Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transmission Route Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Michigan PSC over ITC transmission route, wildlife habitat and property impacts
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Michigan Public Service Commission to halt or change ITC's proposed transmission route (case U-21471), citing eastern massasauga rattlesnake Tier 1 habitat, lack of community communication, property-value losses and health concerns; the commission heard billing and EV funding suggestions during public comment.
Residents and stakeholders used the March 13 public-comment period to press the commission on a proposed ITC transmission project (docket U-21471) and other local concerns.
Heidi Brown Drumheller, who identified her farm as documented Tier 1 habitat for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, said she has filed sightings and sent photographic evidence to wildlife authorities and that the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service advised avoiding Tier 1 and Tier 2 habitat in siting. She told commissioners that property owners near the Helix Hipple route have faced what she called minimal communication from ITC and asked for more time and community engagement to assess alternatives.
"Our farm is on tier one," Drumheller said, describing town forums and saying landowners felt "ghosted by ITC since the fall of 2023." She asked the commission to consider reroutes and to weigh environmental and property impacts before approvals.
Other commenters described personal impacts. Jack Wages said the line would pass about 400 feet from his house, raised concerns about exposure given that his wife had cancer, and urged exploring existing corridors such as I-69 to avoid private-property impacts. Emily Chocolley said residents cannot afford legal representation to challenge eminent-domain actions and asked the commission to consider alternatives such as routing along highways or upgrading existing lines.
Separately, Doug Bontico (an Osceola County supervisor speaking for local landowners) asked the commission to clarify Michigan Administrative Code R 460.20338 (the farm-tap rule) and who bears costs when connections are replaced; he said landowners may pursue court action depending on the commission’s position and cited Article I, Section 10 of the state constitution.
A consumer, Namra Farooqi, raised a separate concern about confusing utility billing (duplicated fixed charges and delayed billing over several months). Chair Dan Scripps directed her to the commission’s customer-assistance staff, provided a toll-free number (800-292-9555) and the commission website (michigan.gov/mpsc) and noted that a formal complaint could trigger further investigation.
Commissioners did not announce a regulatory decision on the ITC route at the meeting; public comments were accepted for the record and the commission encouraged additional written comments via the docket and the posted meeting notice.
