Michigan AG intervenes after Consumers Energy asks for $436M rate hike
A rate hike started in April for Consumers Energy electric customers, and the company is already well into the process of requesting an even bigger rate increase in 2026 to the tune of $436 million.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced Monday that her office filed a notice of intervention with the Michigan Public Service Commission on the pending request. Consumers Energy filed its intention to bump up the rates in 2026 on March 28, seven days after the last increase was approved, and the full application went to the agency on Monday.
If the application is approved as presented, it "would increase overall rates by 9.2% and hike household rates by 13.3%," the attorney general's report said.
A pretrial hearing on the case is scheduled for July 2.
The Consumers Energy service area includes much of mid-Michigan and part of Southeast Michigan. The company has about 1.9 million electricity customers and about 1.8 million natural gas customers.
"Without rate relief, Consumers Energy's retail electric rates will be so low as to deprive Consumers Energy of a reasonable return on the Company's property," the pending application states.
Under state law, utility companies can file a rate hike request once every 12 months.
Nessel has complained in the past about that turnaround time.
"The State is allowing these billion-dollar businesses to ask for more and more before anyone can even gauge the impact of the previous rate hike," she said. "Meaning they're back asking for more money before anybody knows if their proposed investments made any difference in reliability or affordability for customers."
The Consumers Energy electric rate hike increase for 2025 was 2.8% for residential customers, effective April 4.
The 2026 request cites "increasingly severe weather and ongoing deterioration of the system" and its goal of meeting certain revenue marks as the basis for the next increase. Consumers Energy also seeks to recover deferred distribution costs through a separate 12-month surcharge, the attorney general's office said.
"This is at least among the largest rate hikes Consumers has ever requested, if not the largest itself," Nessel said about the new filing.
Nessel's office routinely files an intervention in major utility rate cases pending with the Michigan Public Service Commission. The attorney general's staff and experts then review the applications and expenditures that are detailed in the documents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
How Ford is navigating rare earth mineral supply chain disruptions, tariffs and more
How Ford is navigating rare earth mineral supply chain disruptions, tariffs and more Show Caption Hide Caption Pony power: The iconic history of the Ford Mustang Explore the legendary journey of the Ford Mustang, from its groundbreaking debut in 1964 to its status as an enduring symbol of American automotive excellence. Ford CFO Sherry House discussed the impacts of tariffs and supply chain disruptions on the company's production and costs. House stated that Ford is working to mitigate potential production disruptions caused by export controls on rare earth minerals from China. Ford is collaborating with suppliers to explore options for moving production to the U.S. to reduce tariff exposure. Ford Motor Co.'s chief financial officer outlined how tariffs and supply chain disruptions are expected to impact Ford's vehicle production and its costs during a wide-reaching interview with a Wall Street analyst June 4. Ford CFO Sherry House said the Dearborn, Michigan-based carmaker will provide more details on the economic impact from President Donald Trump's tariffs and other policy changes in its second-quarter earnings next month. But she cautioned there are still many unknowns being sorted out, all of which could make Ford's upcoming financials "a bit lumpy," she said. "As we move into the next couple of weeks to prepare for the quarter, if we give guidance it will be in the caveats of what we can't define," House said. "If we don't, we're going to give you every piece of information that we feel we can to help you, other analysts and investors to understand the business as much as possible.' Here are the top takeaways from House's fireside chat with analyst Joe Spak at the UBS Auto and Auto Tech Conference in New York on June 4: On getting parts from out of the country House said Ford has seen some backlogs to getting rare earth minerals into the supply chain, so Spak asked how that could impact vehicle production. 'There are many components that rare earth minerals are in and many of those that are coming from China require you to now go through export controls, so there's an additional layer of administrative process that has to happen," House said. She said sometimes the components pass through smoothly, other times there are holdups and that's when Ford has to take action to mitigate any disruptions. "You have to look for alternative parts or alternative ways to get things," House said. "Frequently, it goes through, it just may take more time. So then you might be facing expedited shipment costs that you weren't anticipating and it just puts stress on a system that's highly organized with parts being ordered many weeks in advance." She said Ford has been managing the issue so far, but warned, "I don't know if at some point this is going to be a larger issue for us?" In case you missed it: Ford recall could force over 1 million drivers to use this safety technique As for Trump's latest tariff: a boost in steel and aluminum to 50%, House said the impact on Ford should be minimal because Ford buys all its aluminum from domestic suppliers and it buys 80% of steel from U.S. sources. Ford will manage any price increases in steel through "contract pricing," meaning prices have already been set. "So when all of this hits, there is a delayed impact," she said. On getting reimbursed for certain tariffs On April 29, Trump signed an executive order that set up a complicated system of federal reimbursements on certain imports of auto parts and components for the next two years used in vehicles made in the United States. The order gives Detroit's automakers some relief from what Trump earlier had ordered — 25% tariffs on all imported autos which began in April and another 25% on all imported auto parts set to begin by May 3. Spak asked House how Ford is getting the federal reimbursements for the parts that are compliant with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement as outlined in the order Trump signed at the end of April. She said a lot of that is still being defined. "I don't completely know," House said. "So you're paying the tariffs now. I think it's very possible that there will be a delay in getting those offset. I'm talking about the parts offset. It could be by a quarter, it could be by a couple of quarters. But all of you who are looking at our financials in Q2, Q3 and Q4, are going to have to know that it's going to be a bit lumpy. You might have more expense before you actually get the money reimbursed.' On getting suppliers outside the U.S. to move here The good news for Ford is 80% of the parts used on its vehicles are USMCA-compliant and 80% of the vehicles it sells in the United States are built here. Still, the automaker warned during its first-quarter earnings report that tariffs will add $1.5 billion in net costs this year. For the 20% of suppliers who import parts, House said Ford is having conversations with them, seeking ways to help mitigate Ford's exposure to tariffs and lower those costs, while also meeting the business obligations of its suppliers. 'As we face the tariff situation, we face it together," House said of Ford's suppliers. "The types of conversations we are having are around: Do you have additional capacity in the U.S.? Could you move to the U.S.? What types of investments might help you get there?' But she explained that it is "a very complex and nuanced situation" with the supply base as to which suppliers to press for changes. Ford considers the kinds of quality, cost, technology and performance a supplier has provided in the past as to how it works with them around the tariffs, she said. 'But on an individual basis we're decided whether or not it makes sense to make some of these changes," House said. "I don't have anything to announce with you right now, but, of course, you would look at some of your higher priced components first, items that affect more vehicles, that would be the order of operations.' On finding partners for EV and battery production House did not address a May 25 report in the Wall Street Journal that cited sources as saying Ford would share production space in its battery plant in Kentucky with rival Nissan. The move signals Ford's retrenchment from electric vehicle investments and it helps the Japanese automaker reduce its exposure to tariffs on imported vehicles and parts. But House did say given the "very competitive global landscape" with companies having different needs and levels of technology, it makes sense to be thinking about partnerships so as to get more efficiency, especially if it is an area where Ford does not need to be No. 1. She said the automaker is "absolutely open" to doing more partnerships than the ones it currently has in place. On changes inside Ford workplaces House joined Ford about a year ago and became its CFO in recent months. When asked how she has seen the company change culturally, she listed a few ways: First, Ford has started to put more specialists in roles as opposed to putting a really great generalist in roles. For example, when it named Liz Door as its chief supply chain officer in 2023. House called her "an amazing supply chain leader at the forefront of that thinking." House said she has challenged Ford to think about "not letting your governance define what the pace of the business is going to be." "What happens is big companies … you have weekly meetings on a topic, you have monthly meetings on topic, you have quarterly meetings on a topic. What happens when you set up your business that way is you are running to that governance structure and you're only doing the work to get ready for that weekly meeting or monthly meeting," House said. "But if you can step back and let the priorities define the pace versus the governance structure, the business define the pace, I think you can go a lot faster and you can make sure you're focused on the right things.' She said Ford also has looked to "break boundary constraints" in its strategy meetings. "If you're having meetings with just one function, a lot of times you can't break the boundary constraints because you don't have everybody in the room that can tell you can do something. So you feel like you can't," House said. "So having more cross functional meetings as well. These are all tactics that can make a difference." Jamie L. LaReau is the senior autos writer who covers Ford Motor Co. for the Detroit Free Press. Contact Jamie at jlareau@ Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. To sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber.
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
What To Know About The IRS's $4 Billion Tax Assessment On Yum! Brands
KFC Taco Bell (Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images) The IRS has assessed $4 billion in taxes, penalties, and interest on Yum! Brands. The issue stems from a tax-deferred reorganization in 2014. Yum! Brands is now suing to prevent the IRS from collecting these funds. M&A is often among the most complicated tax issues large corporations face, which can often lead to uncertainty and scrutiny from the IRS. In this article, I discuss the Yum! Brand corporation, what happened in 2014, and why they are facing such a steep tax penalty now over a decade later. Yum! Brands is the parent company of KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Habit Burger & Grill. As noted by The Washington Post, this corporation spun off from PepsiCo in 1997 to become among the largest set of restaurant chains in the United States and the world. While it currently features those three staples, the corporation has also previously held other chains, such as A&W and Long John Silvers. Yum! Brands has been known to be innovative by having combination restaurants. In these situations, customers can order from a KFC or Taco Bell (or both) at the same location. What makes Yum! Brands particularly impactful is their international appeal. As stated on the Yum! Brands website, the brands total over 61,000 locations and can be seen in 155 countries. According to CNN, KFC has blossomed to become an international staple in countries like Japan, where people often have KFC as their Christmas dinner. Yum! Brands is also no stranger to tax-related news. In early 2025, the company announced a different restructuring. While the company is famously headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky (hence, Kentucky Fried Chicken), Fortune reported that it will be relocating to Plano, TX, due to, among other things, taxes. Kentucky is a state that levies a corporate income tax (5% in 2025). Meanwhile, Texas famously has a 0% tax rate on corporate profits. Individual income tax is also not levied in Texas. Newsweek suggests that Texas has become a bit of a tax haven for new corporate headquarters such as Tesla, Toyota, Charles Schwab, Chevron, and now Yum! Brands. Prior to 2014, Yum! Brands was made up of separate legal entities based on brand and region. For example, there were separate legal entities for KFC Asia and KFC Europe. According to court filings, On November 30, 2013, Yum! Brands publicly announced a corporate reorganization. In this reorganization, the company would no longer be broken out into segments based on geography. Instead, it would focus its organization based on brands (i.e., KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut). It would also have separate divisions for China and India. The goal of this reorganization was to drive growth. To help facilitate the reorganization, the new subsidiaries issued stock in exchange for stock in the previous subsidiary. This stock for stock reorganization often falls under the Internal Revenue Code Section 368(a)(1)(B), which allows for the acquisition of a corporation solely in exchange for all or part of its voting stock. As long as all of the conditions are met, the Yum! Brand legal entities can exchange the stock without recognizing a gain on the appreciated value of the stock. The conditions for this type of reorganization are as follows: Reorganizations under Section 368 are valuable for a company like Yum! Brands because it wishes to restructure the company's organization to enhance future profits. In a normal transaction where Yum! Brands were selling its stock to another company, Yum! Brands would have a gain (or loss) on the appreciated (depreciated) value of the stock. However, Section 368 allows companies to meet certain conditions to defer the gain to a future period. Importantly, companies still have to recognize a gain on the stock's appreciated value, but this gain will not typically happen until the company ultimately disposes of it. In this case, Yum! Brands thought that the conditions under Section 368(a)(1)(B) were met, which would defer the gain, allowing the reorganization to make more sense from a financial perspective. In Yum! Brand's 2024 10-K financial statements, the company notes the following: As reported by Bloomberg Tax, this disagreement comprises over $4 billion dollars in damages: the $2.1 billion in taxes that the IRS believes Yum! Brands should have paid during their reorganization in 2014, $418 million in underpayment penalties and over $1.5 billion in interest on the money that has not yet been paid to the taxing authority. $4 billion is a large assessment for any firm. However, to put it into context, Yum! Brands in 2024 had a pre-tax income of $1.9 billion and paid income taxes of $414 million on that income. Thus, a tax bill of over $4 billion is astronomical for even a company of this size. NRN reports that the disagreement stems from Yum! Brands believe to have met all of the requirements under Section 368 for the reorganization to be tax-deferred, whereas the taxing authority believes that these matters were not all addressed and initiates billions of dollars of income by way of a sale of appreciated value of stock. NRN also reports that Yum! Brands has taken this matter to court and appeals court but was unsuccessful. In turn, Law360 reports that Yum! Brands have taken the IRS to court to sue them over the collections of this $4 billion. While the matter is still uncertain, many in the M&A tax space continue to watch this saga unfold since it represents a significant assessment being levied against some of the U.S.'s most recognizable restaurant brands.
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
The AI Paradox: When More AI Means Less Impact
Young business man with his face passing through the screen of a laptop on binary code background AI is in the news every day. On the one hand, this highlights the vertiginous speed at which the field is developing. On the other, it creates a sense saturation and angst that makes business organizations either drop the subject altogether or go at it full throttle without much discernment. Both approaches will lead to major misses in the inevitable AI-fication of business. In this article, I'll explore what happens when a business goes down the AI rabbit hole without a clear business objective and a solid grasp of the available alternatives. If you have attended any AI conference lately, chances are that, by the end, you thought your business was dangerously behind. Many of these events, even if not on purpose, can leave you with the feeling that you need to deploy AI everywhere and automate everything to catch up. If you've succumbed to this temptation, you most likely found out that is not the right move. Two years into the generative AI revolution, a counterintuitive truth is emerging from boardrooms to factory floors. Companies pursuing 100% AI automation are often seeing diminished returns, while those treating AI as one element in a broader, human-centered workflow are capturing both cost savings and competitive advantages. The obvious truth is already revealing itself: AI is just one more technology at our disposal, and just like every other new technology, everyone is trying to gain first-move advantage, which inevitably creates chaos. Those who see through and beyond said chaos are building the foundations of a successful AI-assisted business. The numbers tell a story that contradicts the automation evangelists. Three in four workers say AI tools have decreased their productivity and added to their workload, according to a recent UpWork survey of 2,500 respondents across four countries. Workers report spending more time reviewing AI-generated content and learning tool complexities than the time these tools supposedly save. Even more revealing: while 85% of company leaders are pushing workers to use AI, nearly half of employees using AI admitted they have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect. This disconnect isn't just corporate misalignment—it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI creates value. The companies winning the AI game aren't those deploying the most algorithms. They're the ones who understand that intelligent automation shouldn't rely on AI alone. Instead, successful organizations are orchestrating AI within broader process frameworks where human expertise guides strategic decisions while AI handles specific, well-defined tasks. A good AI strategy always revolves around domain experts, not the other way around. Consider how The New York Times approached AI integration. Rather than replacing journalists with AI, the newspaper introduced AI tools for editing copy, summarizing information, and generating promotional content, while maintaining strict guidelines that AI cannot draft full articles or significantly alter journalism. This measured approach preserves editorial integrity while amplifying human capabilities. AI should be integrated strategically and operationally into entire processes, not deployed as isolated solutions to be indiscriminately exploited hoping for magic. Research shows that 60% of business and IT leaders use over 26 systems in their automation efforts, and 42% cite lack of integration as a major digital transformation hurdle. The most effective AI implementations focus on task-specific applications rather than general automation. Task-specific models offer highly specialized solutions for targeted problems, making them more efficient and cost-effective than general-purpose alternatives. Harvard Business School research involving 750 Boston Consulting Group consultants revealed this precision matters enormously. While consultants using AI completed certain tasks 40% faster with higher quality, they were 19 percentage points less likely to produce correct answers on complex tasks requiring nuanced judgment. This 'jagged technological frontier' demands that organizations implement methodical test-and-learn approaches rather than wholesale AI adoption. Harvard Business Review research confirms that AI notoriously fails at capturing intangible human factors essential for real-world decision-making—ethical considerations, moral judgments, and contextual nuances that guide business success. The companies thriving in 2025 aren't choosing between humans and machines. They're building hybrid systems where AI automation is balanced with human interaction to maintain stakeholder trust and capture value that neither could achieve alone. The mantra, 'AI will replace your job,' seems to consistently reveal a timeless truth: everything that should be automated will be automated, not everything than can be automated will. The Path Forward The AI paradox isn't a failure of technology—it's a lesson in implementation strategy. Organizations that resist the allure of complete automation and instead focus on thoughtful integration, task-specific deployment, and human-AI collaboration aren't just avoiding the productivity trap. They're building sustainable competitive advantages that compound over time. The question isn't whether your organization should use AI. It's whether you'll fall into the 'more AI' trap or master the art of 'smarter AI'—where less automation actually delivers more impact.
