Benson’s Energy Agenda Could Save Michigan Families Billions Compared to James’ Repeal Plan

New analysis conducted by Greenline Insights and commissioned by Evergreen Action and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters modeled two key policy packages. The “expansion” scenario reflects major pieces of Benson’s policy platform: codifying comprehensive large-load protections to ensure data centers pay the full system costs they create, expanding customer-owned clean energy, and investing in home weatherization and efficiency.

The “repeal” scenario reflects James’ proposal to repeal Michigan’s 2023 clean energy laws, including the state’s clean energy, renewable energy, and energy-efficiency requirements.

Households could see nearly $3,000 in cost differences.

One agenda saves families money. The other adds billions in costs.

The modeled “expansion scenario” reflects major components of Jocelyn Benson’s energy platform and finds they could save Michigan households approximately $2.7 billion through 2040, including:

• Codifying comprehensive large-load protections that require data centers and other major new electricity users to pay the full system costs they create per SB 1047: $1.2 billion in household savings
• Expanding customer-owned clean energy: $500 million in household savings
• Expanding home weatherization and efficiency: $951 million in household savings

The largest modeled savings come from codifying comprehensive large-load protections that require data centers to cover the full costs they impose on the electric system. Benson has endorsed legislation (SB 1047) establishing these protections, providing a specific mechanism for ensuring those costs are not shifted to existing customers.

The $2.7 billion in savings does not include several potential sources of additional savings, such as on-bill savings for households with their own generation, Benson’s utility accountability measures, and the transmission and distribution costs the bill assigns to data centers. And when families spend less on energy, they have more money to spend on groceries, local businesses and other goods and services, supporting Michigan’s economy.

The repeal scenario aligns with John James’ support for repealing Michigan’s 2023 clean energy laws. That includes rollbacks of: 

• Michigan’s 100% clean energy standard
• Expanded energy-efficiency requirements
• The state’s energy storage target

Together, Greenline found that the full repeal package would add approximately $8.9 billion to Michigan household costs through 2040.

Greenline’s analysis shows that the two candidates’ energy policy directions could have significantly different consequences for Michiganders’ budgets. 

Benson-aligned policies: $2.7 billion in household savings.

James’ repeal agenda: $8.9 billion in added household costs.

Difference: $11.6 billion or $2,772 for the average Michigan household

For Michigan families already facing high energy costs, the next governor’s agenda could mean thousands of dollars in household savings or added energy.

—

Source: Greenline Insights analysis commissioned by Evergreen Action. Where both candidates state the same intended outcome, the study credits only the side that has attached a specific legislative or regulatory instrument. Otherwise, positions are encoded from stated commitments, with modeling parameters disclosed. It takes no position on any candidate or proposal. All candidate and platform characterizations in this document are those of Evergreen Action and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters alone.

Both candidates have stated that data centers should not increase electricity costs for existing customers. The data center savings modeled in the expansion scenario reflect Benson’s support for codifying specific large-load cost-allocation requirements that would require data centers to cover the full system costs they create. James has similarly stated that residents’ electricity bills should not increase because of data centers, but has not identified or endorsed an equivalent cost-allocation mechanism in his platform.

Results are modeled impacts if enacted, 2027–2040, in 2026 dollars; per-household figures are statewide averages. Full methodology is available in the underlying report.

Contributors to this report: