In Michigan, we love the water. We know how important our river hydro plants, and the reservoirs they create, are to the people living near them. People enjoy living, working and playing on the water and in the communities that have grown up near our 13 dams. But in the next 10 years, some of our hydro operating licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), will expire. As we plan for a future of reliable, affordable clean energy we will take part in a multi-year review of all our hydroelectric plants.
Planning for the Future of River Hydro Communities
Locally Led Planning Groups
We need to continue talking about the future of our hydro plants. So we’ve developed eight local stakeholder groups. Each group will develop priorities for two scenarios. One if the dam is relicensed. A second plan if Consumers Energy exits the hydro business.
This will continue the conversations we’ve had through local meetings and surveys over the past few years. Each group was created by community-based organizations. We will collaborate with them to promote local prosperity and honor our long-term commitment to the communities around our river- based dams.
These groups began meeting in early 2024. They are likely to continue meeting through relicensing or exiting.
Manistee River Group 10/28/24 Meeting Summary
Upper Au Sable River Group 10/23/24 Meeting Summary
Middle Au Sable River Group 10/23/24 Meeting Summary
Grand River Webber Group 10/8/24 Meeting Summary
Upper Au Sable River Group 9/18/24 Meeting Summary
Grand River Webber Group 9/10/24 Meeting Summary
Muskegon River Group 9/4/24 Meeting Summary
Kalamazoo River Calkins Bridge Group 8/28/24 Meeting Summary
Presentation on Bats of the Hibernaculum at Tippy Dam 6/25/24
Mio Dam Local Prosperity Group Meeting #2
Boardman/Ottaway River Decommissioning Presentation Summary
Middle Au Sable River Group 6/27/24 Meeting Summary
Lower Au Sable River Group 6/25/24 Meeting Summary
Kalamazoo River Calkins Bridge Group 6/18/24 Meeting Summary
Muskegon River Group 6/6/24 Meeting Summary
Manistee River Group 6/3/24 Meeting Summary
Grand River Group 4/5/24 Meeting Summary
Kalamazoo River Calkins Bridge Group 4/25/24 Meeting Summary
Manistee River Group 4/8/24 Meeting Summary
Muskegon River Group 4/19/24 Meeting Summary
Upper Au Sable River Group 4/15/24 Meeting Summary
Middle Au Sable River Group 4/17/24 Meeting Summary
Lower Au Sable River Group 4/15/24 Meeting Summary
2024 First Quarter Updates
Community Meetings Recap
We would like to thank the thousands of community members, organizations, and municipal leaders who met with us at our community sessions. We listened and we heard clearly that that the reservoirs created by our dams are critically important to the residents that live there and the communities’ overall well-being. We are carefully considering the feedback that was shared with our team during those meetings.
Request for Proposals
As we continue to evaluate the future of the dams and consider all options to safely maintain the dam reservoirs, we are issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to explore the possibility of selling our 13 hydroelectric facilities. Selling the facilities is only one of many options for the future of our hydro facilities that remain in consideration. Proposals from interested participants were due on March 15, with selected participants moving through a two-stage evaluation and bidding process that should finish by the end of 2024.
RFP Instructions can be found here.
Economic Impact Studies
Consumers Energy engaged Public Sector Consultants to analyze the impacts of partial or full removal of dams on the economies surrounding its 13 river hydroelectric facilities. This work complements PSC’s ongoing efforts to assist Consumers in collecting feedback from individuals, organizations, and businesses that would be affected by dam decommissioning. The previous dam studies examined how the dams currently affect the economies of the areas in which they are situated. These economic impact studies project the potential shifts in property values and the local economy within a year of partial or full dam removal under the assumptions outlined in the reports’ methodology section.
Alcona Dam Economic Impact Study
Calkins Bridge Dam Economic Impact Study
Cooke Dam Economic Impact Study
Croton Dam Economic Impact Study
Five Channels Dam Economic Impact Study
Foote Dam Economic Impact Study
Hardy Dam Economic Impact Study
Hodenpyl Dam Economic Impact Study
Loud Dam Economic Impact Study
Rogers Dam Economic Impact Study
A Review of Current Hydro Operations
A detailed review of our 13 river hydro plants will help us choose the best path forward.
For each plant there are several potential results. It could lead to a renewal of our operating license for 30 more years. It could also lead to replacing or removal of the plant. A transfer of ownership is another possibility. During each review we will be looking at the following:
Safety
We will inspect the safety of each plant. We will also review the condition of the plant. On top of that we will review what could happen to people living downstream if a dam fails.
Complying with Regulations
We will evaluate the cost and feasibility of operating each plant safely, while meeting state and federal regulations.
Community
We will explore how each hydro plant and reservoir has affected the community and the areas around it. We will also explore how potential changes to the hydro plant could affect the community.
Cost of Operation
We will explore expected future spending for operating each plant. We will also add up the electricity we expect each plant to generate.
Environment
We will explore the impact of each plant on the environment. We will look at sediments, fish and other animals, invasive species, and other ways the plant affects the environment.
Recreation
We will review the impact of each hydro plant on local recreation.
Hardy Dam
Hardy Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Hardy Dam Map
Calkins Bridge Dam
Calkins Bridge Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Calkins Bridge Dam Map
Croton Dam
Croton Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Croton Dam Map
Webber Dam
Webber Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Webber Dam Map
Rogers Dam
Rogers Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Rogers Dam Map
Mio Dam
Mio Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Mio Dam Map
Foote Dam
Foote Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Foote Dam Map
Cooke Dam
Cooke Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Cooke Dam Map
Tippy Dam
Tippy Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Tippy Dam Map
Hodenpyl Dam
Hodenpyl Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Hodenpyl Dam Map
Alcona Dam
Alcona Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Alcona Dam Map
Loud Dam
Loud Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Loud Dam Map
Five Channels Dam
Five Channels Dam Pre-Meeting Slides
Materials Presented at the Meeting
Five Channels Dam Map
Calkins Bridge Dam
Calkins Bridge Dam Economic Contribution Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
River Hydro Community Engagement Report
Calkins Dam Meeting Presentation
Croton and Hardy Dams
Croton Hardy Meeting Presentation
River Hydro Community Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Croton Dam Economic Contribution Report
Hardy Dam Pond Economic Contribution Report
Webber Dam
Webber Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Webber Dam Economic Contribution Report
Alcona Dam
Alcona Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Alcona Dam Economic Contribution Report
Loud and Five Channel Dams
Loud Five Channels Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Loud Dam Economic Contribution Report
Five Channels Economic Contribution Report
Rogers Dam
Rogers Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Rogers Dam Economic Contribution Report
Cooke and Foote Dam
Foote/Cooke Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Foote Dam Economic Contribution Report
Cooke Dam Economic Contribution Report
Mio Dam
Mio Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Mio Dam Economic Contribution Report
Tippy Dam
Tippy Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Tippy Dam Economic Contribution Report
Hodenpyl Dam
Hodenpyl Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Hodenpyl Dam Economic Contribution Report
Virtual Meeting One
Virtual Meeting One Meeting Recording
September 12 Virtual Meeting Presentation
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
River Hydro Community Engagement Report
Virtual Meeting Two
Virtual Meeting Two Meeting Recording
Virtual Meeting Presentation
PSC River Hydro Engagement Report
Statewide Economic Contribution Analysis
Federal and State Oversight
Everyone that is involved in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process is acutely aware of how final decisions will impact river hydro communities. We are committed to holding intentional interactions with all regulatory stakeholders in this process, including the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, to advocate for the most positive outcomes for customers and other residents in these valued river hydro communities.
Questions About Hydro Planning
Many issues are addressed when considering relicensing a hydroelectric project. Issues involved include environmental, land, recreation, wildlife, water quality, and cultural and aquatic resource issues. Federal agencies, state agencies, and other interested parties engage in the process to ensure these issues are appropriately addressed, and participate in the extensive and detailed documentation, studies, reports, and meetings with the license holder. Consequently, this process takes many years.
FERC offers an education guide on the relicensing process and other comprehensive resources.
We will continue honoring the licensee arrangements that are in effect during the review of the hydroelectric operations. Also, we are the proud sponsors of several events along the rivers including the Au Sable Canoe Marathon. Our relationship to those events will continue during the review.
The review of our 13 hydroelectric facilities is a company-initiated process independent of the state task force. The Michigan Dam Safety Task Force met in 2020 and 2021 at the direction of Governor Whitmer following the May 2020 failures of the dams in mid-Michigan to evaluate:
Some of the findings and recommendations from the Michigan Dam Safety Task Force Report may influence how state agencies participate in ongoing conversations about our hydroelectric operations.
We value participation from the public and will appreciate public involvement and input throughout the review process. Information pertaining to the community conversations and the facilities review process will be shared on this page.
All feedback received about our dams will be evaluated by top decision makers at Consumers Energy, and considered as we create a plan for the future of Michigan hydro power.
The hydroelectric relicensing process has a five-year timeline. This involves the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) and subsidiaries under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to weigh in on the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The process involves the licensee, Consumers Energy, filing an informed license application with FERC to demonstrate how it will protect or enhance a hydrodam and its surrounding environment. If approved, the proposed plan is then reviewed by FERC staff. Input is given from all parties to provide final recommendations, terms, and conditions for relicensing.
The final decision on whether to relicense or decommission a facility depends upon safety, community, cost of operations, and recreational assets. Compliance with regulatory requirements is most highly considered. Regardless of what decision is made for the future of any of the 13 hydrodam facilities, physical changes to the infrastructure will not occur for many years after the decision has been made. The timeline for relicensing is handled by FERC and takes around five years. It includes the following process:
10-Years Prior to License Expiration:
5-Years Prior to License Expiration:
2-Years Prior to License Expiration:
The energy solutions that worked for the last 100 years are different from Michigan’s current and future needs. Consistent with our Clean Energy Plan—our road map to ending coal use by 2025 and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2040—we are adding more investments in renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Hydropower comprises a small, yet dependable role in our commitment to providing reliable energy generation. At one time, we owned and operated more than 90 river hydro facilities. Today, hydroelectric power at our 13 facilities generates approximately 1% of the total capacity provided by Consumers Energy. By comparison, approximately 16 wind turbines or up to 500 acres of solar can generate the same amount of energy as the 13 river hydro facilities.
Hydroelectric dams convert energy stored in the water reservoir behind the dam into kinetic energy. When water flows to the turbines it is used to spin the generator shaft. This activates the generator, which, in turn, creates electricity. Later, the water discharges from the unit back into the river.
There are three types of classifications of hazard potential identified by FERC Licensing. These classifications rate the condition of a dam and likelihood of failure. Here are the three types below:
In order for the reservoirs to be maintained, we’re considering divesting as an option. This will help minimize the cost impact to our customers. Our RFP will be structured to solicit marketing interest in transferring the current license for continued operations while allowing any interested parties to propose other scenarios. While it is true that we would not have a say in the future of the reservoir if the license is transferred, we can anticipate other scenarios that will only be considered if transferring the current license for continued operation is not cost-effective and other solutions to maintain the reservoir are unsuccessful. Today’s announcement is just a first step. As we move forward, we are committed to exploring all options to maintain the reservoirs.
The RFP process will help identify potential buyers. Our intent would be to transfer all 13 hydroelectric facilities to one buyer – such as an independent energy producer – but the RFP will be open to all qualified bidders. We intend to keep the language open in the RFP in order to allow for creative opportunities. Again, this is very early in the process, and we will learn more as we continue the evaluation.
We heard from community members and local leaders how important it is to keep the reservoir. We are committed to exploring all options for safely manufacturing these reservoirs for decades to come.
Through this RFP, we are exploring if divesting would make sense as an option that would allow for the reservoirs to remain the same while minimizing the cost impact on our customers.
As we consider bids and potential buyers, safety records and financial assurance will be our top considerations. We will not compromise our commitment to safe hydroelectric facilities in Michigan.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) also provides a set of safety and financial assurance standards that would need to be met by a new owner, ensuring the dams remain safe.