From Laggard to Leader: A Novel Policy Perspective of Michigan’s Preliminary Path to Climate Success

Abstract

The realities of climate change are here, and in the absence of encompassing U.S. federal policies directing action, it is left to the states to help set our course for the future. At the forefront of state action is Michigan, which in 2023 passed sweeping legislation requiring the state to achieve climate neutrality, a significant investment in electric vehicle infrastructure, and a commitment to environmental justice. The bold climate-forward actions by the state have been described by many as vaulting the state of Michigan into a national leader on climate policy. This perspective uses Michigan’s novel collection of climate-related policies to examine the connections between infrastructure, environmental justice, and climate change in Michigan. The legislation was passed with strong Democratic support, but Republicans and some environmentalists are concerned about the feasibility of the state to implement the legislation, especially when some states like California are having to back down from their green energy goals. We find that the legislation focuses on the triple bottom line by supporting economic growth in the state, advancing the interests of rural and urban communities alike, and embracing ambitious environmental goals. Michigan is already seeing successful implementation of this policy, and the lessons of this action can help provide a roadmap for other states seeking to move forward on climate policy. This novel perspective demonstrates the unique qualities Michigan is bringing to climate legislation, and the newness of the policies opens new research opportunities for a variety of scholarship interests.

1. Introduction

In 2023, Michigan, a state historically more hostile to climate change legislation, passed a sweeping series of legislative bills collectively known as the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan. The purpose of these bills is to tackle the broad issue of climate change at the state level in a sustainable manner. This legislative action on behalf of the state of Michigan launched the state from a climate laggard to a climate leader in quick order [1,2,3,4]. At the heart of this legislation is a commitment to environmental justice and sustainability. The Michigan Healthy Climate Plan is not without its critics. Several states, notably California, have faced significant challenges meeting their legislative climate goals. Nevertheless, if Michigan can successfully implement these policies, it has the potential to serve as a model for other states to implement ethical, sustainable, climate-minded policy. This paper will explore the legislation, what makes Michigan’s plan different from other states, and the importance of putting sustainability and environmental justice first.

1.1. The Michigan Healthy Climate Plan and American Environmental Justice

The Michigan Healthy Climate Plan (MHCP) is in many regards the result of the confluence of the environmental justice movement and the sustainability movement. The environmental justice movement can find its origins in the expansion of the American Civil Rights movement in the 1960s [5]. Environmental justice is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability” [6]. The federal definition further states that these groups of people are protected from “disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change” [6] and stresses that all Americans should “have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices” [6]. This definition and application of environmental justice was established in the U.S. because historically low-income communities and communities of color have been exploited by industrial pollution and other environmental ills [7]. The federal government first acted on environmental justice in 1994 when President Bill Clinton signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to actively identify and address instances of environmental injustice, create strategies for implementing environmental justice, and promote non-discrimination in federal programs that impact both human health and the environment [8]. More recently, President Biden has also made environmental justice a priority of his administration with the issuance of executive orders 14096, 14008, and 13985. Executive orders 14906 and 14008 build upon and amplify the Clinton Executive Order by creating the Environmental Justice Scorecard and the Justice40 Initiative. Executive Order 13985 requires federal agencies to conduct equity assessments of underserved communities.

A significant challenge of environmental justice at the federal level in the United States is its tenuous nature. Aside from the executive orders issued by Presidents Clinton and Biden (Appendix A), the only federal legislation that holds a specified commitment to environmental justice is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Executive orders are not as effective because they can easily be altered or removed by a future president. Under NEPA, federal agencies must consider environmental justice when making decisions by determining if there are any “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to low-income, minority, and tribal populations” [9]. While NEPA is a federal environmental policy, it only applies to federal agencies making “significant” effects and does not apply when state or local government actions do not require federal review. Because NEPA only extends to the actions of federal agencies, there is nothing at the federal level that requires states to consider environmental justice. Consequently, there will be significant variation at the state and local level across the United States in their inclusion of environmental justice in policy action.

1.2. Sustainability, the U.S. Federal Government, and the Michigan Health Climate Plan

Sustainability is often grounded in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972 [10]. Today, the core objectives of the sustainability movement can be found in the United Nations 2030 Development Goals [11]. At its most basic definition, sustainability’s objective is to meet the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs, as established by the United Nations Bruntland Commission in 1987 [12]. Today, this often coincides with the concept of “the triple bottom line”, where economic, environmental, and social goals should be integrated in policies and other related actions to ensure that the decisions we make today will not jeopardize opportunities and quality of life for future generations.

Collectively, environmental justice and sustainability both hold “the impact of human activity” on the environment and the people as central [13]. Environmental justice prioritizes equity and fairness for underserved communities. The primary objective is to end the environmental and health exploitation of these communities from industrial action and procedural decision-making. Sustainability looks at the environmental, economic, and equity factors of industrial activity on all aspects of life. The goal of sustainable development is to create healthy communities for today and the future [13].

To bring these ideas together in a way that is politically palatable in the United States, President Biden’s administration asked Congress to take up his Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) policy [14], which was successfully passed in August 2022. It is important to note the complementary nature [15] of the IRA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 [14,16]. While the titles of both pieces of legislation are not environmentally forward, they are very much environmental policies with strong investment in mitigating climate change, promoting clean jobs, and advancing environmental justice [17,18]. Why this matters for the nation, and in this instance the state of Michigan, is that these two pieces of legislation open up billions of dollars of federal funding for investment in climate mitigation, green jobs, and infrastructure improvements [18]. It is within the federal legislation and then copied in the efforts of the state of Michigan that we see the concepts of sustainability and environmental justice come together in the legislative priorities they set out: improving the environment while advancing the economy [19,20,21,22,23], without harming or exploiting vulnerable populations.

1.3. Michigan’s Environmental Legacy and a Legislative Push for Change

Prior to Michigan’s passage of the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan legislation, Michigan’s historic reputation had been one that is resistant to environmental regulation. As a state that has been the hub of the automobile industry, has a reputation for industrial manufacturing, and is a leading agricultural producer, this resistance to regulation is not surprising. Michigan’s “rustbelt” economy and an international reputation of being “the industrial heart of America” [1] are also carbon intensive. The state’s carbon dioxide emissions ranked tenth nationally in 2020 [2]. The MHCP is designed to tackle all three of these major emissions sources: the power sector (27%), transportation (27%), and industry (22%) [2]. This makes the movement of the state to generate all electricity from carbon-free sources an unlikely objective. With the federal push for electric vehicles (EVs) and the growth of green jobs, the goals of the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan would position the state to be one of the top states in the nation for clean energy jobs [1]. Indeed, the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan puts the state at the forefront of state action on federal climate directives. Without a federal climate change policy in place, state action is required if the nation is going to meet President Biden’s call to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Michigan, like many states, has been negatively impacted by climate-related issues. Flooding [24], algal blooms [25], wildfire smoke [26], the health of the Great Lakes [27,28], and agriculture [29] have all been impacted by climate change over the past few years. In addition, over the last decade or so, Michigan has dealt with some widely reported environmental crises that have disproportionately impacted its underserved communities. From the Flint water crisis (Appendix B) [30,31] to PFAS [32] to dams collapsing [33], among other events, Michigan cannot continue to ignore the impact policy choices have on Michigan’s economy, infrastructure, or people.

The Michigan Health Climate Plan and its related bills, considering the IIJA and IRA, have provided an opportunity for the state to craft sustainability-forward legislation to promote climate mitigation and to protect the citizens of Michigan from environmental pressures. The MHCP brings together the tenents of sustainability and environmental justice and mandates that the state make environmental, economic, and social decisions that advance opportunities for all Michiganders. The Plan ultimately proves that climate policy, when done thoughtfully, can make undeniable progress toward meeting the needs of current Michiganders without compromising the well-being of underserved communities or the state’s future generations.

2. The Path to a Perspective

For this perspective, we used the state of Michigan to examine why and how it transitioned from climate laggard to climate leader. We wanted to better understand why media outlets were referring to Michigan as a “climate leader” and what it was about Michigan that made it more likely to be “a successful climate leader” implementing climate-based legislation [1,2,3,4]. Our question was relatively simple: what has Michigan done to position itself as a climate leader in the United States, and what makes Michigan more likely to achieve its climate goals than other states with similar goals? How has Michigan set out to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the collection of policies passed by the Michigan Legislature to address climate change in 2023, and how is this a different approach?

Our original intention was to survey relevant stakeholders in the policy formulation and implementation process. Relevant stakeholders were identified as those who participated in the relevant Michigan legislative committees for the passage of this collection of legislation, legislators who were identified in the debate record or press who were supporters or opponents of the legislators, and other organizations that were identified either within the legislative record or the press who either supported or opposed the legislation. We designed a survey instrument using Qualtrics to evaluate stakeholders’ thoughts about the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan and related policies. Respondents were asked questions about what they thought were successes and pitfalls of the legislation, how well the legislation would address issues of environmental justice, and how well it incorporated elements of sustainability. Once the instrument had been completed and all institutional review board requirements had been met, we emailed the survey to our pool of respondents. In total there were 45 surveys emailed to respondents.

Unfortunately, our response rate was extremely low. We only received seven survey responses, and of those responses, half were submitted unanswered. Realizing this was problematic, we telephoned all Michigan legislators we had emailed the original survey to, asking for them to either answer the survey or sit for an interview where the survey instrument would be administered. Despite several rounds of phone calls to legislators’ offices, we got no response, rendering our survey research sample too small for reliable results [Appendix C].

Consequently, we are presenting a policy perspective of the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan (MHCP) and its related legislation, and it does not have the supplemental illustrative data from the surveys or interviews. Instead, we begin by examining the executive order that first announced the MHCP by Governor Whitmer in September 2020. We then examine the legislative record that moved the MHCP from executive order to codified legislation. This legislation comprises two different legislative pushes; four bills were signed into law in July 2023 and two more in November 2023, all of which legally address the goals set forth in the original executive order. During our research, we examined the final versions of the legislation, the published congressional record, and primary source documents from media outlets, interest groups, and other relevant stakeholders. The impact of the MHCP and its corresponding legislation is in its infancy. Our goal was to examine what makes Michigan’s legislation different from other states and warrants it being labeled as a “climate leader” [1,2,3,4]. We wanted to understand how Michigan went about addressing the goals of the MHCP in the resulting legislation. We then looked at preliminary indicators to get an early look at how successful Michigan has been in the year since the final passage of MCHP legislation at moving forward with its policy agenda. We used predicted and actual financial and legislative markers to indicate preliminary success.

3. Transformative and Innovative Policy

The Transformative Outcomes Framework [34,35,36,37] was designed to assess if innovation policies contribute to systemic change. Transformative Outcomes scholars argue that new policies that address challenges like climate change should “address ‘transformational system failures’ that are ‘preventing processes of transformative change from occurring in a socially and politically desirable way’” [37]. The Transitions Outcomes Framework identifies twelve transformative outcomes that can be grouped into three general categories: (1) shielding, nurturing, and empowering alternatives; (2) opening up and unlocking regimes; and (3) anchoring and institutionalizing change.

Transitions innovation policy takes pieces from the Transitions Outcomes Framework and combines it with a “broader understanding of the innovation process and societal agenda” [35] to include societal changes [34,35,36]. There are four main characteristics of transitions innovation policy: (1) it is focused on solving big “third generation” problems; (2) it is systemic in that it acknowledges that change and innovation must occur across sectors; (3) it is directional and steers innovation towards sustainability and equity; and (4) in involves all stakeholders in the process.

Collectively, these frameworks help to design, assess, and improve policies that target climate and energy challenges. The nature of “third-generation” environmental problems requires deep transformative change, not simply short-term fixes. Michigan is trying to do just that with its Michigan Healthy Climate Plan.

4. The Michigan Healthy Climate Plan

The Michigan Healthy Climate Plan (MHCP) originated as an executive directive signed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. The directive instructed the Office of Climate and Energy in the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to craft a plan that moves the state toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, carbon neutrality [Appendix D], and 100% renewable energy [38]. This action by the state of Michigan “vault[ed] it into the vanguard of United States climate ambition as just the fourth state in the nation with such a goal, and the first state in the Midwest” [2]. The goals of the MHCP are 50% renewable energy by 2030, the closure of all coal plants by 2035 (Michigan’s main power companies had already pledged to close their coal-fired plants in the state), building an extensive electric vehicle charging infrastructure to support 2 million EVs by 2030, and a commitment to a minimum of 40% of the policies’ investment initiatives towards vulnerable communities [2] and carbon neutrality by 2050.

4.1. Seven Primary Objectives of the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan

The seven primary objectives of MHCP are to (1) mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, (2) spur economic development and create good-paying jobs, (3) protect and improve the health of Michiganders, (4) position Michigan as a leader in climate action, (5) protect our natural resources and wildlife, (6) make Michigan energy independent, and (7) address environmental injustices [39]. Following the executive directive and the unveiling of the MHCP, the Democratic-led chambers in the Michigan State Legislature began writing, introducing, and passing legislation to implement the MHCP’s goals. The four State of Michigan House bills, House Bills (HB) 4317 and 4318, and the State of Michigan Senate Bills (SB) 302 and 303, were signed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer in July 2023 and were the first of the MHCP’s directives to become Public Acts. The result was two rounds of successful policymaking. In July of 2023, Governor Whitmer signed four bills into law that address climate change, and in November of 2023, she signed the Clean Energy and Jobs Act and the Clean Energy Future Package. The conglomeration of these two separate legislative actions propelled the state to achieve or make progress toward achieving the MHCP’s various outlined goals. The following paragraphs will outline the legislative results that Whitmer signed into law.

4.2. Solar Energy Facilities Taxation Act

House Bill 4317, the Solar Energy Facilities Taxation Act, authorizes local governments to establish solar energy facilities within their municipality and outlines the specific taxes and tax reductions levied on the owner or lessee of the facility. Specifically, a facility is eligible for a tax reduction from $7000 per megawatt at nameplate capacity to $2000 per megawatt at nameplate capacity if the facility was owned by the state immediately prior to or during the installation of the facility, if the facility is located in an Opportunity Zone, if the property is being used for industrial or commercial purposes and aligns with definitions of blighted, historic resource, or obsolete as outlined in the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act of 1996, or is an improved real property and is attached to the solar energy facility [40]. A standardized tax creates transparency and clear expectations for future owners and lessees of solar energy facilities. The eligibility requirements for the tax reductions create incentives for novel placements of facilities (Appendix E). Moreover, the stipulations to qualify for a reduction can be applied equally throughout the state, not solely in densely populated or desolate areas. The sponsor of the Solar Energy Facilities Taxation Act, Representative Curt Vanderwall (R-Ludington) said, “There’s no reason we can’t treat our smaller communities with as much attention and care as our larger cities. Now, we can take a step forward towards a more affordable, brighter future for the entire state of Michigan” [40]. Addressing the impacts of climate change and investment in rural communities is a priority for the MHCP and related legislation. After all, as Rep. Vanderwall said, the MHCP is transitioning the state towards a sustainable future, and gaps in the policy that overlook rural Michiganders would create an unjust transition at their disadvantage.

HB 4318, which is tie-barred (Appendix F) to or dependent on the success of HB 4317, is an amendment to the General Property Tax Act. The amendment specifies that the solar energy facilities with a valid certificate, as awarded in HB 4317, are exempt from taxes. The amendment also clarifies that though the facility is tax-exempt, the land on which it exists is not [41]. Representative Cynthia Neeley (D-Flint) echoed the importance of the facility-based tax exemption while maintaining the property tax by saying, “This legislation will help solar districts by easing portions of their operational tax burden, while also ensuring they are still paying a reasonable share of their dues. I am proud to have introduced HB 4318, and I’m glad it will move Michigan toward the best environmental practices with the encouragement of responsible tax legislation” [42]. Balancing the affordability of new renewable energy sources, in this case solar, helps to balance the economic, environmental, and social demands of sustainable energy policy. This is even more notable because HB 4317 and 4318 were the only bills to be sponsored or cosponsored by a Republican. The financial wherewithal of the bill helped to promote Republican support for an environmental policy.

4.3. Property Assessed Clean Energy Act

Senate Bills 302 and 303, the final bipartisan bills that Governor Whitmer signed, both amend the Property Assessed Clean Energy Act, which includes the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. PACE is a program that permits property owners to work with private or third-party contractors to build clean energy projects on their property [43]. Together, the tie-barred bills expand opportunities for local governments and owners of agricultural properties to establish PACE projects.

SB 302 expands the legally required information in PACE program reports. Formerly PACE projects required public meetings with open comments, a validation that the project is for public purpose, and a financing plan [44]; now, the bill requires PACE program reports to also include an owner-arranged finance plan which is subject to evaluation from local government, various provisions for quality assurance for all parties involved, and a guarantee from the contractor for a savings-to-investment ratio that is greater than one but can be waived by the owner [45].

SB 303 authorizes local governments to establish and finance project areas for PACE in a contract with property owners or on behalf of the municipality itself. Namely, SB 303 amends the Property Assessed Clean Energy Act to allow agricultural properties alongside industrial and commercial properties to be considered eligible project areas for energy facilities—broadening eligibility for clean energy facility sites. As for the means of financing PACE projects, the bill outlines the various ways in which a government may pay for the proposed projects. Alongside utilizing reserves, tax revenues, or other “lawfully” available funds, local governments may issue notes and bonds to finance the projects. The bill highlights that notes and bonds issued for a PACE project are tax-exempt and progress governmental objectives, like reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved public health, reduced energy costs, protection against climate hazards, and more [46].

In summation, the PACE program is a financial tool that allows commercial property owners (which includes multi-family rentals, agriculture, non-profits, and industry/commercial properties) to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The loan for these investments is tied to the land, not to any individual owner. Commercial property owners can secure up to 100% of needed financing for eligible energy projects that are then repaid over a maximum of twenty-five years [47]. This gives property owners additional incentives to invest in projects that promote energy efficiency, water conservation, and/or renewable energy projects because the cost/value is tied to the land. Should the owner of the property decide to sell before their PACE program loan is repaid, the debt transfers to the new property owner, minimizing the financial risk for the initial investment.

Together, SB 302 and 303 increase accessibility to managing and establishing clean energy facilities across the state, regardless of the type of property or the finance plan [Appendix G]. By dismantling these barriers to creating clean energy facilities, private contractors, local governments, and landowners will be able to provide for the increase in demand for clean energy as the state moves towards its goal of being carbon neutral. It also works towards the goal of making Michigan energy independent in an equitable manner.

There were no statements of protest or support for SB 302 in either chamber; however Senator Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City) asked her colleagues for support on SB 303 while highlighting the positive economic impacts and the various tools for property owners and local governments in the bill. Specifically, the Senator stated, “C-PACE is a commonsense approach to climate change which authorizes counties and cities to establish voluntary districts to promote energy efficiency. The C-PACE program has been successfully operating in Michigan for over a decade to help businesses make valuable energy savings investments. It is a pro-business economic development tool that uses 100 percent private capital and creates no liability for the state or local government” [48]. Continuing the legacy of the C-PACE program is an important step towards the necessary promotion of energy efficiency to meet the larger goal of carbon neutrality.

4.4. Clean Energy and Jobs Act and the Clean Energy Future Package

In November 2023, months after Governor Whitmer signed the four bipartisan bills, she signed the Clean Energy and Jobs Act and the Clean Energy Future Package, which consisted of two House Bills and five Senate Bills. Together, the seven bills are much more progressive and partisan in nature when compared to the bipartisan bills signed months prior. The commitments in the bills and the publicity of the signing ceremony garnered support and opposition to the Governor’s push for a sustainable state reliant on clean energy. Specifically, House Bills 5120 and 5121, which complete the Clean Energy and Jobs Act, address the certification and establishment processes of renewable energy facilities [49]. HB 5120 authorizes the Michigan Public Service Commission to grant certificates for the establishment of clean energy projects, be they solar, wind, or energy storage facilities. The bill specifically outlines the application process for clean energy projects. A few requirements include a description of the comments at public meetings, meetings with elected officials, all community outreach efforts, and evidence of a consultation with the Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Environment. This step is vital in ensuring that land is not wrongfully or unlawfully taken from landowners or municipalities. Additionally, any certificate applicant is required to enter into a host-community agreement, where the royalties are measured by the nameplate capacity and are to be funneled toward the local police, fire, public safety, or local infrastructure projects. Lastly, the bill regulates the powers among relationships between the owner of the energy facility, the commission, and the local government; the stated limits on the power of the MPSC-authorized certificate not having the power of eminent domain is an example [50]. Like the Senate Bills signed earlier in 2023, HB 5120 streamlines the clean energy facility certification process through the commission to increase accessibility to ultimately keep up with the expected demand for clean energy while maintaining accountability for all parties involved.

Relatedly, HB 5121 organizes the powers that local units of government can levy for creating zoning ordinances. The Bill prevents a municipality from preventing the extraction of natural resources and from controlling the operation of oil wells; however, the bill does not limit the municipality’s interference for enforcing “reasonable regulations” if such aspects are “reasonable in accommodating customary mining operations.” Importantly, HB 5121 protects previously established renewable energy projects if an attempt to abide by new regulations costs at least $10,000 or ten percent of the original construction, whichever is less [51].

In response to the passage of The Clean Energy and Jobs Act, Representatives Phill Green (R-Millington) and Alicia St. Germaine (R-Harrison Township) offered nearly identical statements of protest on Michigan’s House Floor. Both Representatives mentioned how the bills will “strip control away from local communities concerning the construction of large-scale solar and wind energy projects.” [52]. Moreover, both Representatives criticized the expanded authority of the MPSC and the possible placement of future renewable energy facilities:

“The three-member board is made up of unelected bureaucrats appointed by the governor, and the governor is publicly supporting a plan to add thousands of square miles of new wind and solar farms in rural communities no matter how valuable these contracts may be to certain industries. Under House Bill 5120-5123, the MPSC will force the projects on local communities with little regard for residents’ concerns. These unelected commission members could remake our entire electric grid with far-left policy as their goal, and the people of Michigan would have no ability to hold them accountable. For these reasons, I cannot support these bills” [53].

Though the bills ultimately do expand the powers of the MPSC, the provisions for the host-community agreement, the intended direction of those funds, and the certificate notably not holding the power of eminent domain create a limited increase in authority for the Commission. On the other hand, Representative Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton), the sponsor of HB 5121, said that both bills will “create thousands of high-paying jobs with family-sustaining wages, reduce electric bills for customers, and move us toward energy independence, all while partnering with local officials and empowering landowners” [54].

The final package of the MHCP is the Clean Energy Future Package, consisting of five Senate Bills: SB 271, 273, 277, 502, and 519 [39]. SB 271 notably codifies Michigan’s new renewable and clean energy standards. In companies’ portfolios, electric providers must achieve 60% renewable energy by 2060 and 100% clean energy in all sales by 2040. The bill also requires electric providers to submit to the statewide 2500-megawatt energy storage goal with a written plan by 2030 [55]. The second bill in the package, SB 273, necessitates the creation of energy waste reduction plans to reduce energy costs for consumers and total energy waste. The bill outlines an incremental waste reduction-to-savings plan for providers to utilize. Additionally, the bill calls for energy service companies with more than 50,000 employees to form a diverse workforce that includes employees from transition-impacted sectors, low-income communities, and environmental justice communities [56]. Maintaining a diverse workforce will result in an informed, conscious economic and energy transition.

As for SB 277, the bill amends the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994 to authorize solar facilities as a permitted use for farmland if the facility does not negatively impact the land or the productivity of the farm or alter surrounding buildings. Importantly, the land used for the solar facility must be capable of returning to its agricultural use when the facility is inevitably removed [57]. SB 502 sets clear expectations for energy companies’ Integrated Resource Plans (IRP). The bill requires IRPs to include all energy waste reduction efforts, projections of greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility, and environmental justice impact analysis, among other things. An additional IRP is required to be offered to low-income households in both single-family and multifamily households and is meant to be designed to achieve equal amounts of energy waste reduction when compared to other customers [52]. Lastly, SB 519 aims to smooth the states’ transition into having a sustained clean-energy workforce. The bill creates a Community Worker and Economic Transition Office to provide for any worker affected by the shift toward clean energy, primarily serving workers in construction, combustible energy, or in the fossil fuel fields [58].

These packages with their sweeping climate action unsurprisingly created ideological divides in the legislature. Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids), for example, said, “These bills are driven by the shared sentiment that energy should be affordable and reliable for all Michiganders. Those values were our starting point, and the result is powerful legislation that will make our electric bills more reasonable, our grid more dependable and our state a cleaner and more sustainable place to live” [59]. On the other hand, Senate Minority Leader Senator Aric Nesbitt (R-Porter Township) who is a vocal critic of the states clean energy ambitions said, “This is not the time to force the people of Michigan to pay more for less reliable energy. Michiganders deserve responsible energy policy—an all-of-the-above approach that utilizes existing and reliable sources, including natural gas and nuclear energy, while continuing to build up a renewable grid for the future. We can be both environmentally conscious and help lower costs for families, seniors, and small businesses. This should be the goal of our Legislature” [60].

Given the timeline for the new clean energy standard, the effects on the reliability and affordability of clean energy sources are largely unknown, especially at this scale. The energy packages may be amplifying liberal idealism and conservative cynicism alike. Only time will be able to reveal clean energy’s true reliability with all possible economic impacts.

4.5. Policy Matrix for Michigan Healthy Climate Plan Goals

In summary, the policy matrix below provides an overview of some of the central components of the collection of bills that make up the MHCP. The collection of legislation emphasizes the incorporation of environmental justice and sustainability in the implementation of the MHCP. The MHCP is intentionally designed so that all Michiganders benefit. The MHCP also emphasizes significant changes in agriculture and energy so that the state can remain on track to achieve its ambitious goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 while simultaneously growing the economy, creating jobs, protecting the environment, and supporting the entirety of its population.

5. From Laggard to Leader?

The culmination of these policies may have launched Michigan from climate laggard to leader because they are the first midwestern state to set a goal of carbon neutrality, the regional impact of the Michigan economy, and the commitment the MHCP places on environmental justice. Michigan is not novel in the sense that they are the first state to pursue these goals; in fact, they have followed the path of other states like California in 2006, New York in 2019, and Massachusetts in 2021. Some of these states, notably California, have struggled to stay on track to meet their goals [61]. Michigan Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt stated, “We have seen the evidence from states like California and Illinois that are now grudgingly bringing nuclear plants back online and countries like Germany that shuttered nuclear plants only to become reliant on Russian natural gas” [60]. A report by the California Green Index [62] from March 2024 indicated that California will fail to meet its climate goal of carbon neutrality unless it triples its greenhouse reduction rates through 2030 [61]. The biggest climate culprits in California are its power plants and cement production facilities [61]. It is notable that California has already taken most of the “easy” steps to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the additional actions required will be significantly more challenging [61]. While California might not be making as many gains as it would like towards carbon neutrality, it has been able to grow its economy while reducing emissions [61]. The state has not been able to reduce their emissions as much as they intended, and California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office stated that the state “lack[s] a ’clear strategy’ for meeting its 2030 targets” [61]. California has a long history of being an environmental leader [39,61,62,63,64,65], and states have much to gain from California’s progressive environmental actions, but Michigan is not California.

So, what makes Michigan different? And why should we think they will be successful at meeting their goals? First, much of their potential for success is embedded in the way the MHCP was pieced together. This collection of policies at the state level is meant to enhance the green energy initiatives embedded in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Michigan legislators wisely crafted policy that will amplify the financial benefits the state can receive from the IRA. Using the IRA to the advantage of the state to fuel its clean energy and sustainability initiatives is what sets Michigan apart from other states that have previously pursued similar policy. Second, as a midwestern, manufacturing-intensive state with one of their primary industries being the carbon-intensive auto manufacturing industry, how Michigan approaches these environmental challenges while growing their economy and protecting environmental justice matters. Third, Michigan is ahead of states like California in eliminating energy production from carbon-emitting power plants. Since a great deal of carbon emissions comes from transportation and energy-intensive industries, these goals and priorities are central to achieving carbon neutrality. State and corporate action to achieve carbon neutrality are a significant difference between Michigan and California.

5.1. Economics and the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan

Economically speaking, Senate Bills 303 and 302 work to protect private contracting for clean energy projects—allowing for job opportunities to expand in the private sector to meet the upcoming expected demand of clean energy installations. Additionally, SB 519 created the Community Worker and Economic Transition Office to focus on creating and sustaining future energy facility workers. Such economic measures will power the state’s progress toward Michigan’s energy independence and national leadership in climate action. The state’s energy independence is centered in SB 271, which requires energy companies to submit to the 2500-megawatt statewide storage goal, and SB 502, which requirement energy companies’ IRPs to include energy waste reduction plans. After all, an unnecessary waste of clean energy will make it harder to achieve the ambitious goals set forth by the state legislature, such as SB’s 271 goal to make Michigan achieve 100% in clean energy by 2040—the same goals that asserted Michigan as a national leader in clean energy commitments. The honor could not have been achieved, or even seemed feasible, without the legislature’s bills to relieve barriers to increasing access to clean energy: HB 4317 capping taxes on clean energy facilities, HB 4318 reducing barriers to the energy facility certification process, and SB 302 and HB 5120 streamlining the facility certification process. It is estimated that “in-state clean energy by 2050 while closing all gas generation facilities would drive $10 billion in new statewide investment, spur 50% energy sector growth, and create $8 billion in consumer savings—equating to $7.70 for every $1 spent” [2].

In addition, Michigan is tapping into its historic strength as a leader in the automotive industry. In combination with U.S. automakers’ commitment to electric vehicle production, the state is committed to expanding infrastructure to help boost demand and feasibility of EV ownership. The Clean Energy and Jobs Act is committed to creating a network of charging stations across the state and community infrastructure to help with the transition to electric vehicles for all communities [39].

5.2. Health and Wellbeing and the Michigan Health Climate Plan

The health and wellbeing of Michiganders and its land would be at risk and likely compromised if the MHCP solely focused on the economic aspect of transitioning the state’s energy supply. Instead, the MHCP prioritizes environmental justice, identifying 996 census tracts of disadvantaged Michiganders (or 35% of the Michigan communities) [66]. These principles of environmental justice and economic growth are woven through several of the resulting MHCP policies. Protecting Michigan’s natural resources and land is addressed in SB 277, where the state’s agricultural land is ardently protected while ensuring a viable pathway to a clean energy facility. Moreover, HB 5121, though an amendatory act, upheld the idea that municipalities cannot prevent extraction of natural resources, while the entities were also granted specific powers for clean energy facilities. However, there is no energy transition without an empowered workforce. In a bold manner, the state legislature presented the state’s energy transition as a matter shared between economic and human development—something that California did not do. The importance of health and additional measures for marginalized communities is highlighted in the MHCP. SB 303, for example, allows notes and bonds used to finance a C-PACE project to be tax-exempt because they improve public health and protect against climate hazards. In terms of environmental justice, SB 502 requires energy companies to create an energy reduction program for low-income single and multifamily households. This provision will create affordable clean energy opportunities for families across rural and urban parts of the state, easing clean energy proliferation. Moreover, SB 273 encourages diverse workforce acquisition, which will result in equitable economic mobility and energy transition.

To bolster these benefits, independent modeling of the implementation of Michigan’s “Clean Energy Framework” shows significant economic and health benefits for the state. Specifically, the analysis of the implementation of the MHCP would generate 160,000 new jobs and lower household energy costs by a minimum of $297 annually. In addition, this legislation is predicted to generate an additional $5.3 billion in federal funding from Biden’s Infrastructure Reduction Act plus an additional $7.8 billion in investment by 2050. According to the report, this is more than double the funding the state would receive if it did not enact these policies [67]. The health benefits are projected to be just as significant, with the prevention of 1000 premature deaths and an estimated health care savings of $8.3 billion for the state [67]. The bipartisan balanced budget passed for the 2025 fiscal year also sets aside funds for climate resiliency projects, expansion of infrastructure projects, many of which address climate-related needs, and funds for economic and worker transitions to the field of electric vehicles [68]. In addition, the state of Michigan has also launched the Michigan Revolution for Electrification of Vehicles Academy, MI Healthy Climate Corps, and other programs to develop a clean energy workforce ready for the jobs of the future.

5.3. Funding the Michigan Health Climate Plan

Indeed, a report issued by the Michigan Governor’s office in August of 2024 [69] illustrates how extraordinarily successful Michigan has been at securing funding for the projects that have emerged from the MHCP and related bills, securing $26 billion and supporting 21,000 jobs. This ranks Michigan first in the nation for IRA-related funding. The bulk of the funds have been used to further investment in clean manufacturing and climate-related initiatives [70]. This builds off the economic transition work, which was highlighted in SB 502: the creation of the Community Worker and Economic Transition Office. More specifically, the state of Michigan has secured funding for solar panels on 18,000 low-income homes and over $200 million in rebate initiatives to help single- and multi-family homes improve whole-home and appliance efficiency [71]. This sourcing of funding for solar panels from the IRA perfectly aligns with the objectives of SB 502.

The state of Michigan has pushed hard for federal funding from the IRA to implement central components of the MHCP. The state has already received $129 million to develop solar, wind, and renewable energy storage. This includes the development of renewable energy sources on existing brownfields in the state [70]. Metro Detroit was able to get $50 million towards the creation of Nel Hydrogen’s new gigafactory [70] as the state moves to invest in hydrogen as a clean energy source for the state. In addition, Michigan has secured $35.7 million for the upgrade of transmission lines and energy-related infrastructure [70]. This funding is critical for the state if they are to achieve their goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and is significant for a state with a reputation of having the least reliable energy grid in the nation [72].

5.4. Jobs and the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan

In addition, the state of Michigan was recently ranked 6th in the nation for clean jobs, according to the Clean Jobs America Report [73]. The report also found that Michigan comes in third for overall energy sector job growth, trailing only Texas and California [71]. This puts Michigan’s clean energy job growth at almost two times the pace of national energy-wide employment [73].

All of these data were reconfirmed in a report from 5 Lakes Energy [74], which indicates that the state of Michigan is in an “economic resurgence” because of the MHCP and the use of IRA funds to grow green jobs in the state and invest in climate-oriented projects.

Table 1. Michigan healthy climate plan policy matrix.

Policy Area	Goal	Strategies and Actions	Effectiveness Cost and Feasibility	Equity Impact	Timeline
Environmental Justice	Ensure fair access to clean air, water, and energy for all communities	- prioritize funding in EJ communities - health monitoring - support community led climate planning	High Medium	Medium -High	Ongoing
Energy Transition	Shift from fossil fuels to clean energy	- phase out coal by 2030 - mandate clean energy procurement - invest in grid modernization - incentivize climate smart practices	High High	Medium	Longterm Consumers Energy and DTE Energy plan carbon neutrality by 2050 [Appendix H]
Sustainable Agriculture	Reduce GHGs and enhance resilience in ag sector	- expand regenerative farming - improve soil carbon sequestration	Medium Medium	Medium	Ongoing
Sustainability	Promote circular economy and reduce consumption	- waste reduction mandates - green purchasing policies - promote energy efficiency in all sectors	Medium High	Low to high medium	Ongoing
Renewable Energy	Scale up solar, wind, and battery storage	- expand renewable portfolio standard - support community solar - streamline permitting - implement statewide emissions cap	High Medium	Medium to high	Longterm scaled increases via the Clean and Renewable Energy and Energy Waste Reduction Act
Carbon Neutrality	Achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050	- develop carbon sinks via forests, wetlands - carbon pricing or market mechanisms	High High -medium	High medium (design dependent)	Longterm (2050)

breaks down central components of the MHCP into a policy matrix which highlights the main objective of the plan. The 5 Lakes Energy report carves the state of Michigan into ten regions (Figure 1) and projects the impacts from the IRA and MHCP in four main areas: federal tax investment (Figure 2), growth in GDP (Figure 3), and job creation (Figure 4) and health care savings (Figure 5). Every economic region of the state is expected to see improvement in all four categories. Regions four and ten see the most gains, as these two regions are home to the two largest metropolitan areas in the state, Detroit and Grand Rapids, respectively. But even more rural areas like Region 1 see federal funds invested, economic growth, and substantive health care savings.

This collection of economic benefits is tied directly to Michigan’s aggressive action to move away from fossil fuels and focus on renewable energy. As evidenced by the figures, Michigan stands to gain significant economic benefits with respect to jobs and GDP growth [3,74,75]. Abandoning fossil fuels will also lead to significant health gains by minimizing exposure to carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury, and other pollutants, all of which are known to cause adverse health effects like respiratory and heart problems [75]. Some of the biggest impacts on health savings would be in the two most populous prosperity regions in the state and thus have a positive outcome on millions of Michiganders across socioeconomic statuses.

Figure 1. Michigan’s 10 prosperity regions [76].

Figure 1. Michigan’s 10 prosperity regions [76].

Figure 2. Federal tax credit investment [3,74].

Figure 2. Federal tax credit investment [3,74].

Figure 3. Growth in GDP 2030–2040 [3,74].

Figure 3. Growth in GDP 2030–2040 [3,74].

Figure 4. Anticipated job growth [3,74].

Figure 4. Anticipated job growth [3,74].

Figure 5. Public health savings 2030–2040 [3,74].

Figure 5. Public health savings 2030–2040 [3,74].

5.5. Transformative and Innovative Policy in Action

The state of Michigan has hit the ground running after passing its historic climate legislation and thus far has been successful in securing federal funds to aid in the implementation of its initiatives. While the legislation passed in Michigan has clear environmental objectives, it also focuses heavily on economics and uplifting Michiganders through this transition to a more sustainable way of life. This is important not just for a state trying to reposition itself for the climate realities yet to unfold in the 21st century, but also to obtain support across the political spectrum. This can be attributed to the way the state crafted its legislation to be supported by federal initiatives that provided substantive funding for these kinds of programs. Working with legacy industries like the energy sector and automotive industry to transition to sustainable actions and promote novel innovation will be key to the successful implementation of the MHCP.

Michigan’s thin margins in either chamber of the state legislature make the state’s success in passing and implementing progressive climate policy a monumental feat. The accomplishment proves that —at the very least—thoughtful climate action can be enacted in many states, especially those with narrow majorities in legislatures. Moreover, states with minimal climate action can look to Michigan as a model to incorporate environmental justice into their action plan. The thoroughness of the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan can set a new standard for state legislatures across the country. Though California attempted, clean energy and climate justice cannot be handled in a single bill. Instead, these policy areas demand creative and demographic- and geographic-specific answers like what was included in the MHCP. Michigan, its various bills, and the Michigan Healthy Climate Plan have revolutionized the state’s role in environmental policy, setting an expectation for action that is just, cost-effective, and innovative.

While the ink is still drying on many of these policies, tracking the future of these policies has significant regional and national implications. Success markers for a manufacturing-reliant state like Michigan “could establish a blueprint for a prosperous, safe climate future” [2]. Michigan’s ambitious climate policies make it a “rustbelt” model for the future of climate policy. Given the initial gains made by the state in procuring the funds needed to implement its ambitious policy goals, Michigan’s actions should be studied and followed for important lessons in policy action on climate change.

6. Conclusions

As this is a novel preliminary assessment of Michigan’s climate success, we understand that there are significant limits to our perspective. Michigan’s climate successes are still very much in the making. It does appear that Michigan is unique in the way it embedded its policy goals within the context of federal legislation. Preliminary data examining the procurement of funds to implement the MHCP and initial indicators of job creation and GDP growth from the newly created policies signal a strong potential for future climate success in Michigan. We have determined that structuring the policies so that government agencies are poised to solicit the necessary funds to implement sustainable environmental policy is key.

The limited data on the successful implementation to date of the MHCP and its companion legislation indicates that the state is moving in the right direction. Because the final pieces of legislation were passed about a year ago, this perspective serves as a springboard for future research on the implementation of climate legislation in the state of Michigan, how this policy influences the actions of other states in the future, and how successful this policy can be at addressing climate change, supporting diverse communities, and continuing to grow the economy of a state steeped in climate-intensive industries like manufacturing and agriculture.

In addition, the recent election of Donald Trump and his early executive actions on climate-related policy, environmental justice, and federal financial support will test the ability of the state of Michigan in its pursuit of a sustainable future. If Michigan continues its full implementation of the MHCP with wavering support from the federal government, it could prove even more illustrative for U.S. states seeking to address the realities of climate change in the absence of federal support.