St. Clair County Solar Regulation Lawsuit: Ruling and Act 233

The St. Clair County solar regulation lawsuit is a legal fight over whether a Michigan county can use its public health code to restrict large solar and battery storage projects that state law places under the Michigan Public Service Commission’s siting authority. DTE Electric Co. sued the county in July 2025; in February 2026, a circuit judge struck down the rules as zoning laws disguised as health regulations; the county has appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending.¹

What the County’s Rules Required

On May 1, 2025, the St. Clair County Board of Commissioners approved a policy that treated large solar and battery storage projects as public health concerns and required Health Department approval before construction.² The requirements went well past what Michigan’s siting law allows a local government to impose through zoning:

A 45-decibel noise limit, ten decibels stricter than the 55-decibel cap in Public Act 233, with any “detectable tonal noise” from inverters classified as an “unreasonable threat to public health.”²
Complete screening of projects from public view.¹
Decommissioning bonds of $100,000 per megawatt.³
A nonrefundable $25,000 application fee.³
Criminal penalties of up to six months in prison for violations.⁴

The choice to route the rules through the health code rather than zoning was deliberate. Michigan’s Public Act 233, effective November 29, 2024, gives the Michigan Public Service Commission authority to approve solar projects of 50 megawatts or more, and a local government retains permitting control only by adopting a “Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance” that cannot exceed the state’s standards.⁵⁶ Framing the restrictions as public health rules was the county’s attempt to legislate around that ceiling.

The Health Hazard Justification

The regulations rested on two memos from Dr. Remington Nevin, the county’s medical director, issued in November 2024 and January 2025. Nevin cited “environmental health hazards, the spread of sources of contamination, nuisance potentially injurious to the public health,” described “visual pollution” as a source of stress, anxiety, and depression, and warned that tonal noise could aggravate post-traumatic stress disorder.⁴ He argued publicly that the state health code did not require him to supply a “precise scientific or medical rationale” for his recommendations.⁷

The memos drew objections from inside county government. Karry Hepting, the county administrator at the time, said the memos contained no supporting data and proposed hiring an outside expert: “It did not state what the health risks were and what negative health impacts exist. It basically said it’s a risk because he said so.” Commissioner Steven Simasko said he accepted Nevin’s opinion as sufficient and opposed paying for a second opinion.⁴

Outside researchers cited by ProPublica said electromagnetic field exposure from solar farms is comparable to household appliances and drops off rapidly with distance, that panel materials are encased and unlikely to leach, and that inverter noise can be mitigated with landscaping and setbacks, with modeling for comparable projects finding noise “basically inaudible to the public.” Environmental lawyer Michael Gerrard told ProPublica there was “no basis” for the county’s health claims.⁴

Who Sued and Why

DTE Electric Co. filed suit against the county, its board of commissioners, and its health department on July 3, 2025.³ DTE argued the regulations “amounted to new zoning regulations illegally masquerading as public health protections” and that their justification “wasn’t grounded in medical evidence.”¹ DTE had operated a coal- and oil-fired plant in the county that was shut down in 2022 and was pursuing renewable capacity in the region.²

Portside Solar, LLC, a developer with a project planned in the county, joined as a co-plaintiff and alleged that county leaders had passed the rules “specifically targeting” its project. A third firm tied to a local solar project also joined, and the cases were consolidated.¹

County attorney Gary Fletcher denied the rules were designed to kill solar development, calling that a “completely false narrative,” and said a sound engineer hired by the county had concluded the 45-decibel limit could be met with existing technology.³

The Circuit Court Ruling

On February 2, 2026, St. Clair County Circuit Court Judge Michael West granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition. Judge West found the county had “overstepped its authority” and that the health code regulations were “actually zoning laws in disguise.”⁸ He also ruled that the health department’s opinions “were not supported by any scientific or medical evidence.”⁷ The regulations were declared “invalid, null, and void.”⁴

Within days, the county pulled the webpage containing the disputed rules. The health department said no developer had ever submitted an application under them.¹

The Appeal

On February 19, 2026, the Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.⁹ Board Chair Steven Simasko said, “I think we owe it to the community to follow through with what we started,” and added the county was prepared to take the case to the Michigan Supreme Court if necessary.⁷ Simasko said cost was not a concern because “most of the legal work has already been completed.”

The county’s core argument on appeal is that its health department has independent authority under the Michigan Public Health Code to regulate conditions it deems harmful, and that this authority operates separately from the zoning framework preempted by Public Act 233. As of mid-2026, no hearing date has been set.⁹

How the Case Fits the Larger Fight Over Public Act 233

St. Clair County’s suit is running alongside a broader challenge to Michigan’s siting law. A separate case brought by 75 townships challenged the MPSC’s implementation of Public Act 233, and on May 7, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals largely upheld the commission’s authority, affirming that local ordinances cannot impose requirements stricter than the statewide standards.¹⁰

That ruling reinforces the preemption framework standing between the county and its restrictions. But the appeal in the St. Clair County case raises a distinct legal question: not whether local zoning can override state siting rules, but whether a county health department can use public health authority to impose restrictions that look and function like zoning. The Michigan Court of Appeals has not yet answered that question.

1
MLive. Judge Rules Michigan County Can’t Use Health Code to Restrict Solar Farms
2
PV Magazine USA. DTE Energy Sues Michigan County Over Solar Regulations
3
MLive. Michigan County Uses Public Health Code to Restrict Solar Farms, Drawing DTE Lawsuit
4
ProPublica. Michigan Solar Farms Health Concerns St. Clair County
5
Michigan Legislature. Public Act No. 233 of 2023
6
Michigan Townships Association. Renewable Energy Siting and Permitting
7
Bridge Michigan. Michigan County’s Argument Against Solar Farms: They’re a Health Hazard
8
WGRT. Judge Throws Out County’s Solar Rules
9
Michigan Lawyers Weekly. St. Clair County Appeals Solar Regulations Ruling
10
Michigan Public Radio. Appeals Court Delivers Split Ruling in Lawsuit to Block State Wind and Solar Farm Authority