Today, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) announced it would hold a public comment forum on DTE's ex parte application





Share or view as webpage [ [link removed] ] | Unsubscribe [ [link removed] ]






Michigan Department of Attorney General Press Release banner [ [link removed] ]




*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:*
November 18, 2025




*Media Contact:*
Danny Wimmer <[email protected]>






AG Nessel Statement on MPSC Announcement of “Public Hearing” Concerning DTE Data Center Contracts

*LANSING* – Today, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) announced it would hold a public comment forum on DTE's "ex parte "application for approval of two special contracts to provide electric service to an anticipated 1.4-gigawatt data center in Saline.  

“Despite this announcement, the MPSC is still not allowing for meaningful intervention and review on these DTE data center contracts,” said Nessel. "Without formal hearings and a contested case declaration, this alone would amount to little more than performative listening rather than thorough public scrutiny. I am concerned that the MPSC has yet to respond to my request to intervene and hold true hearings, and I am fearful that today’s announcement signals they have no intention to hold the formal hearings our residents and ratepayers deserve. To protect Michiganders in this crucial moment we must demand a full, formal contested case, where parties can issue demands for discovery, submit informed expert testimony, and create a record of evidence upon which the MPSC, and everyone across the State, can fairly evaluate these contracts.” 

The public comment forum, announced by the MPSC today and scheduled for December 3rd, is limited only to virtual participation via the Microsoft Teams application and will last only two hours. The MPSC is scheduled to meet formally two days later, on December 5th, which is the date by which DTE has requested these special contracts be approved.  

DTE has specifically requested their application be approved with no formal hearings or any of the traditional oversight in place that secure the interests of ratepayers and the public. Attorney General Nessel has called for public hearings in this application that would allow for intervention by consumer protection organizations, scrutiny of the application by experts, and the creation of an evidentiary record the MPSC and parties could evaluate. Todays announced ‘public hearing’ accomplishes none of these, and instead serves only as a forum for public comment.  

“The MPSC is under immense political and industry pressure to fast-track these contracts; contracts that have the power to shape our energy landscape for decades,” Nessel continued. “The contracts remain public only under significant redactions, and promises made by DTE to hold ratepayers harmless remain flimsy and unsupported in the public record. I continue to encourage all Michigan residents to file comments with the Commission, and would urge anyone participating in this forum, to urge the MPSC to hold formal hearings and open a contested case on this matter. Our energy future is far too important to leave to the rushed and secret negotiations of the companies standing to profit most from our ratepaying utility customers and the decisions of the MPSC.” 

The MPSC itself has previously determined that it cannot rely upon public comments as evidence upon which it can make its formal decisions, underling the need for a contested case hearing to establish an evidentiary record for use by the Commission. As stated at pages 26-28 of the Commission’s July 10, 2025 Order (PDF) [ [link removed] ] in Case No. U-21638 [ [link removed] ], public comments are not evidence on the record, and their use is limited to informing parties appearing on a case and in informal policymaking by the Commission.  A formal contested case hearing would include discovery and filed testimony and will allow parties such as the Attorney General the opportunity to verify protections and cost reductions to customers proposed by the utility corporation and provide the Commission with a full evidentiary record to decide whether the special contracts are prudent and reasonable.  

###






AG logo [ [link removed] ]





*Media Inquiries* <[email protected]>




*Latest Releases* [ [link removed] ]




*File a Complaint* [ [link removed] ]








Connect with us:

facebook icon [ [link removed] ] x icon [ [link removed] ] youtube icon [ [link removed] ] instagram icon [ [link removed] ] linkedin icon [ [link removed] ] govdelivery icon <[email protected]> threads icon [ [link removed] ]

If you wish to no longer receive emails from us, 
please update your preferences here:
Manage Preferences [ [link removed] ]  |  Delete Profile [ [link removed] ]

Need further assistance?
Contact Us  |  Help [ [link removed] ]

________________________________________________________________________

Get personalized voter information on early voting and other topics at Michigan.gov/Vote [ [link removed] ].

________________________________________________________________________

This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: Michigan Attorney General · G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor · 525 W. Ottawa St., P.O. Box 30212 · Lansing, MI 48909 · 517-373-1100
body .abe-column-block { min-height: 5px; } table.gd_combo_table img {margin-left:10px; margin-right:10px;} table.gd_combo_table div.govd_image_display img, table.gd_combo_table td.gd_combo_image_cell img {margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px;} table.govd_hr {min-width: 100%;} p, li, h1, h2, h3 { overflow-wrap: normal; word-wrap: normal; word-break: keep-all; -moz-hyphens: none; -ms-hyphens: none; -webkit-hyphens: none; hyphens: none; mso-hyphenate: none; }