Kevin Heath had hoped there would be solar panels by now on his family farm in southeastern Michigan, roughly 50 miles outside Detroit. About six years ago, he agreed to lease part of his land for a solar project that would help him pay off debt and keep the farm in the family. But the opportunity was thwarted when, in 2023, following pushback from some local residents, his township passed an ordinance that banned large solar projects from land zoned for agriculture.

In the fight over solar development, Heath said he was bombarded by just about every argument from critics — including claims that solar fields are a health hazard. "I've heard them say that, but I've never heard anybody prove that," Heath said. "The health and safety issue, that is just a joke."

Michigan has significant prospects in solar farming, measured by expected growth in the capacity of its farms to add electricity directly to the grid. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, most of the nation's new capacity from this type of solar farm is planned this year for four states: Michigan, Texas, Arizona and California.

To some in Michigan and beyond, this growth feels dangerous. They pressure public officials to stop, stall or otherwise complicate new solar projects with an array of arguments that now go beyond land use to include public health. There is little reputable evidence to back their claims, but health concerns have helped power a solar backlash that undercuts efforts to broaden energy sources even as customer costs are rising.

Restrictions on solar development are proliferating nationwide, often rooted in misinformation or unfounded fears, including ones that involve potential environmental and human safety risks, according to an article published late last year in the Brigham Young University Law Review.

What the Right Is Saying

Local residents and some conservative activists oppose large-scale solar development for reasons including concerns about land use, property values and what they view as overreach by renewable energy companies. Some argue that health concerns deserve consideration regardless of scientific consensus.

On the eastern edge of Michigan, St. Clair County adopted a novel public health regulation last year that set limits on solar development and battery storage. The move was encouraged by the county's medical director who, in a memo, warned of threats involving noise, visual pollution and potential sources of contamination.

Some local residents have long pressed leaders to act, saying that intrusive noise from solar facilities could worsen post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments. They argue that local governments should have authority to regulate development in ways they see fit.

Opponents say they have legitimate questions about the long-term effects of solar infrastructure and argue that caution is warranted until more research is available. Some conservative groups have also raised concerns about federal incentives for renewable energy and the role of government in driving solar development.

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive advocates and environmental groups say opposition to solar development based on unverified health claims threatens progress on climate change and delays the transition away from fossil fuels. They argue that health concerns are being used as a pretext for blocking renewable energy without scientific basis.

Troy Rule, an Arizona State University law professor who authored the BYU Law Review article, said solar projects simply harvest energy from the sun. "And that's really not that different from what a field of corn or alfalfa does," Rule said. "In fact, arguably, it's even more environmentally friendly."

Environmental lawyers say public officials often fail to examine the validity of health claims, and local deliberations rarely compare the impact of solar farms to common agricultural practices, which can involve runoff from fertilizers and herbicides or waste lagoons from concentrated animal feeding operations.

Proponents note that blocking solar development perpetuates reliance on fossil fuels, which have well-documented health impacts from air pollution. They argue that the 14% drop in new solar installations last year undermines national climate goals and increases costs for consumers as energy demands grow.

What the Numbers Show

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Michigan is one of four states expected to receive most of the nation's new utility-scale solar capacity in 2026, along with Texas, Arizona and California.

Last year, new solar installations in the U.S. dropped by 14%, marking a significant decline in the growth of renewable energy infrastructure.

A bill in Missouri would halt commercial solar projects in the state, including those under construction, through at least 2027, as a state agency develops new regulations. The bill's emergency clause cites preservation of public health, welfare, peace and safety.

In Ohio, a state board rejected an application for a solar project last month, citing local opposition. Opponents testified about potential impacts on the health of residents, even though board staff initially said the project met all requirements.

The BYU Law Review article documents that restrictions on solar development are proliferating nationwide, often rooted in misinformation or unfounded fears about environmental and human safety risks.

The Bottom Line

Health concerns driving opposition to solar development lack scientific backing, according to environmental law experts and academic research. Yet these claims have proven effective at the local level, where zoning decisions can block or significantly delay projects.

The backlash comes as the Trump administration is phasing out federal tax credits for the solar and wind industries, adding economic headwinds to the renewable energy sector. Combined with local opposition, these factors contributed to a 14% decline in new solar installations last year.

For farmers like Kevin Heath, the outcome is personal. His opportunity to lease land for solar generation was lost when his township banned large solar projects on agricultural zoned land following resident pushback. He says the health claims were never substantiated.

What to watch: Whether more states consider health-based restrictions on solar development, and whether federal policy changes further impact the economics of utility-scale solar projects.