Michigan regulators are grappling with a massive data center project that has raised concerns about cost and reliability for the state's utility customers. The proposed campus, to be built in Saline Township, is set to consume an enormous amount of electricity - approximately 1.4 gigawatts. While proponents argue that it will bring jobs and tax revenue, critics fear that they will ultimately bear the burden.
At a virtual public hearing, residents expressed their fears about being stuck with stranded costs if the project fails or operates at a fraction of its planned capacity. "Do not make us pay for it," they said, echoing concerns about higher bills and reliability issues.
The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) ultimately approved DTE Electric's special contracts for the data center, but with conditions that aim to protect customers from bearing costs tied to the project's success or failure. These conditions include making DTE responsible for unrecovered costs, requiring curtailment priority for the data center in emergency load shedding, and implementing a 19-year contract duration with an 80% minimum billing demand.
However, opponents argue that these safeguards are insufficient, pointing out that the expedited process limited their ability to test assumptions and details. They also claim that redactions and limited record-building made it difficult for independent verification of the claim that rates would not rise.
The approval of these contracts has significant implications beyond Michigan, as other states grapple with similar large-scale data center projects. The debate raises questions about transparency, accountability, and cost responsibility in the face of rapid growth in electricity demand from cloud computing.
Ultimately, the public comments left by Michigan residents have been more than just a reference to one project - they were a referendum on whether the next wave of large industrial loads will be managed with transparency and enforceable cost responsibility.
At a virtual public hearing, residents expressed their fears about being stuck with stranded costs if the project fails or operates at a fraction of its planned capacity. "Do not make us pay for it," they said, echoing concerns about higher bills and reliability issues.
The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) ultimately approved DTE Electric's special contracts for the data center, but with conditions that aim to protect customers from bearing costs tied to the project's success or failure. These conditions include making DTE responsible for unrecovered costs, requiring curtailment priority for the data center in emergency load shedding, and implementing a 19-year contract duration with an 80% minimum billing demand.
However, opponents argue that these safeguards are insufficient, pointing out that the expedited process limited their ability to test assumptions and details. They also claim that redactions and limited record-building made it difficult for independent verification of the claim that rates would not rise.
The approval of these contracts has significant implications beyond Michigan, as other states grapple with similar large-scale data center projects. The debate raises questions about transparency, accountability, and cost responsibility in the face of rapid growth in electricity demand from cloud computing.
Ultimately, the public comments left by Michigan residents have been more than just a reference to one project - they were a referendum on whether the next wave of large industrial loads will be managed with transparency and enforceable cost responsibility.
... i mean, think about it, 1.4 gigawatts of electricity just for one project? that's like, a whole town's worth of power consumption right there! and the PSC is basically saying "oh, don't worry, we got this covered" but what if they're just trying to sweep it under the rug? 
these conditions better be bulletproof or i'll be all over them on the forums 
.
The residents are right to be concerned about getting stuck with the bill if it fails or operates at half capacity. It's like, what if this project is just another example of big corporations playing a big game while regular folks get left holding the bag?
meanwhile, these conditions are supposed to 'protect' us, but I've got a sneaky feeling they're just more like "good luck with that" 