What's actually proposed
Gustin Solar grew out of a smaller project called Sapling Solar, begun by developer Ranger Power and transferred to Consumers Energy — one of at least nine utility-scale solar plants in the utility's statewide build-out toward roughly 8,000 MW of solar by 2040.
The whole project announced Sept 2025
- Nameplate capacity335 MW
- TownshipsGustin + Harrisville
- Approximate footprint~1,800 acres
- Homes served (est.)~60,000
- Construction targetmid-2026
- Operations target2028–2029
Harrisville Twp. share per the June 2026 filing
- Fenced project area523 acres
- Solar modules165,321
- Capacity116.5 MWdc / 94 MWac
- Participating parcels10 (~1,015 ac. eased)
- Perimeter fence12.8 miles
- New gravel roads5.8 miles
- Above-grade cable~335 miles
- Operating term30 years
Two clocks are running
The project's local review and a statewide legal war over who controls solar siting are unfolding at the same time — and each shapes the other.
"Sapling Solar" applies in Gustin Twp.Project
Ranger Power seeks a special land use permit for a 215 MW array on ~1,427 acres.
PA 233 takes effectLegal
Michigan's siting law gives the Public Service Commission default authority over solar projects of 50 MW or more.
79 municipalities sueLegal
Townships and counties challenge the MPSC's implementation of the new law.
Harrisville Twp. rewrites its zoning ordinanceProject
A comprehensive rewrite of the 2014 ordinance — with solar rules — amid the project's emergence. No adopted township master plan has surfaced publicly.
Consumers Energy announces Gustin SolarProject
335 MW across Gustin and Harrisville Townships, absorbing Sapling Solar.
Court of Appeals: split rulingLegal
Largely upholds MPSC siting authority; strikes parts of its implementation order.
Special Land Use application filedProject
Site plan plus glare, sound, decommissioning, and emergency-response exhibits land at Harrisville Township — alongside a developer letter arguing state law preempts local groundwater regulation.
Appeal to the Michigan Supreme CourtLegal
The municipalities ask the state's top court to restore broader local control. Pending.
The Grobbel letterProject
A consultant retained on the opposition side urges the township to find the application incomplete and deny the project.
Gustin Twp. moves toward a final voteProject
Gustin Township’s Planning Commission met at a larger venue (The Sunrise Center, Lincoln) to un-table the Gustin Solar special land use application and “potentially take final action.” Outcome pending — this page will be updated when minutes publish.
Planning Commission reviewProject
Harrisville's Planning Commission meets the first Wednesday of even-numbered months, 7 p.m. — the public's main venue.
A township "no" may not be final
This is the fact the comment letter never mentions. At 94 MW in Harrisville alone — nearly double the 50 MW threshold — Gustin Solar falls under Public Act 233, which lets large solar developers route around local denials to the Michigan Public Service Commission.
You are here: local review
Gustin Solar's Special Land Use application is before Harrisville Township. The township keeps control only if its ordinance qualifies as a "Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance" (CREO) — meaning no stricter than the state's default standards.
Township reviews under a compliant ordinance
Approve, deny a non-compliant application, or approve with conditions — within state limits on setbacks, noise, height, fencing, and decommissioning. Local hearings decide the details.
Developer files at the MPSC if…
• the township denies an application that meets state standards, or
• the township takes longer than 120 days, or
• its ordinance is stricter than state defaults.
The MPSC then decides within ~1 year, applying the state's standards.
The unsettled part
Exactly how much townships can require is being litigated right now — 79 municipalities have taken the fight to the Michigan Supreme Court (filed June 18, 2026, pending). As of June 2026 the MPSC already had 10 active siting cases for projects blocked or opposed locally. Treat any absolute claim about local authority — from either side — as provisional.
10 findings, 4 verdicts
The July 26 letter by Grobbel Environmental & Planning Associates makes ten findings. Checked against engineering guidance, state law, and independent research, they land very differently — some are genuinely strong; others frame routine process as scandal.
No Master Plan → zoning may be unlawful
The fact checks out; the legal leap doesn't (yet). No adopted Harrisville Township master plan could be found in any public source — the claim's factual core is corroborated. But no Michigan appellate court has ever voided a zoning ordinance solely for lack of a master plan, and courts presume ordinances valid. It's leverage, not a kill shot.
Wetlands exist; no delineation submitted → application incomplete
NRCS soil maps do show hydric soils and wetland complexes on site, and requiring a wetland delineation for a 523-acre build is normal due diligence. Whether one was actually submitted is a checkable file question — "based on information and belief" is the letter's own hedge that it hasn't confirmed this.
State wetland permit required before township review
EGLE Part 303 permits are real and routine for wetland impacts — but permitting typically runs parallel to zoning, and townships commonly condition approval on obtaining state permits rather than demanding them first. The sequencing claim is an aggressive reading, not settled practice.
Hydrogeological study + baseline water quality first
A reasonable ask in principle — groundwater is shallow here (~34 ft average static level). The catch: a developer letter already in the township file argues state law preempts local groundwater regulation of this facility, and PA 233 limits what townships can demand. This fight was pre-loaded before Grobbel's letter arrived.
Glare study used wrong panel height (5.5 ft vs ~9'10")
The letter's strongest technical point. Industry guidance (ForgeSolar/Sandia) says to bound glare runs with the panel's minimum and maximum heights, and studies elsewhere model 15 ft second-story receptors. A single 5.5 ft assumption undershoots that. Context: modern anti-reflective panels almost never produce glare above the lowest hazard class — so re-run it, but don't expect drama.
Sound study receptor height (5 ft) invalid; noise like heavy trucks
A 5 ft receptor is standard acoustic practice (ear height). And the letter's truck comparison (88–96 dBA) describes noise at the source — a neighbor at a property line hears an attenuated 35–45 dBA from inverters, near rural nighttime ambient. Operational solar farms have generated remarkably few documented noise complaints nationwide.
A traffic study should be required
Common, reasonable SLU practice. Construction traffic on rural roads is one of a solar build's few genuine, if temporary, community impacts — and the application apparently lacks one.
Project conflicts with future agricultural land uses
A legitimate discretionary standard — but note Alcona's agriculture is mostly small/hobby scale, and soils research finds land under panels can return to farming after decommissioning. Solar is among the more reversible things that can happen to a field; subdivisions are forever.
Permits must be conditioned on a decommissioning bond
Framed as a demand the township must impose — but state law already mandates financial assurance at 100% of net decommissioning cost, phased 25/50/100% by years 1/5/10. The township's own 150%-upfront rule may actually exceed what a compliant local ordinance can require.
Township must review compliance with Michigan's Environmental Protection Act
True — and routine. Part 17 (MEPA) applies to every such decision in Michigan; it isn't a special hurdle unique to this project. Listing standard legal overlays as findings inflates the letter's apparent weight.
What a solar farm actually sounds like
The letter compares the project to heavy trucks at 88–96 dBA. That's the sound standing next to the truck. Here's the honest scale — measured levels at realistic distances, against both noise limits in play.
What 1.8 million home sales show
The largest independent study to date — Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, covering 1,500+ solar projects and 1.8 million home sales in six states — found effects that are real, small, and local.
Stricter rules can mean less power
Under PA 233, every place Harrisville's ordinance is tougher than the state default is a place where enforcing it risks forfeiting local jurisdiction entirely. The township is holding cards it may not legally be allowed to play.
| Standard | Harrisville ordinance | PA 233 state default | Compatibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | 45 dBA at adjacent non-participating property line, at 2 a.m. | 55 dBA average hourly at a non-participating dwelling's wall | Stricter — at risk |
| Decommissioning | 150% of removal cost, bond posted within 15 days of approval | 100% of net cost (less salvage), phased: 25% / 50% / 100% by years 1 / 5 / 10 | Stricter — at risk |
| Setbacks | 40 ft side/rear property line; 50 ft road right-of-way | 50 ft property line; 300 ft from non-participating occupied dwellings | Mixed |
| Height | 15 ft max at full tilt | State default height standards apply | Comparable |
| Year-round full visual screening | Required, to Planning Commission satisfaction | Fencing addressed; full screening not among the listed CREO items | Likely beyond scope |
| Annual groundwater testing | Required before, during, and after operation | Not a listed CREO item; developer asserts state preemption | Contested |
A small county carrying a big build
Alcona County is one of Michigan's smallest and oldest counties by population — and it's hosting two of Consumers Energy's nine active solar projects at once: Gustin (335 MW) and Caledonia (115 MW).
What each side is weighing
The case for
- Claimed lifetime tax revenue (Sapling filing)>$12M
- Lease income to participating landowners10 parcels
- Construction jobs (temporary)"hundreds"
- Land use largely reversible after term30 yr
The case against
- Economy runs on scenery & recreationtourism/forestry
- Fenced industrial footprint~1,800 ac
- Nearby home values (LBNL, within 0.5 mi)−1.5 to −3%
- Local say constrained by state lawPA 233
Organized skepticism is real (the Alcona Conservatives site, a township Facebook discussion group); so is the landowner and utility constituency. At hearings on a comparable Consumers project (Liberty Farms, Kalamazoo Co., May 2026), opposition dominated the room — a pattern seen across rural Michigan.
What we could not verify
A briefing you can trust tells you where its floor is soft. These claims — from the letter, the utility, and this research — remain open.
- □The Harrisville filing's exact 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. Verify at the township clerk's office.
- □The missing master plan is corroborated by absence — nothing found online — but small townships often never post plans. Only a records request settles it.
- □Consumers' own numbers disagree: 335 vs. 355 MW; operations 2028 vs. 2029; "positive reception from property owners and elected leaders" is the company's characterization, not reporting.
- □Parts of the consultant's CV — an "EGLE advisory role since 2025," exact DEQ employment dates — could not be independently confirmed from public sources. Not evidence of fabrication; evidence of a thin public record.
- □The letter's hydrology framing is loose: Van Etten Lake sits downstream in the next county (Iosco), reached via Van Etten Creek and the Pine River system — a real drainage connection, but not the on-site waterbody a reader might picture.
- □Whether wetland delineation was submitted — the letter's core "incompleteness" charge — rests on the letter's own "information and belief," not a confirmed file review.
Shape it hard, while you still can
Given everything above — a real project, a partly-right letter, and a state law that caps local power — the community's strongest position isn't a bet-the-farm veto. It's maximum leverage applied early, in the venue that still exists.
TBFor the Township Board
- Settle the master plan question now. If no plan exists, start one — it strengthens every future decision regardless of how this project ends.
- Get a PA 233 legal opinion before voting. Know exactly which ordinance provisions survive compatibility review — don't discover it from a preemption filing.
- Demand the checkable fixes: a glare re-run bounded at maximum panel tilt with second-story receptors; the wetland delineation on file; a traffic study. These fit within state limits.
- Negotiate a host community agreement while the file is local. Townships that litigate and lose get the state defaults — and nothing else.
RFor Residents — every side
- Show up: Planning Commission, first Wednesday of even-numbered months, 7 p.m. That room is where conditions get written.
- Ask precise questions. "What panel height did the glare model use?" moves a board. Imported statistics about distant harms mostly don't.
- Read the actual file — the application and exhibits are on the township website. Both the letter and the utility are advocating; the documents are the ground truth.
- Know what "no" buys. If denial routes the project to Lansing, the community loses its conditions along with the fight. Weigh that trade explicitly.
CEFor Consumers Energy
- Re-run the glare and sound models voluntarily with conservative bounds. It's cheap, and the current assumptions are the letter's best ammunition.
- Put the wetland delineation and interconnection evidence on the table before being asked twice.
- Offer a host community agreement. You have a second project (Caledonia) and a nine-project pipeline that all need northern Michigan's goodwill. A preemption victory that poisons the county is a bad trade.
The honest answer: this is no longer a purely local decision. The letter is right that the application deserves harder scrutiny — and wrong to imply the township can simply refuse its way out. The community's best route is to use the local process it still controls to extract a better, better-documented project: corrected studies, ironclad decommissioning, real host benefits. Fight for the terms, not just the verdict.
27 sources
Compiled August 6, 2026. Primary document: Grobbel Environmental & Planning Associates, Land Use Planner's Comments, Proposed Gustin Solar Energy Center, July 26, 2026 (26 pp., to Harrisville Township).
Michigan Legislature — Public Act 233 of 2023, full text (legislature.mi.gov)
Michigan Public Service Commission — Renewable energy facility siting pages & Act 233 filing requirements (michigan.gov/mpsc)
Michigan Townships Association — Renewable energy siting & permitting guidance
Columbia Law School, Climate Law Blog — Court of Appeals ruling on MPSC siting process (July 2026)
Foster Swift — Michigan Supreme Court appeal announcement, No. 373259
Bridge Michigan — PA 233 lawsuit & implementation coverage (2 articles)
WCMU Public Media — "Some green energy projects struggle in Michigan…" (June 2026)
Interlochen Public Radio / Michigan Advance — PA 233 and local control in northern Michigan
Consumers Energy — Gustin Solar announcement (Sept 26, 2025); solar projects page; Clean Energy Plan materials
The Alpena News — Gustin Solar announcement coverage (Sept 2025)
Rigzone — Gustin Solar project report (Oct 2025)
True North Radio Network — Alcona County solar coverage
Harrisville Township — Zoning page: SLU application exhibits, ordinance documents, meeting schedule (harrisvilletownship.com)
Gustin Township / Alcona Conservatives — Sapling Solar application narrative & benefits sheet (Oct 2024)
WMUK / WWMT — Liberty Farms Solar hearings, Kalamazoo County (May 2026)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory — "Shedding Light on Large-Scale Solar Impacts," Energy Policy (2023)
Canary Media / Inside Climate News / Michigan Public — LBNL study coverage
Sandia National Laboratories — Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool documentation
ForgeSolar — Glare modeling help guide (height-bounding practice)
Kane County, IL — Solar glare study, Appendix M (receptor-height practice)
Penn State Extension — "Solar Panel Glare: Is It an Issue?"
Acentech — Solar farm noise measurements
Michigan EGLE — Part 303 wetland permit requirements
ScienceDirect — 7-year soil study under ground-mounted PV (Central Italy)
American Farmland Trust — Smart Solar / agrivoltaics program
U.S. Census Bureau / Data USA — Alcona County demographics
Traverse Ticker / Leelanau Ticker / SRAP / PRNewswire — C. Grobbel professional record