Following a challenge from 79 municipalities across the state, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a ruling Thursday which largely upheld state energy regulators’ efforts to implement part of the state’s 2023 clean energy package.

To help facilitate the buildout of clean energy resources, Democratic members of the Michigan Legislature voted to place permitting for large scale renewable energy projects – defined as solar energy developments with a capacity of 50 megawatts or more; wind facilities with 100 megawatts or more; and energy storage facilities with a capacity of 50 megawatts or more and a discharge capacity of 200 megawatts or greater – under the purview of the Michigan Public Service Commission. 

However, the bill, now Public Act 233, faced strong opposition from Republican members of the Legislature and several local government organizations who argued the law eliminates local control over clean energy projects by allowing energy companies to seek permitting approval from the commission under multiple circumstances. 

When the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an order implementing the law, 72 localities and seven counties filed a claim with the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing the commission violated rulemaking provisions within the state’s Administrative Procedures Act, and that its order “unlawfully and unreasonably redefines key terms and concepts and creates processes and procedures that violate the Legislature’s express and unambiguous intent.”

The three judge panel overseeing the case agreed with the localities that the commission erred in its definition of an “affected local unit” which did not include localities without zoning authority and that its interpretation of the timeline for a locality’s chief elected official to notify a developer that their area has a “compatible renewable energy ordinance,” meaning the developer must file for zoning with the locality, rather than the Michigan Public Service Commission.

“Through its broad definition the Legislature included local units of government with no zoning power as entities that are entitled to notice of public meetings, to provide comment on proposed facilities, and to intervene in contested cases involving a proposed facility that will be located within its boundary,” the court stated in its opinion, further noting that doing so “results in all affected local units of government having some involvement in the process of a proposed energy facility, which appears consistent with the intent of the Legislature.” 

20260507_c373259_140_373259.opn

While the commission determined that a chief elected official must notify a developer that their locality has a “compatible renewable energy ordinance”  within 30-days of receiving an offer to meet, the court ruled that the timeline set out within the law starts at the date of the meeting.

However, outside of those technical changes, the court determined that the commission’s Oct. 10, 2024 order correctly interpreted the law, “and did not unlawfully or unreasonably fail to comply” with the state’s rulemaking requirements.

“We therefore affirm in part, and reverse in part, the PSC’s order,”Judges  Christopher Murray, Michael Gadola, Michael Kelly wrote.

Matt Helms, a spokesperson for the Michigan Public Service Commission, said that overall, they were pleased that the court upheld the order as it pertained to “the central question of what constitutes a compatible renewable energy ordinance,” and that the decision “largely affirms the Commission’s approach and allows for continued and timely implementation of the law.”