OCTOBER 16, 2026 NOV. ELECTION JIM CLARK Groundcover vendor No. 139 On September 23, the Washtenaw County chapter of the League of Women Voters held an educational presentation about the Ann Arbor for Public Power (A2P2) 2026 ballot initiative, Proposal E. Prop E would create a Municipal Electric Utility board, to be populated by 2028, to research and then prepare the city to run its own utility if the people continue to support the idea. The presentation was given by Brian Geiringer, A2P2 Executive Director, and Robert Joerg, a representative of Ann Arbor Responsible Energy Coalition, a group formed in opposition to the MEU proposal. (See my article on AAREC published June 26, 2026.) The goal of the A2P2 ballot is to establish the framework for the future elected public utility governing board, which would consider and strategize about a potential future transition away from DTE Energy. This would serve as the initial, foundational step toward eventually acquiring local grid infrastructure and replacing DTE with a city-owned, renewable energy utility, provided there is support after further research. The three most important numbers highlighted by the Ann Arbor Responsible Energy Coalition regarding the proposed city takeover of the electric grid are as follows, bolded: 1 billion: AAREC's estimated amount of new long-term city debt required to acquire the power system upfront. The coalition notes this is three times what Ann Arbor spends on schools and 1.5 times the city's entire annual budget. A2P2 emphasized that the immediate November ballot initiative (Proposal E) does not authorize a grid takeover or instantly trigger debt. It only establishes an unpaid municipal utility governance board to conduct a formal, objective feasibility study. A2P2 leaders estimate that the true initial cost to buy out DTE's local poles and wires would be closer to $300 million, not $1 billion. Any long-term debt acquired for a future asset buyout would be financed through municipal revenue bonds. This debt would be paid back gradually over time through monthly utility bills — not city tax hikes — meaning it would not compete with or drain the city's general operating budget for schools, roads or emergency services. 30% to 40%: AAREC’s projected electricity rate increase starting on day one for local customers. Geiringer argued that because a public utility does not have to pay out massive multi-million dollar corporate executive salaries or guaranteed profits to private Wall Street shareholders, those overhead savings would be directly reinvested into keeping rates stable and affordable. Proponents argue that DTE continuously requests and implements its own rate increases while ranking among the worst utilities in the nation for power outages. $550 to $700: AAREC’s estimated additional annual cost per household under the new municipal system. A2P2 cites national data from the American Public Power Association showing that public power customers, on average, pay 14% less on their electric bills and experience significantly fewer power outages than customers of investor-owned utilities like DTE. The AAREC coalition utilizes these three data points as the core pillars of their "Crushing Costs" campaign against municipalization. A2P2 points out that the figures originate from a Charles River Associates (CRA) study commissioned and paid for by DTE Energy. While much of the debate surrounds the estimated $1 billion acquisition price tag to replace DTE Energy, AAREC’s non-financial concerns focus primarily on governance, operational risk and legal technicalities. AAREC emphasizes that the proposed charter amendment creates a nine-member public utility board to oversee the transition and feasibility studies, yet not a single seat requires prior utility or engineering experience. They argue that running a complex modern electric grid should not be left to an uncredentialed political board. This is probably AAREC’s weakest argument. The board that currently runs the DTE power grid consists of people with bachelors degrees in science and masters degrees in business. They aren’t running a power grid, they are running a business. And they aren’t smarter than anyone Ann Arbor could elect to run an MEU. Ann Arbor has a dense population of highly intelligent, highly educated people. Regarding this concern, consider who assembled the board that currently runs the grid. What were their qualifications? Why did they think having people with business experience was more important than having masters of electrical engineering? Maybe there wouldn’t be so many outages, maybe there would be more efficient ways to run the grid if we had actual engineers and practitioners in charge (that is, hired) instead of bankers who did some homework. Ann Arbor is capable of making good choices when it comes to something so important. Given the initiatives the city already has, it would make sense that they take charge of the system as a whole as it would remove obstacles from their path. AAREC also expresses the concern that an MEU, because it is subject to municipal standards, would result in lower pay, fewer benefits and compromised working standards for the utility’s employees. AAREC’s coalition includes local labor unions, such as the Utility Workers Union of America Local 223 and IBEW Local 252. The union will still need to protect its workers from the abuses of an employer whether it’s a corporation or a government body. That doesn’t change. The argument that taking over the power grid might lower pay and benefits and all of that is approaching it backwards. If anything, taking control away from a for-profit corporation (because they only have the stockholders in mind, not the customer, not the workers) would ensure better wages and benefits because that money is no longer going in some investor’s pocket. The chief advantage of having the power grid controlled publicly is the transparency — there is nowhere to hide the money. Further, the argument does not necessarily come back to money. It is also about control. With public power, the utility’s benefits and costs are at the whims of investors, many of whom don’t live in Ann Arbor. (Another reason to cut corporate ties — DTE takes money out of the local economy. An MEU would keep it in the community.) Ann Arbor was once known as socially liberal/fiscally conservative. Let’s make power a social issue. At the end of the day, we are going to pay some amount of money for power. Where the money goes is what this issue is coming down to. Do we want money (and the power that comes with it) to go back into our community or do we want it to go to Wall Street? Shortly after this presentation,on October 5, the city council of Ann Arbor passed a surprising resolution opposing Prop E and indicating that, according to a city press release, it “directs the City Attorney, at the appropriate time, to challenge the legality of proposal E, including its effect on the City Charter.” A major concern expressed in their resolution is that the proposed board would be able to vote to acquire DTE‘s assets, at whatever cost (presumably the $1 billion number so integral to AAREC’s arguments), without taking it back to the people for an additional vote. A2P2 has a point-by-point rebuttal of the resolution's assertions on its website, annarborpublicpower.org. “It’s false that the muni board would have independent authority to borrow money. "Our charter amendment’s borrowing clause (amendment section 7) refers explicitly to chapter 8 of the city charter, which gives City Council authority over borrowing, and specifies the types of GROUNDCOVER NEWS Power struggle! A2P2 v. AAREC on Proposal E 9 Brian Geiringer (left), A2P2 Executive Director, and Robert Joerg (right), a representative of Ann Arbor Responsible Energy Coalition presented at the League of Women Voters Sept. 23 debate. bond the city may issue and the procedures for doing so. All other Board decisions would be subject to direct Council oversight …” it states. “No funding source is needed. Proposal E carries no funding obligations.“ This rebuttal goes on to say that they might ask for a small amount of staff time to call meetings. Those interested can view the text of the resolution at: a2gov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail. aspx?ID=8259216&GUID=801820306DA1-4373-A66C5A859D34B9D6&FullText=1 and the council’s debate on YouTube by searching for “Ann Arbor City Council Meeting 10/5/26” starting at about 1:55. The takeover and upgrading/maintenance cost (which can be covered over time by the income from people paying their utility bills to the city) has been cited as the reason behind the resolution, but some say there is a more revealing additional motivator. DTE is a taxpayer in Ann Arbor. A lot of the schools depend on tax money from DTE. Losing DTE would mean losing that income. It is important to note how much political power is carried by this corporation. The purpose of DTE is not to provide power, it is to secure income for stockholders. Their horse in this race is keeping their customer base, not improving the lives of their customers. They pay taxes to the city the same way a vendor pays an entry fee to gain access to the customers at a fair. They may pay taxes that provide for the schools, but they do not care about the schools. They just want your money. Just keep that in mind while you’re doing the math — no matter how you break it down, with a privately owned utility, someone is making money just because you need heat to survive.
10 Publizr Home