Note: This resource page is updated frequently. Please check back often for the latest information on our fight to protect our farmland.
Groups dedicated to keeping prime agricultural soil in production and out of industrial hands.
The national leader in "Smart Solar" guidelines, advocating that industrial energy belongs on rooftops and brownfields, not productive farmland.
Michigan Farm Bureau (Energy Policy)
The official voice of Michigan’s farmers; they support local control and oppose the state takeover of agricultural land-use decisions.
A statewide grassroots alliance of residential stewards fighting to stop "industrial colonization" and protect rural communities from toxic development.
Protecting your right to decide what happens in your township and on your property.
A coalition of local officials and residents providing technical and legal research to restore local zoning authority and fight state-mandated overrides.
IICC (Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition) – Technical research and expert data on solar setbacks, noise, and property values (partnered with OHOV).
CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow)
Provides research on the economic reality of industrial energy projects, focusing on private property rights and the impact on local property values.
The "Paper Trail"—where to see the actual maps, plans, and public comments.
The official portal for state energy dockets. Search for by case number. We will provide the number once the developer has officially filed.
A user-friendly, searchable database of Michigan Public Service Commission filings that is often easier for residents to navigate than the state’s portal.
In March 2026, AES Corporation—the developer behind the proposed Sylvan Solar project in our township—officially agreed to be acquired by a massive global consortium led by BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) and EQT. The deal is valued at a staggering $33.4 Billion.
Why the "Take-Private" Deal Matters to You When a company "goes private," it stops being accountable to public shareholders and the SEC in the same way. For us, this means:
A "Wall of Silence": As a private entity, AES will have much less transparency. We won’t be able to track their financial reports or investor presentations as easily as we can now.
Profits Over People: Experts and legislators are already sounding the alarm that private equity firms prioritize high returns for global investors over the local needs of the communities where they build.
The "AI Power Play" This wasn't a random purchase. BlackRock and EQT explicitly stated they are buying AES to fuel the massive power demands of AI data centers.
The Reality: Our prime agricultural land in Michigan is being targeted as a "battery" to power data centers for tech giants like Google and Amazon.
The Motive: AES admitted that without this BlackRock buyout, they wouldn't have the "capital flexibility" to fund the massive build-out they have planned beyond 2027.
Our Stance We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Our farmland is not a commodity for global investment firms. Whether the developer is AES or BlackRock, our mission remains the same: Protecting our soil, our property values, and our right to local control.
As we fight to protect our community from the Sylvan Solar project, we need to talk about a "hidden" long-term issue: Stormwater Drainage.
When you replace hundreds of acres of absorbent topsoil and crops with thousands of impervious glass panels, the way water moves across our land changes forever. Here is why every neighbor in Sheridan and Garfield should be concerned:
THE "DRIPLINE" EFFECT: Solar panels don't absorb water. During a heavy Michigan rain, every drop hits the glass and sheets off the bottom edge (the "dripline"). This creates high-velocity "water knives" that can gouge the soil, leading to massive erosion and mud that washes onto neighboring properties.
SOIL COMPACTION: During the 12–18 months of construction, heavy machinery packs down our soil so tightly it acts like concrete. Even after the grass is planted, the ground can no longer "soak up" the rain like a natural field, leading to increased runoff and potential flooding for neighbors "downstream."
CROP & WELL IMPACT: Excess runoff doesn't just stay on the solar site. It carries silt and sediment into our drainage tiles, roadside ditches, and potentially into the creeks that feed our local water table. If the developer doesn't manage this perfectly, YOUR fields could end up underwater.
THE "PA 233" RISK: Under the state’s new rules, developers often try to minimize the number of expensive "detention basins" they build to save money. Without local oversight, who is going to ensure their drainage plan actually works for US and not just for their bottom line?
KNOW THE FACTS: I am sharing a link to a detailed study on the "Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms." It explains how these projects can significantly increase peak discharge and erosion if not managed correctly.
WE NEED ANSWERS: At upcoming meetings, we need to ask:
"Who is liable if the solar farm’s runoff floods my basement or washes out my driveway?"
"Has an independent engineer reviewed their drainage plan, or are we just taking the developer's word for it?"
Don't let them wash away our property rights. Stay informed!
When we talk about 2,400 acres of industrial solar, we aren't just talking about a change in the view. We are talking about miles of industrial fencing that cuts off the natural paths our local wildlife has used for generations.
The Michigan DNR has already raised the alarm on this. Large-scale solar "fragmentation" creates several hidden crises for our local ecosystem:
· Blocked Corridors: Deer, turkey, and small mammals are forced onto roads and into residential yards because their traditional paths to water and food are suddenly blocked by miles of fence.
· The "Lake Effect" Trap: Studies show that birds and insects often mistake the shimmer of solar panels for bodies of water, leading to "polarized light" disorientation and fatal collisions.
· Loss of Cover: Industrial solar requires the removal of hedgerows and "buffer" brush where local wildlife nests and hides from predators.
We’ve seen the DNR pull back on solar projects near Gaylord and across state forests because the "green energy" wasn't worth the "habitat death." Why should Sheridan and Garfield Townships be any different?
Our wildlife belongs in our fields—not trapped against a fence.
As these solar projects get bigger, scientists are finally getting the data on how they affect the local environment. New studies from early 2026 and late 2025 show that 2,400 acres of panels do more than just sit there—they fundamentally change the "microclimate" of our township.
1. The "Sensible Heat" Problem (Dec 2025 Study) New research from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and partners found that large-scale solar installations can raise local daytime temperatures by up to 2.7°F (1.5°C). This happens because panels have a low "albedo" (they absorb more light than they reflect). Instead of that energy being used by crops, the "surplus heat" is emitted directly back into our local atmosphere, changing the wind, pressure, and humidity right at the surface.
2. The Soil Health "Respiration" Drop (March 2026 Study) A study published just this month in the Journal of Environmental Management (March 2026) looked at the soil under solar parks. They found:
· Soil Respiration fell by 62%: This is a measure of biological activity. Essentially, the "life" in the soil slows down significantly under the panels.
· Moisture Loss: Soil moisture was reduced by up to 42% in some areas because the panels change how rain hits and enters the ground.
· Biodiversity Decline: The abundance of "soil fauna" (the tiny bugs that keep soil healthy) dropped by about 38%.
3. Why it Matters for Us: This isn't about global politics—it’s about local physics. When you raise the air temperature and dry out the soil over 2,400 acres, it doesn't just stay in the field. It creates a "dome" of altered weather that can impact the crops on every neighboring farm and change the drainage for the whole area.
We need to protect our agricultural heritage and the living soil that sustains us. Turning 2,400 acres of productive land into an industrial heat-trap isn't a "green" solution if it kills the ground it’s built on.
Journal of Environmental Management
When developers tell us a project will power thousands of homes, they are using a yearly average calculation. This article does a great job of explaining why that is misleading.
It’s like a job that pays you $100,000 a year—but gives it to you all in one single day in July. It looks great on paper, but it doesn't help you pay the bills in February! Our grid needs reliable, on-demand power. Give this a read to see how the industry averages hide the day-to-day reality of intermittent power.
Although our situation is past this point but have you heard about these "Rural Readiness" grants the state is handing out?
Basically, Lansing is offering townships up to $50,000 to "prepare" for big projects. Sounds helpful, right? But here’s the catch: the money is being used to hire consultants to write "Compatible" solar ordinances.
Under the state's new law (PA 233), if a township's rules are "too restrictive"—meaning they want bigger setbacks or less noise than the state wants—the Michigan Public Service Commission can just step in and take over the whole permit process.
They are literally using our own tax money to incentivize local boards to play by the state’s rules instead of their own. If they take the money and follow their "template," they are essentially signing away their right to protect their own farmland.
We shouldn't be paying for the experts who are helping to industrialize our rural communities.
https://www.michigan.gov/.../RRGP-Round-4-Guidelines.pdf
https://www.michigan.gov/.../RRGP4/RRGP-Round-4-FAQs.pdf...
If you open those state links, here are the three major red flags to look for in the guidelines:
Red Flag #1: It pays for outside "Consultants" The state says the money is for "Shared services or staff dedicated to planning needs." Translated: This pays for the outside planners and lawyers who come into our townships to rewrite local zoning ordinances so they match the state’s weak PA 233 solar rules. (See the "Eligible Activities" section).
Red Flag #2: The 20% Local Match Trap Townships can't just take the $50,000. They are required to put up a minimum 20% match. That means our local boards are spending at least $10,000 of our local township tax dollars just to get the state money to push these zoning changes.
Red Flag #3: It’s a "Reimbursement" Grant The township has to spend the money out-of-pocket first, prove they followed the state's rules, and then apply to get the money back. If a township takes the money to hire a planner, but then passes a strict ordinance to protect their farmland that the state doesn't like, they risk the state denying the reimbursement. It forces the township to comply if they want their money back.
Don't let them tell you this is "free money for rural towns." It's a setup to force compliance.
This article perfectly highlights how industrial solar projects threaten more than just the view—they threaten the very foundation of our local food system. Michigan potato farmers are warning that as prime acreage is swallowed up by solar panels, it creates a "land grab" that drives up prices for young farmers and introduces serious food safety concerns. This is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand why protecting our agriculturally-zoned land is vital for the future of Michigan farming.
This article dives into the long-term agri-environmental risks of placing industrial solar arrays over fertile soil. It highlights the potential for soil compaction, disruption of natural drainage systems, and the loss of biodiversity that occurs when agricultural land is repurposed. For our community, this serves as a critical reminder that once "prime" soil is disturbed by heavy industrial equipment and vast metal structures, the environmental damage to the land can last far beyond the lifespan of the project.
There are no notable examples of a large utility-scale solar farm (100+ acres) reaching the end of its life, being fully dismantled, and successfully returning to high-yield row-crop farming (like corn or soybeans).
Here is why that "success story" doesn't exist yet—and why our skepticism is backed by the current facts:
1. The "Age" Problem
The solar industry is relatively young.1 Most of the massive utility-scale projects were built in the last 10–15 years. Since they have 25-to-30-year lifespans, we haven't actually hit the "end date" for the thousands of acres currently under glass.
The "Zombie" Risk: Critics point out that we are currently in a "testing phase" with no actual proof that the land can be restored to its original productivity.
Industry Response: Developers point to small, 1-acre test plots, but farming a 1,500-acre industrial site is a completely different animal.
2. Soil Compaction and "Heavy Metal" Fears
Even if they pull the panels out, the land isn't the same as it was.
The Construction Damage: Building a site like Sylvan involves thousands of heavy truck trips and driving steel piers 8–10 feet into the ground. This creates massive soil compaction.
The "Topsoil" Issue: In many projects, the nutrient-rich topsoil is scraped or moved during construction.2 Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) shows that even 7 years after construction, soil nutrients (carbon and nitrogen) are often significantly lower than in undisturbed fields.3
Herbicide Use: To keep weeds from shading the panels, many developers use heavy herbicides for 30 years. Farmers worry about "residual chemicals" that might prevent organic certification or hurt sensitive crops like specialty vegetables once the panels are gone.
3. "Agrivoltaics" vs. Real Farming
When developers get pushed on this, they show pictures of "Agrivoltaics"—sheep grazing under panels or small vegetable plots.4
The Reality Check: You can't run a modern 24-row corn planter or a 40-foot combine under solar panels.
The "Sheep" Strategy: Grazing sheep is often just a way for the solar company to save money on mowing.5 It is not "farming" in the sense that Newaygo County residents understand it—producing thousands of bushels of grain for the global food supply.
4. The "Repowering" Loophole
One of the biggest concerns for neighbors is that these fields will never go back to being farms.
The Plan: In 30 years, rather than cleaning up the site, the developer will likely apply for a permit to "repower." They'll pull the old panels and put up new, more efficient ones.
The Result: The land becomes permanently industrial. Once the substation and transmission lines are built, the land is too valuable as an "energy site" for the company to ever let it go back to being a "cornfield."
The Decommissioning Reality
Because there are no success stories yet, we are essentially the "guinea pig" for this experiment. If the company goes bankrupt or the scrap value of the panels isn't high enough, the "restoration" becomes the township's problem.
The Claim: "We will restore it to original condition."
The Reality: No one has actually done this yet on a 1,000+ acre scale.
"The land gets a 'rest' from chemicals."
Most sites require 30 years of industrial weed control.
"Scrap value will pay for it."
Solar recycling is currently a net cost, not a profit.
AES claims they were not getting any federal grants for the Sylvan Solar project…however, they will be getting federal tax subsidies to the tune of up to 110 million. The OBBBA altered the tax credits, but there is a catch…. all they have to do is prove they have 5% invested by July of 2026 and they are grandfathered in. If this subsidy didn’t exist, they would likely walk away. This is not about green energy at all, it’s all about profit. If these subsidies didn’t exist, their profit margin would be so low it would not be feasible to continue. Here is an in-depth explanation:
The subsidies don’t just make the project "possible"—they significantly boost the profitability and speed at which a company like AES gets its money back. Without these incentives, the profit margins on a 220 MW solar field would likely be too thin to justify the $277 million risk. Here is how the subsidies specifically translate into "making more money" for the developer:
1. Slashing the "Payback Period"
Typically, a massive infrastructure project might take 15–20 years to pay for itself through electricity sales alone.
• With Subsidies: By getting a 40% tax credit upfront (roughly $110 million), AES effectively "erases" nearly half the cost of the project in the first year.
• The Result: The project starts generating "pure profit" much sooner—often in half the time it would take otherwise.
2. The "Tax Equity" Profit Engine
Large developers like AES often don't have enough tax liability to use $110 million in credits themselves. Instead, they sell those credits to "Tax Equity" investors (like JP Morgan or Bank of America).
• The bank gives AES cash today in exchange for the tax credits later.
• This provides AES with a massive pile of upfront cash they can immediately use to start another project. Essentially, the government is funding their expansion.
3. Boosting the "Internal Rate of Return" (IRR)
Investors look at a number called the IRR to decide if a project is worth it.
• Without Subsidies: A solar project in Michigan might have an IRR of 5–7%. An investor would rather put their money in the stock market for a 10% return.
• With Subsidies: The IRR can jump to 15% or higher because the "cost" of the investment is so much lower. This makes the project highly attractive to Wall Street.
4. Depreciation: The "Second Subsidy"
As mentioned before, the MACRS Depreciation allows AES to write off the value of the panels very quickly.
• In the first few years, this "paper loss" can be used to offset profits from their other energy projects (like natural gas or coal plants they own elsewhere).
• By "shielding" their other income from taxes, AES keeps even more of the money they make across their entire global business.
5. Higher Profit per Megawatt
Because the federal government is footing a large portion of the bill, AES can afford to sell the power to the utility (like Consumers Energy) at a competitive price while still keeping a healthy profit margin for themselves. If they had to pay for the whole project out of pocket, their profit per unit of energy sold would be much smaller—or non-existent.
While AES frames this as "clean energy development," from a business perspective, it is a high-yield financial asset. The panels may produce some (very little actually) electricity, but the tax code produces the profit.
Is "Progress" Costing Us Our Countryside?
We all want clean energy, but at what cost? The rapid expansion of utility-scale solar farms is being hailed as the ultimate progress—but as these "glass forests" cover thousands of acres of our rural landscape, we have to ask: Are we solving one environmental crisis only to create another? When progress is measured only by carbon reduction, we risk losing the very things that make our community home.
1. The Industrialization of our Land It feels less like "innovation" and more like an "industrial invasion." Developers aren't just taking any land; they want our prime farmland. When 1200+ acres of soil are covered in glass, that land is pulled from our food supply chain for 30+ years. Plus, the "pastoral vista" of rolling hills is replaced by chain-link fences and CCTV—a loss of identity that researchers call "solastalgia."
2. The Ecological Trade-off The irony? We might be destroying the natural world to "save" the climate.
· Habitat Fragmentation: Fencing blocks migration for deer and wildlife.
· The "Lake Effect": Birds often mistake vast panels for water, leading to fatal collisions.
· Heat Islands: These arrays can actually raise local temperatures, affecting the microclimate of neighboring properties.
3. The "Trash" of Tomorrow What happens in 25 years? We are facing a looming waste crisis. With recycling being more expensive than dumping, we risk millions of tons of panels ending up in landfills—or worse, abandoned in our fields where lead or cadmium could eventually leach into our soil and well water.
Progress shouldn't be a trade-off. We need to protect our soil, our water, and our rural way of life.