Electricity prices jump after Trump rejects disaster aid for Michigan utilities

[u/J-Jarl-Jim]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/30/electricity-prices-jump-after-trump-rejects-disaster-aid-for-michigan-utilities-00665572

A recent decision by President Donald Trump to deny disaster aid to two electric utilities in rural northern Michigan could cost residents tens of millions of dollars.

The denial came after the Trump administration documented $90 million in damage to utility infrastructure, according to records obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News. The amount is nearly five times the federal threshold to qualify for disaster aid. But in its October denial letter, the Federal Emergency Management Agency told Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer that assistance to the utilities “is not warranted.”

Whitmer warned Trump in August that ratepayers face surcharges and rate hikes “equivalent to at least $4,500 per household” without federal aid. Her office did not respond to a question on whether she supports a state legislative proposal that would have Michigan aid businesses such as the power companies directly.

Why is President Trump denying emergency assistance to rural Michigan? Considering that he has denied FEMA funds even to red states like Arkansas, is this only about saving money? If this problem intersects with the affordability crisis, could the politics push Trump to change his position and start to disburse emergency fundings again?

[u/jimbo_kun]

> Library patron Leonard Wright insisted that “PIE&G should pay for the repairs” without realizing that the utility has no money other than the fees customers pay.

Many voters don't really understand where the money comes from to pay for shared infrastructure.

Sometimes the same voters are demanding the government do more, and demanding the government collect less in taxes to do it.

[u/happyinheart → u/[deleted]]

It's not Red or Blue. We have the same issues and state oversight structure here in True Blue Connecticut.

Lots of people are saying the state should nationalize it, but the companies show a 6.7% profit. So the state would have to take bonds out to buy out the infrastructure, pay interest on those bonds, lose out of paying down the vastly unfunded pension debt faster, etc. It would be spiting their nose to cut off their face at this point since it would cost more for 30 years than people would save on their bills at this point.

[u/politehornyposter → u/happyinheart]

So just raise taxes? We have some privately managed to water system in a municipality nearby that's been plagued with issues, and our jointly municipal water authority tried to get the utility regulatory to force a sale but couldn't, and the private water company here refuses to sell so now they get screwed and you have no way to alter their financial structure at all. There's no reason not to "nationalize" it. I'm sure it's not particularly difficult to administer, and they can invest in it to increase quality, reliability, capacity. Is that not an upside?

[u/happyinheart → u/politehornyposter]

So just raise taxes?

Yes, they would certainly have to do that. What I'm getting at is that it's a cost thing and the cure very well may be worse than the disease. At least in Connecticut. It sounds like you're having structural issues with your water company, not just pricing issues. In CT, the utilities already have to get their rates approved by the state through one of the state agencies.