OPINION:
Affordability is the byword of the 2026 midterm elections, and for good reason, but voters nationwide should know that daily life will keep getting more costly unless our leaders pursue free-market reforms.
Look no further than energy, where residential utility bills have skyrocketed nearly 40% since the start of the decade. My home state of Michigan illustrates the danger facing families and job creators as self-defeating statist policies become progressively more harmful.
Yet as I show in a new paper, Michigan also provides a glimpse of real reform — if policymakers in my state and others have the wisdom to see it.
People were interested in these podcasts
Michigan, like most other states, has been steadily building toward an energy disaster. For years, the state has mandated the use of wind and solar power, with clean energy goals of 80% by 2035 and 100% by 2040.
To realize this costly vision, Michigan has closed or plans to close three reliable, coal-fired power plants that generated 22% of our electricity in 2025. The state’s second-largest plant has been kept open through November under an emergency order from the Trump administration.
State mandates require our regulated utilities to offset losses by expanding wind and solar power. Yet these sources are less reliable and more expensive, driving up costs for consumers.
A separate analysis by my colleagues at the Mackinac Center found that residential electricity rates could rise by $2,700 a year, nearly tripling current costs for families already strained to the breaking point.
Curiously, a small share of Michiganders will be spared the worst. They are participating in a program known as Michigan Electric Choice, the focus of my paper.
For 24 years, this program has allowed Michigan ratepayers to purchase their power from companies outside the state’s monopoly utilities. These outside companies — “alternative electricity suppliers” — are approved by the state and free to invest in new power generation.
The program was initially open to everyone, giving consumers and job creators more competition that drives down prices. Yet after lobbying by the monopoly utilities, lawmakers limited participation to 10% of each utility’s retail sales starting in 2008.
Today, the utilities have wait lists to join the program, and no wonder: The state’s 20 alternative electricity suppliers are providing real relief.
In 2024, commercial customers enrolled in the choice program saved an average of 30%, and industrial customers saved 12%, based on my calculations. Residential customers have largely been locked out since 2008 because of the cap.
Had choice participants paid average monopoly utility rates, they would have forked over an extra $185 million in 2024.
These savings are even more remarkable, given that alternative electricity suppliers are also subject to the state’s clean energy mandates. They still offer lower rates than the monopoly utilities because the competition forces them to find efficiencies or face bankruptcy.
Yet the arbitrary 10% cap bars families who need relief from participating.
Alternative electricity suppliers are ready and willing to serve more of the state. Holtec International purchased a Michigan nuclear plant that closed in 2022 and is preparing to restart electricity generation. Wolverine Power Cooperative, an alternative supplier, has already contracted to purchase the forthcoming power and could easily sell far more net-zero-emission electricity into the choice market if the 10% cap were raised.
Raising the cap would benefit everyone, not just those who opt for other, more affordable energy providers. Michigan’s two largest regulated utilities, Consumers Energy and DTE, will likely need to invest $39 billion over the next five years to meet generation goals and regulatory requirements.
Yet if the cap were raised to 20%, I estimate they would have to spend $3.5 billion to $4 billion less, and $7 billion to $8 billion with a 30% cap. The lower expenditures would tamp down some of the coming utility bill hikes that most Michiganders will soon face.
The demand for choice is there, as other states demonstrate. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois have similar programs, but without the caps. There, participation is much higher, and electricity rates have grown by only 34% to 36% since 2008, compared with 59% in Michigan.
Today, 13 states give their residents full choice. Michigan could provide swift relief for consumers by doing the same. If all 50 states took this step, the savings — and growth — would be immense.
Choice will not end electricity price hikes. The state needs further deregulatory reforms — especially the abandonment of all net-zero mandates, which would free both the monopoly utilities and alternative suppliers to invest in 100% abundant and affordable power.
Still, the choice would put significant downward pressure on prices at a time when families are looking for help. The one thing states cannot do is nothing, because without some measure of free-market reform, voter anger over affordability will only intensify.
• David T. Stevenson is director of energy and environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.