What the bill passed by the Michigan House changes, what still has to happen before an overhead line goes up, and what township boards, county officials, and property owners can do now.
Videos
Explainer · for township boards and property owners
The struck words on the page, today's rule, the change, the four public bodies, what neighbors get and do not get, the Senate twin and the clock, and what to watch.
Watch on YouTubeThe short version
The idea of running lines along the highway instead of across private land, the four public bodies that must still act, and how to ask the MPSC by October 21 whether highway right-of-way counts.
Watch the Short on YouTubeThe short answer · as of October 4, 2026
HB 5940 would end Michigan's rule that power lines running along limited access highways must be buried. But four public bodies still have to act before any overhead line goes up there, the bill sets no deadline for any of them, and it gives neighbors and townships no new say.
For township boards, county officials, and property owners in communities such as Williamstown and Locke, and anywhere else a proposed high-voltage line could run near a limited access highway.
HB 5940 as passed 2:23-28 MDOT guidance item 5.6 23 CFR 645.215 HB 5940 as passed 4:22-6:4
4 bodies
Must act, in 3 steps, before an overhead line: 2 commissions, MDOT, and FHWA
Want the next one? Get new insights by email. One email per article, and nothing when we don't publish.
Sec. 13(2) of 1925 PA 368 (MCL 247.183(2)) is the rule for utility lines in limited access highway right-of-way. HB 5940 adds one sentence to it and strikes three words. Nothing else in sec. 13 changes.
Sec. 13(2), word for word
Struck words are removed by the bill; underlined words are added.
Current law, MCL 247.183(2). The standards must require lines in this right-of-way to be underground.
As it would read if HB 5940 (as passed by the House) became law.
(2) A utility as defined in 23 CFR 645.105 may enter upon, construct, and maintain utility lines and structures, including pipelines, longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way and under any public road, street, or other subsurface that intersects any limited access highway at a different grade, in accordance with standards approved by the state transportation commission and the Michigan public service commission that conform to governing federal laws and regulations and is not required to obtain the consent of the governing body of the city, village, or township as required under subsection (1). Subject to section 13a, the standards must allow for the collocation of projects, including aboveground lines and structures, in limited access highway rights-of-way. The standards must require that the lines and structures be underground and be placed in a manner that will not increase highway maintenance costs for the state transportation department. The standards may provide for the imposition of a reasonable charge for longitudinal use of limited access highway rights-of-way. The imposition of a reasonable charge is a governmental function, offsetting a portion of the capital, maintenance, and permitting expense of the limited access highway, and is not a proprietary function. The charge must be calculated to reflect a 1-time installation permit fee that does not exceed $1,000.00 per mile of longitudinal use of limited access highway rights-of-way with a minimum fee of $5,000.00 per permit. If the 1-time installation permit fee does not cover the reasonable and actual costs to the department in issuing the permit, the department may assess the utility for the remaining balance. All revenue received under this subsection must be used for capital and maintenance expenses incurred for limited access highways, including the cost of issuing the permit.
HB 5940 as passed 2:14-3:14 MCL 247.183 HB 5940 as introduced 2:16-3:17
What changes
If enacted, the statute would stop requiring that lines along limited access highways be underground, and would tell the standards to allow aboveground lines. The lines still must not raise MDOT's highway maintenance costs. The standards must still conform to federal law, and they may contain other conditions. HB 5940 as passed 2:18-28
Read the official text
The official bill marks the deletion of "be underground and" from section 13(2). SB 933 proposes the same deletion. HB 5940 as passed HB 5940 PDF p. 2 SB 933
H-2 left sec. 13 alone, strike included, and changed only the new sec. 13a. The House passed H-2 unchanged. House Journal 54 p. 960 HFA analysis (H-2)
As introduced (and SB 933)
“On the written request of a utility or transmission line developer, the state transportation department shall coordinate with that utility or transmission line developer”
As passed by the House (H-2)
“On the written request of a utility, an independent transmission company, or an affiliated transmission company, the state transportation department shall coordinate with that utility, independent transmission company, or affiliated transmission company”
H-2 kept "utility" and replaced "transmission line developer" with two company types. Those two terms are defined in Act 30, which the bill does not cross-reference. MCL 460.562 (a), (f)
As introduced (and SB 933)
“including an agreed-on time frame during which the state transportation department shall not request the relocation of the transmission line.”
As passed by the House (H-2)
“including an agreed-on time frame during which the state transportation department shall not request the relocation of the transmission line as it is practicable.”
H-2 added four words. The bill does not say who pays if MDOT later needs the line moved. HB 5940 as passed 4:22-6:4
As introduced (and SB 933)
“If state transportation department must relocate a transmission line in a highway right-of-way, the state transportation department must give the utility notice not less than 5 years before the relocation project begins.”
As passed by the House (H-2)
“If a substantial change to the state transportation department's 5-year plan is necessary due to unforeseen circumstances in a location that a utility, independent transmission company, or affiliated transmission company has submitted a written request to collocate, after an updated 5-year plan is published but before the next 5-year plan is set to be published, the state transportation department must inform that utility, independent transmission company, or affiliated transmission company in writing as soon as is practical.”
The fixed 5-year notice became no fixed notice period. H-2's notice is about unforeseen changes to MDOT's 5-year plan, not a notice before a move. In both versions the notice goes only to the line company, not to landowners, townships, or counties. HB 5940 as introduced 5:20-23 HB 5940 as passed 5:23-6:2 HFA analysis (H-2)
Four public bodies must act before overhead placement can be permitted. HB 5940 adds no deadlines; Act 30 retains its one-year deadline for a certificate decision.
First, the bill has to become law
State Transportation Commission and MPSC
No deadlineLines in this right-of-way follow standards "approved by the state transportation commission and the Michigan public service commission that conform to governing federal laws and regulations". The bill tells those standards to allow aboveground lines. HB 5940 as passed 2:18-26 We found no record that the MPSC has approved these standards since a 2005 law required its approval. The MDOT guidance we found cites only State Transportation Commission policy.
MDOT
No deadlineMDOT's guidance, item 5.6, says: 'Longitudinal occupancy of limited access state highway right-of-way by aboveground facilities is prohibited.' The bill does not name the guidance. If the bill is enacted, this item, not the statute, would stop an overhead line until MDOT revises it or approves an exception. MDOT guidance item 5.6
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
No deadlineFHWA approves a state's utility accommodation policy and any change to it. 23 CFR 645.215(b)-(c) Its September 1, 2026 memo, which is guidance and not binding, says transmission projects 'are acceptable alternative uses of the Interstate or non-Interstate highway ROW and are in the public interest if they comply with 23 U.S.C. 111' and FHWA's property rules. It does not replace Michigan's own rules. FHWA memo Federal rules still bar new aboveground lines in the clear zone unless burial is not technically feasible or is unreasonably costly and there is no other feasible place. 23 CFR 645.209(b)
Then, for a specific line
MDOT and the company
No deadlineOn a company's written request, MDOT must coordinate with it to review highway corridors. MDOT must also share all known plans for future projects that may affect the line. Once MDOT and the company identify a permittable route, they prepare a constructability report that both must approve before MDOT issues a permit. There is no deadline, no appeal, and no consequence if they never agree. HB 5940 as passed 4:22-5:17
MPSC
PendingA line of 345 kV or more and 5 miles or more needs an Act 30 certificate. MCL 460.562 (g) Smaller lines need not go through Act 30. The MPSC decides within 1 year of filing, and must find, among other things, that the route is 'feasible and reasonable'. MCL 460.568 (4)-(5) The bill does not amend Act 30.
An underground line can already run lengthwise in this right-of-way under current law, so sec. 13a can serve buried lines as soon as it takes effect. HB 5940 as passed 2:14-23
45 of Michigan's 83 counties have a limited access highway. The 10 counties with the most hold about 43% of its miles.
Michigan has about 1,940 route miles of limited access highway: about 1,237 Interstate and 703 other. About 3.6% of 345 kV line miles, as mapped by HIFLD, run within 1 km of one and alongside it (within 30 degrees). HIFLD's map is a floor, not a census: about 1,580 more mapped miles list no voltage. These are centerlines; no public source gives the width of the right-of-way. County data MDOT R&H 2026 HIFLD lines
Limited access highway miles by county
Click a column heading to sort.
| Wayne | 158.1 | 118.9 | 111.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oakland | 108.8 | 82.1 | 159.6 |
| Kent | 99.5 | 47.3 | 125.0 |
| Genesee | 81.9 | 69.4 | 124.0 |
| Berrien | 77.1 | 50.4 | 148.6 |
| Washtenaw | 75.1 | 33.4 | 161.3 |
| Calhoun | 60.5 | 60.2 | 45.5 |
| Monroe | 59.6 | 34.1 | 200.7 |
| Allegan | 56.8 | 29.7 | 160.8 |
| St. Clair | 54.1 | 52.7 | 157.6 |
| Ingham | 52.9 | 31.2 | 0 |
| Livingston | 52.7 | 27.4 | 76.0 |
| Jackson | 49.6 | 30.6 | 60.5 |
| Clinton | 48.8 | 28.1 | 0 |
| Roscommon | 48.1 | 23.6 | 0 |
| Kalamazoo | 48.0 | 25.2 | 57.8 |
| Bay | 45.6 | 28.3 | 110.4 |
| Macomb | 45.5 | 32.7 | 195.6 |
| Cheboygan | 44.4 | 44.4 | 0 |
| Ottawa | 40.2 | 35.2 | 188.2 |
| Eaton | 39.2 | 39.2 | 47.8 |
| Saginaw | 37.5 | 30.7 | 122.5 |
| Van Buren | 36.3 | 36.3 | 119.8 |
| Isabella | 35.7 | 0 | 0 |
| Clare | 34.1 | 0 | 0 |
| Muskegon | 33.0 | 5.4 | 44.7 |
| Crawford | 31.4 | 25.1 | 1.1 |
| Midland | 28.7 | 0 | 24.7 |
| Mackinac | 27.7 | 27.7 | 0 |
| Chippewa | 27.3 | 27.3 | 0 |
| Oceana | 25.9 | 0 | 97.8 |
| Otsego | 25.7 | 25.7 | 30.7 |
| Shiawassee | 25.7 | 25.7 | 7.5 |
| Ionia | 25.6 | 25.6 | 0 |
| Osceola | 25.2 | 0 | 0 |
| Lapeer | 24.9 | 24.9 | 56.5 |
| Mecosta | 24.6 | 0 | 0 |
| Wexford | 23.4 | 0 | 1.6 |
| Branch | 22.1 | 22.1 | 0 |
| Arenac | 21.4 | 19.5 | 12.1 |
| Gratiot | 16.3 | 0 | 41.1 |
| Ogemaw | 15.3 | 15.3 | 25.2 |
| Montcalm | 13.1 | 0 | 50.9 |
| Mason | 10.9 | 0 | 79.9 |
| Emmet | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0 |
| Alcona | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alger | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alpena | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Antrim | 0 | 0 | 12.6 |
| Baraga | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Barry | 0 | 0 | 41.1 |
| Benzie | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cass | 0 | 0 | 81.9 |
| Charlevoix | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Delta | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dickinson | 0 | 0 | 28.0 |
| Gladwin | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gogebic | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grand Traverse | 0 | 0 | 31.7 |
| Hillsdale | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Houghton | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Huron | 0 | 0 | 99.7 |
| Iosco | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Iron | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kalkaska | 0 | 0 | 16.8 |
| Keweenaw | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lake | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Leelanau | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lenawee | 0 | 0 | 8.8 |
| Luce | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Manistee | 0 | 0 | 38.3 |
| Marquette | 0 | 0 | 51.9 |
| Menominee | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| Missaukee | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Montmorency | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Newaygo | 0 | 0 | 86.2 |
| Ontonagon | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oscoda | 0 | 0 | 28.1 |
| Presque Isle | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sanilac | 0 | 0 | 76.7 |
| Schoolcraft | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| St. Joseph | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tuscola | 0 | 0 | 111.6 |
Route miles count one direction of a divided highway along its centerline. "345 kV line mi" are line miles as mapped by HIFLD, so circuits sharing a corridor count separately; lines with no voltage listed are left out, so these are floors. County data Download the CSV.
The protections people ask about are in other laws, in other bills, or in rules the MPSC is writing now.
The MPSC still decides a major line's route. A highway route reaches the MPSC only as the company's route or alternate, or as another party's alternative. MCL 460.567 (2)(c) MCL 460.568
Cities, villages, and townships already have no consent role over utility lines in limited access highway right-of-way, and the bill does not change that. Every new duty in sec. 13a falls on MDOT alone. HB 5940 as passed 2:21-23 HB 5940 as passed 4:22-6:2
No version of sec. 13a gives notice to landowners, townships, or counties. Its only notice runs to the line company: as introduced, to "the utility"; after H-2, to the company that asked to collocate. HB 5940 as introduced 5:20-23 HB 5940 as passed 5:23-6:2
It sets an agreed no-relocation period "as it is practicable", and is silent on cost. HB 5940 as passed 5:18-22
None for MDOT, the two commissions, or FHWA. HB 5940 as passed 4:22-6:4
The fee rule stays as it is. The standards "may provide for the imposition of a reasonable charge": a 1-time permit fee of at most $1,000 per mile, with a $5,000 minimum, plus any permit cost the fee does not cover. All of it goes to limited access highway costs; local units get none. HB 5940 as passed 2:29-3:14
Sec. 13a defines "transmission line" only as "a high-voltage transmission line". Act 30 uses 100 kV and 345 kV. HB 5940 as passed 6:3-4 MCL 460.562 (g), (k)
SB 930-933 were introduced on April 23, 2026, 19 days before HB 5940. HB 5940 matches only SB 933. SB 930-932, the bills on notice and route choice, have had no hearing. SB 933 Bill history Senate committee
HB 5940 (as passed)
If enacted, would end the statutory underground rule; adds MDOT's sec. 13a process for utilities and the two Act 30 transmission company types. HB 5940 as passed Senate Journal 67
Notice: None to the public.
Status: Passed House 98-0; in Senate Energy and Environment.
SB 933 (Bayer)
HB 5940 as introduced, word for word, from the same drafting request, including the same strike and the 5-year relocation notice. SB 933
Notice: None to the public.
Status: Introduced April 23, 2026; no action since.
SB 930 (Singh, Bayer)
Amends Act 30 notice of an application. SB 930
Notice: Mailed notice to municipalities and landowners along, within 1 mile of the centerline of, and between the proposed and alternate routes.
Status: Introduced April 23, 2026; no action since.
SB 932 (Bayer, Singh)
Amends Act 30 pre-application meetings: a public map website for at least 90 days, segment data, documented answers to route requests. SB 932
Notice: Mailed notice to the same 1-mile set.
Status: Introduced April 23, 2026; no action since.
SB 931 (Singh, Bayer)
Asks applicants to describe how they chose the route, including whether they considered paralleling existing rights-of-way. Its catch title says “require to use”, but the text requires only a description. SB 931
Notice: No change.
Status: Introduced April 23, 2026; no action since.
MPSC guidelines (2026, voluntary)
Applicants “should prioritize the use of existing ROWs”. The order adopting them found it 'reasonable to require' parties to propose any alternative route within 45 days after the prehearing conference. MPSC U-21930 pp. 28-31
Notice: Not addressed here.
Status: Adopted January 29, 2026, for applications from April 29, 2026.
MPSC proposed rules (binding if adopted)
An applicant “shall prioritize the use of existing” rights-of-way. Neither the rules nor the guidelines mention limited access highways or MDOT; both count length paralleling 'public roads or highways' only as a route-scoring factor. MPSC U-22064
Notice: Open for comment.
Status: Proposed October 1, 2026; comments due October 21, 2026.
The records reviewed list ten supporters and a neutral position from MDOT. No position card or public statement was found from the local-government and farm organizations listed below.
Support
Neutral and opposed
MDOT filed a neutral card. The House Fiscal Agency lists no opponents, and we found no opponent in any record we checked: the analyses, committee minutes, news, and public statements. HFA analysis (as reported) Positions
Claims
Rep. Prestin says the bill would bring 'lower project costs, accelerated timelines'. Michigan Advance Asked about crash risk, he called the towers 'just over-engineered'. WILX These are claims; we found no study behind them.
No statement found
We found no card or public statement on HB 5940 from:
Distinguish the proposed change in law from approval of a particular line.
The bill removes the statutory burial requirement and directs the standards to allow aboveground lines. Reports describing that legal change are consistent with the text. Michigan Advance HB 5940 as passed 2:23-28
The statutory change is only part of the approval process. The standards, MDOT guidance, and federal requirements still govern placement of a particular line. HB 5940 as passed 2:18-26 MDOT guidance 23 CFR 645.215
Apr 23, 2026
SB 930-933 introduced and sent to Senate Energy and Environment. SB 933
May 12, 2026
HB 5940 introduced by Rep. David Prestin (R-108). Bill history
Jun 16, 2026
House Transportation and Infrastructure takes it up. Bill history
Jun 23, 2026
Reported with substitute H-2. House Journal 50 pp. 856-857
Jul 1, 2026
House adopts H-2 at second reading, without a recorded roll call. House Journal 54 p. 960
Aug 26, 2026
House passes it 98-0; the other 12 members had been excused and did not vote. House Journal 63 p. 1656
Sep 9, 2026
Senate refers it to Energy and Environment. Senate Journal 67
Oct 1, 2026
MPSC proposes binding Act 30 rules (U-22064). MPSC U-22064
Oct 21, 2026
MPSC rule comments due. MPSC U-22064
End of 2026
Bills still pending when the 2026 session ends do not carry over. Const. art. 4 sec. 13
By October 21, 2026
Case U-22064. The proposed rules say an applicant "shall prioritize the use of existing" rights-of-way, but do not say whether highway right-of-way counts. MPSC U-22064 Two questions worth raising: does "existing rights-of-way" include limited access highway right-of-way, and how will people who live beside a highway be told about a line? Comments are filed in the MPSC's e-dockets. MPSC e-dockets
Now, while the Senate decides
HB 5940 and SB 930-933 sit in Senate Energy and Environment (13 members, 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans; chair Sean McCann). Senate committee As of October 4 the Senate's published schedule lists about 23 more session days in 2026; the schedule can change. Senate schedule Bills still pending when the 2026 session ends do not carry over. Const. art. 4 sec. 13
When a route is proposed
Before applying for a major line, the company must hold a public meeting in each municipality on the route, and must first offer in writing to meet with each affected municipality's chief elected official. MCL 460.566 (1)-(2) Each affected municipality and landowner is an intervenor as of right in the MPSC case. MCL 460.568 (2) In adopting its 2026 guidelines, the MPSC found it 'reasonable to require' parties to propose any alternative route within 45 days after the prehearing conference. MPSC U-21930 pp. 30-31
If the bill passes
The bill gives the public no step when the two commissions approve new standards or MDOT revises its guidance. HB 5940 as passed 2:18-26 HB 5940 as passed 4:22-6:4 Townships and counties can ask MDOT, the State Transportation Commission, and the MPSC for notice and a chance to comment.
If you live near the proposed Oneida–Sabine Lake line
That 345 kV line is MISO Tranche 2.1 Project 34, Oneida-Sabine Lake-Blackfoot & Majestic (applicant METC, an ITC subsidiary). We found no Act 30 case for it as of October 4, 2026. Our public route analysis (a preliminary draft, revised September 24, 2026) scored ITC's 7 published routes on the Act 30 factors, with and without an HB 5940 freeway credit. The Orange route runs alongside I-96 (not inside its right-of-way) for about 15 miles and ranked first both ways: 3.808 with the credit and 3.945 under current law, where lower is better. HB 5940 does not choose a route; the MPSC does, under Act 30. Oneida-Sabine analysis Oneida-Sabine report pp. 27-28
Read the Oneida–Sabine route analysisFor landowners and township officials. Each answer links its source.
That is the idea behind it, but not on its own. The bill strikes the state-law rule that lines along limited access highways must be buried and says the standards must allow aboveground lines there. Before any overhead line can go in that right-of-way, the two commissions must approve new standards, MDOT must revise its guidance (or approve an exception), and FHWA must approve the changed policy, with no deadline for any of them. A major line also needs an Act 30 certificate, and in that case any party, including a township or landowner, may propose a route along a highway. HB 5940 as passed 2:18-28 MCL 460.568 (2), (4) MDOT guidance item 5.6 23 CFR 645.215 MCL 460.562 (g)
No. It passed the House 98-0 on August 26, 2026; the other 12 members had been excused and did not vote. It is in the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment, which lists no meeting on it as of October 4, 2026. House Journal 63 Senate committee
Two things in sec. 13(2) of 1925 PA 368. It adds: "Subject to section 13a, the standards must allow for the collocation of projects, including aboveground lines and structures, in limited access highway rights-of-way." And it strikes the words "be underground and". It also adds sec. 13a, a process run by MDOT at a company's request. HB 5940 as passed 2:23-28 HB 5940 as passed 4:22-6:4
A highway designed for through traffic, with no right of access for the land beside it, such as an Interstate. MCL 252.51 45 of Michigan's 83 counties have one. County data
Not under this bill. Townships already have no consent role over utility lines in limited access highway right-of-way, and sec. 13a adds no local step. HB 5940 as passed 2:21-23 Under Act 30, a major line's company must hold a public meeting in your municipality and offer to meet your chief elected official, and your municipality may intervene in the MPSC case. MCL 460.566 MCL 460.568 (2)
Not because of HB 5940; its only notice goes to the company. HB 5940 as passed 5:23-6:2 SB 930 and SB 932 would mail notice to landowners within 1 mile of the centerline of, and between, the proposed and alternate routes. They have had no hearing. SB 930 SB 932 Senate committee
No. It does not amend Act 30. The MPSC already prefers existing rights-of-way: in 2025 it found a company's proposed route, 'while feasible, is not reasonable given the opportunity to use an existing ROW', and approved the alternate. MPSC U-21471 p. 92 But neither its guidelines nor its proposed rules mention limited access highways or MDOT; they count length paralleling 'public roads or highways' only as a route-scoring factor. MPSC U-22064
In the one Act 30 case we found with a highway alternative (U-17041, 2013), landowners proposed a route along I-94, not inside the right-of-way. METC said its 220-foot right-of-way would not fit along portions of that route. The MPSC found 'ample rebuttal evidence that the I-94 corridor route is not a realistic alternative'. MPSC U-17041 p. 25
The bill does not say. It sets an agreed period during which MDOT will not ask for a move "as it is practicable", and after H-2 it gives the company no fixed notice period. HB 5940 as passed 5:18-6:2 HB 5940 as introduced 5:20-23
No. We found no Act 30 case for that line as of October 4, 2026. Our public route analysis (a preliminary draft, revised September 24, 2026) scored ITC's 7 published routes on the Act 30 factors, with and without an HB 5940 freeway credit. The Orange route runs alongside I-96 (not inside its right-of-way) for about 15 miles and ranked first both ways: 3.808 with the credit and 3.945 under current law, where lower is better. Oneida-Sabine analysis Oneida-Sabine report pp. 27-28
PDF, 73 pages, 6.1 MB
CSV, 83 counties: limited access highway route miles and mapped transmission line miles
Official HTML, with the struck words shown
Official HTML (SB 933 has the same text)
Research series
7 related analyses from Bommarito Consulting.
Michigan utility decisions · October 7, 2026
Transmission routes, rates, large loads, pipelines, and renewable siting: which law applies, who decides, and how residents can participate.
ReportVideosCase explorer
First look · September 30, 2026
Who pays, where projects go, and what states and communities can decide, with Michigan worked examples. 40-page report and a 12-minute explainer.
ReportVideo
Full reading · October 2026
What the bill actually says, what it changes in federal law, and who wins and loses, cited to page and line. 132-page report and two companion videos.
ReportVideos
Fact check · October 9, 2026
Seventeen common claims from supporters, checked against the text: what they get right, what they leave out, and what they overstate.
PageFact check
Fine print · October 9, 2026
Changes the sponsors' summary does not describe, likely drafting errors, and one that looks hidden but is disclosed, each with a fix.
Page
Michigan case study · revised September 24, 2026
Seven published routes scored on Michigan's Act 30 factors, stress-tested across a million weightings, and resolved township by township.
ReportVideoSimulator
Michigan companion · October 2026
What the House-passed bill changes about lines along limited access highways, the four public bodies that still have to act, and what townships and landowners can do.
PageQ&A
Scope and sources
This analysis covers the House-passed bill and public records available as of October 4, 2026. Bill quotations show the text as it would read if enacted, except in the marked comparison above. Citations identify the source and, where relevant, the printed page and line. Statements by legislators, companies, and advocates are attributed to them. A statement that begins "we found no" describes the records reviewed; it does not prove that no other record exists. Maps show centerlines and proximity, rather than highway property boundaries or engineering feasibility. The bill remains a proposal and may change. Bommarito Consulting prepared this public policy analysis at its own expense. Project-specific legal questions should be reviewed with counsel.
Insights by email
One email when we publish something new, and nothing when we don't. No tracking pixels, and leaving takes one click.
Working on something like this? Talk to us →
