States Stepping in to Speed Clean Energy Siting – Fossil Industry Fights Back with Bogus “Grassroots” Effort

Above, Dave Loomis, Emeritus Prof of Economics from Illinois State University, who has specialized in clean energy deployment across the midwest.
I asked Dave about Illinois’ new siting reform for clean energy, which kind of mirrors what we are seeing across the Heartland.
Large majorities in favor of clean energy across all states are impatient with MAGA mobs intimidation of local boards, and threats against local landowners aimed at blocking clean energy, so taking matters into their own hands.

Associated Press:

Clara Ostrander in Monroe County (Michigan) found herself at the center of a similar conflict as rising medical costs forced her and her husband to consider selling land her family has owned for 150 years. 

Leasing a parcel to an incoming solar farm could save the property, but neighboring residents complained so vehemently that Ostrander said the township changed its zoning to block the project.
“There are people in this township I will never, ever speak to again,” she said.

Local restrictions in Michigan derailed more than two dozen utility-scale renewable energy projects as of last May, according to a study by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Nationwide, and at least 228 restrictions in 35 states have been imposed to stop green energy projects.

The conflicts have hindered many states’ aggressive timelines for transitioning to cleaner energy production, with the ultimate goal of eliminating carbon pollution within the next two decades.

Michigan and more than a dozen other states are seeking to upend the decision-making process by grabbing the power to supersede local restrictions and allow state authorities to approve or disapprove locations for utility-scale projects.

The shift has sparked a political backlash that may escalate as more states seek to simplify getting green energy projects approved and built.

“We can’t allow projects of statewide importance that are critical to our state energy security to be vetoed on purely local concerns,” said Dan Scripps, chair of Michigan’s Public Service Commission.

Scripps and two other commission members now have the power to site large-scale renewable energy projects in the state under legislation passed by Michigan lawmakers and signed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in November. 

Michigan joined Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Minnesota in requiring utility providers to transition to 100% carbon-free electricity generation by 2040. A sixth state, Rhode Island, is shooting for 100% renewable energy by 2033. The goals are consistent with the Biden administration’s target of carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and a net-zero emissions economy by 2050. Other states have long-standing goals lower than 100%.

But even with the restrictions in place in parts of Kansas, renewable energy has boomed there. Wind farms now provide 47% of the state’s electricity, up from 7% in 2010. The gains came as the clean energy lobby worked steadily to counter opposition from the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature.

Elise Caplan, vice president for regulatory affairs at the nonprofit American Council on Renewable Energy, said local rules restricting green energy facilities are “not really based on science.” Projects can benefit local environments by retiring generating plants powered by fossil fuels, she said.

Michigan has pursued its clean-energy goals by rapidly developing facilities where there’s ample farmland. It’s a choice that can divide rural communities, as it did in the Monroe County case in which Ostrander sought to lease property for a solar farm.

Michigan’s new siting law could revive the project.

“No one’s forcing this on us,” Ostrander said. “This was something we decided and felt it would be good for us to build to keep our property in the family.”

In Michigan, a purported “grass roots” initiative to push back against the siting reform relies on convincing people that this is some kind of “eminent domain” land grab, forcing helpless farmers to accept horrible projects from “Big Wind” and “Big Solar” – in fact, it’s exactly the opposite.
Farmers must opt in to any of these projects, and stand to gain substantial revenue from their participation.
Eminent domain is what is used to force gas pipelines through communities by seizing private land, and compensating those landowners at market rates.
The proposed repeal of the clean energy siting reform mentions only “solar, wind and energy storage” projects, not pipelines, a telling admission.

Energy and Policy Institute:

A new group formed by anti-wind and solar activists in Michigan has teamed up with a Republican political consulting firm that also represents an oil and gas pipeline company to fight legislation that would make it easier to site and build renewable energy projects in the state.

Our Home, Our Voice (OHOV) is a 501(c)(4) organization incorporated in the State of Michigan earlier this year. 

“Our Home, Our Voice is a pure grassroots coalition of local officials and private citizens dedicated to protecting Michigan’s long-standing right of local regulation of land use,” Kevon Martis, OHOV’s co-founder and a long-time anti-wind activist, said last month in a presentation to the Michigan House Energy, Communications and Technology Committee. 

“OHOV is funded entirely by rural residents and receives no industry support of any kind,” Martis’s presentation also said. 

A visit to the “About” page for OHOV’s private Facebook group revealed that the group’s admins and moderators include Lucy Cornwell and Emily Van Camp, both of whom are listed as employees of the Marketing Resource Group (MRG), a public relations firm in Lansing that’s represented the Wolverine Pipe Line Company for more than twenty years. 

Wolverine Pipe Line Co. is jointly controlled by the Mobil Pipe Line Company, Sunoco Pipeline L.P., and several smaller companies, according to an annual report filed with federal regulators in April by Mobil Pipe Line, which is a unit of ExxonMobil. Energy Transfer also lists Wolverine Pipe Line Co. as a subsidiary in SEC filings.