A group of nearly 80 Michigan counties and townships is pushing back against a state regulation that alters the way renewable energy projects are permitted, claiming that it infringes on local control and exceeds the authority of state agencies. As the law is set to take effect on November 29, a legal battle looms over the new zoning rules.
Controversial Zoning Law Places Authority with MPSC
Michigan’s newly passed law, Public Act 233 of 2023, grants the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) the authority to oversee permits for large-scale renewable energy projects, including solar, wind, and energy storage facilities. This new approach bypasses local governments, a shift that has sparked concerns from municipalities. According to the law, renewable energy projects with a capacity of 50 megawatts or more in solar or energy storage, and 100 megawatts or more for wind, must seek approval from the MPSC rather than local authorities.
The law has been heavily criticized by Republican lawmakers and local government representatives, who argue that it removes essential local oversight over developments that can significantly impact their communities. The shift has stirred a debate over local versus state control, with proponents of the law arguing that it streamlines the process for clean energy development, which is crucial for meeting Michigan’s climate goals.
Local Governments Fight Back
In a legal challenge filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals, 72 townships and seven counties are contesting the MPSC’s attempt to implement this new permitting system. The municipalities claim that the MPSC’s October 10 order violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires state agencies to follow formal rulemaking processes when setting new policies. These localities argue that the order constitutes a rulemaking procedure but was not carried out according to the required formal process.
Matt Helms, spokesperson for the MPSC, declined to comment on the legal matter, but the municipalities argue that the order improperly redefines key terms and introduces new processes that violate the intent of the law itself. The lawsuit takes aim at several aspects of the order, particularly the way the MPSC has altered the definition of a “compatible renewable energy ordinance” (CREO) and “affected local unit.” According to the claim, these redefinitions limit local governments’ ability to regulate energy projects, undermining their authority and disregarding the Legislature’s original intent.
The MPSC’s Expanded Jurisdiction Draws Scrutiny
A major point of contention in the lawsuit is the MPSC’s broadening of its jurisdiction to include hybrid facilities, a term not originally defined in the legislation. Hybrid facilities, where multiple energy technologies are combined, are now subject to MPSC’s oversight if they meet the necessary thresholds for capacity. The municipalities argue that this expansion is not only outside the scope of the law but also reflects an overreach of the commission’s authority. They contend that the MPSC is imposing a regulatory framework that was not contemplated by lawmakers when the law was passed.
The legal filing states that such actions go against the spirit of the legislation, which was meant to strike a balance between facilitating renewable energy development and maintaining local control. By imposing stricter definitions and removing the possibility of local input, the municipalities claim that the MPSC’s actions amount to unlawful regulation.
What’s Next in the Legal Fight?
As Michigan prepares to roll out the new zoning rules, the court case continues to unfold. The municipalities involved in the lawsuit are seeking to have the MPSC’s order vacated, and they are pushing for a permanent injunction that would prevent the commission from enforcing the new rules. In addition, they have requested the court to block enforcement of the order while the appeals process is underway.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how renewable energy projects are permitted in Michigan. If the court rules in favor of the local governments, it could force the state to revisit its approach to zoning for energy projects, potentially restoring more authority to local municipalities. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the MPSC could strengthen the state’s role in overseeing energy development, which could expedite the transition to clean energy as the state works toward its ambitious climate goals.
The case is also raising questions about the broader balance of power between state and local governments, particularly when it comes to energy policy. As renewable energy projects continue to expand across the country, the debate over who should have control over siting and permitting is likely to be a central issue in many states.
In the meantime, Michigan’s energy utilities, which stand to benefit from a more streamlined permitting process, will be closely watching the legal developments. How this case unfolds will shape not only the future of renewable energy in Michigan but also the broader national conversation about energy regulation and local governance.
Comments