Attorney General Dana Nessel has stepped up to challenge another substantial rate increase proposed by DTE Energy. As reported by Michigan Advance, Nessel is pushing for a nearly 75% reduction in the utility company's most recent request, which would add more than $574 million to Michigan ratepayers' bills. This push by the Attorney General comes hot on the heels of a prior rate hike of $217 million authorized for DTE. In what seems to be a straightforward financial tug-of-war, Nessel has called on the Michigan Public Service Commission to dramatically pare back this new rate hike, urging the body to consider a modest 2.5% increase instead of the daunting 11% initially sought by DTE.
According to statements from Nessel, released by the Michigan Department of Attorney General's Office, the rate hike proposal by DTE has caused concern, particularly given the close succession of their last approved increase. Nessel argues that the majority of the new proposed hike does not appear to effectively or cost-efficiently improve service but seems to bolster the profits of stakeholders far removed from the everyday struggles of Michigan's energy consumers. She stated, "DTE is once again showing us where its priorities lie – and it isn’t with Michigan ratepayers."
Meanwhile, DTE has defended its rate proposal, claiming that its rate increases have been modest over the past several years. Ryan Lowry, a DTE spokesperson, told Michigan Advance, "DTE bills have only grown by 3% in total over the past four years because of our strong focus on controlling our costs and efficiently operating our power plants." Lowry emphasized the company's investments in the electric grid and improved service reliability as justification for the need to raise rates.
In her opposition to the rate increase, Nessel emphasized the importance of allocating more funds to vegetation management and tree trimming, measures she noted have proven effective in reducing outages. DTE’s proposed spending has drawn scrutiny for prioritizing capital investments that, according to the Attorney General’s Office, appear designed to enhance profitability under state regulatory frameworks rather than to primarily benefit ratepayers. Nessel said, "Our thorough review shows that nearly 75% of this proposed hike can’t be demonstrated to meaningfully improve service or do so cost effectively and stands only to enrich millionaire executives and far-flung shareholders." Her record of advocating for Michigan consumers appears to support this stance, with interventions in utility cases that have reportedly saved nearly $4 billion to date.
