Pundit Monday: Data Centers, DTE, Consumers & MMOP

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 06/22/2026) Political figures are starting to come around to the issues that have voters most riled up this campaign seasons – data centers and seemingly perpetual electricity rate increases.

Who is doing the best in framing these issues, and what can the utilities do about it? Those are the subjects at the heart of this week’s Pundit Monday.

In full disclosure, John Truscott of Truscott Rossman is very active in the data center space — representing data centers that are currently operating and several that are proposed and working their way through the local processes.

Q. From a political perspective, who benefits the most from the heightened scrutiny around data centers?

A. Liano Sharon, of MISolidarity: “Progressives, leftists, farmers, environmentalists and everyday people who are concerned about the environment and our local communities. We're talking about industrial activities that have significant impacts on communities and individuals. It's a benefit to all of those people who are already there in those communities."

Andrea Bitely, of Bitely Communications: “Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Michigan’s inability to come up with a way to navigate the need for data centers to spur economic growth and development through technological growth and opportunity is essentially handing free money to our neighboring states at a time when Michigan needs jobs to keep our population from dropping further.”

“Trucker” Randy Bishop, radio host for the Your Defending Fathers radio program, said the Democrats will win unless the Republicans support private sector companies getting local approval and public buy in. They also need to support data centers being run on self-generated electricity. Excess must be used to lower electric bills for its neighbors. He also said the centers need to be on a closed-loop system that runs 52-degree round water through a geothermal cooling system.

“Whichever party adopts these ideas will win over the local municipalities and their residents to support these projects and their political party,” Bishop said.

John Truscott, CEO of Truscott Rossman: “Unfortunately, there’s a lot of misinformation surrounding data centers. From what I’ve seen, a lot of that comes from old data center projects that are nothing like the modern versions. I think the data center developers benefit most because all of the projects I’m aware of go beyond what the Senate Democrats have called for. They use less water, less energy and are committed to the local communities. However, it’s up to the backers of the different projects to convey the benefits to the individual communities.”

Q. Who is delivering the best message politically on data centers?

A. Sharon: “I'm a fan of what William Lawrence is talking about. Let's stop this. What's important, and what's necessary? It's not clear what the benefits of AI will be and what the economic benefits will be. We're in a bubble on that. Let's stop it and let's investigate whether it's in our best interests. Also, for some of these data center projects, they don't have the financing. We're being sold a pig in a poke. They're saying, 'Trust us, some time in the future, we'll make a profit.' That doesn't sound like a good plan to me."

Bitely said both sides have retreated to their corners instead of having honest conversations about what data centers mean for Michigan. The spread of misinformation has been disappointing, especially since many opponents rely on the very internet infrastructure these facilities support. At the same time, state leaders need to recognize that data centers are an economic development opportunity.

“Michigan’s leaders need to step up,” she said. “The reality is that we need state-level leaders to recognize that having the ability to process large amounts of data is a jobs boon for the state. The current hodgepodge of local moratoriums is making Michigan less competitive nationally and globally for jobs — and with recent unemployment numbers topping 5%, we really can’t handle that uncompetitive disadvantage for long.”

Bishop: “If you believe that ‘government needs to do something’ about data centers, then the Michigan State Senate Democrats based on their most recently submitted package of bills. Speaker Hall and the House Republicans better adapt the ideas presented in my above answer and start selling it."

Truscott: "The Senate Dems are really the only ones I’ve seen that have a concrete message. Most others just repeat NIMBY (not in my backyard) type arguments that aren’t rooted in the facts. My concern is the message being sent to economic developers around the country that Michigan is closed for business. Our NIMBYism has reached a point where people scream loudly enough about any project no matter what it is. For example, environmental groups have said data centers should be put on brownfield sites. The Flint Buick City property is that only brownfield in the state large enough for a data center, yet the city has voted for a moratorium. A data center there would be the biggest economic development win that region could ever secure.

Q. Has the recent public pressure against DTE and Consumers impacted their influence in Lansing?

A. Sharon: “I think it has had a certain amount of impact, but not enough. It hasn't impacted the money flow. There's not enough people who will run without their money. We want money out of politics, and representatives of the people, not the money that pays them.”

Bitely: No. DTE and CMS are Michigan’s primary energy companies and have an important voice in Lansing that can’t be ignored.

Bishop: “Absolutely.”

Truscott: “I don’t think the pressure has impacted the utilities. If anything, it shows how influential they are. It has also forced them to begin telling their story about efforts to constrain costs. In addition, it has allowed them to explain how the legislative mandates are forcing cost pressures that are being felt by their customers. This is a theme they should really embrace. You can’t run a business and keep costs in check when policymakers force you to adopt processes that dramatically increase your costs. At some point, they have to be passed along.”

Q. What is the best message the utilities and Blue Cross could deliver to stop voters from voting yes on the Money out of Politics ballot proposal, presuming it gets on the ballot?

A. Sharon: “Shut the fuck up. Everybody knows money in politics is a problem. They say, ‘We’re doing everything we can to make your rates go down?' No you're not, and you know it. You are obligated to make sure your investors are making their money, so you're lying to me. Anything you say only makes it worse.

“Unless you go to community ownership, utilities run by the communities they serve, where the people would have a real say in what a reasonable utility rate is, but they're not going to do that.”

Bitely said she believes the likelihood that the “Money Out of Politics” ballot proposal makes the ballot is slim to none.

“To start, the title of the proposal is a complete misnomer given that the group Voters Not Politicians, which is largely funded by dark money, is using their money to lead the charge,” she said. "Money is intrinsically part of politics. Money is required to pay for staff, advertising and other key functions of campaigning. The reality is that this ballot initiative will likely just create more loopholes for donations rather than changing the way that campaigns are funded.

Bishop: “Look at who has provided the money for the paid signatures to put it on the ballot and their upcoming advertising budget to get it passed. Follow the money.”

Truscott: “The most interesting thing to me about this proposal is that it prohibits the family member of an employee from making a contribution. So, for example, a DTE lineman could have a sister who has a friend running for office — but the proposal would prohibit the sister from financially supporting her friend. I think that overreach could be the best message. I would find those workers and family members to get real-life testimonials. Frankly, I don’t believe the proposal could withstand a legal challenge. How can you prohibit an uninvolved family member from exercising their right to support a friend?”