From rising utility bills to campaign finance accountability to reproductive rights, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is wading into three major legal battles — each drawing scrutiny from political opponents and support from progressive advocates.
Opposing a $436 million rate hike
Nessel is formally intervening in Consumers Energy’s latest electric rate request, which would raise household energy costs by as much as 13% starting in May 2026.
The utility says the $436 million annual increase is necessary to modernize the grid and improve reliability, but Nessel argues the hike would devastate already struggling Michiganders.
“Literally everything is concerning about this,” Nessel told Local 4 in a one-on-one interview. “They are pricing customers out of the market. We already have people who call and email us on a daily basis – to say I can’t afford to pay my electric bills now."
The proposed hike follows a $154 million increase approved just two months ago. Nessel contends that while corporate profits rise, service quality remains among the lowest in the nation.
“For Consumers Energy, they’re among the 15 worst-performing utilities out of the utilities in the entirety of the nations,” Nessel said. “So, what’s happening? Well, they ask for these continued increases and rate hikes. Their service isn’t getting any better, but you know, but their corporate profits are.”
While the Michigan Public Service Commission will ultimately decide on the request, Nessel vowed to mount a strong legal case.
“I can never predict what the public services commission is going to do, just like I can never predict what any judge is going to do,” Nessel said. “All I can do is try my hardest and be the best advocate I can be – and present the best case to the Michigan Public Services Commission that we can as to why this rate increase is unwarranted.”
Her office reports saving Michigan utility customers more than $3.7 billion through previous interventions.
Benson campaign event violates law — but no penalty imposed
Nessel is drawing criticism from Republicans for declining to penalize Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson after a gubernatorial campaign press conference was held inside a state-owned building — a location restricted by Michigan campaign finance law.
Nessel’s office determined that Benson violated the law by hosting the event in the lobby of the Richard H.
Austin Building during a stretch of extreme winter weather. But according to a formal opinion issued by the Attorney General’s Office, state law does not grant the AG the authority to impose penalties in cases involving the Secretary of State.
“We found is that while the law allows us to make a determination as to whether there’s a violation or not, the law does not permit us to do what the Secretary of State would do in this instance, which is maybe to issue a warning or to negotiate a fine – or just to negotiate a resolution to the case," said Nessel.
Critics, including Republican Sen. Aric Nesbitt, accused Nessel of letting a fellow Democrat “off the hook.” Nessel responded bluntly.
“I would say to Senator Nesbitt, ‘Do your damn job,’” said Nessel. “Pass a law that gives me the authority to be able to issue fines or to have those same negotiations that the Secretary of State would have under similar circumstances.”
Fighting coercion screening in abortion law
Nessel is also asking the Michigan Court of Claims to reconsider a portion of its May 13 ruling on abortion restrictions — specifically, its decision to uphold mandatory coercion screenings for patients seeking abortions.
The court previously struck down the 24-hour waiting period, informed consent requirements, and limits on which medical professionals can provide abortion care. But it left the coercion provision intact.
Nessel argues the requirement unfairly singles out abortion care and discriminates against women.
“Coercion screening for a woman who’s seeking an abortion, but you don’t have to have it for a woman who’s seeking to continue a pregnancy,” said Nessel. “You don’t have to have it for a man who’s seeking a vasectomy or a woman who’s seeking a tubal ligation. You’re literally singling out just this one procedure, and it’s a procedure that only impacts women and not men, makes it discriminatory.”
While pro-life groups argue that screening protects vulnerable women, Nessel contends it reflects outdated and unequal treatment.
We will continue following developments on all three legal fronts.
Watch the full interview below