Undercurrent | Potential Energy Coalition | May 13, 2026

In Pennsylvania and Michigan, clean energy opponents have moved into position to win on narrative framing before any fight emerges.

Pennsylvania’s governor has spent two weeks as the most visible fighter on electricity affordability in the state. His letter to utility CEOs named a "tipping point." It makes no case for clean energy as part of the answer. The groups arguing that clean energy mandates are why bills are high are already filling that space – with identified staff, tested polling, and a track record: they ran the same campaign against a different clean energy program and won. June 1 brings the next concrete moment electricity costs land on household bills.

In Michigan, a court ruling last week largely upheld the state’s renewable energy siting law – but the opposition had already opened a second front before the ruling came down. And the newest argument against solar, that large solar farms are a public health risk, has now been formally endorsed by a county medical official. It is 24 days from its first regulatory hearing, without an established counter.

The 30-second read

The signal: In Pennsylvania, the argument over what is causing high electricity bills – and what would fix them – is being actively shaped right now, with the clean energy side not currently part of the answer. In Michigan, a legal win left a second campaign front intact, and a new opposition argument is about to enter a formal regulatory record for the first time.

Why it matters: Both situations are moving before the moment most observers will notice them. Pennsylvania’s affordability argument is being shaped before June 1 makes it concrete. Michigan’s health argument is entering a formal proceeding before counter-messaging exists for the version endorsed by a government official.

The practical implication: The argument in Pennsylvania is live, the clean energy side is not winning it, and the opposition’s specific claims and institutional machinery are now identified. In Michigan, the health argument is the one for which no established counter-messaging exists – and it is 24 days from its first formal proceeding.

What to do with it: The Decision Memo at the end identifies where PEC’s testing and monitoring process should be pointed, what not to misread, and where the window is closing.

This week, in order of urgency

1. Pennsylvania: who gets credit for fixing electricity bills
The affordability argument is being actively shaped now. June 1 is the next moment it becomes concrete at the household level.

2. Michigan: Silver Maple regulatory hearing, May 28 / June 4 (17-24 days)
May 28: deadline for parties to formally intervene. June 4: first hearing under the newly confirmed legal framework. The health argument – endorsed by a county medical official – is likely to enter the formal record here for the first time.

3. Michigan: the legal fight may not be over
The Michigan Townships Association – which led the legal challenge to the state’s renewable energy siting law – has not responded publicly since the ruling. Their lawyer said they are considering a Supreme Court appeal. The coalition has not dispersed. The window in which the legal terrain could reopen is now.

Pennsylvania: The affordability argument, and who is filling it

Pennsylvania electricity rates rose 18.9% in 2025 – second highest in the country. Household service terminations are up more than 25% since 2022. Governor Shapiro has made utility accountability a centerpiece of his public posture: his April 29 letter to 24 utility CEOs threatened to "vocally and forcefully" oppose rate increase requests, and one utility (PECO) withdrew a planned $500 million rate hike in response.

That letter does not mention clean energy or renewables as part of the solution. The letter frames the problem as utility profit structures, capital costs, and return on equity – and positions the governor as a consumer protection actor. It is an affordability accountability act by a governor who broadly supports clean energy. It is not a clean energy affordability argument.

June 1 brings the next concrete trigger: the 2026/2027 PJM capacity delivery year begins, incorporating auction prices that cleared at the FERC-approved cap last July. PJM estimated the increase would translate to 1.5% to 5% bill increases for ratepayers depending on state and utility. The mechanism is confirmed; where Pennsylvania households land within that range depends on their utility’s procurement structure.

Who is filling the space. Multiple actors are competing to be seen as the answer to high electricity bills. The Commonwealth Foundation – a Pennsylvania-based policy organization – is the most institutionally developed on the opposition side. It is not a new entrant or a generic presence. It ran a multi-year campaign against Pennsylvania’s participation in a regional carbon pricing program, produced the polling and legislative testimony that drove that campaign, celebrated the program’s repeal in November 2025 alongside the gas industry and a building trades union local, and is now running the same operation against the state’s pending clean energy standards (PRESS and PACER). The staff (named policy director: André Béliveau), polling firm (Public Opinion Strategies), messaging platform (EnergyVisionPA.org, launched September 2024), and testimony pipeline are all in place. Its current cost claim: the pending clean energy standards would impose $157.2 billion in new electricity costs statewide.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition (natural gas) published an op-ed on May 6 positioning natural gas as the affordable solution. Americans for Prosperity has been running events in four competitive Pennsylvania House districts framing clean energy subsidies as a cost driver.

On the polling. Commonwealth Foundation polling (Public Opinion Strategies, March 2024, 800 registered voters) shows 71% opposing the carbon pricing program and 74% opposing the pending clean energy standards, after respondents were told those programs would raise their electricity bills by 30%. A separate poll conducted by Evergreen Action (June 2024, 800 Pennsylvania voters) found strong majority support for clean energy expansion when the question was framed without cost loading. Both findings are real. The public’s view on this is not fixed – it depends substantially on how the argument is framed.

The labor picture. Pennsylvania’s major labor coalition is not a single bloc. The nationally visible labor story – Rob Bair and the Building Trades, advocating for data center and natural gas construction jobs – is not the whole picture. The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO endorsed a nine-bill clean energy legislative package with the House Blue-Green Caucus on April 13; this has not appeared in national coverage.

The replication pattern. Pennsylvania is not an isolated case. Its carbon pricing repeal in November 2025 was followed eight weeks later by similar legislation in New Jersey (January 13) and Rhode Island (January 16). New Jersey introduced two additional bills the week of May 4-7 – including one (A4967) targeting the state’s Societal Benefits Charge, a separate clean energy funding mechanism. The template is not just spreading geographically; it is expanding in scope. Whether these developments are coordinated or represent parallel political reactions to the same conditions is not confirmed by available data.

Michigan: After the ruling, what remains

The Michigan Court of Appeals issued its ruling on May 8. A three-judge panel largely upheld the Michigan Public Service Commission’s October 2024 order implementing the state’s 2023 renewable energy siting law (PA 233). The ruling rejected the primary legal challenge – an argument that the MPSC had exceeded its authority – and upheld the core framework. Two narrow aspects were reversed (affecting how "local governmental unit" is defined and certain implementation timelines). The MPSC called the ruling "largely affirming."

The ruling resolved the primary legal front. It did not end the campaign.

The second front was already open. Three bills to roll back Michigan’s 2023 clean energy laws were introduced before the ruling came down – not in response to it. HB5837 (introduced April 22) would prohibit local governments from passing their own climate regulations. HB5710 and HB5711 (both introduced April 28) would repeal the state’s renewable energy standard and modify its integrated resource planning process. All three are at Introduced status with no confirmed committee movement. The sequencing matters: these bills are not a reaction to a legal loss. They were a parallel campaign already underway.

The Foster Swift law firm, which represents more than 70 townships in the legal challenge, said publicly it is "considering next steps" including a possible Michigan Supreme Court appeal. The Michigan Townships Association – the most prominent institutional opponent – did not respond to media requests following the ruling. That silence is the leading signal of where the coalition is: deliberating on its next move, not dispersing. A Supreme Court appeal has not been filed; the window for that decision is open.

The Silver Maple proceeding. The first contested application under PA 233 is already in motion. RWE Americas – a subsidiary of a German-owned energy company – filed an application with the MPSC on April 3 for a 200 MW solar farm (Silver Maple) across approximately 1,900 acres in Zeeland and Jamestown townships, Ottawa County. The project was directed to the state permitting path because Zeeland Township’s local ordinance included a 500-acre cap incompatible with the project’s size.

Nearly 100 residents attended an April 25 public workshop on how to formally intervene in the proceeding. The May 28 intervener deadline is 17 days away. The June 4 virtual pre-hearing is 24 days away. The township manager said publicly there is "not much we can do in the next 30-45 days."

Active opposition frames in Ottawa County include: "German-based energy company" (used in local radio coverage), "We plant corn, not solar" (yard signs at public meetings), and airport glare concerns from proximity to Ottawa Executive Airport.

The health argument. The opposition argument that has attracted the least counter-messaging attention – and is closest to a formal regulatory proceeding – is the claim that large solar farms pose public health risks, including electromagnetic fields, glare, soil contamination, and groundwater effects.
On April 25, ProPublica published an investigation documenting this argument as a pattern across multiple states, naming Michigan as a primary battleground. The investigation cited a BYU Law Review finding that health-based restrictions on solar are "proliferating nationwide, often rooted in misinformation or unfounded fears." ProPublica characterized the underlying health claims as lacking reputable scientific backing.

That characterization does not resolve the political problem. In St. Clair County, Michigan, the county health department’s medical director issued two formal memos claiming large solar farms are a public health risk. These are not community statements or petition signatures – they are institutional documents from a credentialed government official, carrying a different kind of authority in regulatory proceedings. One developer, Open Road Renewables, has already exited Ohio citing health-based opposition. The argument does not need to win in court to constrain deployment.

The health argument has not been confirmed in Silver Maple MPSC filings. Airport glare concerns are present in community records from Ottawa County. Whether those concerns will be formally raised in the June 4 proceeding is not confirmed – but the proceeding is the first formal venue where the argument, in its institutionally legitimized form, could enter the regulatory record.

The preemption contradiction. One structural feature of the Michigan situation is worth noting. Township officials have argued that PA 233 removes local control over energy siting decisions – and that argument has been the primary public rationale for the legal and political campaign against the law. HB5837, introduced April 22 by Republican House members, would strip local governments of the ability to pass their own climate regulations. Both positions – local control for blocking energy projects, state override of local climate authority – are being advanced by overlapping actors. Whether that contradiction is visible or exploitable to persuadable audiences is a testing question, not a confirmed finding.

Decision Memo

What this brief should inform for PEC’s process, in priority order.

1. Pennsylvania’s affordability argument is being filled right now - and June 1 is the next moment it becomes concrete
The opposition has specific claims in active circulation, a named organization producing them, and a proven track record on this exact terrain. The clean energy answer is not currently in the conversation. June 1 – a confirmed regional electricity price adjustment – is the next moment those costs become visible at the household level.

Decision it should inform:
Whether the specific cost arguments the opposition is currently making in Pennsylvania have been tested, and whether a response exists that works before the next price increase lands.

2. Michigan’s health argument is 24 days from entering a formal regulatory record - without an established counter
The health argument against solar has been formally endorsed by a county medical official through institutional documents. Once it enters the Silver Maple regulatory proceeding, it carries authority it does not yet have. A factual rebuttal of the underlying science is unlikely to be sufficient when the person making the argument holds a medical title.

Decision it should inform:
Whether there is tested language for responding to this argument in its institutional form – not "the science doesn’t support it," but something that works when a credentialed official has formally endorsed it.

3. The Pennsylvania opposition is the same machine that won last time, now pointed at the next target
Commonwealth Foundation ran a multi-year campaign against Pennsylvania’s carbon pricing program, produced the polling and testimony that drove it, and helped deliver its repeal in November 2025. It is now running the same operation – same staff, same polling firm, same platform – against the state’s pending clean energy standards.

Decision it should inform:
Whether the assessment of what PEC is facing in Pennsylvania treats this as a proven, resourced, ongoing operation rather than a general political environment.

What Not to Misread

Plausible misreadings of this cycle’s signals that would lead to wasted attention or wrong-footed responses.

The Michigan court ruling as having settled the fight.
The ruling resolved the primary legal challenge to Michigan’s renewable energy siting law. Three bills to roll back that law were introduced before the ruling and remain active. The township coalition has not dispersed. Their lawyer has named a Supreme Court appeal as a live option. Losing in court and losing politically are different outcomes, particularly with state legislative elections in November 2026.

Shapiro’s utility letter as a clean energy affordability win.
The letter is a real affordability action by a governor who broadly supports clean energy. It makes no case for clean energy as part of the answer to high electricity bills. A politician acting on affordability and a politician making the clean energy case on affordability are not the same thing.

Pennsylvania opposition polling as reflecting settled public opinion.
The polling showing strong opposition to Pennsylvania’s clean energy programs used cost-focused framing – respondents were told the programs would raise their bills by 30%. A separate poll conducted the same year with neutral framing showed strong majority support for clean energy expansion. Both findings are real simultaneously. The public’s position is not fixed; it depends substantially on how the argument is made.

Pennsylvania’s labor coalition as a simple clean energy ally or a simple clean energy obstacle.
The picture is more complicated than either. Rob Bair and the Building Trades showed up at the April 13 Blue-Green Caucus event and expressed support for clean energy jobs – while Bair simultaneously serves as a nationally visible spokesperson for data center and natural gas development. The AFL-CIO’s Maurice Cobb is the more active clean energy voice on the legislative side. The national coverage has the data center / natural gas story. It does not have the AFL-CIO legislative endorsement. What workers are hearing from their unions is not established by this data.

The Michigan health argument as a local concern that will stay local.
A national outlet documented it as a multi-state pattern in April. One developer has already left Ohio citing health-based opposition. The argument does not require winning in court to constrain deployment – it works through permit proceedings, regulatory records, and the authority conferred by a credentialed official’s endorsement. It is 24 days from entering a formal regulatory record in Michigan.

The New Jersey clean energy rollback bills as unrelated to Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania repealed its carbon pricing program in November 2025. New Jersey introduced similar legislation eight weeks later. New Jersey introduced two additional bills the first week of May, including one targeting a separate clean energy funding mechanism. The same argument is replicating across states and tends to accelerate when electricity bills are in the news.

The local-control argument and the preemption bills as separate things.
Township officials have argued that Michigan’s siting law removes local control over energy decisions. A bill introduced in April would remove local governments’ authority to pass their own climate regulations. Both positions are being advanced by overlapping actors. Whether that contradiction registers with persuadable audiences is a testing question.

Method / Coverage Note

This brief draws from state legislative records, verified public statements, regulatory filings, and press coverage across Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, as well as national signal monitoring. Scans were run May 9-11, 2026. The brief is strongest where patterns are visible through public documents – bills, filings, statements, and regulatory records. It does not have systematic visibility into private coalition conversations, what union members are hearing from leadership, agency-level implementation, or local proceedings that have not yet produced public records. The health argument’s presence in Silver Maple MPSC filings is inferred, not confirmed from any filing.

Companion sources document: undercurrent_pec_brief_2026-05-13_sources.md

Got ideas on how this brief could be better? We want to hear them. Reach out at contact@undercurrent.is

Undercurrent.is - Potential Energy Coalition - May 13, 2026