Tell Michigan Regulators: Make Data Centers Pay Upfront

Serious Concerns with DTE’s proposed large load tariff -- U-22061

Dear Commissioners, Please require substantial improvements to DTE Electric's proposed large load tariff in Case U-22061 before approving it. Michigan households and small businesses should not be forced to bear any financial risks from speculative data-center business ventures.  S&P Global Ratings recently downgraded Oracle, the driver of the largest new load currently being added to our grid, to BBB -- in July 2026,  just one notch above "junk" status. That rating indicates greater vulnerability to deteriorating economic conditions. Yet DTE is planning billions of dollars in infrastructure to serve that demand while seeking discretion to accept a parent company's promise to pay and reduce the financial security required. This is a fundamental shift in utility planning -- billions in infrastructure investment tied to a few companies exposed to the same speculative market. If that market contracts, the same downturn could reduce electricity sales, weaken the companies backing payment guarantees, and depress the resale value of surplus power and capacity. Those risks compound one another, so projected market sales and corporate guarantees should not be treated as independent protections against the loss of data center demand. Even the Commission’s protections in Consumers Energy’s large-load tariff do not go far enough in this context. Requiring collateral equal to half the exit fee leaves the remainder dependent on collecting from a company that may already be unable to pay -- and the exit fee itself may not cover the infrastructure costs left behind. That potential loss should determine how much financial security the Commission requires. Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission required stronger protections in We Energies' large-customer tariffs. It set a minimum S&P rating of A−, along with additional financial-capacity requirements, to qualify to provide a parent guarantee instead of cash or a letter of credit. It also removed the utility's discretion to waive those requirements. Michigan should follow that example. At a minimum, I urge you to require: 1 Strong collateral requirements. Cash or bank letters of credit should be the default, with amounts sufficient to cover the customer's attributable unpaid infrastructure costs. Any permitted parent guarantee should meet strict, objective creditworthiness and financial-capacity standards, with ongoing monitoring and automatic replacement with stronger security when those standards are no longer met. 2 Commission oversight. Neither the amount nor the form of financial security should be left to DTE's sole discretion. Require DTE to demonstrate that each large-load customer meets the safeguards. Any exception should require Commission approval and a documented finding that other customers remain protected. 3 Exit fees covering the full remaining contract. Reject the proposed limit tied to 15 years after load ramp completion. Fees should cover all months remaining in the binding contract, including extensions, consistent with the approach required for Consumers Energy. Any mitigation should reduce costs without transferring unpaid obligations to other customers. Require binding commitments and financial security before DTE incurs substantial costs, with protection that remains sufficient as costs, demand, and creditworthiness change. Minimum payments should cover committed costs even if facilities open late or use less power than projected. DTE should also demonstrate how attributable infrastructure costs will be recovered if they outlast the contract. Please carry these protections into DTE's rate case and resource-planning decisions so that costs assigned to data-center customers are backed by a dependable means of collecting them. Thank you for considering my comment.