Commentary: Local officials are obstructing the energy transition. It’s time to change their role.

It seems that once a week I come across an article about the passage of some new restriction by local officials relating to wind or solar development. This week it was a Commissioners. The new ordinance replaces a moratorium on large-scale solar facilities which has been in place since 2019 following the approval of the Lone Oak solar project.

The Commission’s latest Order related to Lone Oak likely means that the project is dead which must please local officials and remonstrators in Madison County who opposed the project. The situation raises two questions: (1) what role should local officials play in utility regulation, and (2) will the legislature step in to provide solutions?

In response to local opposition to large-scale renewable development many states are adopting new policies to reset the balance between state and local oversight. Just last month, the Michigan legislature passed, and Gov. Whitmer signed into law, a package of permitting and siting reforms. While the reforms have been largely maligned a closer look reveals a solution that balances local autonomy and state energy goals and planning.

The Michigan siting reforms apply only to large capacity solar, wind, and storage facilities. Smaller projects, which are still utility-scale, remain under the purview of local officials.Additionally, localities which adopt siting and permitting policies that mirror state policies are provided a 120-day period, with the opportunity for an extension, to find an agreement. If no agreement can be reached, or if the locality has stricter standards than the state, a project owner can have their application reviewed by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Did I mention that the new law requires project developers to pay $2,000 per megawatt to the community?

The stark reality is that local officials are adopting strict policies which have the effect of prohibiting any project from being developed. At least three developments in the states, which have received state regulatory approval, have been later killed due to local opposition. I’m all for local siting and permitting processes and developers should demonstrate that a project will provide net benefits to a community. The problem is that these processes get hijacked by remonstrators and local officials make the politically safe decision rather than render anunpopular decision. State lawmakers should set a reasonable siting and permitting standard and provide opportunities for further review if a community opts for a stricter policy. The Commission is a logical arbiter which has a track record of fair and equal treatment of the controversies it has been trusted to mediate.