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.
(Ed. Note: This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. Visit the newsroom online: bridgemi.com.)
By Kelly House
Bridge Michigan
A state appeals panel on has upheld the bulk of Michigan’s 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 ruled last Thursday that state regulators followed proper legal processes when they set rules to carry out a controversial 2023 law 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, including the Silver Maple solar project that has been proposed in Zeeland and Jamestown townships. However, state officials seemed to see it as a victory.
“While the Commission continues to review the impact of specific findings of the Court’s decision on cases before us, today’s decision largely affirms the Commission’s 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 had sued the state over its solar permitting rules called the ruling a “mixed bag.”
Attorney Michael Homier of Foster Swift said he’s 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 Public Act 233, which passed along party lines in 2023 as Democrats sought to speed up a renewable energy transition that had been slowed in part by fierce local opposition 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 last 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 a payment 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.
By Kelly House
Bridge Michigan
A state appeals panel on has upheld the bulk of Michigan’s 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 ruled last Thursday that state regulators followed proper legal processes when they set rules to carry out a controversial 2023 law 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, including the Silver Maple solar project that has been proposed in Zeeland and Jamestown townships. However, state officials seemed to see it as a victory.
“While the Commission continues to review the impact of specific findings of the Court’s decision on cases before us, today’s decision largely affirms the Commission’s 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 had sued the state over its solar permitting rules called the ruling a “mixed bag.”
Attorney Michael Homier of Foster Swift said he’s 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 Public Act 233, which passed along party lines in 2023 as Democrats sought to speed up a renewable energy transition that had been slowed in part by fierce local opposition 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 last 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 a payment 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.
Grants Awarded to Agencies For Stream Cleanup
By Greg Chandler
Zeeland Record
Three different nonprofit organizations and county departments in Ottawa County have received grants from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy for cleaning up and monitoring local streams.
The grants, announced last week, were among 20 awarded across the state by EGLE totaling nearly $100,000, through the Michigan Clean Water Corps (MiCorps) program. These grants are awarded each year to help foster local stewardship and a sense of community while providing valuable data used to protect Michigan’s waters.
The Ottawa Conservation District was the largest recipient of the three local grants at $19,250. The Ottawa County Water Resources Commission office received $3,359, while the Outdoor Discovery Center received $2,991.
The MiCorps Volunteer Stream Cleanup Program provides grants to local units of government to clean and improve Michigan waterways. Local governments often partner with nonprofits or other volunteer groups for the cleanups, which include removal of trash and other manmade debris from streams and stream banks.
The county Water Resources Commission will use its funding to support cleanup of local drains. The commission maintains more than 1,000 miles of drains across the county's rural and urban areas.
“Some of these waterways accumulate trash and inorganic debris over time,” Water Resources Commissioner Joe Bush said.
The Water Resources Commission office began hosting volunteer stream cleanup events in fall 2024 and now holds one event each spring and fall. Last year, 42 volunteers helped clean more than two miles of the No. 40, No. 15 & 17, and Rush Creek drains, removing more than 10 cubic yards of trash and 10 tires, Bush said.
This year’s grant will support two cleanup events, one of which was held Wednesday along portions of the No. 40, No. 28, and No. 9 drains in Holland, which are tributaries of the Macatawa River. A second cleanup is planned for Sept. 19 along Rush Creek and the DeWeerd Drain in Georgetown Township, both of which are tributaries of the Grand River, Bush said.
The Outdoor Discovery Center will use its grant to expand its current monitoring of macroinvertebrates in the Macatawa Watershed to the Rabbit River Watershed.
“(Macroinvertebrates) are the small but visible aquatic insects, worms and crustaceans that live in aquatic ecosystems,” Kelly Goward, conservation programs director for the ODC Network, wrote in an email to the Zeeland Record. “They have varying tolerance to water pollution and can be good indicators of stream health. Based on the types and abundance of critters that we find, we calculate a stream health score. This data can supplement other monitoring to help guide decision making for where to implement restoration projects.”
The ODC Network currently monitors seven sites in the Macatawa Watershed twice a year. It will add four or five more sites in the Rabbit River Watershed, in collaboration with the Allegan Conservation District, to conduct the same type of monitoring, Goward wrote.
The cleanup grant program began in 1998 and is funded by fees from the sale of Michigan’s specialty water quality protection license plates, available from the Secretary of State’s Office.
EGLE established MiCorps in 2004 to engage the public in collecting water quality data for use in water resources management and protection programs. MiCorps is sponsored by EGLE and is administered in partnership with Michigan State University Extension, the Michigan Lakes and Streams Association, and the Huron River Watershed Council.
Zeeland Record
Three different nonprofit organizations and county departments in Ottawa County have received grants from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy for cleaning up and monitoring local streams.
The grants, announced last week, were among 20 awarded across the state by EGLE totaling nearly $100,000, through the Michigan Clean Water Corps (MiCorps) program. These grants are awarded each year to help foster local stewardship and a sense of community while providing valuable data used to protect Michigan’s waters.
The Ottawa Conservation District was the largest recipient of the three local grants at $19,250. The Ottawa County Water Resources Commission office received $3,359, while the Outdoor Discovery Center received $2,991.
The MiCorps Volunteer Stream Cleanup Program provides grants to local units of government to clean and improve Michigan waterways. Local governments often partner with nonprofits or other volunteer groups for the cleanups, which include removal of trash and other manmade debris from streams and stream banks.
The county Water Resources Commission will use its funding to support cleanup of local drains. The commission maintains more than 1,000 miles of drains across the county's rural and urban areas.
“Some of these waterways accumulate trash and inorganic debris over time,” Water Resources Commissioner Joe Bush said.
The Water Resources Commission office began hosting volunteer stream cleanup events in fall 2024 and now holds one event each spring and fall. Last year, 42 volunteers helped clean more than two miles of the No. 40, No. 15 & 17, and Rush Creek drains, removing more than 10 cubic yards of trash and 10 tires, Bush said.
This year’s grant will support two cleanup events, one of which was held Wednesday along portions of the No. 40, No. 28, and No. 9 drains in Holland, which are tributaries of the Macatawa River. A second cleanup is planned for Sept. 19 along Rush Creek and the DeWeerd Drain in Georgetown Township, both of which are tributaries of the Grand River, Bush said.
The Outdoor Discovery Center will use its grant to expand its current monitoring of macroinvertebrates in the Macatawa Watershed to the Rabbit River Watershed.
“(Macroinvertebrates) are the small but visible aquatic insects, worms and crustaceans that live in aquatic ecosystems,” Kelly Goward, conservation programs director for the ODC Network, wrote in an email to the Zeeland Record. “They have varying tolerance to water pollution and can be good indicators of stream health. Based on the types and abundance of critters that we find, we calculate a stream health score. This data can supplement other monitoring to help guide decision making for where to implement restoration projects.”
The ODC Network currently monitors seven sites in the Macatawa Watershed twice a year. It will add four or five more sites in the Rabbit River Watershed, in collaboration with the Allegan Conservation District, to conduct the same type of monitoring, Goward wrote.
The cleanup grant program began in 1998 and is funded by fees from the sale of Michigan’s specialty water quality protection license plates, available from the Secretary of State’s Office.
EGLE established MiCorps in 2004 to engage the public in collecting water quality data for use in water resources management and protection programs. MiCorps is sponsored by EGLE and is administered in partnership with Michigan State University Extension, the Michigan Lakes and Streams Association, and the Huron River Watershed Council.
Free Counseling Restored for Agricultural Workers
Free, confidential counseling is once again available to Michigan’s agricultural community through Michigan State University Extension’s Managing Farm Stress program, following new federal funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Services were suspended last summer after state funding was not renewed and federal support temporarily expired, leaving many agricultural workers without affordable options. Counseling sessions can cost around $150 per session, placing care out of reach for some farm families.
The renewed funding restores a critical resource for a population facing persistent mental health risks. Agricultural workers continue to experience one of the highest suicide rates among all occupations, with stress driven by economic volatility, unpredictable weather, long working hours and the pressures of multigenerational farm ownership.
The Managing Farm Stress program previously delivered more than 550 counseling sessions and connects individuals with providers who understand the realities of agricultural life, including financial strain, isolation and the challenge of separating work from personal life.
With funding now restored for a limited time, eligible individuals can access free, flexible and confidential services, including virtual options. The funding helps re-establish a support system that is vital to both personal well-being and the sustainability of farm operations.
Individuals seeking services can contact Michigan State University Extension at canr.msu.edu/managing_farm_stress for more information or referrals.
Services were suspended last summer after state funding was not renewed and federal support temporarily expired, leaving many agricultural workers without affordable options. Counseling sessions can cost around $150 per session, placing care out of reach for some farm families.
The renewed funding restores a critical resource for a population facing persistent mental health risks. Agricultural workers continue to experience one of the highest suicide rates among all occupations, with stress driven by economic volatility, unpredictable weather, long working hours and the pressures of multigenerational farm ownership.
The Managing Farm Stress program previously delivered more than 550 counseling sessions and connects individuals with providers who understand the realities of agricultural life, including financial strain, isolation and the challenge of separating work from personal life.
With funding now restored for a limited time, eligible individuals can access free, flexible and confidential services, including virtual options. The funding helps re-establish a support system that is vital to both personal well-being and the sustainability of farm operations.
Individuals seeking services can contact Michigan State University Extension at canr.msu.edu/managing_farm_stress for more information or referrals.
Op-Ed: Trust, But Verify Information
(The following editorial was originally published in The Cadillac News.)
Social media has made it easier than ever for information - and misinformation - to spread quickly. A single post, screenshot or comment can reach hundreds or thousands of people in a matter of minutes.
Unfortunately, the speed and ease with which information spreads online often means accuracy comes second. Rumors, misunderstandings and outright falsehoods can move through a community long before the facts catch up.
For the average person, that means it is more important than ever to pause and verify what they see before believing it or passing it along.
The first step is simply to slow down. Many social media posts are designed to provoke an immediate emotional reaction - anger, fear, outrage or excitement. Those strong reactions often lead people to quickly share a post without checking whether it is accurate. Taking a moment to ask, “Is this actually true?” can stop a rumor from spreading further.
Next, consider the source of the information. Who originally posted it? Is it coming from an official organization, a reputable news outlet, or someone with direct knowledge of the situation? Or is it a vague claim that has been shared and reshared with no clear origin? Posts that rely on phrases like “I heard,” “someone told me,” or “this is what they don’t want you to know” should immediately raise questions.
It is also wise to look for confirmation from credible sources. If a major local issue or event has truly occurred, it will usually appear in multiple places - local news organizations, government announcements, school communications, or other official channels. If a claim exists only in a single social media post, that alone is a reason to be cautious.
Reading beyond the headline or the short caption is another important step. Many online posts oversimplify complicated issues or leave out important details. A quick search for additional information can often provide the context needed to understand what is actually happening.
When misinformation spreads in a local community, the consequences can be significant. False claims can damage reputations, create unnecessary fear, and deepen divisions between neighbors. Important issues - housing, schools, economic development, public safety - deserve thoughtful conversation based on verified information, not rumors circulating online.
The responsibility to maintain that standard belongs to everyone who participates in these conversations. Verifying information does not require special training. It simply requires a willingness to ask questions, look for reliable sources, and resist the urge to immediately share every claim that appears in a social media feed.
In a world where information can travel instantly, taking a few extra moments to confirm the facts is one of the simplest - and most important - ways each of us can contribute to a healthier community conversation.
Social media has made it easier than ever for information - and misinformation - to spread quickly. A single post, screenshot or comment can reach hundreds or thousands of people in a matter of minutes.
Unfortunately, the speed and ease with which information spreads online often means accuracy comes second. Rumors, misunderstandings and outright falsehoods can move through a community long before the facts catch up.
For the average person, that means it is more important than ever to pause and verify what they see before believing it or passing it along.
The first step is simply to slow down. Many social media posts are designed to provoke an immediate emotional reaction - anger, fear, outrage or excitement. Those strong reactions often lead people to quickly share a post without checking whether it is accurate. Taking a moment to ask, “Is this actually true?” can stop a rumor from spreading further.
Next, consider the source of the information. Who originally posted it? Is it coming from an official organization, a reputable news outlet, or someone with direct knowledge of the situation? Or is it a vague claim that has been shared and reshared with no clear origin? Posts that rely on phrases like “I heard,” “someone told me,” or “this is what they don’t want you to know” should immediately raise questions.
It is also wise to look for confirmation from credible sources. If a major local issue or event has truly occurred, it will usually appear in multiple places - local news organizations, government announcements, school communications, or other official channels. If a claim exists only in a single social media post, that alone is a reason to be cautious.
Reading beyond the headline or the short caption is another important step. Many online posts oversimplify complicated issues or leave out important details. A quick search for additional information can often provide the context needed to understand what is actually happening.
When misinformation spreads in a local community, the consequences can be significant. False claims can damage reputations, create unnecessary fear, and deepen divisions between neighbors. Important issues - housing, schools, economic development, public safety - deserve thoughtful conversation based on verified information, not rumors circulating online.
The responsibility to maintain that standard belongs to everyone who participates in these conversations. Verifying information does not require special training. It simply requires a willingness to ask questions, look for reliable sources, and resist the urge to immediately share every claim that appears in a social media feed.
In a world where information can travel instantly, taking a few extra moments to confirm the facts is one of the simplest - and most important - ways each of us can contribute to a healthier community conversation.
