Loading
Loading
Case File · Michigan, Statewide Regulatory Regime
Michigan Public Act 233 of 2023 (HB 5120) gave the Michigan Public Service Commission primary siting authority for solar over 100 MW, wind over 100 MW, and energy storage of at least 50 MW / 200 MWh — unless local units adopt a Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance (CREO). On October 10, 2024 the MPSC issued Order U-21547 implementing the application process. On November 8, 2024, 72 townships and 7 counties filed for appellate review.
Cited Michigan utility-renewables regime read: 54/100 — open but contested. Applicants should calibrate for an appellate outcome before committing irrevocable development capital.
PA 233
Statute
Nov 29, 2023
Effective
>100 MW
Solar Threshold
≥50 MW / 200 MWh
BESS Threshold
72
Townships Suing
7
Counties Suing
Michigan Statewide
November 28, 2023
Governor Whitmer signs PA 233 (HB 5120)
Governor Gretchen Whitmer signs House Bill 5120 into law as Public Act 233 of 2023, part of the MI Healthy Climate package. The act amends the Clean and Renewable Energy and Energy Waste Reduction Act (2008 PA 295) and grants the Michigan Public Service Commission primary siting authority over utility-scale solar (>100 MW), wind (>100 MW), and energy storage (≥50 MW and 200 MWh). Local units retain zoning authority for smaller projects and for projects in jurisdictions that adopt a Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance (CREO).
November 29, 2023
PA 233 effective date
The law takes effect. Michigan Townships Association (MTA) and many rural counties characterize the act as a direct preemption of home-rule siting authority. Developers with active Michigan project pipelines begin evaluating the MPSC pathway as a parallel or substitute to local zoning review. The CREO mechanism — under which local units can retain jurisdiction by adopting an ordinance meeting state-level standards — becomes the operative compliance question in every jurisdiction.
2024
MPSC stands up the application framework
The MPSC begins a series of contested case proceedings and staff workshops to implement PA 233. Stakeholder engagement draws in utility filers, township associations, Consumers Energy, DTE Energy, merchant developers, and environmental groups. The framework addresses application filing standards, notice and hearing procedures, model ordinance content, and the procedural interaction between MPSC review and remaining local authority.
October 10, 2024
MPSC issues Order U-21547 approving the application process
The Commission adopts an order approving the formal application process for renewable-energy and energy-storage siting under PA 233. The order becomes the direct target of the November 8, 2024 appellate challenge. Michigan PSC news release characterizes the order as implementing the legislative mandate; township associations characterize it as entrenching the preemption.
November 8, 2024
72 townships + 7 counties file Court of Appeals challenge
A coalition of 72 townships and 7 counties files a Court of Appeals challenge to MPSC Order U-21547. The challenge advances theories including constitutional home-rule violation, rulemaking-procedure irregularities, and alleged deviation from the statutory language of PA 233. Columbia Climate Law Blog (April 11, 2025) summarized the procedural posture and commentator views that a mid-2025 decision would be the best-case timeline.
2025–2026
Appellate review continues; MPSC dockets proceed
The Court of Appeals works through briefing and oral argument on the challenge. Meanwhile, MPSC continues accepting and processing PA 233 applications for qualifying projects. Applicant uncertainty is highest in jurisdictions where townships or counties have signaled they intend to resist MPSC jurisdiction regardless of the appellate outcome. A fallback plan for an adverse ruling — including a path to CREO adoption or re-underwriting under 100 MW — is standard applicant prudence during the appellate window.
The Statute
PA 233 / HB 5120
Michigan Public Act 233 of 2023 amended 2008 PA 295 to give the MPSC primary siting authority for utility-scale solar (>100 MW), wind (>100 MW), and energy storage facilities (≥50 MW and 200 MWh). The law is one of three leading 2023 state-preemption templates (alongside Illinois HB 4412 and New York's earlier Article VIII / 94-c ORES framework).
The Implementation
MPSC Order U-21547
The October 10, 2024 order approved the formal application process under PA 233 — notice, hearing standards, model ordinance content, and MPSC procedural rules. The order is the immediate target of the township coalition's appellate challenge. The MPSC continued processing applications under the order during the appellate window.
The Local Reservation
CREO Mechanism
Local units that adopt a Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance meeting state-level standards retain primary permitting authority for qualifying projects. CREO adoption is therefore a live local-government lever that reshapes the PA 233 calculus. The quality and state-compatibility of each jurisdiction's CREO is part of every serious Michigan site screen.
The Litigation
72 Townships + 7 Counties
The November 8, 2024 Court of Appeals filing is the largest coordinated township-level challenge to a Michigan energy law in recent memory. Columbia Climate Law Blog and Michigan Townships Association coverage describe the coalition's theories. An adverse appellate outcome could remand MPSC Order U-21547 for revision and stall applications in process.
Key Decision Makers & Stakeholders
Governor Gretchen Whitmer
Governor of Michigan
Lansing, MI
Documented Record
Signed PA 233 on November 28, 2023 as part of the MI Healthy Climate package, with the express rationale of accelerating Michigan's transition to clean energy and removing local-zoning bottlenecks for qualifying large projects. The Governor's office has consistently defended the act as a climate-necessary state action.
The governor's political backing anchors PA 233 in the executive branch regardless of the appellate outcome. A remand of Order U-21547 would likely trigger an MPSC rulemaking revision rather than a legislative repeal — the partisan composition of the Michigan Legislature as of 2025–2026 does not support unwinding PA 233 through statute.
Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC)
State Utility Commission
Lansing, MI
Documented Record
Issued Order U-21547 on October 10, 2024 approving the formal PA 233 application process (MPSC news release). The Commission continues to accept and process applications under the order during the appellate window.
MPSC is the operative siting authority during the appellate window. Applicant engagement with MPSC dockets does not pause pending appellate review. The commission's technical standards — interconnection studies, environmental review, public-notice procedures — are the standing rules of the road.
Michigan Townships Association (MTA)
Statewide Township Advocate
Lansing, MI
Documented Record
Organized and sustained township-side advocacy against PA 233 through the MPSC proceeding and the appellate window. MTA's renewable-energy siting page catalogues township positions, model CREO language, and procedural guidance for members.
MTA is the anchor opposition institution. Any applicant assumption that individual township opposition is disorganized misreads the MTA's statewide coordination capability. Community risk review coverage in each target jurisdiction must account for the MTA template.
72 Township + 7 County Appellants
Litigation Coalition
Michigan statewide
Documented Record
Filed the November 8, 2024 Court of Appeals challenge to MPSC Order U-21547. Coalition spans rural mid-Michigan, Thumb region, and western Michigan townships with active opposition to proposed solar and wind projects. Columbia Climate Law Blog (April 11, 2025) summarized procedural posture.
The coalition's sheer size signals political durability. Even an adverse appellate outcome for the coalition will not fully dissipate the underlying opposition — it will channel it into CREO-drafting battles, MPSC contested cases, and legislative lobbying on subsequent statutory amendments.
Consumers Energy & DTE Energy
Primary IOUs
Jackson, MI / Detroit, MI
Documented Record
Both IOUs have active Integrated Resource Plans filed before the MPSC that rely on material utility-scale solar and energy-storage additions through 2030. Each has engaged with the PA 233 framework as a siting enabler for qualifying portfolio projects.
The IOUs are structurally supportive of the preemption but politically cautious about visible alignment with the state against township plaintiffs. Developer partnerships with IOUs — PPA structures, utility-owned solar, asset-transfer deals — carry political cover analogous to the AES Indiana / Hardy Hills utility-ownership playbook in a different regulatory regime.
Merchant Solar / BESS Developers
Active Applicants
Michigan statewide
Documented Record
National and regional merchant developers have filed PA 233 applications or evaluated filings since Order U-21547. Application activity is concentrated in MPSC dockets for utility-scale solar and combined solar + storage projects sized above the PA 233 thresholds.
Merchant-side applicant prudence during the appellate window means: (a) file under PA 233 where the pathway is materially faster than local zoning, (b) maintain a fallback design under 100 MW or under a non-CREO route, and (c) budget for potential remand-triggered delays of 6–18 months.
“Preemption only works if it survives the appellate round.”
The Pre-Filing Research
Before an MPSC filing. Before an interconnection deposit. Before committing to a Michigan development slot.
Regime Analysis
PA 233 Siting Regime
Michigan statewide (utility solar >100 MW, wind >100 MW, BESS ≥50 MW/200 MWh)
Preemption
Appellate Risk
MPSC Pathway
CREO Election
Legal Flag
The Michigan Court of Appeals is reviewing the November 8, 2024 challenge to MPSC Order U-21547. Columbia Climate Law Blog (April 11, 2025) noted that commentators viewed a mid-2025 decision as the best-case scenario. Siting applications filed during the appellate window face a nonzero risk of procedural disruption if the court remands the MPSC order.
Recommendation
PROCEED WITH CAUTION. The MPSC pathway is open for qualifying utility-scale projects. Applicants should confirm target-jurisdiction CREO status, prepare a fallback plan for an adverse appellate outcome, and calibrate community risk review coverage with the Michigan Townships Association posture in the specific siting locale.
Pre-PA-233 (2022)
Before PA 233, Michigan utility-renewables screened in the low 40s for merchant developers facing fragmented township siting and organized MTA-style opposition. A patchwork of favorable and hostile local ordinances governed project viability.
Post-PA-233, pre-ruling (current)
The MPSC pathway is open and operating, but the appellate window injects remand risk. Score reflects a workable pathway discounted for timing uncertainty and for the continued political costs of siting in 72-plaintiff townships.
The Michigan regime is not a solved regulatory problem. Michigan is the national test case for whether state preemption survives organized rural-township litigation. Screening must price the outcome as a range, not a single value.
The Decision Framework
Michigan underwriting during the appellate window is a scenario-planning exercise, not a single-path commitment.
If targeting projects above PA 233 thresholds
The MPSC pathway is materially faster than local zoning in hostile townships. File early, maintain conservative timing assumptions, and explicitly budget for a 6–18 month remand delay as a downside scenario. Do not assume the pathway is settled; do not assume it will be overturned.
If the target jurisdiction has or is considering a CREO
CREO-adopting jurisdictions retain primary authority for qualifying projects. A compatible CREO can be developer-advantageous where local posture is favorable. A hostile CREO is a procedural trap that signals a jurisdiction looking to avoid MPSC review without offering material permitting relief. Review the specific CREO text before filing under either pathway.
If portfolio timing is critical
Parallel-develop a fallback design under 100 MW or outside the BESS threshold to preserve optionality against an adverse appellate outcome. The marginal cost of a fallback design is small relative to the cost of a stalled portfolio slot. IOU partnership structures (PPA, utility-owned) carry additional political insulation modeled on other regulated-utility solar playbooks.
The lesson from PA 233:
State preemption is not a one-step solution to local opposition. It is a legal instrument that gets tested in court. Developer underwriting must price the instrument and the test.
Underwrite both rulings before you commit to Michigan.
Know the ruling before you commit
RealClear tracks MPSC docket activity, appellate schedule, CREO adoptions, and township-level posture — and scores Michigan sites under both preemption-survives and preemption-remanded scenarios.
Cited research summary · Not legal advice · Verify independently before making investment decisions
Keep reading