������Ƶ

Appeals court issues split ruling in Michigan solar permitting suit

The Michigan Court of Appeals gave both sides victories in a lawsuit over rules that allow solar project developers to seek state approval for projects even when local governments object. Photo via Shutterstock.

by Kelly House, Bridge Michigan

A state appeals panel on Thursday upheld the bulk of Michigan regulations limiting local control over renewable energy projects, while rejecting narrow aspects that critics had decried as regulatory overreach.

The three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel that state regulators followed proper legal processes when they set rules to carry out that allows the Michigan Public Service Commission to approve large wind, solar and battery projects over local objections.

But judges ruled the commission interpreted certain aspects of that law in ways that improperly limited local power.

It wasn’t immediately clear how the split ruling could affect the multiple renewable energy development proposals currently awaiting state approval. However, state officials seemed to see it as a victory.

“While the Commission continues to review the impact of specific findings of the Court decision on cases before us, today decision largely affirms the Commission approach and allows for continued and timely implementation of the law,” said Matt Helms, a spokesperson for the Public Service Commission.

A lawyer for the dozens of local communities that over its solar permitting rules called the ruling a “mixed bag.”

Attorney Michael Homier said he pleased with portions of the ruling that favored his clients, but “disappointed the court didn’t apply the same reasoning” to his clients’ other arguments.

The ruling followed a tense yearslong debate about , which passed along party lines in 2023 as Democrats sought to speed up a renewable energy transition that had been slowed in part by to planned wind and solar arrays.

After the Michigan Public Service Commission wrote rules to carry out the law in 2024, dozens of local communities sued, arguing the rules undermine local control in ways the law never envisioned.

The law allows local governments to retain jurisdiction over renewable energy proposals so long as they enact a so-called “compatible renewable energy ordinance” containing terms no stricter than the new statewide standards governing noise, setbacks and other particulars.

If they don’t have such an ordinance, developers can instead seek approval from the Public Service Commission.

Among other things, the local government groups argued the commission failed to follow proper rulemaking procedure and wrote overly narrow terms for the local ordinances.

In their ruling Thursday, Judges Christopher Murray, Michael Gadola and Michael Kelly rejected those arguments and several others posed by the local governments.

But they sided with the governments on two issues:

• The law gives local governments 30 days after a meeting with developers to start the local approval process. The state wrote rules that instead set the 30-day clock to start when developers offer to meet. Judges called that a misinterpretation of the law, rejecting state lawyers’ concerns that local governments may now be able to block projects simply by refusing to meet.
• The justices agreed with the local governments that any county, township, city or village that touches project lands is considered an “affected local unit,” and thus eligible for certain privileges, including from developers. The state had written rules saying only governments with zoning jurisdiction were considered an “affected local unit.”

In a press release, renewable energy advocates celebrated the ruling, with Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council President Laura Sherman saying it “affirmed the ability for Michiganders to use their land as they wish while stimulating job creation and economic development.”

Officials with the Michigan Townships Association, which has been critical of the state permitting system and lobbies on behalf of dozens of townships involved in the lawsuit, did not respond to a request for comment.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

by Sara Swanson

Sara Swanson is an editor, writer and a founder of the Manchester Mirror.