(Source: MIRS.news, Published 11/07/2023) Bills HB 5120 and HB 5121, which would allow the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to certify large-scale wind, solar and energy storage developments – and simultaneously barring local governments from regulating developments stricter than state standards – moved to the Senate floor Tuesday.
The Senate Energy and Environment Committee approved HB 5120 – the main bill allowing the MPSC to certify the aforementioned energy projects – 8-5, with no Republican support and Sen. Rosemary Bayer (D-Keego Harbor) abstaining.
HB 5121 moved out of the committee on a 9-5 partyline vote.
Originally, the legislation aimed to completely preempt local governments from adopting zoning ordinances or regulations on wind, solar and energy storage facilities. But following adoption of more than 20 amendments amid a 12-plus-hour House session, the bills recommend developers first seek certification from a local government with "compatible renewable energy ordinances" (CREOs) aligning with Michigan's Clean and Renewable Energy and Energy Waste Reduction Act.
HB 5120 would add a new "Part 8" to the act for dealing with solar energy facilities with a nameplate capacity of at least 50 megawatts, wind energy facilities with an at-least 100-megawatt capacity and energy storage facilities with a nameplate capacity of at least 100 megawatts and an energy discharge capability of at least 200 megawatt hours.
Under the legislation, a local government with a CREO would have four months to approve or deny a developer's application, or the two parties could agree to an additional four-month timeline extension.
However, the bills also set up a pathway for developers to have their projects certified by the MPSC when the community they're looking to build in does not have a qualified CREO or to challenge a rejection from a local government. Additionally, if a four-month timeline extension is not agreed upon, an applicant can go to the MPSC if the project was not denied or approved in the initial timeline.
Rep. Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton), one of the package sponsors, told the Senate committee via Zoom that a project rejection purely based on "aesthetics alone" should not be a good enough reason to turn away wind, solar and energy storage projects.
"There's a whole host of metrics and considerations that the MPSC would take up . . . things like proximity to substations and transmission lines, prime farmland . . . just making sure that the decisions that are made are very holistic," Puri said. "I don't think anything's going to be rubber stamped. This is something that would go through a laundry list of criteria to make sure that the state is making the best decisions as to where to place these projects around the state."
The legislation obligates applicants to enter an agreement with the community where they plan to develop, paying $2,000 per megawatt "of nameplate capacity upon operation of a facility." The funding would be appropriated to local fire, police or public safety services in the community.
If applying with the MPSC, as opposed to the municipality, the applicant must make a one-time grant to cover a local government's legal and case-making expenses affiliated with justifying why a project shouldn't come into their community. The commission could determine a grant of up to $75,000, with a local government barred from receiving more than $150,000 total.
"Unlike the powers the Legislature has granted to the commission for the siting of oil and gas pipelines, carbon dioxide pipelines or electric transmission wires, there is no grant of eminent domain powers for the siting of renewable energy projects," MPSC chair Dan Scripps told the committee.
Scripps described how, during the commission's evaluation process under HB 5120 and HB 5121, it must take into consideration the total amount of land within a jurisdiction being used for energy generation.
He added that the commission would need to consider potential alternative sites for a project, such as brownfield locations that can be repurposed, and to include "fire response plans, emergency plans and dark sky-friendly lighting plans and decommissioning plans."
"If the local community either didn't act or rejected the application, the developer has the option to come to us, and we would examine it and, according to what's in the law, I don't expect that we would often arrive at a different result," Scripps said. "Unless the local community is applying standards other than those that are set out in state law, they're going further, or they're saying 'we don't care what the law says, we just don't want it here.'"
Scripps said in the latter scenario, where there's local opposition to a project regardless of what the statutes are, he believes the MPSC would "balance the sort of local concerns against the state's interest in that infrastructure."
Nonetheless, local government organizations like the Michigan Townships Association and the Michigan Association of Counties (MAC) continue to stand opposed to HB 5120 and HB 5121.
Madeline Fata, a government affairs associate for the MAC, said her organization does not see much of an economic benefit for locals in the legislation, even with the $2,000-per-megawatt payment.
"It is possible that one project is not right for a community, but the next applicant might be a great fit – that option does not exist here," Fata said.
Near the beginning of June, the Clinton County Board of Commissioners adopted 6-1 a one-year moratorium on utility-scale wind and solar moratorium. Coverage by the Lansing State Journal highlighted how some county officials believed the one-year moratorium to give them more time to prepare for a future influx of project proposals, with $26,000 set aside in May for a subcommittee to research and make suggestions regarding the county's future wind and solar land uses.
"Since the moratorium (has) been lifted, they've been an excellent partner and are home to at least one large-scale solar facility," Fata said. "This language implies that Clinton County would be prohibited from ever obtaining a compatible ordinance, and all future projects would automatically go through the (MPSC). Next, the bill gives locals no discretion for denying an application."
