Consumers Energy has requested permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to push back a major flood-control upgrade at Hardy Dam on Michigan’s Muskegon River, framing the delay as necessary while it seeks approval for selling the dam and other hydroelectric facilities. In a filing dated March 16, the utility asked to postpone a long-planned $350 million replacement of the dam’s spillway until Dec. 31, 2028.
In the request, Consumers Energy contended that starting the spillway work at Hardy Dam before the outcome of the pending sale and related regulatory approvals would not be workable or appropriate. Consumers hydropower chief Adam Monroe wrote that the “requested two-year delay allows time for review and approval of the proposed sale and time for the new licensee to coordinate construction activities.”
The company’s proposed schedule shift comes after several changes to its timeline. Consumers initially pitched the project in 2022, with construction planned to begin in 2023, and later moved the start date to 2025. With its latest request, Consumers said it wants the delay extended to Dec. 31, 2028.
Under federal requirements tied to high-hazard dams, Hardy Dam is expected to be able to pass the probable maximum flood, described as the largest flood possible for the surrounding area. The filing said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently upgraded its flood estimates, and that Hardy Dam no longer meets the mark under those updated figures.
Critics of Consumers’ plan to sell Hardy Dam and 12 other dams argue that delaying the spillway replacement could heighten danger for communities downstream of the dam’s 120-foot structure and the reservoir it holds across roughly 4,000 acres. Bob Stuber, executive director of the Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition, said he did not believe Consumers should “roll the dice on” the delay, speaking against both the sale proposal and the extension request.
State officials with dam-safety oversight said the immediate risk is not as dire as opponents suggest. Luke Trumble, dam safety chief with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, said it would take “a very, very big flood,” to overwhelm the Hardy Dam under conditions described by regulators and the dam’s design constraints, while also noting that the situation remains concerning because the dam cannot pass the maximum flood standard.
The extension request is part of a broader controversy that followed Consumers’ decision last fall to pursue selling 13 dams rather than keeping them under utility operation. Consumers has said the dams, which it described as averaging more than a century old, generate about $12.9 million worth of power annually but face maintenance and repair expenses that run into hundreds of millions of dollars. State utility regulators have hesitated to allow Consumers to charge ratepayers for those costs in cases where customers may not receive direct benefit from the ongoing operation of the aging dams.
Consumers’ sale plan would transfer maintenance responsibility to Confluence Hydro, a subsidiary of the Maryland private equity firm Hull Street Energy, and would be accompanied by a 30-year contract in which Consumers would buy back the power. Under the terms described by the filing and reporting, Confluence would receive enough compensation to carry out upgrades and relicense the dams for additional decades, while Consumers would pay at a rate described as about twice the market rate.
The debate also centers on who pays for the Hardy Dam spillway work and on whether the private operator could bear the risk of delays and regulatory changes. Consumers has told regulators the Hardy Dam upgrades amount to a “critical need,” saying that without them federal regulators would likely revoke Hardy’s license and that a major flood could destroy the dam. The company also told regulators it “cannot reasonably — and will not — make the investments” unless it can charge ratepayers for the cost.
Consumers said Confluence plans to take on the spillway replacement, using money from the 30-year power contract, and spokespeople said the timing of the work depends on the approvals required before Confluence can begin. Natalie Joubert, a Confluence spokesperson, said in the reporting that when the project would start is not known because it requires federal regulatory approval, while also describing Confluence’s track record for running dam improvement projects.
While the project is on hold, Consumers said it has implemented what it described as a suite of remedial risk-reduction measures aimed at addressing flood risk. The reporting said the company lowers the water level behind the reservoir by 12 feet from November to late May, then raises levels back up before Memorial Day, which is described as the unofficial start of summer boating season.
Croton Township, which sits downstream of Hardy Dam, said it is comfortable with those measures. Supervisor Morgan Heinzman told Bridge Michigan the township was not worried about the dam and said Hardy has “survived a lot of pretty tough rains over the years,” while opposing groups said they want federal regulators to require a year-round drawdown instead until spillway capacity issues are resolved. Stuber said the coalition acknowledges that a drawdown would disrupt normal recreation at Hardy, but he argued that human safety remains paramount.
At the same time, Michigan’s attorney general has urged against certain cost protections in the proposed power contract framework. Dana Nessel’s office asked the Michigan Public Service Commission not to allow increases tied to overruns, and Nessel spokesperson Danny Wimmer said the attorney general would request a commission order for the spillway project to be completed quickly and with transparency about who pays for it.
Consumers Energy’s filing now sets up another round of review at the federal level, with regulators weighing the company’s request to extend the spillway replacement schedule while the dam-sale proposal remains under scrutiny. For downstream residents and opponents of the sale, the central concern is whether delaying compliance work creates unacceptable exposure; for Consumers and Confluence’s supporters, the delay is presented as time needed for approvals and for the future operator to coordinate the construction effort.