Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Mendon planners review state renewable-energy laws, battery-storage targets and possible zoning text amendments

Mendon Township Planning Commission · October 15, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its Oct. 15 meeting the Mendon Township Planning Commission discussed Michigan statutes PA233 and PA235, the Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance concept and battery energy storage-system targets; Chair Kline recommended revisiting the local ordinance and invited an expert to explain state paperwork and implications for future zoning text amendments.

The Mendon Township Planning Commission on Oct. 15 reviewed recent state-level renewable-energy initiatives and signaled it will revisit local zoning to address large-scale renewable projects and battery energy storage systems (BESS).

Chairperson Kline said a 19-page packet related to PA233 (the Renewable Ready Communities Award) describes a Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance (CREO) framework and suggested Mendon consider whether its ordinance should be revised so that projects beyond a certain megawatt threshold are not automatically referred to the state. Kline said the commission should invite Doug Kuhlman to a future meeting to explain the paperwork and policy implications.

Kline framed the broader context as unavoidable: “Large-Scale Renewable Energy is never going to go away,” she said. She also described PA235’s storage goals and deployment examples: the statute calls for 2,500 megawatts of energy storage by 2029; Consumers Energy is planning about 75 megawatts by 2027; and DTE is cited with a roughly 1,500-megawatt target by 2042. The commission did not take formal action but noted it will pursue a text amendment to address BESS in local zoning.

Commissioners did not debate technical safety or siting criteria at the meeting; the session focused on ordinance language and next steps for staff outreach and invited presentations. No public comments were recorded on the topic during the meeting.