Wind and Solar Land Leasing in Clinton County, Michigan

2023: a real, county-wide pause on new utility-scale projects

In May 2023, Clinton County implemented a year-long suspension on new utility-scale wind and solar project applications, covering eleven of the county's townships. The stated driver was resident concern over the impact of large renewable-energy installations on farmland and the aesthetic and rural character of the area -- concerns that had already generated real public pushback ahead of the moratorium. If a lease or option on your target parcel (or a neighboring one) dates to this period, it's worth asking directly whether the application was filed before, during, or after the moratorium window, since that timing affects which set of local rules actually applied to it.

Following the pause, the Clinton County Planning Commission worked through draft zoning-ordinance revisions specifically aimed at large-scale renewable projects: new soil-testing requirements, glare testing for solar panel arrays, and minimum setback distances separating solar panels and wind turbines from property lines. Whether these specific draft provisions were ultimately adopted, and in what final form, is worth confirming directly with the county Planning & Zoning Department -- this research pass found the draft-stage reporting but not confirmation of the final adopted ordinance text.

PA 233 changed the rules statewide -- and Clinton County pushed back

Clinton County's local tightening ran directly into a bigger statewide shift. Michigan's legislature passed Public Act 233 in 2023, which limits the kinds of restrictions local governments can place on utility-scale wind (100 MW or greater), solar (50 MW or greater), and battery-storage (50 MW or greater) projects, and gives the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) authority to approve a qualifying project directly when the local government's own ordinance is "more restrictive" than what the state considers a compatible renewable energy ordinance (CREO). In practice, this means a Clinton County township's own setback, glare, or soil-testing rules -- even ones adopted specifically in response to the 2023 moratorium period -- may not control a large enough project if the MPSC determines the local ordinance exceeds what PA 233 allows.

Clinton County pushed back on this shift directly: it's named, per legal-representation materials from the law firm involved, among the local governments that challenged an MPSC order implementing PA 233 in litigation styled Almer Charter Township et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission -- a case that grew from an initial group of 72 townships and 7 counties to a coalition described as 79 municipalities by the time of a Michigan Supreme Court appeal application. The Michigan Court of Appeals has largely upheld the MPSC's more limited reading of what a local ordinance can restrict, meaning the practical trend, at least through this litigation's outcome so far, favors the state's authority over local ordinances for qualifying large projects.

What this means for a lease, option, or nearby parcel

• For an existing lease or option tied to a project that needs MPSC approval under PA 233, ask directly whether the project has filed with or received approval from the MPSC -- that state-level process may now be the operative one regardless of what the specific township's zoning currently says.
• For a parcel you're evaluating near a potential project site, confirm whether the relevant township's zoning ordinance has been found by the MPSC (or in litigation) to exceed PA 233's limits, since that affects whether local setback and siting rules will actually control the outcome.
• If a lease predates the 2023 moratorium or the PA 233 litigation, don't assume its terms anticipated either -- read the lease's own force majeure, regulatory-change, and termination provisions to see how it handles a shift in the applicable regulatory regime.
• Track the status of Almer Charter Township et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission directly (via the Michigan Court of Appeals or Supreme Court docket, or Michigan Townships Association updates) if a specific project's approval path depends on the outcome, since this litigation was still working through appellate review as of this research pass.
• Confirm with the Clinton County Planning & Zoning Department whether the draft soil-testing, glare-testing, and setback provisions discussed during the moratorium period were ultimately adopted in final form, and if so, whether the county's version currently qualifies as a compatible renewable energy ordinance under PA 233.