Gaining Power Over Power

By Jannes Tiemes

Michigan Public Act 233 of 2023 (PA 233) has barely been in effect for a year, but resistance against it has already led to two House bills (4027 and 4028) and a court case. This law’s appropriation of local control over green energy siting has expanded the very conflicts between residents and developers it was meant to stop, causing many to feel powerless and angry about the energy transition happening in their own backyards. But how can we fix this? For now, we can’t. But there is something we can do to keep the situation under control.

PA 233’s setup is complex, but at its core, it limits the ability of municipalities to regulate green energy projects. Previously, when proposing a green energy project like a large-scale solar plant, developers had to apply for a permit with a municipality that had full control over regulation. Since PA 233’s implementation, however, developers can choose to apply for permits with either a local government or the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), and local governments are now limited in how strictly they can regulate these projects.

This leaves local governments with virtually no room to change their policies and address residents’ concerns about green energy projects that might impact their quality of life, property values, and more. Meanwhile, the complete gridlock in Lansing that plagues so many reform initiatives in this state, takes comprehensive legislative reform off the table entirely. As long as Republicans try to repeal PA 233, which would return Michigan to the equally ineffective policies we had before, and Democrats resist any attempt at change, the legislature cannot be trusted to improve the situation. Thus, only one route for reform remains: the MPSC, which is the impartial institution responsible for implementing PA 233, must use its authority to alleviate conflicts and make people feel heard.

There are a few things the MPSC can do. The first option involves adjusting the MPSC’s interpretation of certain sections of PA 233 to give local governments more room to regulate issues such as sound pollution and the minimum distance between energy production facilities and incorporated areas. The second entails considering its community outreach requirements more thoroughly when deciding whether to issue a permit. The third option is to apply additional community outreach requirements to its individual permits, which is explicitly allowed under section 226(6) of PA 233. I evaluated all three options based on the following points:

• How would each option affect stakeholders, such as energy companies, landowners, and local governments?
• To what extent would each option empower Michigan’s residents?
• How feasible is each option within the structure of PA 233 and the current political climate?
• How much would the options affect the efficiency of the energy transition in Michigan?

I found that the third option would be the most effective, as it empowers Michiganders most directly, utilizes powers directly given to the MPSC in PA 233 itself, and leaves room for developers, thus barely impacting the efficiency of the transition. But what would this look like in practice?

Well, the law, most likely intentionally, is quite vague here. PA 233 says the following: “The commission may condition its grant of the application on the applicant taking additional reasonable action related to the impacts of the proposed energy facility.” This means the MPSC is authorized to add requirements to individual projects with very few limitations. My suggestion is that it should consistently use this power to require additional public meetings, greater transparency in the handling of complaints, and other measures that will increase participation and improve relationships between project developers and local residents. Of course, different situations will necessitate different requirements, but the beauty of this proposal is precisely its flexibility.

Many residents and local governments across Michigan are being hurt by PA 233. Repealing it would solve nothing, and reforming it is impossible due to the gridlock in Lansing. The only real way to keep the situation under control and create the space needed for future reform is for the MPSC to step in and use the powers it was given by PA 233 to require companies to engage with the communities their energy projects will impact. What you, dear reader, can do is organize to make this happen. Call the MPSC, post about it online, or make your voice heard in whatever way you see fit. In the short term, that is the most effective way for you to help ensure that the energy transition will make regular Michiganders thrive, and that they won’t be dragged along by companies like DTE and Consumers Energy.

Author’s Bio

Jannes Tiemes is a first-year MPP student at the Ford School of Public Policy. He has a wide range of policy interests, from housing to transportation to energy policy, and he uses his experiences as an international student from the Netherlands to bring unique insights to Ford.

Editors: Alina DeVoogd, MPP/MS and Rebecca Griswold, MPP/MURP