As Michigan residents continue to grapple with some of the highest energy bills and least reliable power grids in the nation, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Leonard has introduced an ambitious policy proposal aimed squarely at overhauling the state’s utility regulation framework. The comprehensive plan, unveiled in Lansing, is built upon a “consumer-first” philosophy that promises to fundamentally shift the balance of power away from entrenched utility monopolies and toward the everyday citizens and businesses who pay the bills. This announcement marks a pivotal moment in the gubernatorial race, establishing energy affordability and regulatory reform as a central pillar of Leonard’s campaign. By directly addressing the widespread public discontent over escalating costs and persistent service interruptions, the proposal seeks to transform a source of deep frustration into a powerful political platform, challenging the long-standing status quo that has governed Michigan’s energy sector for decades. The initiative aims to “rein in bills that are too high,” a direct and resonant message designed to capture the attention of an electorate weary of economic pressures and demanding greater accountability from their public service providers.
The Architect of the Plan
Tom Leonard’s proposal is deeply informed by his extensive experience navigating the intricate corridors of Michigan’s state government, lending a unique weight to his call for reform. Having served three terms in the Michigan House of Representatives, he possesses a granular understanding of the state’s statutory framework for utility oversight. This legislative background provides him with a detailed roadmap of the legal and procedural steps required to dismantle and rebuild a regulatory system that many believe is no longer serving the public interest. During his time as a lawmaker, he would have been directly involved in debates surrounding energy policy, gaining firsthand knowledge of the arguments and influence wielded by utility lobbyists, consumer advocates, and industrial energy users. This experience positions him not as an outside critic, but as a seasoned participant who understands the system’s internal mechanics, which his campaign presents as an essential qualification for a leader tasked with enacting such a sweeping overhaul. This familiarity with the legislative process is crucial, as any significant change to utility regulation would require navigating complex political dynamics and building a broad coalition of support within the legislature to overcome inevitable resistance from powerful incumbents.
Beyond his legislative tenure, Leonard’s current role as the leader of a major law firm’s government relations practice provides him with a contemporary and sophisticated perspective on Lansing’s political landscape. This position requires a constant immersion in the state’s regulatory environment, offering him a front-row seat to the interplay between the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), the state’s dominant utilities like DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, and the various stakeholders vying for influence. His work involves advocating for clients before government bodies, a task that demands an expert understanding of the key decision-makers and the pressure points within the system. This insider knowledge is a double-edged sword that will feature prominently in the campaign. His supporters will argue that this experience makes him uniquely equipped to challenge the established order from within, possessing the strategic acumen needed to outmaneuver entrenched interests. Conversely, political opponents will likely frame this background as evidence of him being part of the very “insider” culture he now vows to reform, potentially raising questions about his allegiances and his capacity to bring about genuine, consumer-focused change.
This dual background as both a former lawmaker and a current government relations professional forms the foundation of his strategic approach. It allows him to speak with authority on the failings of the current system while simultaneously presenting a credible vision for its reconstruction. He can point to specific legislative loopholes or regulatory blind spots that he has observed from both sides of the political process. This depth of experience enables him to craft a message that is both populist in its appeal and technically sound in its potential execution. By leveraging this unique blend of skills, Leonard aims to convince voters that he is not just another politician making empty promises but a skilled operator with the specific knowledge and determination required to take on one of the most powerful and well-funded special interest groups in the state and deliver tangible financial relief to Michigan families and businesses. This narrative of competence and insider knowledge is central to positioning himself as the most effective agent of change in the gubernatorial field.
A “Consumer-First” Philosophy
The ideological cornerstone of Tom Leonard’s proposal is the unwavering implementation of a “consumer-first” regulatory model, a phrase that signals a profound and deliberate shift in the state’s approach to overseeing public utilities. This philosophy dictates that the primary test for any proposed rate increase, infrastructure investment, or policy decision must be its direct and quantifiable benefit to the end-user. Under this model, metrics such as affordability, grid reliability, and customer service would become the paramount considerations, replacing a system that critics contend has long prioritized the financial stability and guaranteed profits of Michigan’s large, investor-owned utility companies. Leonard’s plan implicitly argues that the existing framework has allowed the interests of consumers to become secondary, a byproduct rather than the central goal of regulation. By vowing to institutionalize a consumer-first mandate, he is promising to reorient the entire regulatory apparatus, ensuring that decisions made by bodies like the Michigan Public Service Commission are fundamentally driven by the impact they will have on the public, not just on corporate balance sheets.
This “consumer-first” messaging is a strategically potent tool designed to resonate far beyond traditional party lines, tapping into a deep and widespread well of public frustration. The populist appeal of confronting powerful corporate monopolies in the name of the average citizen is a powerful narrative in a state where residents have grown increasingly vocal about the perceived failures of their utility providers. The high cost of energy is not a partisan issue; it affects every household budget, every small business’s operating costs, and every manufacturer’s bottom line. By centering his campaign on this universal economic concern, Leonard seeks to build a broad and diverse coalition of voters, attracting independents and even disillusioned Democrats who feel that the current system is unaccountable and unresponsive to their needs. This approach reframes the debate from a complex regulatory discussion into a simple, compelling story of “the people versus the powerful,” positioning Leonard as the champion for Michiganders who feel left behind by a system that seems to favor entrenched special interests.
The practical application of a “consumer-first” philosophy would likely involve several key changes to the regulatory process. It could mean introducing more rigorous scrutiny of utility spending, demanding stronger justification for capital projects before costs are passed on to customers. It might also involve empowering consumer advocacy groups with a greater voice in rate cases and other regulatory proceedings, ensuring that the public’s perspective is adequately represented. Furthermore, this approach would likely place a much heavier emphasis on performance, holding utilities financially accountable for failures to meet reliability standards, such as frequent or prolonged power outages. The ultimate goal of this philosophical shift is to create a regulatory environment where utilities are incentivized not just to spend money, but to deliver efficient, reliable, and affordable service. It is a promise to transform the MPSC from a passive arbiter of utility requests into an active and aggressive guardian of the public interest.
Pillars of the Proposed Overhaul
The term “overhaul” intentionally signals that Tom Leonard’s plan is not about incremental adjustments but about a fundamental, structural transformation of how Michigan manages its energy sector. This implies a comprehensive, top-to-bottom re-evaluation of the institutions, laws, and procedures that govern the state’s utilities. A primary focus of this reform would almost certainly be the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), the three-member body responsible for regulating energy providers. A structural overhaul could involve significant changes to the commission itself, such as altering the process by which commissioners are appointed to ensure greater independence from political and corporate influence. Proponents of such reform often argue for a more diverse range of expertise among commissioners, including backgrounds in consumer advocacy or engineering, to counterbalance the legal and economic perspectives that traditionally dominate. Moreover, the overhaul could involve rewriting the MPSC’s statutory mandate, legally obligating the commission to prioritize consumer affordability and grid reliability above all other considerations when making its decisions.
A central pillar of any modern utility overhaul is the implementation of performance-based ratemaking (PBR), a regulatory model that represents a significant departure from the traditional approach. For decades, Michigan has operated on a “cost-of-service” model, where utilities are permitted to recover their approved operating costs from customers, plus a guaranteed rate of return on their capital investments. Critics argue this system incentivizes utilities to spend more, as their profits increase with the size of their investments, regardless of whether those investments actually improve service. Performance-based ratemaking, in contrast, would decouple utility profits from spending and instead tie them to the achievement of specific, measurable performance metrics. These metrics could include reducing the frequency and duration of power outages, improving customer service response times, and effectively managing costs. Under a PBR framework, utilities that exceed their performance targets could be rewarded with financial incentives, while those that fail to meet them would face financial penalties, creating a powerful motivation to operate more efficiently and effectively. This shift would fundamentally change the dynamic between the regulator and the utility, focusing on outcomes rather than just inputs.
Navigating the Energy Transition
The introduction of this proposal coincided with the state’s complex and often contentious transition toward cleaner energy sources. Leonard’s intense focus on immediate affordability was widely seen as an implicit critique of the implementation of Michigan’s clean energy goals, suggesting that the current path was placing an undue and unsustainable financial burden on consumers. The debate had never been about the desirability of clean energy itself but rather about the pace, cost, and allocation of that cost. This proposal therefore entered the conversation by framing consumer protection as a critical component of a successful and equitable energy transition. It advocated for a re-evaluation of how large-scale renewable energy projects were funded and whether the existing regulatory framework provided sufficient oversight to prevent consumers from bearing the full financial risk of these multi-billion-dollar investments. The plan ultimately argued that the goals of affordability and sustainability were not mutually exclusive and that a smarter regulatory approach could achieve both without forcing residents to choose between a clean environment and an affordable utility bill.
