How Ghost Comments are Shaping the Future of Local Energy Projects
A worrying trend is growing in communities across the country. Government offices are being flooded with fake public comments. These fake messages are designed to stop clean energy projects, like solar and wind power, while pushing for fossil fuels like gas and oil.
In Ohio, state regulators have done very little to stop this problem. Clean energy advocates and government watchdogs are worried. They fear that public agencies will continue to make decisions based on messages from people who do not exist, or from real people who never gave permission to use their names.
A director at a government accountability group explained that ignoring this issue will not fix it. Fake comments hurt the public decision-making process. They drown out the voices of real citizens who take the time to share their actual opinions. This is especially true if government officials only count the total number of support and opposition messages instead of looking at the quality of the arguments. A former utility regulator added that this problem ruins the whole process because officials no longer know who to trust.
A Solar Project Blocked by Mystery Feedback
The issue of fake comments recently impacted a major clean energy project in Ohio. The proposal was for a solar and sheep-grazing farm that would generate 94 megawatts of clean electricity. However, the state power board rejected the project's permit application.
This decision was highly controversial. The energy developer had provided evidence to the board showing that dozens of letters opposing the project were completely fake. Even though the solar farm met all legal rules, and even though regulators knew about the fake comments, they still rejected the project. They claimed the project was not in the public interest because of strong local opposition.
The developer analyzed the public comments. When they removed duplicate, anonymous, and unverified messages, they found that nearly half of the local residents actually supported the project. The developer asked the board to reconsider the decision twice, but both requests were turned down. The board did not ask the state attorney general to investigate the fake comments.
More Examples of Ghost Comments
This was not the first time Ohio faced suspicious public feedback. During a previous debate over gas drilling on public lands, nearly 150 people said their names were used on letters they never wrote or signed. The state commission decided not to count those disputed letters, but they still approved the drilling project.
An investigation by the state attorney general's office found that a marketing subcontractor working for a fossil fuel advocacy group had misled people. The subcontractor gathered personal information without clearly explaining that the names would be used on letters supporting gas drilling.
Despite these findings, the attorney general did not file any charges. Instead, they sent a letter urging the group to follow the law in the future. A leader of the fossil fuel group celebrated this outcome in an email, noting that the blame was placed on the subcontractor, which protected the group's reputation.
Similar tactics have been used in other states:
- In a Southern state: Hundreds of suspicious emails flooded county offices to support a new oil pipeline. Watchdogs questioned whether a pipeline company used contractors to create fake public support.
- In other regions: A watchdog group found fake signatures and emails used to influence energy decisions in various states.
Demands for Action and Better Security
Some legal experts argue that sending fake statements to public officials is illegal and should be prosecuted. A local lawyer running for office stated that misleading public officials with false testimony is against the law and should be taken to court.
So far, the state energy board has not sent any fake comment cases to law enforcement for a decade. A spokesperson for the board explained that they rarely deal with this issue. When they do, they usually just clean up the record. They send confirmation emails to commenters, but they do not automatically delete messages if those emails bounce back.
The state recently updated its rules to make it illegal to use misleading online methods to collect names for public submissions. However, no enforcement action has been taken under this new rule yet.
Other states have taken stronger steps to hold companies responsible:
- Financial penalties: A Northeast state attorney general secured a large financial settlement from companies that wrote millions of fake comments about internet regulations.
- New laws: A West Coast state is considering a bill that would ban the use of artificial intelligence to fake public feedback to government agencies.
Using Technology to Find the Truth
Experts suggest that simple technology could help government agencies spot fake comments before they cause harm. Some of these tools include:
- Analyzing metadata: Checking hidden computer data to see if many different comments are coming from the exact same source.
- Verification emails: Requiring people to click a link in an email to prove they actually sent the message before it is officially counted.
- Security puzzles: Adding simple tests, like "captchas," to make sure a real human is submitting the comment and not an automated computer bot.
Without these steps, public trust in government will continue to fade. When decisions are based on fake feedback, citizens start to doubt if the system is fair. This is already happening in Ohio, where local residents have written to the state board to complain that fake comments are ruining the integrity of public decisions.