A significant coalition of Michigan municipalities is pushing back against what they argue are overreaching efforts by the state regulator to control the siting of large-scale renewable energy projects. In a legal dispute escalating to the Michigan Court of Appeals, close to 80 local governments are challenging the Michigan Public Service Commission's (MPSC) interpretation and implementation of new zoning laws for wind and solar developments. The amended complaint was filed last Tuesday by six counties, including Clinton, Dickinson, Ionia, Sanilac, Schoolcraft, and Tuscola, along with dozens of townships, as reported by the Detroit Free Press.
In November 2023, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Public Act 233, a law designed to streamline the zoning of wind and solar energy projects by shifting approval from local zoning boards to the MPSC. This shift has been met with opposition from many local governments who see it as a diminishment of local control. An order on October 10 by the MPSC, which was meant to implement the law, has been a catalyst for this legal challenge. Michael Homier, a Grand Rapids attorney and the plaintive in the case, told the Detroit Free Press that "the MPSC started tinkering around with the language of the statute."
According to The Detroit News, the appellants allege the MPSC overstepped its authority granted by the legislature, by redefining key terms and creating new rules without following the required state rulemaking process. The dispute further questions the MPSC's revisions, suggesting that it unlawfully redefined "compatible renewable energy ordinance" (CREO), "affected local unit," and introduced a new term "hybrid facility," which the appellate claim was never mentioned in the original legislation.
The legal dispute also casts light on the complexities related to local versus state control in the push to achieve renewable energy goals. Critics, including Republicans and local government groups, have argued that the bill withdraws the opportunity for local municipalities to regulate large-scale energy projects within their borders. The MPSC spokesman Matt Helms, addressing the controversy, stated that the commission was unable to comment on the case, as detailed by Michigan Advance. The lawsuit contends that the MPSC's expansion of its powers through the contested October 10 order is both "unlawful and unreasonable" by violating the express legislative intent of Public Act 233.
