This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The state’s landmark legislation to overrule local opposition to renewable energy is being challenged by over 70 local jurisdictions.
The most important legal challenge for the renewables industry in America may have just been filed in Michigan.
On Friday afternoon, about 70 towns and a handful of Michigan counties appealed the rule implementing part of a new renewable energy siting law – PA 233 – providing primary permitting authority to the Michigan Public Services Commission and usurping local approval powers in specific cases, Heatmap can first report. The law was part of a comprehensive permitting package passed last year by the state legislature and seen by climate advocates as a potential model for combatting NIMBYs across the country.
The appeal challenges multiple aspects of the law’s implementation, saying it went beyond statute, as well as the rulemaking procedure itself, claiming it failed to follow proper processes. The lawsuit aims to effectively undo the law going into effect, or at least enjoin what opponents say are the most onerous restrictions on municipalities and county governments.
Some of the places involved in the litigation have solar, wind, or battery storage proposed in their backyards. But while it’s certainly the case that some opponents may just want to stop projects from being built, one of the attorneys behind the litigation – Michael Homier at Michigan law firm Foster Swift – told me the case represents how these laws inflame broader tensions between communities and their governments.
“[Renewables have] to be sited appropriately, because each community has unique priorities and circumstances that relate to them,” Homier said. “I think what it says is that local voices matter and when you try and implement policy on a one-size fits all approach with all of these local communities, they don’t like it.”
Local control laws like Michigan’s exist because, well, climate change is an imperative that calls for rapid action. Delays stemming from dissent at the municipal or county level can totally gum up the works, as we’ve shown you time and time again. Michigan’s no stranger to this problem. Opponents of the Michigan law sought to repeal it via ballot initiative before the lawsuit was filed, but that effort failed, and some ballot petition backers have since gotten a campaign finance complaint.
But it’s important to note these laws feel like shots to the heart of small-d democracy, and the notion of locally-controlled land use planning, too. As these policies become a go-to for anxious Democratic politicians trying to get shovels into the ground to bring down carbon emissions, one should hardly expect towns and counties to take it lying down.
Take Maryland, where legislators have sought to pass bills similar to Michigand’s. Despite the state’s ambitious climate goals, the Maryland Association of Counties has vociferously opposed bills to ban counties and towns from setting ordinances that restrict renewable development and let community-scale solar advance without strenuous local review. Or take New Jersey, where transmission cables for offshore wind may produce similar litigation to what’s in Michigan, testing the constitutionality of the state’s local control law.
In Michigan, it’ll take upwards of a year or two for the case to wind its way through court proceedings. Until then, we’ll pour one out for any developer or climate wonk who thought that the state's stab at “permitting reform” was going to help.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And what renewables can learn from it.
A sprawling multi-state carbon pipeline appears easier to permit and build than wind and solar farms in red states, despite comments the president-elect or his team may have said on the campaign trail. And the answer has to do with more than just the potential benefits for oil and gas.
The Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline network would criss-cross five states – Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas – connecting dozens of ethanol “biorefinery” plants to carbon sequestration sites for storing CO2 captured while producing the agri-fuel. On paper Summit has its work cut out for it in ways not dissimilar to the troubles facing solar and wind. Land use issues, ecological concerns, the whole lot. And its work has become controversial amongst a myriad of opposition groups I often write about like rural farmers and, of course, conspiratorial NIMBYs – chief among them Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., two members of the incoming Trump administration.
But Ramaswamy and RFK Jr.’s presence is providing cold comfort compared to the selection of North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum – a vocal supporter of the project – to be Interior Secretary.
“We’re screwed,” wrote Dawn Shepard, a North Dakotan opposed to the project, on Facebook after the selection was announced. “He will get all Carbon Capture projects approved. I thought Republicans and Trump, included, didn’t believe in climate change. Trump’s not keeping his word.”
It’s not exactly that simple, and its debatable whether Summit’ll actually help address climate change, but the premise is true: Trump’s election may just assure the pipeline’s completion, if all things go its way.
“Those appointments are definitely a big thumb on the scale of the pipeline going through,” said Mark Hefflinger of Bold Alliance, one of the activist networks fighting the pipeline project.
In my conversations with activists and the company, it doesn’t appear there’s any easy way for the Interior Department – which oversees all federal land use – to grease all of the skids for Summit, so to speak. But there are a number of factors in its favor now: the pipeline will still require Army Corps of Engineers permits for water body crossings and those tend to require environmental reviews that heavily involve Interior. At the same time, all sides expect the Interior Secretary and likely Energy Secretary Chris Wright (an oil magnate) to champion beneficial Inflation Reduction Act tax credits for carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization in tax talks early next year.
All the while, most state-level regulators have finished or are completing approvals of the pipeline, with the exception of South Dakota where Summit on Tuesday resubmitted its permitting application to the state’s Public Utilities Commission. While I’ve been told the company didn’t substantially adjust its routing in response to the failed ballot initiative, executives certainly did change plans to elide a repeat rejection from the commission after it said no to pipeline plans last year.
“Our efforts involved spending more than a year driving county roads, knocking on doors, and having meaningful, face-to-face conversations with landowners,” Sabrina Zenor, Summit’s director of stakeholder engagement and corporate communications, told me. “These conversations guided our approach.”
There’s a lot that could still go awry for Summit. They could lose legal battles in Iowa that send them back to the drawing board in a crucial hub for corn and ethanol and where public opinion may be souring on the developer. South Dakota could be its own ball of wax, given how passionate the opposition in the state is.
Trump’s comments on the matter have been vague, indicating he’s … well, being very Trump about this. “Well, you know, we’re working on that,” Trump said when asked about the pipeline at an Iowa primary event last year. “And you know, we had a plan to totally — it’s such a ridiculous situation, isn’t it? But we had a plan, and we would have instituted that plan, and it was all ready, but we will get it — if we win, that’s going to be taken care of. That will be one of the easy things we do.”
Ultimately it may be with many issues: whoever’s in the room last with Trump could decide the pipeline’s fate.
But regardless, developers of renewables and battery storage could take away a few lessons from the pipeline network.
Walt Bones, the former head of South Dakota’s Agriculture Department, is one of the landowners currently negotiating a financial agreement for land use with Summit. He’s a farmer, and like many farmers we write about here at The Fight, he doesn’t support building stuff on or near his land if there’s going to be an impact on his crop yields. He told me that he believes the opposition in the state is largely the product of a rush to build by an over-zealous company seeking the maximum benefit from federal tax credits. And they spooked people, producing widespread skepticism of the pipeline.
“Summit did not help themselves any,” he said.
Now of course, there’s lots of concerns about CO2 pipelines’ environmental impacts and the risk of them going, well, kablooey. But unlike how some farmers skeptically view agri-voltaics (e.g. dual use solar), the thought of a pipeline beneath the earth gives Bones – a former farm regulator – no qualms. And the reasoning is simple: He doesn’t believe the pipeline, which will be buried, will impact his farming at all. And ethanol – unlike solar or wind – will feed demand for more farming.
“Basically zero impact to our land. We’ll still be able to farm over it. We’ll still be able to graze over it with our cows,” he said. “I know what the value is … [it’ll] guarantee the future viability of corn.”
So where does this leave us? It’s likely Bones doesn’t represent every farmer. But maybe there’d be a benefit in renewable developers focusing on finding ever-more ways to create a fly-wheel where solar and wind energy generation creates more business for farmers. Clearly, the sheer footprint of a utility scale solar or wind project can be more impactful than a thin pipeline crossing a property.
And I guess they should also make more politically powerful friends in the Dakotas.
1. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – The Biden administration is rushing to finish permitting Ocean Winds’ Southcoast Wind project, a joint venture between EDP Renewables and Engie, before Donald Trump returns to the White House. Questions remain as to whether it can be done.
2. Pittsburgh County, Oklahoma – Momentum is building for an anti-wind moratorium in this Oklahoma county home to multiple proposed wind projects.
3. Benton County, Washington – Remember when we told you advocates were going to sue over Washington state approving the Horse Heaven wind farm project? It’s happening.
4. Branch County, Michigan – When a solar farm and a transmission project are the ones fighting, who wins? In the Mitten State, we’re about to find out.
Here’s what else we’re watching…
In Ohio, a wind farm got a local approval for once: NextEra’s Swan Lake project.
In New Mexico, a county has approved the tax agreement for Orsted’s Blackwater solar project.
In Pennsylvania, a local newspaper’s editorial board has come out against activists that have “put the kibosh to more than a dozen proposed solar farm projects throughout the region.”
In West Virginia, state regulators have approved a Nedpower Mount Storm wind farm after the company reduced its size by more than 40 percent.
In Virginia, local officials are bracing for Virginia Beach traffic jams over constructing the Dominion Energy Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.And more on this week’s top policy and energy news.
Trump’s energy direction – We’re far enough into the Trump 2.0 transition that I can offer a few specific insights having covered him the first go-around.
New hydrogen hub backing – The Energy Department has announced more than $2.2 billion in cost-sharing agreements with two more hydrogen hubs in the Midwest and Gulf Coast.
Here’s what else I’m watching…
A Virginia Circuit Court has struck down Governor Glenn Youngkin’s attempt to withdraw the state from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed new legislation creating new tax breaks and financing for offshore wind as she defiantly insists the industry will continue to grow during the Trump 2.0 era.