Lockport Township Trustee Rick Daniels discusses his thoughts on the township’s proposed battery energy storage systems (BESS) ordinance amendment prior to a vote approving the denial of the amendment at Monday’s Lockport Township board meeting.
By Robert Tomlinson
News Director
LOCKPORT TWP. — Strong opposition to renewable energy in Lockport Township sunk a controversial ordinance amendment Monday, and could also potentially sink the township’s solar ordinance altogether.
On Monday, Lockport Township’s board unanimously approved the denial of a proposed ordinance amendment that would have allowed for battery energy storage systems (BESS) to be a part of the township’s existing solar ordinance. In addition, the board approved a recommendation to the township’s Planning Commission to hold a public hearing in the future to consider the repeal of the township’s entire solar ordinance and overlay district.
The decision to vote the way they did came via a recommendation by Zoning Administrator Doug Kuhlman given near the beginning of the meeting to do so. With the vote, and especially if the solar energy ordinance gets repealed, Township Supervisor Mark Major said, it will leave the siting of any prospective solar energy and battery storage projects in the township entirely up to the State of Michigan, per Public Act 233 and 235, which made significant changes to the permitting and siting process for large-scale renewable energy projects in the state.
It is a bit of a reversal from October’s Planning Commission meeting, where Kuhlman explained that if the ordinance did not get approved, the decisions of where to site BESS projects would solely go to the state, and that the amendment would at least give the township some local control. However, Monday, Kuhlman sang a different tune.
“I understand no one wants battery storage, I get it, but we’re going to get it one way or another,” Kuhlman said. “Repeal [the solar ordinance and the overlay district], and then if we do end up getting an application, it’ll end up going to the State of Michigan. In the meantime, if all of us don’t like Public Act 233 and 235, you’re all here tonight to listen to this, you have to stand on board with whatever group is out there trying to get 233 and 235 repealed.”
The vote to deny the ordinance amendment was a win for the standing-room-only crowd who packed into the Lockport Township Hall mainly to comment for nearly 40 minutes about their objections to the ordinance and the already-approved overlay district from 2023, as well as their objections to the concepts of battery storage and solar energy projects. Some even deferred their planned speeches to praise the board for considering denial of the ordinance. A round of applause was given from the audience after each vote.
Kuhlman said after the meeting that while he believed the ordinance amendment was still a good amendment to make, the concerns from residents were what ultimately swayed him to give up on the amendment and recommend denial and repeal.
“If you look at the state of Michigan, most communities are fighting the battery storage. So, if we take the battery storage away, then that would be an automatic bypass to the state. And even just leaving the solar like it is, the solar overlay district is more restrictive than the state ordinance, so they can, again, go to the state,” Kuhlman said after the meeting. “Then, the suggestion for moving [the overlay district] to an alternative site, right now, I’ve got 100 people mad at me. If I move it to another site, now I’m just going to have 200 people mad at me. So, let’s just repeal it and leave it up to the state.”
Kuhlman’s statements during Monday’s meeting signal that he is appearing to bank on two things to occur with regards to renewable energy, which was also cited during his report as part of the reason for denial and repeal. One is the repeal via public initiative of Public Acts 233 and 235, which allow developers of projects above 50 megawatts for solar and BESS to seek a certificate from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) that bypasses local zoning rules, and the other is “rumors” of President Donald Trump wanting to cancel all federal funding for renewable energy projects nationwide in December, something which has not been confirmed at all and would be a legally-challenging effort.
“If he does that, I don’t see a solar project or battery storage going forward. I don’t see that these projects are viable without federal funding,” Kuhlman said during the meeting.
Some federal funding for renewable energy projects, which had been previously approved by Congress, has already been terminated by Russel Vought, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget director, in October, totaling $7.5 billion dollars, all in states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. The Trump administration has been sued by multiple organizations because of this, challenging that the cancellations violated the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment.
Kuhlman, in his interview following the meeting, said it is still a concern to him to have the state site a solar or battery storage project in the township to a landowner willing to least their land to developers, saying it ultimately comes down to whether or not those landowners are willing to participate in such projects. When asked how many participating property owners he thinks there might be in Lockport, Kuhlman said he didn’t know.
“All I can tell you is that money talks, and a utility solar project is pretty darn good for it,” Kuhlman said.
The next regular meeting of the township’s Planning Commission will be sometime in January, as that board meets quarterly.
Lessons learned?
One of the major complaints about the BESS situation by residents in public comment Monday and throughout the process, outside of the possible environmental impacts and the risks of battery fires, has been the overlay district present in the 2023 solar ordinance passed by the township, which governs where large-scale solar energy projects could be placed. Now, one official seemed to admit Monday that the township may have erred in the process of creating it.
The overlay district is bounded by South Fisher Lake Road to the north, North Airport Road to the south, M-60 to the east and Haines Road to the west, and chosen due to its proximity to power substations in the township. Some residents, especially those in the overlay district, had complained that they were not notified their properties had been or were slated to be included until they attended the Oct. 2 Lockport Township Planning Commission meeting, even though the district had been in place for two years. Those residents accused the township of a lack of transparency about the status of their land.
Trustee Rick Daniels, at the start of the meeting, made a number of statements about the BESS situation, and mentioned complaints about how the township’s solar overlay district was decided. He said that, in his opinion, any time land is reviewed for possible changes, those landowners need to be notified first that it would be discussed at a meeting, and announced the township would do so moving forward.
“Nothing should be done without their approval first,” Daniels said to agreement and applause from the audience. “We’ve learned a lesson here. It’s a valuable lesson. I talked to Doug about it, and he agrees with me 100 percent. Moving forward, anytime we’re going to make a change, the landowner’s going to be notified, and we’re going to talk about it before a decision is made. That’s just the right thing to do.”
Daniels also praised Kuhlman and Lockport Township Planning Commission chair Sherrie Nowicki for their efforts, saying without them, township residents would be “paying city taxes.” He also said, at the end of the day, the ordinance amendment was “just a plan,” and there were no projects being discussed or investigated anywhere in the township, but it was ultimately a “bad problem and a bad idea.”
Later on, responding to one of the public comments on the evening wondering if it would make sense to just repeal the overlay district and not the whole ordinance, Daniels said it would be “best” to repeal the solar ordinance and “start from scratch.” However, it is unknown if the Planning Commission would consider doing a new solar ordinance from scratch right away if the current one is repealed.
Some of the public comments prior to the vote praised the township for taking the course they planned with denying the ordinance amendment, while some still had questions about the determination of what “more restrictive” means when it comes to the BESS amendment, the solar ordinance as a whole, and what other land, if any, was considered for the overlay district. One commenter, Eric Shafer, praised the board for recognizing what he called the “mistake” of the ordinance amendment and said there’s a lot of people in the township that’d be willing to help them moving forward.
“When the Planning Commission makes that decision to make the next public hearing, it’s our responsibility to know that it’s going to happen, but we’ll make sure we’ll be there to help,” Shafer said, then mentioning looking into how to better communicate with residents. “I would also like to work towards some kind of easier solution to finding out what’s going on. I’d like to volunteer to talk to other townships to find out what they’re doing to make sure residents know.”
Russ Dobrowolski said in his public comment he would hope to see the township’s website improved and asked if it was possible to broadcast meetings online, possibly over Zoom.
“The thing that got us here was the location they picked on this, and we were there at the meeting and didn’t get good answers how and why,” Dobrowolski said. “It all hit us by surprise.”
At the end of the meeting, Major thanked people for their comments.
“I know some of you got uncomfortable with the standing room; it gets hot, but I still appreciate everyone’s comments,” Major said.
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.
