tow

Just as things are starting to cool down a bit, October 8, 2024 starts the day with this story - https://floodlightnews.org/fossil-fuel-interests-solar-ohio/.

This story has gotten so much attention and internet press throughout the month of October. I read it the day it came out and actually sent an email to the author about some of the factual inaccuracies in the article - my email came back "undeliverable".

Knox County actually has 2 newspapers. The Mt. Vernon News and the Knox Pages. The Knox Pages is an on-line paper, while Mt. Vernon News is both paper and on-line. I read both. It's self evident they each serve their "perceived" readership. It's also evident the reporters at both do have limited boots on the ground and don't generate a wide variety of stories on County wide topics.

What I think can be said is true, to the extent anyone believes that Mt. Vernon News slanted its topic coverage, not the stories, but the topic coverage, Knox Pages did the same thing. Knox Pages didn't cover Frasier hardly at all - which was by choice - topic coverage decision.

However, Mt. Vernon News and Knox Pages have published a myriad of op-eds from County residents throughout this process presenting both sides of their positions regarding Frasier. These op-eds probably have more impact and reflect better on the community and its views, generally speaking, then any story would - Frasier just happened to be a popular topic for op-eds in both papers.

The number of landowners in the project area is more than 9. I would suggest a review of the project submission paperwork at the OPSB. I believe the number is 21. The 21 doesn't include how many people own the various LLC's in the project area.

I don't know anyone from Ariel, nor do I work in the fossil fuel industry. What I do know, after 30 years of living in this area, Ariel cares about the community, as a whole. It's obvious, if you actually live here. Ariel and its founding family has been instrumental in cleaning up blight, abandoned buildings, abandoned industrial sites, expanding our local hospital, contributing to all three colleges through scholarships or direct financial support, not just MVNU. I would assume, as all businesses do, they advocate for their industry. But the leap that because of Ariel or its founding family or spouses or former employees, Frasier is experiencing unfair friction in getting its deal done, Really?

Quoting from the article:

"One of the attorneys who spoke on behalf of a farmer who is leasing land for the project was from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. (The Tow Center also is based at Columbia, but its work is separate.)"

The Tow Center and Sabin Law Center. Its nice of the article to disclose the two groups are both at Columbia. The Sabin Law Center's attorneys are very active in advocating for solar and the land owners that want to do it in the State of Ohio. They are the "go to" Environmental law attorneys used over and over again. But, the work of Tow and Sabin are separate? Okay. Like Sabin can't read what Tow does and vice versa? I could care less what you want to advocate for, but the relationship here is cozy and symmetrical in its purpose and push. You even got your quote from Sabin.

But lets be clear. Helker, LLC is a property owner in the Frasier Project. Mr. Piar and Mr. Robertson jointly own Helker, LLC. Sabin represents Robertson, but not Helker, directly, which is odd. But, in effect, Sabin represents Piar and Robertson, but in "legal speak" Sabin can claim they only represent Robertson. Mr. Piar and Mr. Robertson are related family members. If you are following along, Mr. Piar was featured, along with Mr. Robertson in one of Ms. Kowalski's articles in March, 2024.

Metric paid for the newspaper in one transaction for an undisclosed amount. The article linked reference in this story is how much the building sold for in a separate transaction - not the paper itself. The bi-line regarding betrayal has nothing to do with Frasier or KSD, its what the buyer of the paper did with the paper and its former staff.

Afternoon TEA. I wasn't familiar with or remembered this column in the paper. Then I found the articles. They are from 2021 and stopped in 2021. The suggestion these run all the time, influencing residents, is frivolous.

Mr. Collier did lose his primary. Our retiring commissioner would have probably won her primary running as a Democrat, but I would surmise would have lost in the General. I think it is safe to say that if the third commissioner had to run for office this year (Republican), he would also lose his seat. Mr. Collier lost for one simple reason, people felt misled.

It started in August, 2022, continued into August 2023 when the PILOT was signed, continued into March 2024 when 18 Townships did what he and the commissioners asked and passed resolutions to ban ISF's in their townships moving forward (which is allowed under SB52) and to this day the 3 Commissioners have failed to adopt the resolutions requested of those 18 townships by the Commissioners. Seriously. Would you vote for these people in your local communities?

I would welcome you to the Knox County Regional Planning meeting minutes from February, 2024 to read a statement from Mr. Collier contained in those minutes. In short, the commissioners are neutral on Frasier, BUT, we believe in property rights. The two statements don't go together in a public setting. If you are truly neutral publicly, you don't tell people how you feel privately in a public setting.

Despite his statements that the townships should decide how to approach ISF's - not commissioners, it has become clear that was not going to happen under his/their watch and people had had enough. That is why he lost, convincingly, not because a couple of people worked behind the scenes. But, if anyone who wrote this story actually lived here or spent time talking to the voters, you may have discovered the real "why". For me, I have voted many times for all 3 sitting commissioners and have been tremendously disappointed with them on this topic.

This is where things are "really shady". Neutrality of the Commissioners. As you could have read, the OPSB Staff Report used the neutrality of the Commissioners to justify supporting the Frasier project getting approved. Mr. Collier is an experienced politician. What are the odds he knew, coupled with the head of the Republican Party of Knox County, coupled with a former colleague in the Ohio House who is the sitting Majority Leader (Mr. Seitz) and wrote 2 letters supporting the Frasier project knew: the OPSB would read into "neutrality" as a positive position of support. The Sabin law attorney's certainly argued that in their papers to the OPSB on behalf of Mr. Robertson.

To close on this story. Knox County has approximately 60,000 residents spanning 22 Townships, small villages, the City of Mt. Vernon and Gambier. 18 Townships (54 Trustees) and the City of Mt. Vernon all passed resolutions regarding ISF's. The Township's asking the County to ban them in their Townships and the City to ban them on ground in the city limits moving forward. Mt. Vernon also voted to oppose Frasier. I am going to round here: That probably covers about 50,000 people in the County.

Do you really think Mr. Yost or Ariel or whoever swayed all those people in "our" secret playbook meeting behind the hog barn?

Just The News Appears to Notice Something

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/campaign-discredit-opposition-wind-and-solar-has-financial-connections/

Did you see this story when it came out or later on other websites and "news" organizations? Probably not. Its a nice piece detailing the financial backing of the authors of the Floodlight piece. Turn about is fair play, right? I was amused to see the Rockefeller Foundations are supporters of Floodlight.

How do you take fossil fuel money and feel strongly about climate crisis and the evils of the fossil fuel industry?

Magpies on the Wire

Notice, in all those articles the "mis or dis information" is never stated or is corrected. I would actually like to know what "IT" is. I have yet to read what mis/dis information was spread that ORR's believes would change peoples minds. I know they tried some releases on the FB page - I don't think that went over very well.

It became a morning habit of mine to scan for stories about solar in Ohio or elsewhere. I have to admit, its tough to find "negative press" from residents in Ohio who are experiencing ISF's in their back yard. On the other hand its common to find "glowing positive press" about solar and the benefits for a community.

What did become obvious to me was a negative story about solar opposition or a positive story about solar would be written by someone. Then the story would be bounced around the internet for a few weeks by varying "news outlets" like a super ball in a hallway.

For Ohio it seems the most common re-posters are: Ohio Capital Journal, Columbus Dispatch, Yahoo News, MSN News, Pro Publica, Ohio Energy Reporter, InsideClimateNews.org, CJR.org, Clevescene.com., SAN, The Cool Down. There are more.

Then comes Frasier. Of all the Ohio ISF projects being developed, going through the permitting process, etc., this sleepy County and an opposition group of people that live in it become the story. As if no other county in Ohio is going through and doing the same thing we are. But its so pre-determined (not just by ORR): "we (ORR) are entitled to do what we want in your community, you should love us, don't you want to save the planet, otherwise you are uninformed misinformation spreading haters that have been manipulated by the fossil fuel industry".

Yet, thanks to the magpies on the wire, that is what folks around the world have been led to believe. Despite the financial backing of Black Rock, ORR just didn't have the resources to overcome Mr. Yost or "his misinformation campaign"?

Conclusion

Our process is not over yet. The OPSB will issue its vote and ruling sometime in the next number of months. We now have 2 new commissioners who will pull the "neutrality" position and at a minimum vote 2-1 to oppose Frasier. They may even, if allowed, change the Ad Hoc representative. The OPSB, based upon current legal theory, will ignore the 2-1 vote against by our Commissioners and claim that since it wasn't unanimous, this equals support. 🙃. Nothing like minority rule!

By the way, the new commissioners won their races by 71% For and 68% For, respectively. About 32k votes were cast. Both ran on banning ISF's as a central part of their platforms. Interestingly, the percentages they won by seem about the same as the percentages of the comment letters submitted to the OPSB "against Frasier".

It is frustrating to live in a county that actually doesn't have an old school newspaper. We are left to find information through multiple sources, whatever they may be. It becomes incumbent to double/triple check what you are being told or even writing about without triple checking. It's a sign of the times throughout this Country.

What we end up with is people who know nothing about reality here or have clarity or honesty of subject matter telling the world their personal opinions cloaked in half facts when not much of what they say is true or fully presented in the articles they write. Then it gets repeated everywhere. In the present instance, how are the articles any better then a misinformed comment on FB?

This I can say is true as a resident of Knox County. It is completely laughable and uninformed to suggest we are just lemmings on behalf of the oil and gas industry. I assure you, if "they" wanted to build an oil refinery on the same land as the Frasier Project site, opposition would be fierce.