August 27, 2026
Lansing, MI., – Today, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) heard public comments from a diverse group of Michigan leaders opposing Consumers Energy’s proposed sale of 13 hydroelectric dams on five iconic Michigan rivers to an out-of-state private equity firm. In June, following evidentiary hearings and legal briefs, the Administrative Law Judge issued a comprehensive 312-page decision recommending that the Commission “reject” the proposed sale, overpriced power purchase agreement, and related transactions as inconsistent with the public interest and sound public policy for multiple reasons. The Commission’s public meeting today was designed to hear additional public comments before the Commission issues its final order in this case on September 10th.
Five angler and conservation groups are intervenors in the case before the Commission opposing the sale, and they are represented by attorneys at the Environmental Law & Policy Center. The groups include the Anglers of the Au Sable, the Great Lakes Council of Fly Fishers International, the Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman’s Association, Michigan Trout Unlimited, and the Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition.
Both Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have publicly opposed the dams sale and urged the Commission to reject the proposed deal. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources also opposes the proposed dams sale.
The Commission heard comments today from the following Michigan leaders, among others:
George Heartwell, former Mayor of Grand Rapids who lives on the Muskegon River, downstream from Consumers Energy’s Croton Dam, said: “If even publicly regulated Consumers Energy has been an imperfect owner (of these dams), I fear what will happen if this sale to an investor owned, out-of-state private equity company goes through. Will my Muskegon River be safe under an unregulated, profit-driven company with no ties to Michigan? Hull Street Energy has created a shell corporation; Confluence Power, and Confluence has created thirteen other shell corporations, one to own each dam. Why would you do that? Unless you knew you would be safe bankrupting one or more of those shells and letting Michigan taxpayers pick up the responsibility.
“If this transfer of ownership were to another public utility, I would not likely be here before you. But I have come here today because I fear for these rivers, the people who live on them, and the life that they support if ownership transfers to a profit-driven Maryland company.”
Elizabeth Riggs, American Rivers Great Lakes Regional Director, said: “Decommissioning and removal of some of these dams should be more seriously considered as the approach most within the public interest for marginally productive hydropower dams. Removal is a trade-off, not simply a loss: case after case has shown that dam removals eliminate long-term liabilities, improve fisheries, restore rivers, and improve water quality. The Boardman provides one of many great examples, where removal of dams restored habitat and fish connectivity while creating new recreational and economic opportunities.”
John Bebow, a retiree who was engaged for decades in Michigan public policy and journalism, said: “I understand the concerns of some local communities fearful that removal of dam ponds may change local landscapes and local economies. However, the Public Service Commission is not in the dam pond business. Its mission is to govern the provision of safe, affordable, and equitable power for ratepayers. Any ruling made based on the rationale of protecting dam ponds would contradict that mission.
“The proposed dam sale would irresponsibly require statewide ratepayers to pay billions of dollars over market rate for woefully inefficient hydropower and private profit, without ever addressing the costs and realities of the ultimate fate of these increasingly expensive and unsafe dams. The responsible path for ratepayers, taxpayers, natural river corridors, recreation, and the long-term safety of downstream communities is decommissioning and removal of the dams. Stop this irresponsible dam sale.”
Rick Chapla, a Grand River advocate and Principal of Chapla Consulting, said: “I urge you to reject the proposed sale of these dams by Consumers Energy. I further urge you to prompt the initiation of a detailed economic analysis if these and other dams are removed. An example could be in part, that which was prepared by Anderson Economic Group for the Grand Rapids Whitewater project. This project involves the removal of dam structures in the Grand River as it runs through downtown Grand Rapids.
“The expected economic benefits that will result from the Whitewater project include new boating facilities and users, new kayakers, persons who fish and visitors/tourist to the Grand Rapids downtown. This project means new patrons of downtown lodging facilities, restaurants and bars, and more people watching activities along the banks of the downtown Grand River.”