(The Center Square) – Michigan’s push for solar energy promises billions in investment and cleaner power, but questions remain over whether there are benefits that outweigh the costs for taxpayers, utilities and rural communities.
One major factor is how renewable energy projects are currently approved in the state.
In 2023, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer joined fellow Democrats to pass a series of public acts cementing the state’s clean energy strategy. Among other provisions, the legislation established a statewide standard requiring utilities to generate 80% of their electricity from clean sources by 2035 and reach 100% clean energy by 2040. (Read more about this in the first installment in this series HERE.)
The laws also created a new statewide siting process for large renewable energy facilities under Public Act 233, giving the Michigan Public Service Commission authority to approve certain projects.
Under the law, developers can bypass localities and apply directly to the commission for siting approval for large renewable projects. If a locality does not have a Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance in place and state regulators determine local rules are too restrictive, the commission can grant permits allowing projects to move forward even if local governments oppose them.
Supporters of the policy say the centralized process prevents local regulations from slowing Michigan’s clean energy transition. Critics argue it weakens the authority of local communities to make their own decisions.
State lawmakers who supported the legislation say the goal was to ensure Michigan can build enough clean energy to meet future demand.
Rep. Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton and the minority floor leader, argued that solar and other renewable projects are becoming a financially viable option for utilities.
“More and more energy companies in Michigan and even around the country are transitioning and expanding their renewable energy portfolios,” he told The Center Square in an exclusive interview. “I don’t think they’re doing it . . . because it’s the right thing to do or even because of these mandates. I think it’s really because it has been shown to be an economically-viable option that is going to help them improve their bottom line.”
He added that he believes solar is a advantageous move for Michigan.
“We can make sure that our energy is going to be Michigan made, and that will ultimately lead to more reliability, lower costs and an improved grid,” Puri said.
Consumer Concerns
David Stephenson, director of energy and environmental policy at the Mackinac Center, argued the push for solar in Michigan has been an artificial one.
“Solar energy has been pushed in Michigan for decades through mandates, tax incentives, and subsidies, yet it still provides only about 2% of the state’s electricity,” Stephenson told The Center Square. “In Michigan’s climate, solar is unreliable and delivers low returns. People should be free to use it if it works for them, but energy policy should be driven by reliability—not government mandates.”
The state averages about 180 days of sunshine per year, or about 50%. By contrast, states like Arizona see nearly 85% sunlight annually.
Stephenson added this requires many large solar farms to convert even more farmland and install costly battery storage, with those costs passed directly to ratepayers.
“Michigan is being pushed toward large-scale solar even though it delivers little power, requires massive land use, and raises costs for families and businesses. We already have cleaner, more reliable options that work in this state, like nuclear power,” he said. “Energy policy should be based on what actually delivers affordable, dependable power—not political mandates that ignore Michigan’s realities.”
Critics also question whether solar can reliably meet Michigan’s energy needs, particularly during the state’s long winters.
Stephenson said that even with battery storage, solar cannot consistently replace traditional generation sources during periods of peak demand.
“Even with storage, solar in Michigan cannot replace more consistent sources like nuclear or natural gas, especially during cold snaps when energy demand spikes,” he said.
Solar advocates disagree with this assessment, arguing that solar is overall a low-cost way to produce energy.
“Electricity prices in Michigan are rising faster than inflation. The fastest, lowest cost way to add power and bring down bills is to build more solar and energy storage,” said Andrew Linhares, Midwest state affairs director for SEIA.
Nick Dodge, communications director for the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, doubled down on that point in an exclusive interview with The Center Square.
“We need to be investing in the cheapest forms of energy,” Dodge said. “Costs for solar have come down drastically in recent years and it is more affordable than ever. Increasing the buildout of solar energy will help rein in rising electricity costs.”
Puri said solar should be viewed as just one component of a broader energy strategy rather than a standalone solution.
“Having a diversified portfolio is really an important approach to this, so solar can be one piece of that,” he explained.
All this comes as energy costs in the state have been consistently rising in recent years, with Michigan’s major energy companies regularly filing for rate hikes, as extensively reported on by The Center Square.
Local vs. State Control
Some local leaders are sounding warnings about the state’s current oversight system, even taking steps to reach out to communities and let them know about CREOs.
Rep. Jennifer Wortz, R-Quincy, is one of those. She said the push for solar often overlooks the challenges rural communities face, including land use, costs and long-term reliability.
“I’ve been trying to communicate to townships is you need to have a CREO in place,” Wortz said. “That is your one chance at having a say and maintaining some control here. You can’t ban it entirely, but you can set some guardrails.”
Puri said the state’s current siting framework was designed to balance local input with the need to expand generation capacity. He argued that the law encourages developers to work with communities first before seeking state approval.
“The legislation was structured to make it advantageous for developers to work with local municipalities and reach an agreement on how a solar project should be developed,” Puri said. “If that can’t be done, there is an option to go to the state level and work with the commission.”
Stephenson argued that the state’s permitting structure further limits local influence over projects.
“The MPSC has been given authority to approve projects even when local communities oppose them,” he said. “That undermines local control and pushes projects where they may not be wanted or practical.”
Yet, Puri said the framework recognizes that large renewable projects can be difficult for smaller local governments to evaluate on their own, and if they are ultimately overridden by the commission, they receive compensation.
“These projects are often complex, and sometimes local governments don’t have the infrastructure to fully evaluate their scope,” he said. “If a developer goes through the state process instead, they are required to provide millions of dollars in community benefits, which can fund things like libraries, parks and other local infrastructure.”
Community Impact
While subsidies and incentives from the state can prevent installation costs from being passed directly to utility customers—shifting them instead to taxpayers—critics say the financial and land-use impacts can still fall heavily on rural communities hosting the projects.
Wortz’s legislative district includes Fayette Township, which The Center Square examined in the second installment of this series. (Read that installment of this series HERE.) Residents there have raised concerns about land use, property values and the long-term maintenance and decommissioning of solar facilities.
“There’s a lot of fear about what happens in 20 to 30 years,” Wortz said. “They say there will be money there for clean up and it has to be returned to how it was, but how is that going to work when you’ve buried thousands of lines of wire conduit and a large amount of concrete?”
Puri pushed back against the community opposition to solar projects, arguing it is often driven by uncertainty about how the developments will affect communities.
“Often there’s a lot of anxiety at the beginning about what these projects mean for a community,” Puri said. “But once they’re built, many residents see the benefits and some of those concerns go away.”
Check back next week for the final installment in this series, which will examine the legislative and legal battles shaping Michigan’s solar energy future.
