by Kevin Killough
With local opposition against wind and solar projects steadily increasing every year, battles like the one in Michigan are likely to be repeated in other states.
 |
Wind turbines operate at a wind farm near solar panels on March 06, 2024, near Palm Springs, California.
(Getty Images) |
Solar and wind developers are frequently clashing with local communities, and some state governments are trying to limit local jurisdictions from blocking their projects.
Last year, the State of Michigan passed a law that limits the authority of townships and counties for siting wind and solar projects. Initially the law left some room for those local jurisdictions to make decisions, but the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) recently added new requirements. Now, seven counties and 72 townships have launched a lawsuit, arguing the MPSC exceeded its authority.
With local opposition against wind and solar projects steadily increasing every year, battles like that in Michigan are likely to be repeated in other states.
Unhappy locals
Across the U.S., especially in blue states, there’s a growing interest in taking away local authority and centralizing the approval or rejection of renewable energy projects. According to the Renewable Rejection Database, a project by energy expert Robert Bryce, in 2024, communities rejected 115 wind projects and 76 solar projects, bringing the total since 2013 to 758.
A study by Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law published in June concluded that local opposition is becoming the primary impediment to the renewable energy industry’s ability to build out wind and solar farms across the country.
Some states have tried to address the problem by assuming more control over siting renewable energy projects. Along with Michigan, California and New York, Bryce reported, have passed laws limiting the ability of local zoning boards to reject wind and solar projects.
In January 2023, Illinois passed a law that, according to Illinois Democratic Governor Jay Pritzker “prevents counties from enacting preemptive local ordinances that outright ban local wind and solar projects.” According to Pritzker’s statement on the passage of the law, local community opposition is motivated by “radical misinformation campaigns.”
“Our state can continue plugging away at the implementation of CEJA [Illinois’ climate law] without having to play whack-a-mole every time fossil fuel interests introduce an ordinance intended to delay our clean energy future,” Jen Walling, executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council, said in the statement.
Renewable energy proponents have been funding media outlets that paint local opposition to renewable projects as a front for fossil fuel interests. Members of these grassroots organizations say the campaign is dishonest and without merits. The campaign also ignores that oil companies are some of the largest investors in green energy, and so it wouldn’t make sense that these companies would fund opposition to their own investments.
This year, the Virginia Legislature considered similar bills to limit local governments from blocking renewable energy projects over community opposition. In February, a subcommittee of the Virginia House Commerce and Labor Committee voted to table the bill until next year.
Exceeding authority
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed its local-limiting rule into law last year, as well as another law requiring utilities to sell 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040.
A ballot initiative sought to repeal Public Act 233, as the law is known, which ultimately failed to get enough signatures. Kevon Martis, a Michigan resident who helped organize the initiative, maintains that a lack of public support for the repeal wasn’t why they couldn’t get enough signatures. He said they didn’t raise enough money to fund all the signature collectors that were needed.
Martis told Just the News, that under Public Act 233 if townships and counties wanted to have a zoning process for approving wind, solar and battery facilities, they couldn’t have ordinances more stringent than the state’s rules defining setbacks, noise limits and other requirements of the projects. In exchange for this, the townships would be eligible for some compensation.
“Nothing in the statute says we don’t have all other areas of regulatory authority left at our disposal,” Martis explained.
Many townships, Martis said, adopted ordinances in line with the MSPC’s rules. These townships then created zoning districts of 500 or 1,000 acres for wind, solar and battery facilities, as is done with other types of uses. Recently, the Michigan Public Service Commission released rules that prohibit townships and counties from having any regulations incompatible with state law.
“They obviously felt that that was a little hole that needed to be closed,” Martis said.
Mike Hormier, shareholder at Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith told Just the News that Public Act 233 was to go into effect on Nov. 29. Municipalities, he said, seeking to maintain local control, have been writing ordinances that were compatible with the requirements of the act. Then a month and a half before it was to go into effect the MPSC released a 168-page order that removed the ability for communities to determine where these facilities are best sited.
“Our clients have relied on sort of the promise made by the legislature to retain local control if they complied with the setbacks, the noise, and the height of solar panels, and shadow flicker, and those elements within the act that would apply to a compatible renewable energy ordinance. And now they've changed the rules of the game, and I don't think they have that authority,” Hormier said.
Agency deference
Martis said that the legislature could have written a bill that flat-out preempted local units of government from regulating any aspect of siting renewable energy projects.
“Politically, they knew it was a harder lift to say, ‘we're going to just strip away all your rights.’ So they came up with this hybrid approach where they say you can process it locally, if you play by our rules. And because they played that game, they left themselves vulnerable,” Martis said.
He said there are parallels to the Supreme Court decision that ended what’s known as the “Chevron deference,” which allowed federal agencies broad latitude in interpreting laws when Congress hasn’t provided specific guidelines. Under the doctrine, if Congress had granted an agency the general authority to make rules with the force of law, courts generally deferred to the agency’s implementation of that general authority.
What’s happening in Michigan is likely going to be repeated across the country. During the Biden-Harris administration, many states set 100% renewable energy goals, which are colliding with local zoning boards representing communities whose residents object for a variety of reasons to the industrialization of their rural areas.
People who live next to an industrial project are likely going to be far less accommodating than officials in state capitals. The question is, will these local communities be any more accommodating of the state having all that authority over projects that impact them.
Kevin Killough
Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/michigan-townships-try-keep-authority-reject-renewable-projects-states-seek
No comments:
Post a Comment