Detroit’s City Council again postponed a vote on a fund connected with the proposed solar plan this week. The plan involves building 200 acres of solar fields in six neighborhoods to offset the energy used by municipal buildings.

Councilmembers continue to voice disagreements over the first phase of the plan, which would create 104 acres of solar in the Gratiot-Findlay, State Fair and Van Dyke-Lynch neighborhoods. 

Councilmember Angela Whitfield-Calloway has argued that utility-scale solar is wrong for the city and questioned why Detroit hasn’t explored placing solar on municipal buildings or developing arrays outside the city.

However, Councilmembers Fred Durhal III and Coleman A. Young II have said the plan could revitalize neighborhoods and save residents money. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan has pitched the program as a way to meet city climate goals while reducing blight and illegal dumping in vacant lots.

Homeowners in the footprint of the proposed solar fields would receive twice the fair market value of their homes or $90,000, whichever is higher, while renters will get 18 months of rent to relocate. Homeowners within community benefits areas surrounding the projects will receive $15,000 to $25,000 each for energy efficiency upgrades.

In the five neighborhoods being considered for the second phase of the solar plan, 28 of the 31 homeowners have already signed letters of intent to sell their homes, according to Duggan. 

He has proposed using a $4.4 million equity fund derived from the Utility Conversion Fund, which is legally required to be used for energy conservation, to purchase these homes.

City council has twice delayed a vote on the fund so far, with Whitfield Calloway emerging as a strong critic. She said during the July 2 council meeting that the arrays would do little to address blight and crime. 

“Solar panels will disrupt and destroy entire neighborhoods. There will be no future affordable housing being built anywhere around a solar farm,” Whitfield Calloway said.

Young responded to Whitfield Calloway, saying the plan would help lower taxes for Detroiters who would otherwise be paying the utility bills for city buildings.

“I, for one, believe the taxes are too damn high,” he said.

One resident who lives near the proposed 40-acre State Fair solar project in Whitfield Calloway’s district spoke out against the plan on Tuesday, calling attention to the infill housing developed by the nonprofit Emmanuel Community House in the area.

“That area could be used again for single-family housing and bringing people back to the city of Detroit,” she said. “I’ve been there since 1980 and want to bring it back.”

Meanwhile, the city council is considering asking for an outside legal opinion on the solar plan. Council President Mary Sheffield has said she has questions about the city’s use of eminent domain and whether it can exempt itself from its own zoning ordinance.

Detroit Corporation Council Conrad Mallet and the council’s Legislative Policy Division have said that the solar sites are exempt because they’re being put to public use.   

Councilmembers question placing arrays in neighborhoods, criticize DTE Energy

As city council weighed the equity fund, its Public Health and Safety Standing Committee has been considering a resolution to approve the acquisition of land for the solar plan and the contracts for Lightstar Renewables and DTE Energy, the businesses chosen to develop the solar fields.

Developer representatives and city departments made lengthy presentations touting the potential for solar to improve health outcomes by reducing emissions from fossil fuel power plants and increasing energy reliability as the grid is upgraded to enable solar.

During Monday’s meeting, Whitfield Calloway questioned why Detroit hasn’t explored placing arrays on city buildings or developing solar fields outside the city limits as places like Chicago, Cincinnati and Philadelphia have done.

“Why not put the solar panels on the structures that we’re trying to drive power to?” she asked. “Why do we have to put them in neighborhoods?”

“We really feel that it was the right thing to do to invest in our land here and make sure that residents are able to benefit from it,” Trisha Stein, Detroit’s chief strategy officer, said earlier in the meeting. She said neighborhood groups had drawn up the areas that would host the solar fields and surrounding community benefits areas.

DTE Energy also came in for criticism on Monday, with councilmember James Tate saying he was met with “eyerolls” and “sighs” when he told the Detroit Green Task Force that DTE Energy would be developing some of these projects.

“You have a terrible reputation,” he said, calling out the utility’s opposition to community solar, which allows residents to subscribe to offsite solar arrays and receive bill credits for the energy produced.

The committee will continue deliberating on these contracts next week.

Detroit’s city council is divided over plans for utility-scale solar arrays in neighborhoods is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article was originally published by Planet Detroit.

A new Michigan ballot initiative aims to overturn legislation passed late last year giving state regulators, not municipal governments, final say over large-scale solar and wind projects. 

Proponents of the legislation say it’s a crucial step for moving solar developments forward at the pace needed for the state to meet targets under Michigan’s MI Healthy Climate plan, while opponents say the laws fly in the face of Michigan’s tradition of local control over land use decisions. But while ballot supporters are framing the initiative as a grassroots effort, a report from the watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute points to several connections between the ballot initiative leaders and  fossil fuel industry.

Kevon Martis, a Lenawee County commissioner, is a spokesperson for the Citizens for Local Choice ballot initiative and Our Home, Our Voice, a nonprofit started last year. In a Jan. 18 letter to the Detroit News, Martis argued statewide control over renewable siting undermined local control, writing that “residents may have to drive hours to attempt to speak to unelected bureaucrats, let alone convince them about what they believe is best for their hometown.”

But according to the policy institute report, what Martis has framed as a grassroots effort has received messaging help from the Marketing Resource Group, a public relations firm that has represented the Wolverine Pipeline Company for decades. Wolverine is jointly controlled by Mobil Pipe Line Company, Sunoco Pipeline L.P. and others.

Martis is a senior policy fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, previously known as the American Tradition Institute, which has received backing from coal companies. One former fellow at ATI, John Droz Jr., worked with the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) on a nationwide campaign to fight wind projects.

In 2012, Martis went to a national coordinating meeting for anti-wind activists and climate change deniers from fossil fuel industry-backed groups. Martis said in a meeting document that his goals were repealing Michigan’s renewable energy portfolio standard and seeking funding for lobbying efforts in Lansing. 

In an October presentation to the Michigan House Energy, Communications and Technology Committee, Martis said Our Home, Our Voice is “funded entirely by rural residents and receives no industry support of any kind.” A spokesperson for E&E Legal told Planet Detroit the group will not be involved in the ballot initiative.

Martis also played down his connection to E&E Legal in an October Detroit Free Press article, saying of his fellowship there: “It came with no money, direction, responsibility, nothing. It’s an honorary title…I haven’t talked with anybody there in about five years.”

Large-scale projects and local opposition

Renewable energy advocates say moving final decisions on projects to the state level is crucial for overcoming the divisive politics and intimidation that have impacted township meetings, while farmers say the change is needed to protect their property rights. 

Restrictive zoning ordinances have become a serious impediment to renewable energy nationwide, with at least 15% of counties across the country effectively blocking new, large-scale wind, solar or both. However, Michigan is now one of at least 13 states that control siting decisions for renewables projects or limit the authority of municipalities to ban them.

Justin Carpenter, director of policy at the nonprofit Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, said the legislation is essential for meeting state climate goals. In Michigan, energy generation accounts for 29% of planet-warming emissions, and the state’s recently passed energy legislation set goals of 80% clean energy by 2035 and 100% by 2040.

“A lot of the decision-making at the local level was entirely based on misinformation and disinformation,” Carpenter said of some townships’ restrictive ordinances. He pointed to chemical contamination from solar fields as an issue discussed at township meetings but not supported by research. 

He added that the siting legislation includes measures to protect residents. This includes requiring developers to provide $2,000 per megawatt in community benefits and giving municipalities as much as $75,000 each to represent their interests if a siting decision goes before the MPSC.

Money for signatures

Some wonder if Our Home, Our Voice won’t need interest group help to get the 446,198 signatures needed for a ballot initiative and the many additional signatures groups usually collect to make up for those that aren’t accepted.

“They said it’s gonna cost them $7 (million) to $10 million to do this. They’re not getting that from…$10 or $20 contributions,” Dick Farnsworth, with Patriots of Montcalm, a group supporting landowners who want to put renewable energy projects on their properties, told Planet Detroit. According to Ballotpedia, Michigan’s 2022 ballot initiatives cost around $8 million on average.

Matt Grossmann, a political science professor at Michigan State University, said interest groups generally fund ballot initiatives. For example, the 2018 Promote the Vote ballot initiative received 86% of its funding from the Michigan and national American Civil Liberties Union branches. Only 2% of the funding came from small donors.

Industry groups appear to be providing Martis and his allies support for their messaging. A November post by Dave Anderson, EPI policy and communications manager, noted two employees at Marketing Resource Group authored portions of Our Home Our Voice’s website, instructing users on how to draft and pass a local control resolution. 

MRG didn’t respond to a request for comments; Martis didn’t reply to questions about fundraising for the ballot initiative.

Writing on behalf of Citizens for Local Choice, Martis said in a statement, “The Citizens for Local Choice petition drive is about one question: who should make major local land use decisions: know-it-all state lawmakers and their political appointees in Lansing; or local residents in cooperation with their local official(s). We support local choices.”

Farnsworth said that those who talk about local control are actually undermining landowners’ property rights and often don’t understand the financial pressures facing farmers. He owns a farm in west Michigan’s Montcalm County that has been in the family since 1880, and said a wind lease is necessary for his family to maintain the property as a farm.

“Opponents say they don’t want wind and solar projects because it would disturb the rural nature of their environment,” he told the House Energy Committee in testimony submitted in October. “The irony is if they stop these projects, property owners like us will be forced to make some hard choices between keeping it as a farm or selling it off for development.”

The politics of fear and intimidation

In his presentation to the House Energy Committee, Martis raised several concerns, such as flashing lights from wind turbines or the potential for noise pollution. The siting legislation allows wind turbines to emit noise up to 55 decibels on average, about the volume of a household refrigerator. Martis pointed to a World Health Organization recommendation to keep noise below 45 dB because “noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects.”

However, the Department of Energy said the average wind turbine noise for those within 1,000 feet is 35 to 45 dB or the same volume as a suburban neighborhood at night. And a 2015 analysis of 25 studies found no connection between wind turbines and the health problems of nearby residents.

Martis has advocated for relying less on nuanced arguments about potential harms from renewable energy, saying only one thing would motivate politicians: fear.

“Your county commissioners will not be moved by facts,” he wrote in a Facebook post. “They will be moved by political fear.”  

A 2020 Facebook post included a picture of a truck destroyed by anti-wind protestors in Australia. “I don’t condone this at all,” Martis wrote. “But I have warned state legislators that the true cost of 40-50 or 60% wind generation in any given state must include the cost of a new capitol building. Because folks won’t take it and will resort to extreme actions.”

This strategy has meant recalling township trustees who supported renewable energy. Jed Welder, a farmer and Sidney Township trustee who voted against a restrictive ordinance on wind, was recalled even after the ordinance was passed, a move Farnsworth saw as retaliation.            

Several who spoke with Planet Detroit said they experienced this fear-based rhetoric on a visceral level at township meetings. Farnsworth said he stopped by a renewable energy meeting in Maple Valley Township, and when he went to leave, two men told him he had to sign in. When he refused, they chased him as he ran to his car.

And Mike Buza, a Sierra Club member and renewable energy advocate who often speaks at public meetings, said he’s had people follow him to his car or block him from leaving a township meeting.

“One guy told me God would make me pay for what I said,” Buza said. Township officials and residents have recounted similar experiences in several communities.

Farnsworth said the Michigan Public Service Commission has the necessary expertise to help decide on the siting for these large energy projects just as they oversee pipelines and energy transmission infrastructure. 

And he hopes that by moving the venue for these disputes to Lansing, township politics can become less acrimonious and that some who were intimidated by fights over wind and solar will want to run for office again.

He added that Patriots of Montcalm will be doing outreach to counter what he said was misinformation from the other camp.

“We look at it as harvesting the sun and the wind,” he said. “It’s just another opportunity to use your land.”

Who’s behind a ballot initiative to repeal Michigan’s renewable energy siting laws? is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article originally appeared on Planet Detroit.

Advocates across Michigan celebrated last week as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed into law a package of energy bills targeting 100% clean power by 2040, positioning Michigan as a national climate leader.

But environmental justice advocates say the legislation, dubbed the “Clean Energy Future” package by supporters, had a major omission by making no provision for community solar, which allows residents to subscribe to third-party-owned solar arrays in exchange for energy bill credits. 

The Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition (MEJC) is pushing for the passage of Senate Bills 152 and 153 and House Bills 4464 and 4465, introduced in the spring, which would enable community solar in Michigan. 

But so far, none of the bills have come up for a vote, although the House Committee on Energy, Communications and Technology heard testimony on the House bills in November.  

“It’s no secret that we are not very happy with the Clean Energy Future package,” Roshan Krishnan, policy associate at MEJC, told Planet Detroit. Krishnan said enabling community solar would accelerate solar buildout in the state and reduce demand for carbon capture and biofuels — polluting technologies included in the bill package — which MEJC opposes.

Backers say community solar, more accessible to lower-income customers and those living in multifamily housing, is crucial to building equity into the energy transition. They tout other benefits like improved energy reliability and lower bills for renters and others who can’t install rooftop solar. 

But they say Michigan utilities are wielding their influence and political spending in Lansing to block legislation enabling community solar owned by third parties, even though the concept enjoys bipartisan support. 

Michigan’s two largest investor-owned utilities, DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, have long fought laws enabling community solar. They argue such laws are unnecessary and would add costs for other customers. And they’ve spent millions in the last two years to influence lawmakers as such laws were being considered.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 22 states and the District of Columbia have policies in place that enable community solar. Most projects are concentrated in four states: Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts and Florida.

Ed Rivet, executive director of the nonprofit Michigan Conservative Energy Forum, told Planet Detroit he believes the public’s increasing embrace of renewable energy could give groups like his leverage to pressure lawmakers to bring community solar to Michigan.

“Part of our work … is to say to legislators, ‘Look, people want to do this in your district. Republicans and Democrats alike want to do this. Go ahead and ask folks in your district and see what you find’,” Rivet said.

Can community solar boosters overcome utility resistance?

Rivet said utilities’ influence in Lansing is the major hurdle to passing community solar legislation.  

“If there’s resistance to the legislation being adopted, it’s coming from a singular vantage point, that being the utilities,” he said.

DTE and Consumers are unequivocal in their opposition to community solar. DTE spokesperson Peter Ternes told Planet Detroit the proposed community solar legislation is “unnecessary” and would “allow developers to cherry-pick customers and force the utility’s remaining customers to subsidize the program – challenging affordability for our customers.”

Consumers spokesperson Brian Wheeler also called the legislation “unnecessary,” warning that it would allow “unregulated, out-of-state solar developers” to have “unfiltered access to the grid while pushing for a premium price for their own solar projects at the expense of low-income customers.”

Ternes and Wheeler each endorsed their respective companies’ utility-owned programs, DTE’s MIGreenPower and Consumers’ Solar Gardens, where residents voluntarily charge extra bills to support utility-owned solar developments.

Rivet criticized these programs, noting they are designed so customers pay more for clean energy without receiving a financial benefit for investing in a power source that is cleaner and often cheaper than others.

There’s little doubt utilities are spending resources to influence legislators. Utility watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute revealed that political action committees (PACs) tied to DTE and Consumers gave nearly $500,000 to campaign accounts for Whitmer, state legislators and state party funds in 2023 while renewable energy legislation was being considered, with 80% of legislators taking money from these PACs.

The analysis showed that key Democratic lawmakers received far more than other party members this year. For example, House Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit) took $30,000 from utilities, and Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) received $15,500. 

In 2022, DTE-affiliated dark money groups gave $2 million to Democratic groups.

Community solar’s economic and equity potential

A 2021 study from Michigan State University found that enabling community solar would create thousands of jobs over the next 25 years and bring $1.5 billion in economic benefits. 

And advocates say it would better position the state to compete for grants through the $7 billion federal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for projects that reduce or avoid planet-warming emissions, emphasizing low-income and disadvantaged communities. 

But they say the greatest potential benefits lie in creating opportunities for low-income residents to lower their energy bills and access more reliable power. Residential customers in Michigan pay the highest rates in the Midwest, and DTE and Consumers are some of the worst utilities in the nation for the duration of blackouts. On Dec. 1, the Michigan Public Service Commission approved a $368 million rate increase for DTE that would add $6.51 to the average customer’s monthly bill. 

HB 4464 would require 30% of each community solar project to go to low-income households or service organizations. 

In comments to the Michigan House Energy, Communications, and Technology Committee in November, Dr. Elizabeth Del Buono, president of Michigan Clinicians for Climate Action, said community solar would also be a win for public health.

Del Buono said community solar will make the grid more reliable during power outages when paired with battery storage, “thereby protecting the health of vulnerable patients dependent on electricity to breathe and be mobile.”

An uncertain future

According to John Richter, senior policy analyst at the nonprofit Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association, additional legislation would be in order if community solar did pass. 

That would include raising the state’s “solar cap,” which sets the percentage of peak yearly load that a utility must buy from distributed energy producers. 

The Clean Energy Future package raised this number from 1% to 10%, but State Sen. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) introduced Senate Bill 362 this year to remove the cap. Irwin’s bill would also restore “net metering,” where rooftop solar customers are credited for energy put back on the grid at the same retail rate they pay for electricity. 

Following intense utility lobbying, net metering was replaced by an “inflow-outflow” tariff in 2018, which deducts transmission costs from credits. That change increased the time to recoup up-front costs for the average rooftop solar producer from roughly nine years to 13 years.

Richter said that if these credits aren’t increased, “it would basically be pointless” to try to make community solar projects work economically for residents and developers.

But with Democrats losing their majority in the Michigan House in 2024, community solar may be one of the few energy priorities that could move forward, according to Rivet. 

“Because it does have bipartisan support, it at least has a chance of being the next round of dialogue on energy policy,” he said.

Krishnan is less optimistic.

“Nothing is going to move unless the leadership actually steps up to the plate and does it,” he said. “And they’ve shown absolutely no inclination that they are willing to do so, which I think is frankly reflective of their extreme lack of commitment to environmental justice.”

Republicans and Democrats want community solar. Why won’t Michigan legislators enable it? is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article originally appeared on Planet Detroit.

After Mayor Mike Duggan announced nine finalists in his campaign to recruit Detroit neighborhoods to host solar panel arrays at a Wednesday press conference, community members and activists are divided over whether the plan will help or unfairly burden their communities.

“I thought it was time the city of Detroit stepped up and took action on climate change,” Duggan said. “Too much of the climate change discussion in this country, as far as I’m concerned, is empty performance.”

Under the program, owner-occupied households in selected communities would be eligible to receive $10,000 to $25,000 in energy-efficient upgrades, such as new windows, roofs, energy-efficient appliances, or battery back-up for power outages. 

Detroit would own the land for the solar arrays and contract with private solar developers to build and operate them. Details for how the city would be credited for the power are not yet determined, Duggan said.

Of the nine, he said six will be selected to assemble 250 acres of vacant and underutilized land to offset the electricity used to power city operations. Duggan said the project will cost the city about $8 million a year, or roughly what Detroit now pays DTE Energy to power the city’s 127 public buildings, plus $1-2 million per year more to provide community benefits. He said he plans to bring a funding proposal to city council by spring.

The finalist neighborhoods include Gratiot/Findlay, Greenfield Park/I-75 McNichols, Grixdale, Houston Whittier/Hayes, I-96/Plymouth (O’Shea), Mount Olivet, State Fair, Trinity Pickford and Van Dyke/Lynch.

Duggan emphasized that the city would place solar arrays only in areas “where we are wanted,” noting that the city would buy out residents in owner-occupied homes with a minimum offer of $90,000 and would pay moving costs and 18 months’ rent for tenants. He previously said the city sought “stretches where they don’t have more than one or two occupied homes.” 

But several proposals contain a number of residences, especially rentals. 

For example, the footprint of the 21-acre Mt Olivet project contains 16 renter-occupied and seven owner-occupied homes.  Duggan said the fenced-in solar panel arrays would contribute to neighborhood stability and prevent illegal dumping in vacant and abandoned areas of the city. 

But Duggan spokesperson John Roach said the city could also use eminent domain to assemble land for the arrays, and the mayor said the city may condemn vacant properties owned by speculators. The finalist neighborhoods have until Jan. 31 to provide documentation that residents in owner-occupied homes are willing to move. 

Measha Parker has lived in Gratiot-Findlay for 18 years. She’s president of her block and said she hoped the fenced-in panels on 24 acres would help fight illegal dumping and drive out illegal drugs in the area. 

She’d also like to see the former Wilkins Elementary School building, which has sat vacant for years, demolished as part of the plan. But she is concerned about vandalism and hopes the solar arrays will have surveillance cameras. 

“It’ll bring safety over there,” she said. “Once they put the solar panels up…. It’ll help with the blight and help the whole area survive.”

But several residents and sustainability advocates Planet Detroit talked to question the emphasis on large solar arrays that won’t provide energy directly to residents. Others voiced concern that the projects could attract even more blight.

Birch Kemp, a lifelong Detroiter and president of the nonprofit tree-planting organization Arboretum Detroit, said he supports installing solar panels on top of buildings but worries that fenced-in solar fields will only add to blight problems and hurt property values. 

Kemp said city officials approached him and others living in and around the Poletown East area about a possible array around Perrien Park, a former Detroit Public Schools site, but neighborhood organizations unanimously rejected it.

“It’s not going to increase anybody’s property value. It’s not going to make it look more beautiful. And it’s not going to increase your access to green space,” he said. “It’s going to be like a little prison for solar panels.”

A recent study found solar installations in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Massachusetts reduced property values by 1.5% within half a mile, and outcomes varied by state.

Kemp added that the solar fields would tie up land the city could use for open space and green infrastructure to sequester stormwater and prevent basement flooding. He also worries that trees would need to be cut down to reduce shade on the panels.

Experts consider tree cover important for reducing heat and managing stormwater. And while solar power is considered critical for dealing with the climate crisis, solar fields can create a localized increase in temperature. 

This may pose a special problem in Detroit, where the heat island effect, or the capacity of impervious surfaces to absorb and re-emit heat, already increases temperatures by 8 degrees or more.

Jon Kent, a Riverbend resident and co-founder of Sanctuary Farms, also supports solar, but said communities hosting the arrays should benefit more than what he sees in the current proposal.

“They’re doing this within neighborhoods that are really poor and really disengaged,” he said, adding that these areas would be getting a one-time pay-out while the city would continue to benefit.

Kent said he’d like to see the city take more time with the process, doing additional community outreach and building in a more extensive community benefits process that could include allowing communities to renegotiate the terms for hosting arrays in the future.

The expedited time frame may be driven by pressure to secure federal support through the Inflation Reduction Act before this program ends in 2033. A city of Detroit spokesperson confirmed that the city is seeking federal credits to offset municipal operations’ energy use under the IRA. However, they added that the short timeline is because “the mayor feels the climate crisis is an urgent matter.”

Roach defended the current plan, saying the city worked with 15 renewable energy groups to develop the proposal and that eight groups, including Walker-Miller Energy Services, EcoWorks and the GreenDoor Initiative, have been working with neighborhoods to help them develop community benefit requests.

“This is a remarkable partnership between renewable energy advocates and neighborhood groups to design better neighborhoods that will help fight climate change,” he said. 

Roach also pushed back on the idea that solar could hurt property values. “Those who best know the property values in a neighborhood are those who actually live there, which is why they will be the ones choosing the sites,” he said.

Jackson Koeppel, a Highland Park-based energy democracy practitioner and former executive director of the nonprofit Soulardarity, questioned the strategy of jumping immediately to large-scale solar arrays before embracing more targeted strategies.

“This approach to just build out as much solar on vacant land as possible to meet that need isn’t the right order of operations,” he said. Koeppel argues that on-site and rooftop solar and battery storage is the most cost-effective approach for city operations because it would generate “behind the meter” power that would allow the city to avoid the full cost of energy it would otherwise have to purchase. 

Instead, the mayor’s proposal would have a third-party solar developer generate the power and likely sell it to DTE, which could then credit the city on its bills. The city’s request for information from solar developers did include inquiries about behind-the-meter projects at municipal facilities.

North Rosedale resident Amanda Paige said the city could incorporate solar energy into the urban landscape in other ways, like installing rooftop solar panels in neighborhoods or putting panels on top of structures like parking garages and bus shelters.

She worries especially about those living in some of Detroit’s most disinvested neighborhoods who may be underwater on their mortgages and struggling to build generational wealth.

“They’re not attractive,” Paige said of solar panels. “It’s not going to do anything for your long-term property values if you’re across the street from a big solar farm.”

As Detroit solar plan advances, community activists are wary is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.