Michigan Families Can’t Afford for Their Lawmakers to Get Energy Policy Wrong

At a time when Michigan families are being asked to pay more for just about everything, energy costs in particular are a top concern for voters ahead of this November’s election. Now, a new analysis suggests the choices Lansing makes on energy policy, at a time of unprecedented data center expansion, could determine whether that squeeze gets better or considerably worse.

A new Evergreen Action analysis quantifies how much Michigan’s next governor’s energy agenda could impact what families actually pay for power. The analysis modeled two potential paths for Michigan’s energy future through 2040: an “Expansion Package,” reflecting policies proposed by Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson, including requiring large data centers to pay their full costs, expanding customer-owned clean energy, and weatherizing Michigan homes; and a “Repeal Package,” reflecting promises by Republican gubernatorial candidate John James to repeal Michigan’s landmark 2023 clean-energy laws.

The difference between the two is enormous.

According to the analysis, the two approaches produce an $11.6 billion difference in cumulative household energy costs between 2027 and 2040 – equivalent to $2,772 for the average Michigan household.

That’s not an abstract policy debate. That’s money coming out of Michigan families’ pockets.

The political question is simple: Who should pay for Michigan’s growing energy demands?

As data centers race to Michigan to power the next generation of artificial intelligence, families shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the infrastructure needed to serve massive new corporate electricity loads. Evergreen’s analysis finds that requiring data centers to pay their full costs accounts for nearly half of the Expansion Package’s household savings.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has pushed data center developers to commit to paying the full costs associated with their projects, while some Republican lawmakers, including James, are pushing to repeal Michigan’s landmark 2023 Clean Energy and Jobs Act (CEJA) through proposals like Project Lights Out. A repeal of CEJA would also undermine energy efficiency, the cheapest form of energy, as detailed in the Michigan Public Service Commission’s energy waste reduction report.

On top of that, the Evergreen analysis finds that doing so would increase household costs – not just for electricity, but across natural gas, home heating fuels, and transportation.

That should force a serious question for every lawmaker who says they want to make Michigan more affordable: Will you support policies that make big corporations pay their fair share, reduce energy waste, and help families control their energy costs – or will you send the bill to Michigan households?

Michigan has a choice.

We can build an energy system that prepares for massive new demand while protecting the people who already pay the bills. Or we can roll back progress and leave families carrying more of the cost.

At a time when affordability is one of the biggest concerns facing Michiganders, $2,772 per household is a price tag voters cannot afford to ignore.