Unfounded Health Concerns Are Powering a Solar Backlash
In rural Michigan, a growing number of communities are opposing solar energy projects not due to the fact that of land leverage concerns, but due to unsubstantiated fears about health risks. Despite a lack of credible scientific evidence linking solar farms to adverse health effects, local officials in several counties have cited these concerns to justify restrictions on renewable energy development. This trend is complicating efforts to expand clean energy infrastructure even as energy costs rise and climate goals loom.
The resistance gained national attention after a solar project proposal stalled on a family farm in southeastern Michigan, where the landowner said he had heard claims about solar panels being a health hazard but never seen any proof. Similar patterns are emerging in states like Ohio and Missouri, where lawmakers and officials have referenced potential health impacts to justify blocking or delaying solar installations, even when state regulators initially found the projects compliant with all technical requirements.
Experts emphasize that the most common types of solar panels contain minimal hazardous materials, are sealed to prevent leakage, and can be largely recycled at end-of-life. Electromagnetic field exposure from solar farms is comparable to that of household appliances and diminishes rapidly with distance. Noise from inverters, often cited as a concern, can be mitigated through setbacks and vegetative buffers, and modeling shows it is typically inaudible at property boundaries. Despite these findings, misinformation continues to influence local decision-making.
The Role of Misinformation in Shaping Local Policy
In St. Clair County, Michigan, the county’s medical director issued memos in late 2024 and early 2025 claiming that large solar facilities posed public health risks, including from noise, visual pollution, and potential contamination. These memos were used to justify a modern local regulation requiring a $25,000 nonrefundable fee for project review and imposing penalties of up to six months in jail for violations. The regulation was later challenged in court by an electric utility and a solar developer, who argued the county lacked authority to override state siting standards and that the health claims were not substantiated.
A circuit court judge ruled in February 2025 that the county’s health regulation was “invalid, null, and void,” but county commissioners unanimously voted to appeal the decision. One commissioner stated during the vote that the appeal was “very important for the health of St. Clair County and the residents.” The case remains under review, with no further hearings scheduled as of early April 2025.
Legal experts note that although local governments have authority over zoning, they cannot supersede state-level energy siting regulations. The Michigan Public Service Commission established statewide standards for solar projects in 2023, including noise limits, setback requirements, and decommissioning plans, to prevent a patchwork of conflicting local rules. Despite this, nearly 80 local and county governments, including Milan Township where the farm is located, challenged the state’s authority in court, arguing it overstepped its bounds.
National Trends in Solar Opposition
The resistance in Michigan is part of a broader national pattern. According to a 2024 analysis published in the Brigham Young University Law Review, restrictions on solar development are increasing nationwide and are “often rooted in misinformation or unfounded fears,” including claims about environmental and human safety risks. The study found that health-related objections, while frequently raised, lack empirical support in peer-reviewed research.
In Ohio, the Ohio Power Siting Board denied a permit for a solar project in March 2025, citing “consistent and substantial opposition” from local residents and officials. Although the board’s order did not explicitly list health concerns as the basis for denial, the developer stated in correspondence that local officials had referenced unfounded public health fears during the proceedings. The company has since requested a rehearing but said it will not pursue new projects in the state due to what it describes as a manipulable and misinformation-prone siting process.
In Missouri, a bill introduced in early 2025 would halt all commercial solar projects through at least 2027 while the state develops new regulations. The bill’s emergency clause claims the pause is necessary for the “immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety.” Critics argue the measure lacks scientific basis and would delay needed clean energy investment in a state with growing electricity demand.
Impact on Energy Goals and Rural Economies
Despite the opposition, solar energy continues to grow in Michigan, though it remains a small fraction of the state’s energy mix. As of 2024, solar accounted for approximately 2.55% of Michigan’s electricity generation, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. This compares to nearly 6% in Ohio and nearly 11% in Texas. Michigan has set a target for 80% clean energy by 2035 and 100% by 2040, goals that will require significant expansion of solar and wind capacity.
For farmers like the landowner in southeastern Michigan, leasing land for solar has been presented as a way to maintain agricultural operations amid economic pressure. He said he agreed to the lease six years ago to support pay off debt and maintain the farm in his family. When the township banned large solar projects on agricultural land in 2023, the opportunity was lost—not just for him, but for others hoping to use similar arrangements to preserve generational farmland.
Supporters of solar leases argue that, with proper planning, the land can be restored to agricultural use after the panels are decommissioned. They note that solar farms, unlike some forms of development, do not involve permanent soil disruption and can coexist with conservation goals. Still, these points are often drowned out in public meetings by vocal opposition fueled by unverified claims.
What Experts Say About the Science
Researchers and public health officials consistently state that there is no credible evidence linking solar farms to adverse health outcomes. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has found no causal relationship between solar panel installation and increased cancer rates, respiratory illness, or neurological disorders. Electromagnetic fields from solar installations are non-ionizing and fall well below thresholds established by international safety guidelines.
Concerns about chemical leaching are largely unfounded for crystalline silicon panels, which dominate the market. These panels encapsulate trace amounts of lead and other materials in durable glass and polymer layers, making environmental release highly unlikely under normal conditions. Recycling processes, while currently expensive and limited in scale, are improving, and several states have begun implementing producer responsibility programs to manage end-of-life panels.
Noise from inverters, the primary operational sound source on solar sites, typically registers below 50 decibels at the property line—comparable to a quiet suburb or refrigerator hum. With appropriate setbacks and vegetative screening, this noise is often imperceptible. Studies show that sound levels drop significantly with distance, and regulatory models require compliance with strict noise thresholds before permits are granted.
Despite the absence of evidence, the persistence of health-related objections has real consequences. It delays projects, increases legal costs, and creates uncertainty for investors and landowners. As one renewable energy developer noted, “The problem isn’t that the questions don’t have answers—it’s that the answers get lost in the noise.”
For now, the future of solar expansion in rural communities hinges not just on technology or policy, but on the ability to separate fact from fear in public discourse. Until then, projects that could provide clean energy, lease income for farmers, and grid resilience will remain stalled—not by engineering limits, but by unverified claims.
Stay informed about developments in energy policy and share your thoughts on how communities can balance local concerns with the need for clean energy transition.