Algonquin Power (Mi Energy Developments) LLC v. Speaker Township

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALGONQUIN POWER (MI ENERGY UNPUBLISHED DEVELOPMENTS), LLC, doing business as June 20, 2025 LIBERTY POWER, 10:42 AM Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 371424 Sanilac Circuit Court TOWNSHIP OF SPEAKER, LC No. 23-040257-CH Defendant-Appellant. Before: LETICA, P.J., and MURRAY and PATEL, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this action involving a moratorium on applications for commercial wind project special land use permits (SLUPs), defendant Township of Speaker appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary disposition filed by plaintiff Algonquin Power (MI Energy Developments), LLC, doing business as Liberty Power. On appeal, Speaker challenges the trial court’s grant of a writ of mandamus to Liberty, requiring that its SLUP application be considered by Speaker by a date certain, as well the trial court’s holdings that the moratorium should have been passed by amendment to Speaker’s zoning ordinance, and did not advance a legitimate governmental purpose. We dismiss the appeal as moot. In 2011, Speaker adopted a zoning regulation governing commercial wind energy projects, and amended that ordinance in 2021 to include certain setback, height, and noise requirements. Liberty submitted to Speaker its SLUP application to build a commercial wind energy facility (the Riverbend Project) pursuant to the posted amended ordinance. However, questions subsequently arose regarding whether the posted version of the 2021 amendment was the version actually adopted by the Township Board. And on October 10, 2023, before Liberty’s application was set -1- for a public hearing,1 individual landowner plaintiffs whose parcels abutted the proposed Riverbend Project filed suit against Speaker and Liberty challenging the adoption of the 2021 ordinance amendment. The parties ultimately stipulated to dismissal of the individual plaintiffs’ claims, but as part of the suit, Liberty filed cross-claims against Speaker which are the subject of this appeal. In its first amended cross-claim, Liberty alleged that in December 2023, the Township Board held a special meeting at which it adopted by resolution an ordinance imposing a six-month moratorium on the issuance of permits for commercial wind energy projects, and canceled the public hearing for Liberty’s Riverbend Project application after enactment of the moratorium. On the basis of these allegations, Liberty requested declaratory judgments that the posted version of the 2021 ordinance amendment with a noise standard of 50 dBA apply to its permit application, and that the moratorium was void because it was not enacted in compliance with the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3101 et seq. Further, Liberty requested that the court issue a writ of mandamus compelling Speaker to set its SLUP application for a public hearing. Liberty moved for summary disposition of its claims under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that: (1) its claim for declaratory relief regarding which ordinance amendment should apply to its permit application was ripe for review; (2) the moratorium was improperly enacted under Speaker’s police power as opposed to the MZEA, and lacked a legitimate governmental purpose; and (3) the court should issue a writ of mandamus compelling a public hearing on its permit application. Speaker opposed the motion, asserting that Liberty’s first request for declaratory relief was unripe and soon to be moot, stating, “Liberty’s claim regarding the ‘correct’ version of the ordinance [was] premature because [Speaker] ha[d] not yet rendered a decision on Liberty’s application,” and “in light of recent changes to Michigan’s renewable energy law, there is virtually no question that [Speaker] will be amending its commercial wind and solar regulations, such that Liberty’s application will have to be amended anyway.” Speaker argued further that it lawfully enacted the moratorium, but would consider codifying the moratorium under its zoning ordinance regardless, and that the court should decline to issue a writ of mandamus because “[n]either Michigan law nor the Township Zoning Ordinance require[d] [Speaker] to consider Liberty’s application within any particular period of time.”2 The trial court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part Liberty’s motion for summary disposi