October 2, 2026
The application's 240 and 241 MWac figures
Wrong: the Gustin Solar briefing said the application's narrative gives 240 MWac for the Gustin side (“Application narrative: 240 MWac (215 approved + 25 requested)”), against 241 MWac on the site plan; its Panel 01 sourcing note said “The application narrative gives 240 MWac for the Gustin side where the site plan says 241”; and the project data file said the same.
Right: the application's project description gives “a proposed 241 MW (AC) solar project” (p. 237), as the site plan does. The 240 MWac figure is the application's own sum on p. 1208, where it combines the 215 MW approval and the 25 MW addition: “When combined, the Project will have an overall capacity rating of 240 MWAC.”
Wrong from: Oct 1, 2026 to Oct 2, 2026.
Caledonia Solar and the grid-interconnection queue
Wrong: the Caledonia Solar page said a queue entry matching the project's profile (120 MW, in-service April 2027) “was filed in April 2024 — but its engineering study hasn't started,” and treated that entry as Caledonia Solar's.
Right: MISO's interconnection queue, as captured Oct 2, 2026, lists that entry (J3451) in Phase 2 of MISO's 2023 study cycle. A second active Alcona County solar entry (J3539, 116.9 MW) has the same in-service date, April 1, 2027. The queue names no developers, so the record does not show which entry, if either, is Caledonia Solar. Queue record.
Wrong until: Oct 2, 2026. We cannot establish what the queue showed when the line was first published.
Sen. McBroom's floor statement misquoted
Wrong: The Law page quoted Sen. Ed McBroom as saying, “Yet the very things that make you appreciate [them]… will be irrevocably harmed,” and described its quotations as verbatim.
Right: his statement, printed in the Senate Journal as his reason for voting no, reads: “Yet, the very things that make you appreciate the economy, culture, and natural and picturesque landscapes that undergird it and identify it, will be stripped away for the cold industry and mechanics of miles and miles of panels powering communities hundreds of miles away.” Senate Journal No. 99, Nov 8, 2023, p. 2451.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 2, 2026.
What the rejected Senate amendments would have done
Wrong: The Law page said the Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. Ed McBroom for “carve-outs near existing 100 MW industrial sites.”
Right: under Sen. McBroom's amendments, the new part of the law would not have applied to “a solar energy facility with a nameplate capacity of 100 megawatts or more unless the energy facility is located in an industrial zone, and the land on which the solar energy facility is located is classified as industrial for property tax purposes.” The amendments were not adopted. Senate Journal No. 99, p. 2447.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 2, 2026.
When Senate Bill 898 was introduced
Wrong: The Law page's timeline placed Sen. Michele Hoitenga's SB 898 after Republicans won the Michigan House in November 2024, and said such bills stalled “against the Democratic Senate and governor.”
Right: SB 898, which would repeal the part of the law that PA 233 added, was introduced on June 6, 2024 and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment. The bill file records no later action. Bill file, 2024 SB 898.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 2, 2026.
Two quotations we cannot find in any source
Wrong: The Law page attributed to Neil Sheridan, executive director of the Michigan Townships Association, a sentence, and to Rep. Jaime Greene a sentence, that we cannot find in any source: “No one knows a community better than the people who live there,” which the page joined by an ellipsis to words from Sheridan's statement on the law's signing, and “We deserve to have a say in what happens in our own backyards.”
Right: the Townships Association's statement on the signing quotes Sheridan: “Rather, the legislation unduly forces large, utility-scale renewable energy facilities into our rural areas, while also stripping away local input on where and how much should be located in a community…” (MTA statement). Rep. Greene told Michigan Public Radio, as WEMU reported on Oct 16, 2023: “The state coming in, and really it’s like a hostile takeover, usurping their authority—not just the elected officials but then also the people who voted on these things” (WEMU). The page now quotes these.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 2, 2026.
Who wrote the groundwater preemption letter
Wrong: the records library attributed the letter on groundwater regulation in Consumers Energy's Harrisville application to “Consumers Energy counsel” and dated it June 2026.
Right: it is from Heather Prentice, Director, Engineering and Environmental Compliance, Consumers Energy, to the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator. It carries no date. Letter, p. 1.
Wrong from: Aug 7, 2026 (when the record was added) to Oct 2, 2026.
Consumers Energy's project count and the Caledonia figures
Wrong: the Gustin Solar briefing said Alcona County was hosting “two of Consumers Energy's nine active solar projects” and gave Caledonia as 115 MW, for 450 MW proposed in the county, and it called Gustin Solar “one of at least nine utility-scale solar plants” in the utility's build-out. The Caledonia Solar page gave the project as “115 MW on roughly 1,200 acres” with “commercial operation targeted for 2027.”
Right: Consumers Energy's solar projects page, as we captured it on Oct 2, 2026, lists eight active projects, including Gustin (335 megawatts) and Caledonia (117 megawatts on 1,200 acres, start of commercial operation 2029). No application for Caledonia is in our records: the township Planning Commission's minutes of Aug 31, 2026 say “nothing has been submitted in Caledonia Township at this time.” Company page, all tabs; Northern Michigan tab; minutes, p. 4.
Wrong until: Oct 2, 2026. We cannot establish what the company's page said when the lines were first published.
Alcona County's income beside the state's
Wrong: the Gustin Solar briefing gave Alcona County's median household income as “$55k” beside “~$68k statewide.” The statewide figure was from the Census Bureau's 2018–2022 American Community Survey ($68,505); the county figure was from the 2020–2024 survey ($54,993, rounded). Set side by side, the two understated the gap.
Right: in the 2020–2024 survey, median household income was $54,993 in Alcona County and $72,875 in Michigan, a gap of $17,882. In the 2018–2022 survey the two were $50,295 and $68,505. 2020–2024 table B19013; 2018–2022 table B19013 (Census Bureau).
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 2, 2026.
October 1, 2026
Fact-check of the Grobbel letter reworded
Wrong: the Gustin Solar briefing's fact-check of the July 26, 2026 Grobbel letter included statements with no source a reader could open, commentary in our own voice, and characterisations of the letter's author. It also said PA 233 requires decommissioning assurance “phased 25/50/100% by years 1/5/10” and that the township's 150% bond “may actually exceed what a compliant local ordinance can require.” The briefing's timeline called the letter's author “A consultant retained on the opposition side.”
Right: each finding now quotes the letter and states only what the mirrored records show, with the record and page. PA 233 allows financial assurance to be posted in steps of at least 25% by the start of full commercial operation, at least 50% by the start of the fifth year of commercial operation and 100% by the start of the tenth (Sec. 225(1)(r)); no record supports the statement about the township's bond. The note on the author, and the timeline entry for July 26, now give only what the letter itself says: it is addressed to Harrisville Township, describes itself as public comment, names no client, and “strongly urge[s] Harrisville Township to deny” the project as proposed (letter, pp. 1, 17). Verdicts changed: Finding 6, “Misleading framing” to “Contested”; Finding 7, “Largely supported” to “Partly supported”; Finding 9, “Contested” to “Largely supported”; Finding 10, “Misleading framing” to “Partly supported”. The other six are unchanged.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
What the Court of Appeals decided
Wrong: the records library said the May 7, 2026 Court of Appeals opinion “largely upheld MPSC siting authority while restoring broader CREO eligibility,” and the briefing timeline said it “largely upholds MPSC siting authority.”
Right: the court held that the commission “incorrectly interpreted PA 233 with respect to a statutory timeline” and “improperly expanded the statutory definition of an affected local unit,” and that it “properly interpreted the term CREO in accordance with the statutory definition and the statute as a whole.” It affirmed the commission's order in part and reversed it in part. The opinion's summary says the commission “improperly expanded” the definition of an affected local unit (p. 2); its body calls the commission's definition “more limited” than the statute's (p. 13). We quote both. Opinion, pp. 2, 11, 13.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
What PA 233 gives the Public Service Commission
Wrong: the Gustin Solar briefing said PA 233 “gives the Public Service Commission default authority over solar projects of 50 MW or more,” and The Law page said “The MPSC becomes the default siting authority.” The Law page's headline (“One law moved the decision to Lansing”) and description, and the records library's note on the statute, said the same in other words.
Right: the law creates a state siting certificate and sets out when a developer may apply for one: a developer “may, pursuant to this part, obtain a certificate” (Sec. 222(2)). Where a township has given notice of a compatible ordinance, the developer must apply to the township first (Sec. 223(3)). The Court of Appeals wrote that “the statute does not require a developer to seek certification from the PSC in order to site an energy facility” (opinion p. 3).
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
Who has asked the Michigan Supreme Court to review the case
Wrong: the briefing said “The municipalities ask the state's top court to restore broader local control.” It named only one side, and described what they asked for from a filing that is not public.
Right: the townships and counties applied for leave to appeal on June 18, 2026. On July 16 the commission and four intervening organizations filed cross-appeals, and a motion to expedite was filed. The court's caption lists the commission as “Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.” The court has not decided whether to hear the case. Docket; order of Sept 9, 2026.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026. The cross-appeals were filed July 16, 2026, before the briefing was published.
Number of townships and counties appealing
Wrong: The Law page said “72 townships and 7 counties” sued. No record we hold gives that count.
Right: the Michigan Supreme Court's order of Sept 9, 2026 lists 75 townships and counties as appellants: 69 townships and 6 counties. The Court of Appeals caption lists 76 entries, with one township name twice. Order; opinion caption.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
PA 233 decommissioning assurance
Wrong: the briefing said PA 233 requires financial assurance “phased 25/50/100% by years 1/5/10” and that the township's 150% bond “may actually exceed what a compliant local ordinance can require.”
Right: financial assurance may be posted in steps of “At least 25% by the start of full commercial operation,” “At least 50% by the start of the fifth year of commercial operation” and “100% by the start of the tenth year of commercial operation” (Sec. 225(1)(r)). That section sets out what an application must contain; it is not among the Sec. 226(8) standards that the law's definition of a compatible ordinance refers to. No record we hold supports the statement about the township's bond, and it has been removed. The comparison table now also says “at least” for the 50% step.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
MPSC filing instructions: two parts reversed
Wrong: the records library presented the MPSC's Oct. 10, 2024 filing instructions as how a developer files, without saying that the Court of Appeals had reversed two interpretations they contain.
Right: on May 7, 2026 the court held that the commission “incorrectly interpreted PA 233 with respect to a statutory timeline” and “improperly expanded the statutory definition of an affected local unit.” The mirrored instructions contain both: Sec. 1.3 and Attachment C-1. Opinion; instructions.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
Unsourced timing for a Supreme Court decision
Wrong: the records library said Michigan Supreme Court “leave decisions commonly take 3–6 months” and projected a decision in fall 2026.
Right: no record we hold supports either statement, and both have been removed. The docket shows the application as “Pending on Application” (docket).
Wrong until: Oct 1, 2026. We cannot establish when the line was first published.
When the project is expected to be in service
Wrong: the Gustin Solar briefing gave “2028–29” as the target for operations and listed “Construction target mid-2026” and “Operations target 2028–2029” without naming a source, and it did not give the dates in Consumers Energy's applications to the townships.
Right: the applications give two in-service dates: “June 2027” (Harrisville cover letter, p. 1) and “December 31, 2028” (Harrisville application summary, PDF p. 5). For construction they give “Fall 2026” (cover letter, p. 1) and “fourth quarter (Q4) of 2026” (application summary, PDF p. 5). The company's announcement of Sept 26, 2025 said: “Construction should start in mid-2026 with a goal to start operations by July 2029.” The briefing now gives the dates in the applications, with their sources. Cover letter; application summary; Consumers Energy announcement.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
This entry was revised on Oct 1, 2026. Its first version said no record gave 2029; the company's announcement does.
Where the Harrisville filing's figures are published
Wrong: the briefing said the Harrisville filing's figures (523 acres, 165,321 panels, 94 MWac) “appear only in the township file as quoted by the letter — not yet in any indexed public source.”
Right: all three are in Consumers Energy's application, which our records library has held since Aug 7, 2026: 94 MWac in the application summary (PDF p. 5) and the decommissioning plan (Exhibit G, p. 5); 165,321 solar modules in the summary (PDF p. 6) and Exhibit G (p. 7); 523 acres of fenced site in Exhibit G (p. 7), where the site plan gives 479.7 acres (Exhibit B, p. 1, read from the drawing). Application summary; Exhibit G; Exhibit B.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
The letter's truck noise figures
Wrong: the briefing said “The letter compares the project to heavy trucks at 88–96 dBA. That's the sound standing next to the truck,” and its chart labelled the figure “Heavy truck (at source).”
Right: the letter lists truck noise among the sounds it expects from the project, including “truck noise at ingress to egress from public roads” and “jack braking,” and gives “typical sound measurements for heavy duty trucks” of “88 dBA at 35 mph and 96 dBA at highway speeds”; its table lists “Heavy trucks (35 mph-60 mph)” (letter, p. 16). It gives speeds, not a distance. The chart now reads “Heavy trucks, 35–60 mph (letter, p. 16).” Letter, p. 16.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
How PA 233's 50 MW threshold applies
Wrong: The Law page said “Gustin Solar's Harrisville share alone is 94 MW — nearly double PA 233's 50 MW threshold.”
Right: PA 233 applies to “Any solar energy facility with a nameplate capacity of 50 megawatts or more” (Sec. 222(1)(a)). The test is the facility's nameplate capacity, not one township's share. Consumers Energy's filings give 241 MWac in Gustin Township and 94 MWac in Harrisville Township. PA 233.
Wrong from: publication in August 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
Number of MPSC siting applications
Wrong: the Gustin Solar briefing, the Caledonia page and the records library said the Michigan Public Service Commission listed 13 current siting applications.
Right: the commission's table lists 12. A thirteenth docket number on the same page, U-21547, is the commission's rulemaking case, not a siting application, and was counted in error. MPSC page, captured Oct 1, 2026.
Wrong from: Oct 1, 2026 to Oct 1, 2026 (published and corrected the same day).
Exhibit B site plan was an incomplete copy
Wrong: the Harrisville Township application's Exhibit B site plan in our records library was an incomplete copy, 136,044,544 of 155,608,782 bytes, unreadable past the cut. The SHA-256 fingerprint published beside it (d68882e5272c15fd2a27d621010eb5d2e80f90f500217537332f8ee5a9bbe7a6) fingerprinted that incomplete copy.
Right: the complete file from the township, fingerprint 127c344767fd4e89f76c03daf625190f6b8d4b87d3d0cb48ae72b4603147261c. Exhibit B.
Wrong from: Aug 7, 2026 to Oct 1, 2026. Every other mirrored file was re-checked the same day against its source and with a PDF integrity check; no other file was incomplete. The capture step now runs the same check.
Gustin Township's Aug 6 decision was shown as pending
Wrong: the Gustin Solar briefing said the outcome of Gustin Township's Aug 6, 2026 Planning Commission meeting was pending.
Right: the commission voted 5–0 to deny the 25 MW addition to the project. Its December 2024 approval of 215 MW has not been rescinded in any record we found. Minutes, posted Sept 7, 2026.
Wrong from: Sept 7, 2026, when the minutes were posted, to Oct 1, 2026.
"Project footprint" was fenced area
Wrong: the briefing labeled about 1,800 acres as the "project footprint."
Right: about 1,800 acres is the fenced area across both townships. Consumers Energy's site plans give 1,266.9 acres in Gustin Township and 479.7 acres in Harrisville Township. The Gustin Township property figures (3,985.6 and 2,684.2 acres) are now shown with their own labels.
Wrong from: Aug 7, 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
Height comparison
Wrong: the comparison table said state default height standards apply and rated the two rules "comparable."
Right: the state standard is 25 feet at full tilt (PA 233 Sec. 226(8)(a)(iii)); Harrisville's ordinance sets 15 feet at maximum tilt (Sec. 3.22). The township's rule is stricter.
Wrong from: Aug 7, 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
Noise comparison
Wrong: the briefing called Harrisville's 45 dBA limit "stricter" than the state's 55 dBA standard without saying the two are measured differently.
Right: Harrisville's limit is a one-hour average at the adjacent lot line at 2 a.m.; the state's is an hourly average modeled at the nearest dwelling's outer wall, with no time of day. They are not directly comparable.
Wrong from: Aug 7, 2026 to Oct 1, 2026.
Caledonia hearing date
Wrong: the Caledonia Solar page said a township ordinance hearing was expected in September 2026.
Right: the Planning Commission set the hearing for Aug 31, 2026 and held it that day. Draft minutes.
Wrong from: Aug 10, 2026, when the hearing was set, to Oct 1, 2026.