Photo above by Andreas Gucklhorn.

Groundwork’s Rural Clean Energy Specialist, Nicholas Jansen, invited Mary Reilly, a leading renewable energy siting researcher, based at Michigan State University, to share thoughts on how Michigan’s Public Act 233 is reshaping the siting conversation and process throughout the Mitten. Gain insight for your community in the q/a interview below!


Can you sketch out what the siting environment was like prior to the passage of Public Act 233?

Prior to Act 233, we had a pretty fragmented siting environment in Michigan. By that, I mean townships and counties with zoning authority had really different types of ordinances. Some were inviting to large scale solar and wind, and some were very restricted, to the point where solar and wind really couldn’t get sited. I think that kind of patchwork system made it difficult for developers.

Then adding the MI Healthy Climate Plan that was adopted set some pretty high standards for renewables and a timeline—a 50% clean energy grid by 2030. It became clear that it would be difficult to meet the goals with a patchwork system.

In some places, the lack of siting clarity led to a very politically charged atmosphere. In Montcalm County, it turned a lot of heads when several township officials got recalled because of a big wind energy proposal. Social impacts come with that kind of political environment too.

What kind of social impacts?
I like to remind people that when you’re talking about development in rural areas, you’re talking about people who know each other well. You’ve got cousins, uncles, best friends, people who go to church together, people who have known each other for generations, and this type of development can really cause rifts in those relationships. I think that’s an important impact. It’s not a land use impact, but it’s an impact. Anyway, that’s kind of the precursor to Public Act 233 being adopted.

What are some of the biggest changes you’ve seen since 233 passed?
With 233, we’re naturally seeing a lot more conversations around the choices laid out in the act. Should a township adopt a Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance—people call that by its acronym, CREO [pronounced like Creole without the l.] Does a township try to do something called a “workable ordinance,” or do township leaders want renewable energy siting to go through the state process? Some communities are opting for the state option, kind of saying, the state made this renewable energy situation and we can’t adopt the regulation we would like to see, so let’s let them deal with the public opposition that might come from this.

In other townships, they might choose the state path because maybe they don’t really have the staff or the capacity to usher through a big solar development and then enforce it. I’ve heard others say the state can regulate to a more restrictive level than what we can adopt. So if we want the most rigorous review, send it to the state.

Then other folks are seeking a workable ordinance—I’ve seen that where people are wanting to maintain local control, and that is paramount. So, it’s worth the potential political fallout to make sure the decision stays local.

What’s something that really stands out for you when you think about PA233?
This is a very unique land use in the way that the developer is the entity that determines if a local ordinance is workable or not. I can’t think of another land use where you’re actually sort of in negotiations with the developer.

So this really invites a conversation with the developer. What are the outer edges? What are the boundaries of how far we can regulate this specific land use?

That’s one way to go, or a community might adopt a workable ordinance before a proposal even gets there. The key there is to determine what are a community’s highest priorities. If a township can’t regulate to the level that the state is regulating, what does the township do to make it more attractive than the state option?

Each township will have to decide what the priorities are. For some, maybe it’s setbacks, maybe it’s landscape buffers, maybe it’s sound protections. It’s really up to the community to decide what those priorities are, and then kind of highlight those and maybe let some other things be less restrictive than the state. So it’s still a patchwork, and communities are trying. They’re definitely having conversations about what they want to do with this.

Is there a siting project that stands out as far as hitting the sweet spot for location?
One I’m familiar with is a project that Consumers Energy did in Muskegon County. It’s adjacent to a very large landfill, and installed in a very flat area that already has a natural buffer from the highway. Visually, the project has relatively low impact, and it is in a place where it’s unlikely to compete with other land uses. On the other hand, I’ve seen solar placed on hills, or places that have appealing viewsheds, and now they’re filled with solar panels. That has a different impact. So understanding the topography and how the community relates to the topography can be very important.

We hear people complain about solar taking prime farmland, saying instead we should go on brownfields, roofs, parking lots, etc. If you had a magic wand, what would be some guidelines you would say for solar siting based on what you’ve seen.

I’m agnostic to siting. There are so many factors that go into a project. My magic site would be like that site I mentioned in Muskegon, however, that’s a very unique site. Developers are always balancing the total cost of the project and what rate payers are willing to pay or can pay, and they’re trying to keep rates low. So we see these economies of scale that are translating into 100-megawatt, 200-megawatt projects, and thousands of acres—really, really large projects. And social research tells us that smaller projects, say under 200 acres, 80 acres, have a lot more social acceptance,

But you have to balance that against the cost. Generally speaking, the smaller the project, the more expensive the electricity. There’s already been some headlines lately about rates going up the way they are. So, yes, I would love to see more slightly smaller scale projects like rooftop, or rooftop parking, carports, brownfields—it’s wonderful, but it’s more expensive.

But we are still seeing some of the smaller scale developments?
Yes, communities almost have to entice that kind of smaller scale development. They might even need to put money toward it, or get grants toward it, make it super easy, all of those things, but the cost is still higher at the end of the day. The other thing that I think that we can do is really get going on agrivoltaics, on pollinators, and those kinds of different ground cover management strategies.

Universities are doing really great work around hay production within the arrays, and not trying to change any industry standards in terms of distancing between arrays or the tilt of the arrays. Can we cultivate hay at scale? How can we do this cost effectively, using the regular tractors and equipment that farmers would have?

I hope that we get to a point where research can advance quickly enough where we can see more agrivoltaics. We do have a couple sheep-grazing sites in Michigan, correct?

We have one in Calhoun and one in Wexford county. It gets us some of the way, but not all of the way. I’d love to see agrivoltaics mature so it’s not an “either or” solar or farming. We’re not quite there yet. With corn, with commodities, with soy, with some of those bigger crops and bigger equipment they still have to test equipment. They have to be efficient for the farmer. It has to work.

In Germany they are experimenting with vertical panels—you can do quite a bit more between the arrays when the panels are just straight up and down.

How well is Public Act 233 working out, based on what you’ve seen?
I think that PA233, has presented local communities with some really difficult and complex choices about land use, about local choice, and how they want to go about it. We’re seeing varying directions on that. I think what we are waiting for is a couple of different things that might be surprising. One is the outcome of the lawsuit over PA233 related to the extent of local decision-making. There are several townships, about 80, who are party to that lawsuit.

There’s apprehension about what’s going to happen, which creates more questioning, more reason to wait and see. It’s paradoxical, because while there’s reason to wait, at the same time Michigan has a very significant requirement to produce 50% of grid electricity with renewable energy by 2030. So there’s not a lot of time to wait and see.

I think we’ll know more in about a year from now.

What is something that you wish the average Michigander knew about energy siting, or just about this wild world we’re in right now with energy.

Well, I wish the average Michigander knew that it takes so much work and technology to turn on the lights every day. And at any given time, there’s multiple sources of energy coming through our transmission lines that are not color coded. So once that energy goes up there, you can’t select or deselect the kind of energy sources that you want. At any given time, we’ve got nuclear, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, and that portfolio is always changing. It changes from day to day, depending on what’s going on. So we need a dynamic set of energy generation sources. Renewables are going to be a part of that. Renewables will continue to be an important part of our energy generation mix going forward.

Nicholas Jansen is Groundwork’s Rural Clean Energy Specialist.
nicholas.jansen@groundworkcenter.org