ANN ARBOR — A state appeals court on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit by a DTE Energy–backed group seeking to remove a proposed municipal public power amendment from the Nov. 2026 General Election ballot, ensuring Ann Arbor voters will decide the measure this fall.
Court finds no law requiring clerk to reject staggered petitions
The case, filed by the Ann Arbor Responsible Energy Coalition (A2REC), named the city of Ann Arbor and City Clerk Jacqueline Beaudry, alleging that petition signatures were improperly accepted in separate batches rather than all at once. In a majority opinion from Michigan’s Fourth District Court of Appeals, Judges Brock A. Swartzle and Anica Letica wrote that state statutes do not specify whether a petition must be filed in a single submission and do not explicitly require a clerk to reject a petition that includes supplemental signatures.
The decision clears a procedural hurdle for the measure sponsored by the advocacy group Ann Arbor for Public Power (A2P2). That group’s proposed charter amendment would create a municipal electric utility and initiate a process to select its governing board beginning in 2028, one backer described as the first step toward ending DTE’s exclusive control over local electricity distribution.
"We hope DTE is done wasting ratepayer money to try to keep people from voting this November," said A2P2 Executive Director Brian Geiringer. "Ann Arborites, with their petition signatures, earned the right to choose between DTE and public power."
What the measure would require if voters approve it
If Ann Arbor voters approve the charter amendment in November, the city would be required to undertake a feasibility study to estimate the projected cost of operating a municipal utility. That study would be a necessary next step before any transfer of ownership or operations could occur; the proposed utility would operate as a department of city government if implemented.
The challenge from A2REC emphasized potential financial risks. The coalition, which received $1.8 million in funding from DTE Energy to support its campaign against the ballot question, cited an independent analysis it said estimated the cost of taking over the local grid at around $1 billion — a figure the group warned could ultimately be passed on to city residents.
- Decision: Michigan Fourth District Court of Appeals majority opinion upheld the petition process.
- Judges: Brock A. Swartzle and Anica Letica authored the majority opinion.
- Next step if measure passes: city-conducted feasibility study to assess costs and operations.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Challenger | Ann Arbor Responsible Energy Coalition (A2REC) |
| Backer of challenge | DTE Energy (provided funding to A2REC) |
| Funding cited | $1.8 million to A2REC from DTE Energy |
| Cost estimate cited by A2REC | Approximately $1 billion |
In response to the ruling, A2REC issued a statement saying the group disagrees with the court’s conclusion but respects the decision. The group has previously argued that the project’s potential cost and the fiscal implications for residents warranted keeping the measure off the ballot until legal questions were resolved.
The ruling preserves the voters’ opportunity to weigh competing views on a major change to how electricity is provided and governed in Ann Arbor. Proponents say municipal ownership could offer local control and potentially different long-term priorities for investment and renewable energy; opponents have focused on projected acquisition and transition costs and the financial risk to ratepayers.
With the petition challenge dismissed at the appeals level, campaign activity on both sides of the question is likely to intensify in the weeks ahead as the city moves toward the November ballot. The outcome of that vote would shape whether Ann Arbor proceeds with the feasibility study required to explore creating a municipal electric utility and could set a precedent for other Michigan communities considering similar steps.
The court opinion and related filings are part of the public record in Michigan’s Fourth District Court of Appeals. Additional legal options or appeals were not detailed in the majority opinion filed Thursday.
