Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Local Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montcalm commissioners adopt resolution backing local control and legal appeal of MPSC order
Summary
The Montcalm County Board on Dec. 16 adopted Resolution 2024-15 supporting local control and a claim of appeal against a Michigan Public Service Commission order implementing PA 233, after debate over wording about whether the county could have joined the coalition prior to the filing deadline.
The Montcalm County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 16 voted to adopt Resolution 2024-15 to support "local control" and to record a claim of appeal against a Michigan Public Service Commission order implementing PA 233 (2023).
The resolution, introduced by Vice Chairman Mehar, contends the MPSC order of October 2024 improperly expands the commission's authority over large-scale wind, solar and energy storage siting and can override local zoning. The motion passed on a roll-call vote, with Commissioner Baker recorded as the lone no vote.
Why it matters: supporters said the order threatens municipalities' longstanding ability to regulate land use and preserve community character. Pam Hemmas, a public commenter, cited an appeal filed by legal firm Foster Swift Collins & Smith on behalf of more than 70 municipalities and urged the board to record its support.
Opponents and skeptics focused on wording and process. Several commissioners pressed to remove a clause that implied the county would have joined the appeal had it known of the coalition's timeline; others warned litigation favors law firms and questioned whether the resolution was the best use of county resources.
What the board decided: after debate and an amendment process, the board adopted the resolution as presented in the packet (2024-15) and recorded the roll-call vote. The resolution will be part of the record and may be used to show county support for local-control arguments in related litigation.
Next steps: the resolution does not itself join Montcalm County as a litigant; it documents the board's position. The Greenville City Council and other local bodies referenced in public comment may take separate steps in their jurisdictions.
