"A decision on the project by the MPSC is expected late this year." MLive printed that line in April 2026, after roughly 50 residents came to a town hall on the Otisville Solar project. If you have been waiting for the Michigan Public Service Commission to rule this fall, the schedule has changed. On the current case calendar, the judge's recommendation is targeted for Feb. 25, 2027. No date has been set for the Commission's final order.
Two procedural decisions made in 2026 moved the schedule. That means the hearing coming up this Tuesday, Oct. 6, is not about whether panels go up near North Belsay and East Wilson roads. It is about who keeps $50,000 in legal money given to Forest and Thetford townships.
What Is Actually on the Table
The applicant is Otisville PV I, LLC, a project of EDF Renewables. It wants to build and operate a solar facility of up to 125 megawatts on 28 parcels owned by 11 private landowners. The project covers about 2,021 acres across parts of Forest and Thetford townships, with parcels scattered several miles in every direction from North Belsay and East Wilson roads.
The project skipped township zoning entirely. A 2023 state law, Public Act 233, lets developers of some large renewable projects ask the MPSC for approval instead of the local government. Thetford officials have said that change left their hands tied. In its application, EDF said it had been trying to develop Otisville Solar for more than six years. It also said both townships "have engaged in concerted efforts to block the project through various means." The state case is docket U-21956. Its filings are public.
The One-Year Clock That Was Supposed to End in December
PA 233 gives the Commission a firm deadline. Under MCL 460.1226(5), the MPSC must grant or deny a certificate no later than one year after a complete application is filed. That subsection has no extension clause.
Otisville PV I first filed on Sept. 8, 2025. The docket shows an incompleteness memo on Oct. 24, 2025, then a revised application on Dec. 11, 2025. One year from the revised filing is Dec. 11, 2026. That was the original date for a Commission order, and it matches MLive's "late this year." A few filings in the case use Dec. 10 as the application date. The docket shows Dec. 11.
Then came a hearing on May 26, 2026. Administrative Law Judge Theresa A.G. Staley's ruling two days later describes what happened:
"counsel for the Applicant affirmatively waived the one-year statutory requirement for the completion of these cases set forth in MCL 460.1226(5) for purposes of a 60-day extension of all scheduling dates."
Every party at that hearing said it did not object, including counsel for Forest and Thetford townships. The ruling moved the projected Commission order from Dec. 11, 2026 to Feb. 9, 2027. The developer chose to give up the deadline built to protect developers from delay. That was the first push into 2027.
Genesee County Joins, and the Calendar Stretches Again
The second push came over the summer. MLive reporter Ron Fonger reported on July 16, 2026 that Genesee County commissioners had given early committee approval to intervene in the case, with the township supervisors from Forest and Thetford urging county involvement. Thetford Supervisor Rachel Stanke supported the county taking part. The county resolution would accept $50,000 from the developer to pay outside counsel.
Genesee County filed its petition on July 17, and the developer's later reply says intervention was granted July 27. The Aug. 3 scheduling memo says it was entered after the county's motion and "after the Applicant's compliance with a May 7, 2026 Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals." The memo also says the new dates were set "to accommodate meaningful participation by all parties."
Bringing in a new party meant giving it time to file testimony. Cross-examination was first set for late June, then moved to late August. It now sits at Dec. 1 through 3, 2026. The judge's proposal for decision, first targeted for Sept. 24, 2026, has moved to Feb. 25, 2027. In the May ruling, the parties file exceptions to the proposal and then replies before the Commission issues a final order. The newest schedule does not set dates for those later steps. Nobody can honestly name a decision date right now. On the MPSC's statewide project table, Otisville is still listed as unresolved.
The $50,000 Question on Oct. 6
The county joining caused a second problem, and that one is what gets argued this week.
PA 233 requires the developer to pay a one-time grant into a local fund. Local governments use it to cover the cost of taking part in the contested case. The law caps the grant at $75,000 per affected local unit and $150,000 total. The MPSC's implementation order split the $150,000 equally among affected local units. It limited the money to contested-case costs and required unspent funds to go back to the applicant.
When Forest and Thetford were the only recognized units, each got $75,000. When counties were later recognized as affected units, the developer paid Genesee County $50,000. That brought total payments to $200,000 against a $150,000 cap. The two sides read that gap very differently:
- Otisville PV I's position, filed Aug. 6 and repeated Sept. 23: Split three ways, the cap works out to $50,000 per unit. The company says each township holds $25,000 more than its share. It asks for that money back plus reasonable attorney fees, and says nothing allows a unit to keep grant money above the statutory cap.
- Forest and Thetford townships' position, filed Sept. 11: The statute leaves the grant amount to the Commission, so the Commission should decide allocation and repayment, not a developer's demand letter. The townships say they had been actively contesting the case. They say the MPSC's earlier interpretation caused the overpayment, not a township error. They add that it was unclear whether the county would take part at all.
- A question the townships raised: Should Genesee County get a full one-third share after joining late in the case, or should the county carry some of the cost of starting late?
The motion is set for a hearing on Oct. 6, 2026, at 10 a.m. As of Oct. 4, no ruling had been filed. For two small townships paying lawyers through a state case that now runs past the new year, $25,000 apiece is real money. However the judge rules, the decision will shape how much legal help each local government can pay for in the stretch before cross-examination.
The Dates Between Now and the Proposal for Decision
These come from the Aug. 3 and Aug. 13 scheduling memos. Dates can still move.
- Oct. 6, 2026: Hearing on the developer's motion to recover grant funds from the townships.
- Oct. 29, 2026: Rebuttal testimony due.
- Nov. 9, 2026: Motions to strike testimony due.
- Nov. 16, 2026: Responses to those motions due.
- Dec. 1 through 3, 2026: Cross-examination of all parties on all testimony. This is the evidentiary core of the case.
- Dec. 30, 2026: Initial briefs due.
- Jan. 22, 2027: Reply briefs due.
- Feb. 25, 2027: Target date for the judge's proposal for decision.
The parties in the case are the applicant, MPSC Staff, Forest Township, Thetford Township, Genesee County, Tilson Family Farms and Salubrity Farm. The U-21956 docket page lists every filing. It has an email sign-up for notice of new approved filings, and it carries public comments area residents have filed since October 2025.
How Long the Only Finished Case Took
Michigan has exactly one finished PA 233 case to compare against. On Aug. 27, 2026, the MPSC approved a settlement and certificate for Acceleration Solar, a 90-megawatt project in Ingham County. The Commission described it as the first PA 233 siting case and the first settlement. The MPSC's issue brief lists an application date of June 18, 2025, so the first case took about 14 months from filing to approval.
Otisville is following a different path. Nothing in the docket shows a settlement, and it is headed for a three-day cross-examination in December. Its proposal for decision alone is targeted for about 17 and a half months after the September 2025 filing, and the final order comes after that. Under the current schedule, a 2027 Commission order is the earliest realistic outcome.
If you own land or a home in Forest or Thetford Township and an undecided 2,000-acre project nearby has you wondering about timing, I'm glad to talk through how a pending state case like U-21956 fits into your plans, with no pressure and no guesswork. Reach out to Jeremy Taljonick to schedule a consultation.
