{"id":24869,"date":"2025-04-11T11:50:05","date_gmt":"2025-04-11T16:50:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=24869"},"modified":"2025-04-19T01:53:39","modified_gmt":"2025-04-19T06:53:39","slug":"michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/","title":{"rendered":"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over the last five years, several states, including New York<\/a> (2020), California<\/a> (2022), Illinois<\/a> (2023), and Michigan<\/a> (2023) have adopted comprehensive permitting reforms that curtail the power of local governments to block development of large-scale renewable energy projects.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Amicus brief filed by the Sabin Center and Goodman Acker P.C. on behalf of landowners in Milan Township, Michigan<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In two states, New York and Michigan, local governments have sued to block implementation of these reforms. In New York, a lawsuit challenging regulations that were promulgated by a state agency to implement the siting law was finally defeated<\/a> in November 2024, after multiple appeals<\/a>. In Michigan, a similar challenge is pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Sabin Center has submitted amicus briefs supporting implementation of siting reforms in both cases (see here<\/a> and here<\/a> for briefs submitted in the New York case and here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a> for our briefs in the Michigan case).<\/p>\n

This blog post provides an overview of the key issues at play in the Michigan case. The case\u2014Almer Charter Township et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission et al<\/em>\u2014was brought by a group of 72 townships and 7 counties who are seeking to vacate an order<\/a> issued by the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) to implement the new state siting law (Public Act 233 of 2023 or PA 233). The local governments are challenging several aspects of the PSC\u2019s order, including, most importantly, the PSC\u2019s interpretation of the term \u201ccompatible renewable energy ordinance\u201d or \u201cCREO\u201d under the statute. On a concrete level, the question at issue is what types of restrictions local governments will be allowed to impose on renewable energy and battery storage projects under PA 233 without being forced to cede jurisdiction to the PSC. In its order, the PSC determined that\u2014in order to qualify as a CREO\u2014a local ordinance \u201cmay only contain the setback, fencing, height, sound, and other applicable requirements expressly outlined in [the statute], and may not contain additional requirements beyond those specifically identified.\u201d The local governments argue that this interpretation is not supported by the statute and that they should be allowed to impose other types of restrictions.<\/p>\n

Public Act 233 <\/strong><\/h2>\n

As described in a previous blog post<\/a>, renewable energy and battery storage facilities in Michigan were historically sited, approved, and permitted at the township and county level, with limited oversight from the State. In response to an increasing number of local restrictions on renewable energy development, in November 2023, Governor Whitmer signed legislation to reform the siting process. PA 233<\/a>, which went into effect in November 2024, establishes limits on the types of restrictions that local governments can impose on solar, wind, and battery storage projects and allows the PSC to assume control over permitting when local governments exceed those limits.<\/p>\n

Critically, PA 233 allows developers to submit their applications directly to the PSC\u2014thus bypassing the local approval process\u2014unless the local government where the project is to be located adopts a compatible renewable energy ordinance (CREO) that is \u201cno more restrictive\u201d than state requirements. When the PSC assumes control over an application, it is authorized to preempt any local restrictions that would otherwise apply.<\/p>\n

The statute defines a CREO as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cCompatible renewable energy ordinance\u201d means an ordinance that provides for the development of energy facilities within the local unit of government, the requirements of which are no more restrictive than the provisions included in section 226(8). A local unit of government is considered not to have a compatible renewable energy ordinance if it has a moratorium on the development of energy facilities in effect within its jurisdiction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Section 226(8) of the statute, for its part, establishes clear benchmarks for certain types of restrictions, such as setbacks, fencing requirements, height limits, and noise limits, but it does not explicitly address other types of restrictions. Some types of restrictions that are not explicitly addressed in Section 226(8), such as ordinances banning solar projects in agricultural zoning districts, could be far more restrictive than those that are explicitly addressed. However, the statutory definition provides only that a CREO cannot contain any requirements \u201cmore restrictive\u201d than the enumerated requirements.<\/p>\n

In July 2024, the Sabin Center and colleagues from the University of Detroit Mercy submitted comments<\/a> recommending that the PSC issue interpretive guidance on the definition of a CREO. Those comments explained that, in the absence of such guidance, local governments were continuing to adopt the types of severely restrictive local ordinances that PA 233 was intended to rein in.<\/p>\n

The PSC\u2019s October 2024 Order Interpreting PA 233<\/strong><\/h2>\n

On October 10, 2024, the PSC issued an order<\/a> to implement the new siting process. Among other things, the Order clarified the definitions of certain terms in PA 233, including by clarifying what can\u2014and cannot\u2014be included in a CREO. According to the PSC:<\/p>\n

A CREO under Act 233 may only contain the setback, fencing, height, sound, and other applicable requirements expressly outlined in Section 226(8), and may not contain additional requirements beyond those specifically identified in that section.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The PSC cited several bases for its determination that a CREO may not contain additional requirements beyond those specified in Section 226(8). It concluded that, when looking at the statute as a whole, \u201c[o]ther provisions in Act 233 reinforce this limitation.\u201d The PSC found, for example, that the Legislature had made clear that local governments lacked the authority to enforce<\/em> any restrictions other than the setback, fencing, height, sound, and other requirements set out in Section 226(8). Indeed, the statute provides that, if a project satisfies the criteria set out in Section 226(8) but a local government rejects it for some unrelated reason\u2014such as noncompliance with a ban on siting solar in agricultural zoning districts\u2014then the developer is allowed to submit its application to the PSC. The PSC reasoned that if local governments cannot enforce such restrictions, then local governments cannot include them in a CREO:<\/p>\n

Had the Legislature intended to permit local units to include additional requirements beyond those identified in Section 226(8) of Act 233, it would not have restricted the Commission\u2019s authority to site energy facilities, in part, on the basis that a local unit denied an application for reasons beyond \u201cthe requirements of section 226(8).\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In effect, the PSC found that the whole text canon of statutory interpretation supported its interpretation of CREO.<\/p>\n

Almer Charter Township v. Michigan Public Service Commission<\/strong><\/h2>\n

On November 8, 2024, a group of 72 townships and 7 counties in Michigan filed an appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals challenging the PSC\u2019s Order. The appeal (docket here<\/a>) seeks to vacate the PSC\u2019s Order on procedural and substantive grounds. On procedural grounds, the appeal argues that the Order was a \u201crule\u201d under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act and that the PSC failed to undergo proper rulemaking procedures in issuing the Order. On substantive grounds, the appeal argues that the Order \u201cunlawfully and unreasonably redefines\u201d CREO and other terms. This section will describe: (A) the local governments\u2019 motion for a preliminary injunction, which was denied; and (B) the parties\u2019 briefing on the merits, which has been submitted to the court.<\/p>\n

A. Motion for Preliminary Injunction <\/strong><\/h3>\n

Less than two weeks after filing their appeal, the local governments moved for a preliminary injunction (or stay) to stop the PSC Order from going into effect. In their motion, the local governments argued that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Order were allowed to go into effect and that the PSC would not be harmed if the Order were enjoined.<\/p>\n

Together with local counsel Mark Brewer and Rowan Conybeare, the Sabin Center filed an amicus brief<\/a> on behalf of four landowners in Milan Township, Michigan (the \u201cMilan Township Landowners\u201d), urging the court to reject the motion. The brief highlighted harms to landowners and the state that would result from an injunction. Meanwhile, a coalition of business and environmental groups, including Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council (MEIBC), intervened as parties in support of the PSC Order.<\/p>\n

On January 14, 2024, the Court of Appeals rejected the motion for a preliminary injunction in a short order<\/a>, allowing the PSC Order to take effect. Links to the main briefs filed on this motion are provided below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

BRIEFS FILED ON THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Supporting Preliminary Injunction<\/strong><\/td>\nOpposing Preliminary Injunction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Appellants Almer Charter Township et al. (see opening brief here<\/a> and reply brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\nAppellee Michigan PSC (see brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nIntervening Appellees Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, Institute for Energy Innovation, Clean Grid Association, and Advanced Energy United (see brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nMilan Township Landowners (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

B. Briefing on the Merits<\/strong><\/h3>\n

While the motion for a preliminary injunction was still pending, the local governments filed a brief on the merits asserting their procedural and substantive arguments. The PSC and intervening appellees responded to rebut these arguments. On the procedural claim, they argued, among other things, that the Order was an interpretative statement that is not subject to formal rulemaking procedures under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. On the substantive claims, they defended the rationale for the interpretation set out in the Order.<\/p>\n

In addition, a total of 11 amicus briefs on the merits of the appeal have been submitted. The amicus brief of the Milan Township Landowners, submitted by the Sabin Center and local counsel, highlighted the landowners\u2019 personal experiences with the dysfunctional siting process that preceded PA 233. The brief also highlighted examples of ongoing efforts by local governments to thwart the implementation of PA 233 by evading the statute\u2019s limits on the restrictions that can be included as part of a CREO. Further, the brief explained why the PSC\u2019s Order will help to curb ongoing abuses of the PA 233 siting process. Links to these briefs are available below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

BRIEFS FILED ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Opposing PSC Order<\/strong><\/td>\nSupporting PSC Order<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Appellants Almer Charter Township et al. (see opening brief here<\/a> and reply brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\nAppellee Michigan PSC (see brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Michigan House of Representative (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\nIntervening Appellees Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, Institute for Energy Innovation, Clean Grid Association, and Advanced Energy United (see brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Michigan Farm Bureau (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\nMichigan Environmental Council, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Evergreen Action (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Michigan Townships Association (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\nMichigan Regional Council of Carpenters & Millwrights (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Michigan Association of Counties (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\nMilan Township Landowners (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Our Home, Our Voice, Inc. (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\nSenator Sam Singh, Senator Erika Geiss, Representative Ranjeev Puri, and Representative Laurie Pohutsky (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nMichigan Conservative Energy Forum (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nNational Grid Renewables Development (see amicus brief here<\/a>)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Ultimately, the outcome of the appeal could have a significant impact on the deployment of large-scale renewables and battery storage in Michigan. A decision upholding the PSC order could make it more difficult for local governments to block renewable energy projects, by clarifying that they cannot impose certain types of restrictions on such projects. By contrast, a decision vacating the PSC order could make it easier for local governments to block such projects.<\/p>\n

Updated 4\/16\/25 to provide links to additional amicus briefs.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Over the last five years, several states, including New York (2020), California (2022), Illinois (2023), and Michigan (2023) have adopted comprehensive permitting reforms that curtail the power of local governments to block development of large-scale renewable energy projects. In two states, New York and Michigan, local governments have sued to block implementation of these reforms. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2340,"featured_media":24872,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5717,5669,5682],"tags":[68633],"class_list":{"0":"post-24869","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-renewable-energy","8":"category-solar-power","9":"category-wind-power","10":"tag-reldi","11":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nMichigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Over the last five years, several states, including New York (2020), California (2022), Illinois (2023), and Michigan (2023) have adopted comprehensive permitting reforms that curtail the power of local governments to block development of large-scale renewable energy projects. In two states, New York and Michigan, local governments have sued to block implementation of these reforms. […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-04-11T16:50:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-04-19T06:53:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"936\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1206\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Matthew Eisenson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Matthew Eisenson\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Matthew Eisenson\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f2826e5705153a3d6bb23927129bf3ce\"},\"headline\":\"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-11T16:50:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-04-19T06:53:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1853,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png\",\"keywords\":[\"RELDI\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Renewable Energy\",\"Solar Power\",\"Wind Power\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/\",\"name\":\"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-11T16:50:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-04-19T06:53:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png\",\"width\":936,\"height\":1206,\"caption\":\"Amicus brief filed by the Sabin Center and local counsel from Goodman Acker P.C. on behalf of landowners in Milan Township, Michigan\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/11\\\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f2826e5705153a3d6bb23927129bf3ce\",\"name\":\"Matthew Eisenson\",\"description\":\"Matthew Eisenson is a Senior Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, where he leads the Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative (RELDI).\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/mattheweisenson\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Over the last five years, several states, including New York (2020), California (2022), Illinois (2023), and Michigan (2023) have adopted comprehensive permitting reforms that curtail the power of local governments to block development of large-scale renewable energy projects. In two states, New York and Michigan, local governments have sued to block implementation of these reforms. […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2025-04-11T16:50:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-04-19T06:53:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":936,"height":1206,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Matthew Eisenson","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Matthew Eisenson","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/"},"author":{"name":"Matthew Eisenson","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/f2826e5705153a3d6bb23927129bf3ce"},"headline":"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables","datePublished":"2025-04-11T16:50:05+00:00","dateModified":"2025-04-19T06:53:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/"},"wordCount":1853,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png","keywords":["RELDI"],"articleSection":["Renewable Energy","Solar Power","Wind Power"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/","name":"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png","datePublished":"2025-04-11T16:50:05+00:00","dateModified":"2025-04-19T06:53:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/Milan-Township-Landowners-Amicus-Brief.png","width":936,"height":1206,"caption":"Amicus brief filed by the Sabin Center and local counsel from Goodman Acker P.C. on behalf of landowners in Milan Township, Michigan"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/11\/michigan-court-of-appeals-considers-challenge-to-new-process-for-siting-renewables\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Michigan Court of Appeals Considers Challenge to New Process for Siting Renewables"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/f2826e5705153a3d6bb23927129bf3ce","name":"Matthew Eisenson","description":"Matthew Eisenson is a Senior Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, where he leads the Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative (RELDI).","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/mattheweisenson\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24869","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2340"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24869"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24869\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24947,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24869\/revisions\/24947"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24872"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}