Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and environmental groups urge rehearing of DTE's data-center special contract, citing nonbinding conditions and cost-shift risk
Summary
Multiple public commenters at the Feb. 19 MPSC meeting urged the commission to grant rehearing or reopen a contested case on DTE's ex parte approval for a large data center (U-21990), arguing the commission's conditions are nonbinding and that the contract and redactions risk cost-shifting to ratepayers.
Several residents and environmental advocates used the public-comment period on Feb. 19 to press the Michigan Public Service Commission to reopen or rehear case U-21990, the commission's conditional approval of a special contract authorizing service to a hyperscale data center.
Tim Bruno (Selene Township) told the commission he and neighbors are "very upset" that they have not received clear enforcement mechanisms for the conditions the commission imposed in December. Bruno said the contract was heavily redacted and included nondisclosure agreements, arguing those features prevent meaningful public oversight and create the risk that costs could be shifted to ratepayers.
Brian Smeaggielski, campaign organizer for the Sierra Club, urged the commission to rule on pending rehearing and reopening requests. "The order as written is often non-binding, non-enforceable, and does not clearly establish how the protections will be verified over time," he said, adding that the commission should compel a sworn, auditable affirmation from DTE that it will bear financial responsibility if developer commitments fail to cover costs.
Multiple other commenters reinforced this message. Wendy Alers and Eric Green echoed calls for rehearing or reopening as a contested case so the commission can develop a full record and impose enforceable remedies. Commenters cited filings from the attorney general and outside experts asserting the commission's protections, as written, lack clear enforcement language and verification mechanisms.
An engineer who spoke during public comment noted battery storage does not supply continuous energy to meet the 24-hour demand of a large data center and said the scale of storage needed to backstop such a load would multiply transmission costs. One commenter asserted DTE provided only about 322 megawatts of battery storage rather than the 1,400 megawatts they said would be required; other commenters said portions of the battery were sited far from the data center.
The commission did not take immediate procedural action during the meeting; it allowed public comments and concluded the session after hearing speakers.
Speakers who commented on this topic included Tim Bruno, Brian Smeaggielski (Sierra Club), Wendy Alers, Eric Green, Chris Gilmer Hill (Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition) and Eric Williams. Their principal demand was either a rehearing or reopening as a contested case to secure binding, auditable protections and clear remedies against cost shifting.
