(Ed. note: This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. Visit the newsroom online: bridgemi.com.)
By Kelly House
Bridge Michigan
Michigan should reject Consumers Energy’s plan to sell its 13 Michigan dams to an out-of-state private equity firm, an administrative law judge overseeing the proposed sale has concluded.
In a 312-page recommendation issued June 10 to state regulators who will ultimately decide whether to approve the sale, Judge James Varchetti wrote that the deal “is inconsistent with the public interest,” “highly problematic” and “unreasonable and imprudent.”
Varchetti, who has spent months gathering evidence and testimony from Consumers and interest groups that support and oppose the sale, concluded that the transaction threatens public safety and may not be the cheapest option for ratepayers.
“For a transaction involving infrastructure like major hydroelectric dams to be in the public interest, it would be a transaction that ensured the new owner is financially committed and able to meet the dam’s full lifecycle needs, thereby protecting taxpayers from assuming future liabilities such as decommissioning costs,” Varchetti wrote. “This transaction fails that test.”
The advice comes nine months after Consumers first proposed selling its aging dams in the AuSable, Grand, Kalamazoo, Manistee and Muskegon rivers to a Maryland-based private equity firm for $1 apiece, then inking a 30-year contract that would obligate the company’s 1.9 million ratepayers to buy back the power at twice the market rate, plus pay a $270 million profit to Consumers.
Spokespeople for Consumers Energy and its proposed buyer, Confluence Hydro, expressed disappointment in the recommendation but noted that it is not legally binding.
The Michigan Public Service Commission, a trio of utility regulators appointed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, is expected to decide by September whether to approve the sale.
“We believe the judge did not appropriately recognize the major benefits of the sale,” Consumers spokesperson Katie Carey said.
Arguing the deal would bring “significant cost savings” for ratepayers while “protecting the 13 communities and tens of thousands of people who depend on the dams,” Carey said Consumers officials will continue to advocate for sale approval.
All told, the deal would cost Consumers ratepayers $3.4 billion, or an average of $1,800 per person.
Consumers officials contend that’s a good deal because they would otherwise seek the MPSC’s permission to charge ratepayers billions to repair or demolish the unprofitable dams.
But critics have accused them of downplaying the risks. They fear the deal would repeat a longstanding pattern of utilities transferring unwanted dams to private owners who fail to invest in maintenance, raising the risk of dam failures while pushing repair or removal costs onto taxpayers.
The structures generate meager power while operating at a $152 million annual loss. The largest among them, the Hardy Dam on the Muskegon River, needs a multi-hundred-million-dollar spillway upgrade to comply with modern flood safety standards. All but one of the 13 dams are high-hazard, meaning a failure would likely kill people and inflict widespread property damage.
Confluence Hydro, the company set to buy the dams along with tens of thousands of surrounding acres, has vowed to modernize and relicense them to generate energy for decades to come.
In a statement Wednesday, Confluence spokesperson Natalie Joubert said the company “looks forward to continuing to demonstrate to the Michigan Public Service Commission our proven track record of success, owning and operating dozens of hydroelectric power facilities, improving their safety, increasing their sustainability, and generating clean, reliable energy for the communities we proudly serve.”
But critics are wary of the deal, arguing weak contract language and a maze-like corporate structure make it doubtful the company will uphold those vows.
Confluence, which itself is a subsidiary of Maryland-based private equity firm Hull Street Energy, proposes to further divide ownership of the dams by creating 13 of its own limited-liability subsidiaries. Company officials have described that as standard industry practice, but critics see it as a way for Hull to profit off the dams while avoiding liability for their upkeep.
Sale opponents hailed Wednesday’s ruling as a victory for Consumers ratepayers and Michigan taxpayers.
“The evidentiary record seems to support the position that the coalition has taken all along: That this sale would not be in the public interest,” said Bob Stuber, executive director of the Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition.
Hull Street has bought and sold dozens of dams and power plants across the US since its formation in 2014. More recently, the company has entered the data center business.
The Consumers sale proposal culminated years of deliberations by the utility over whether to keep, sell or remove the dams, which average 106 years old.
The company had no easy options.
Beyond being expensive to maintain, the dams are destructive to rivers, blocking fish habitat while warming the water, depleting oxygen levels and trapping sediment upstream. Many environmentalists would like to see them removed.
But in their century-plus of existence, the lake-like impoundments created by the dams have become beloved fixtures of nearby communities. Homes, marinas and campgrounds have all cropped up along their shores.
The sale plan has support from some local governments and waterfront homeowners’ associations, whose leaders see it as a way to secure the reservoirs’ future.
Sale critics include Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, state environmental and utility regulators, ratepayer advocates and outside environmental groups, all of whom contend the deal puts the public at risk.
Some argue it’s too costly for ratepayers. Others say the contract terms make it too easy for Confluence to sell or demolish the dams, parcel off the surrounding land or avoid spending money to keep the structures safe. Yet others balk at Consumers’ attempt to profit off the sale, accusing Consumers of “double dipping” on unwanted assets that ratepayers have already paid-off.
In his recommendation to the Public Service Commission, Varchetti appeared to share many of those concerns.
He wrote that Consumers has failed to prove that the sale is cheaper than keeping or decommissioning the dams and panned the company’s proposal to reap $270 million in ratepayer-funded profits off the deal.
Taken together, Varchetti wrote, the inflated power price and the proposed profit scheme would set “troubling precedent” that rewards Consumers “for shedding its own future obligations while placing substantial financial risk onto ratepayers and taxpayers.”
Consumers officials have rejected calls to add more safeguards to the sale plan, saying if regulators don’t approve the sale as-is, the utility will seek to demolish all 13 dams.
Stuber called that ultimatum “absurd,” saying he would like to see a community-based approach to decide the best course of action, dam-by-dam.
“All of these projects are unique in their own right,” Stuber said. “You have to sit down with the local community and the larger statewide community, and say what’s the best future?”
Both fans and foes of the sale plan have criticized the utility’s refusal to negotiate.
Coco Soodek, who represents the Lake Allegan Association, a pro-sale group representing landowners on the reservoir behind the Calkins Bridge Dam, called it “tin-eared” and called upon Consumers to start making concessions.
“I would like them to do this sale,” Soodek said. “But it sounds like if they want to do it, they have to be reasonable.”
If not, she said, “I don’t agree with the ALJ’s decision, but I understand it.”
By Kelly House
Bridge Michigan
Michigan should reject Consumers Energy’s plan to sell its 13 Michigan dams to an out-of-state private equity firm, an administrative law judge overseeing the proposed sale has concluded.
In a 312-page recommendation issued June 10 to state regulators who will ultimately decide whether to approve the sale, Judge James Varchetti wrote that the deal “is inconsistent with the public interest,” “highly problematic” and “unreasonable and imprudent.”
Varchetti, who has spent months gathering evidence and testimony from Consumers and interest groups that support and oppose the sale, concluded that the transaction threatens public safety and may not be the cheapest option for ratepayers.
“For a transaction involving infrastructure like major hydroelectric dams to be in the public interest, it would be a transaction that ensured the new owner is financially committed and able to meet the dam’s full lifecycle needs, thereby protecting taxpayers from assuming future liabilities such as decommissioning costs,” Varchetti wrote. “This transaction fails that test.”
The advice comes nine months after Consumers first proposed selling its aging dams in the AuSable, Grand, Kalamazoo, Manistee and Muskegon rivers to a Maryland-based private equity firm for $1 apiece, then inking a 30-year contract that would obligate the company’s 1.9 million ratepayers to buy back the power at twice the market rate, plus pay a $270 million profit to Consumers.
Spokespeople for Consumers Energy and its proposed buyer, Confluence Hydro, expressed disappointment in the recommendation but noted that it is not legally binding.
The Michigan Public Service Commission, a trio of utility regulators appointed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, is expected to decide by September whether to approve the sale.
“We believe the judge did not appropriately recognize the major benefits of the sale,” Consumers spokesperson Katie Carey said.
Arguing the deal would bring “significant cost savings” for ratepayers while “protecting the 13 communities and tens of thousands of people who depend on the dams,” Carey said Consumers officials will continue to advocate for sale approval.
All told, the deal would cost Consumers ratepayers $3.4 billion, or an average of $1,800 per person.
Consumers officials contend that’s a good deal because they would otherwise seek the MPSC’s permission to charge ratepayers billions to repair or demolish the unprofitable dams.
But critics have accused them of downplaying the risks. They fear the deal would repeat a longstanding pattern of utilities transferring unwanted dams to private owners who fail to invest in maintenance, raising the risk of dam failures while pushing repair or removal costs onto taxpayers.
The structures generate meager power while operating at a $152 million annual loss. The largest among them, the Hardy Dam on the Muskegon River, needs a multi-hundred-million-dollar spillway upgrade to comply with modern flood safety standards. All but one of the 13 dams are high-hazard, meaning a failure would likely kill people and inflict widespread property damage.
Confluence Hydro, the company set to buy the dams along with tens of thousands of surrounding acres, has vowed to modernize and relicense them to generate energy for decades to come.
In a statement Wednesday, Confluence spokesperson Natalie Joubert said the company “looks forward to continuing to demonstrate to the Michigan Public Service Commission our proven track record of success, owning and operating dozens of hydroelectric power facilities, improving their safety, increasing their sustainability, and generating clean, reliable energy for the communities we proudly serve.”
But critics are wary of the deal, arguing weak contract language and a maze-like corporate structure make it doubtful the company will uphold those vows.
Confluence, which itself is a subsidiary of Maryland-based private equity firm Hull Street Energy, proposes to further divide ownership of the dams by creating 13 of its own limited-liability subsidiaries. Company officials have described that as standard industry practice, but critics see it as a way for Hull to profit off the dams while avoiding liability for their upkeep.
Sale opponents hailed Wednesday’s ruling as a victory for Consumers ratepayers and Michigan taxpayers.
“The evidentiary record seems to support the position that the coalition has taken all along: That this sale would not be in the public interest,” said Bob Stuber, executive director of the Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition.
Hull Street has bought and sold dozens of dams and power plants across the US since its formation in 2014. More recently, the company has entered the data center business.
The Consumers sale proposal culminated years of deliberations by the utility over whether to keep, sell or remove the dams, which average 106 years old.
The company had no easy options.
Beyond being expensive to maintain, the dams are destructive to rivers, blocking fish habitat while warming the water, depleting oxygen levels and trapping sediment upstream. Many environmentalists would like to see them removed.
But in their century-plus of existence, the lake-like impoundments created by the dams have become beloved fixtures of nearby communities. Homes, marinas and campgrounds have all cropped up along their shores.
The sale plan has support from some local governments and waterfront homeowners’ associations, whose leaders see it as a way to secure the reservoirs’ future.
Sale critics include Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, state environmental and utility regulators, ratepayer advocates and outside environmental groups, all of whom contend the deal puts the public at risk.
Some argue it’s too costly for ratepayers. Others say the contract terms make it too easy for Confluence to sell or demolish the dams, parcel off the surrounding land or avoid spending money to keep the structures safe. Yet others balk at Consumers’ attempt to profit off the sale, accusing Consumers of “double dipping” on unwanted assets that ratepayers have already paid-off.
In his recommendation to the Public Service Commission, Varchetti appeared to share many of those concerns.
He wrote that Consumers has failed to prove that the sale is cheaper than keeping or decommissioning the dams and panned the company’s proposal to reap $270 million in ratepayer-funded profits off the deal.
Taken together, Varchetti wrote, the inflated power price and the proposed profit scheme would set “troubling precedent” that rewards Consumers “for shedding its own future obligations while placing substantial financial risk onto ratepayers and taxpayers.”
Consumers officials have rejected calls to add more safeguards to the sale plan, saying if regulators don’t approve the sale as-is, the utility will seek to demolish all 13 dams.
Stuber called that ultimatum “absurd,” saying he would like to see a community-based approach to decide the best course of action, dam-by-dam.
“All of these projects are unique in their own right,” Stuber said. “You have to sit down with the local community and the larger statewide community, and say what’s the best future?”
Both fans and foes of the sale plan have criticized the utility’s refusal to negotiate.
Coco Soodek, who represents the Lake Allegan Association, a pro-sale group representing landowners on the reservoir behind the Calkins Bridge Dam, called it “tin-eared” and called upon Consumers to start making concessions.
“I would like them to do this sale,” Soodek said. “But it sounds like if they want to do it, they have to be reasonable.”
If not, she said, “I don’t agree with the ALJ’s decision, but I understand it.”
Editorial: The Bias We See Frequently Begins with Ourselves
(The following editorial was previously published in The Cadillac News.)
Few accusations are as common today as the charge that the media is biased.
It is voiced in living rooms, online comment sections and conversations across the country. People on the political left believe coverage favors the right. People on the political right believe coverage favors the left. And many people in the middle feel frustrated by both.
But what if much of what we perceive as media bias is not primarily a problem with the news — but a reflection of our own assumptions, preferences, and expectations?
A 2023 study in Frontiers in Psychology found that when people were shown political bias indicators for news articles, they sometimes used the information to reinforce their prior beliefs rather than reduce bias, suggesting people may seek cues that confirm their worldview. Basically, if a reader believes a source aligns with their beliefs, they trust it more.
That idea can be uncomfortable. Yet it deserves serious consideration.
Human beings naturally interpret information through the lens of their own experiences and beliefs. Psychologists call this confirmation bias — the tendency to notice and remember information that supports what we already think, while discounting information that challenges it. It is not a moral failing. It is simply how the human brain works.
When we read or watch a news story about an issue we care deeply about — taxes, education, public safety or local government — we already have opinions. If the facts presented align with those opinions, we are likely to see the reporting as fair and accurate. If the facts conflict with our views, we may quickly conclude that the coverage is biased.
In other words, the same story can be viewed as balanced by one person and biased by another — not because the facts changed, but because the audience brought different expectations to the story.
This dynamic is especially visible in local news, where the issues are close to home and emotions can run high. A report on a zoning decision, a school policy or a law enforcement matter may feel personal. Residents may know the people involved. They may have strong feelings about the outcome. When coverage does not match their preferred narrative, it can feel unfair — even when the reporting is factual.
Likewise, people’s biases can be influenced by political leaders, social media personalities and other prominent voices. When a trusted figure repeatedly claims the news media are biased, those statements can shape how supporters interpret coverage.
Political scientist Gabriel S. Lenz examined this dynamic in his book “Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance.” His research found that voters often choose a candidate first and then adjust their policy views to align with that candidate, rather than selecting candidates based solely on policy positions.
In our own work at the Cadillac News, we have experienced this firsthand many times. We have published stories that carefully presented verified facts and included comments from both sides of an issue — only to receive criticism from people on each side claiming the article was biased in favor of the other. When both sides believe the coverage favored their opponent, it is often a sign that the reporting was balanced, even if the outcome was not what either side hoped for.
It is also important to recognize that professional journalism, particularly at the local level, is built on a discipline of verification. Responsible newsrooms work to confirm information before publishing, seek multiple perspectives and correct mistakes when they occur. That process can sometimes feel slow or cautious in an age of instant social media updates, but it exists for a reason: accuracy matters more than speed.
At the same time, journalists are human. They make judgments about what stories to cover, which facts are most relevant and how to present complex issues in limited space. Reasonable people can disagree about those decisions. But disagreement is not the same as bias.
One of the clearest signs that perceived bias often comes from the audience rather than the newsroom is this: when coverage is truly neutral, people on opposing sides frequently believe it favors the other side. Each group sees the same reporting as unfair — just in opposite directions.
That does not mean media organizations are perfect or beyond criticism. Healthy skepticism is essential in a free society. Citizens should ask questions, seek additional sources and hold journalists accountable. But we should also be willing to examine our own
assumptions before concluding that bias is the only explanation.
The responsibility for a well-informed community does not rest solely with journalists. It rests with readers, viewers and citizens as well.
It requires humility — the willingness to consider that we might not have all the facts.
It requires curiosity — the desire to understand perspectives different from our own.
And it requires patience — the discipline to wait for verified information rather than reacting to rumors or headlines alone.
In an era when trust in institutions is fragile and public discourse is often polarized, recognizing our own biases may be one of the most important steps we can take toward rebuilding confidence in information — and in one another.
The truth is, bias is not only something that exists in the media.
It exists in all of us.
And the more aware we are of that reality, the better equipped we will be to separate fact from perception — and to have more honest, productive conversations about the issues that matter most in our communities.
Few accusations are as common today as the charge that the media is biased.
It is voiced in living rooms, online comment sections and conversations across the country. People on the political left believe coverage favors the right. People on the political right believe coverage favors the left. And many people in the middle feel frustrated by both.
But what if much of what we perceive as media bias is not primarily a problem with the news — but a reflection of our own assumptions, preferences, and expectations?
A 2023 study in Frontiers in Psychology found that when people were shown political bias indicators for news articles, they sometimes used the information to reinforce their prior beliefs rather than reduce bias, suggesting people may seek cues that confirm their worldview. Basically, if a reader believes a source aligns with their beliefs, they trust it more.
That idea can be uncomfortable. Yet it deserves serious consideration.
Human beings naturally interpret information through the lens of their own experiences and beliefs. Psychologists call this confirmation bias — the tendency to notice and remember information that supports what we already think, while discounting information that challenges it. It is not a moral failing. It is simply how the human brain works.
When we read or watch a news story about an issue we care deeply about — taxes, education, public safety or local government — we already have opinions. If the facts presented align with those opinions, we are likely to see the reporting as fair and accurate. If the facts conflict with our views, we may quickly conclude that the coverage is biased.
In other words, the same story can be viewed as balanced by one person and biased by another — not because the facts changed, but because the audience brought different expectations to the story.
This dynamic is especially visible in local news, where the issues are close to home and emotions can run high. A report on a zoning decision, a school policy or a law enforcement matter may feel personal. Residents may know the people involved. They may have strong feelings about the outcome. When coverage does not match their preferred narrative, it can feel unfair — even when the reporting is factual.
Likewise, people’s biases can be influenced by political leaders, social media personalities and other prominent voices. When a trusted figure repeatedly claims the news media are biased, those statements can shape how supporters interpret coverage.
Political scientist Gabriel S. Lenz examined this dynamic in his book “Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance.” His research found that voters often choose a candidate first and then adjust their policy views to align with that candidate, rather than selecting candidates based solely on policy positions.
In our own work at the Cadillac News, we have experienced this firsthand many times. We have published stories that carefully presented verified facts and included comments from both sides of an issue — only to receive criticism from people on each side claiming the article was biased in favor of the other. When both sides believe the coverage favored their opponent, it is often a sign that the reporting was balanced, even if the outcome was not what either side hoped for.
It is also important to recognize that professional journalism, particularly at the local level, is built on a discipline of verification. Responsible newsrooms work to confirm information before publishing, seek multiple perspectives and correct mistakes when they occur. That process can sometimes feel slow or cautious in an age of instant social media updates, but it exists for a reason: accuracy matters more than speed.
At the same time, journalists are human. They make judgments about what stories to cover, which facts are most relevant and how to present complex issues in limited space. Reasonable people can disagree about those decisions. But disagreement is not the same as bias.
One of the clearest signs that perceived bias often comes from the audience rather than the newsroom is this: when coverage is truly neutral, people on opposing sides frequently believe it favors the other side. Each group sees the same reporting as unfair — just in opposite directions.
That does not mean media organizations are perfect or beyond criticism. Healthy skepticism is essential in a free society. Citizens should ask questions, seek additional sources and hold journalists accountable. But we should also be willing to examine our own
assumptions before concluding that bias is the only explanation.
The responsibility for a well-informed community does not rest solely with journalists. It rests with readers, viewers and citizens as well.
It requires humility — the willingness to consider that we might not have all the facts.
It requires curiosity — the desire to understand perspectives different from our own.
And it requires patience — the discipline to wait for verified information rather than reacting to rumors or headlines alone.
In an era when trust in institutions is fragile and public discourse is often polarized, recognizing our own biases may be one of the most important steps we can take toward rebuilding confidence in information — and in one another.
The truth is, bias is not only something that exists in the media.
It exists in all of us.
And the more aware we are of that reality, the better equipped we will be to separate fact from perception — and to have more honest, productive conversations about the issues that matter most in our communities.
