April 17, 2026 | This Week in Government: House Republicans Aim to Reduce FY27 Budget

“For too long, budgets have been built on inflated numbers that don’t reflect reality,” she said. “We’re correcting that by aligning funding with real-world spending, preventing departmental slush funds and discouraging wasteful expenditures. It’s a real budget with real dollars.”

House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, also touched on the issue at a Thursday press conference.

“Everything in this budget is actual spend,” Hall said. “Over 50% of the line items in the state budget are overfunded based on the real dollar amount spent, and that’s how you can save $2 billion in the state budget without cutting one thing.”

Indeed, three key reductions were seen across agency budgets on Thursday, including general cuts under line items like “actual operational spending adjustments.” Many agencies also saw a 50% cut to IT programs and a 5% cut in property management.

A Gongwer News Service analysis showed $206.6 million in General Fund cuts under the actual spending line items in budgets for the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of State, the Department of Civil Rights, the Department of Attorney General, the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, the Department of Treasury, the Department of State Police, the Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential, the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, the Department of Insurance and Financial Services and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

Gongwer’s analysis also showed those budgets saw $69.2 million General Fund in IT cuts and a reduction of 1,458.8 full-time equivalent employees aligned with the actual spending line items.

When asked about the cuts being proposed in the House Republican budget bills, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, was skeptical of the House GOP approach.

Anthony touched on higher education, saying deep cuts would affect tuition and housing costs for students.

“When we get into a negotiation, we’ll figure out where we land, but ultimately, we didn’t want to take the approach that we were going to cut our way to a balanced budget,” Anthony said. “We want to make sure that we’re making responsible reductions, but at the same time maintaining critical services.”

Anthony admitted that she does not listen to most of what Hall says in his comments to press or at press conferences.

“I say that because many of the things that the speaker and the House do talk about in press conferences don’t actually make it to the balance sheet or to real policy that leaves the chamber, so it’s hard for me to react to talking points,” Anthony said.

She added that she does not look at the budget in a way where there is less spending from year to year.

“I look at things from a place of what are critical services and needs of the state,” Anthony said. “Do we have the resources to meet those needs, then wherever we land in terms of what the dollar amount ends up being, that’s what I focus on.”

On the IT front, Rep. Tom Kuhn, R-Troy, chair of the House Appropriations General Government Committee, said setting up a new Digital Oversight Office within the Legislature, a $2.7 million program, would bring some information technology expertise to the legislative staff. The funds were moved out of the Department of Attorney General’s lawsuit settlement proceeds.

Although many agencies saw a 50% cut in IT, the budget for the Department of State eliminates all funding for IT services in the department. DTMB should take over those efforts, Kuhn said.

“The Department of State has shown its total ineptitude in running IT projects,” he said in an interview. “We’ve tried to motivate them to be more efficient and more competent, but it has worked. We feel these things should be run by DTMB.”

Kuhn cited the troubled rollout of the Michigan Transparency Network system, which handles campaign finance, lawmaker and candidate financial disclosure and lobbyist disclosure, as the most obvious problem.

“Anybody who uses it … it’s not effective, it doesn’t work,” he said.

Rep. William Snyder, D-Muskegon, the subcommittee’s minority vice chair, scoffed at the concept of defunding all IT work in the Department of State.

“That is in no way a realistic option of how to operate,” he said in an interview. “This isn’t about Jocelyn Benson, which is what I think some of our Republican colleagues want to make this about. Because I guarantee you, Anthony Forlini probably doesn’t want to eliminate the state IT department that oversees the secretary of state budget. That’s pretty insane to me.”

Forlini is the Republican clerk of Macomb County and his party’s nominee for secretary of state. Benson is the frontrunner for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

Snyder criticized the shift of funds from the Department of Attorney General for the new IT office in the Legislature, noting $1.4 million of those funds go to criminal trials.

“I think it’s political theater,” he said.

“One of the cardinal rules of rate making is eliminating as much, to the extent that you can, cross subsidization of rates,” Rep. Ken Borton, R-Gaylord, said.

Rep. Joey Andrews, D-St. Joseph, challenged the notion that solar and wind power were driving up energy rates.

“The diversity is good, and our current renewable portfolio standard, as passed, allows for pretty healthy nuclear mix, as well as gas with carbon capture,” he said. “That’s not to say that we can’t make our renewable portfolio standard better, but I do think we are allowing for a lot of diversity in here, and the conversation is overly focused on solar and wind.”

Rep. Kathy Schmaltz, R-Jackson, asked about the utility consumer representation fund created under the 2023 law.

“Every Michigan resident pays into this fund through their utility bill,” she said. “If the advocacy groups receiving those grants are pushing positions a ratepayer disagrees with, what recourse do they have?”

Outman said ratepayers had no recourse, which is why the Republican legislation aims to redirect the funds to the Department of Attorney General.

“Everyone is paying into that fund … that really is arguing against their own interest, and they can’t opt out, and they can’t hold anyone accountable because this group isn’t elected,” Outman said.

The bills center reliability and affordability, Wendzel said.

“That’s it. Plain. Clear. Simple,” she said. “But it also puts real weight behind grid hardening investments, with things like pole replacements, sustainable upgrades, tree trimming.”

Rep. Tonya Myers-Philips, D-Detroit, asked how the legislation would lower utility bills.

“You keep talking about reliability and affordability, and not seeing anything or hearing anything that directly talks about lowering our bills,” she said. “Ultimately, the utility companies can continue to raise our rates and come to the Public Service Commission and they can approve it.”

Outman said the mandates for clean energy were leading to utilities to pass along increased costs to ratepayers.

Wendzel said additional legislation would also tackle affordability, but this was the first step.

Dave Stevenson from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy spoke in support of the bills.

“With good intentions, past regulations have required Michigan electric suppliers to plan to close affordable, reliable coal, oil and natural gas electric generating facilities earlier than in their design lives, to be replaced by unreliable solar and wind power generation equipment,” he said.

Stevenson said since 2019, wind power in Michigan has increased to 10% of the state’s total electric generation, and solar power has increased to 3%, which is about double the previous levels.

“Over the same time, residential electric prices have increased 26%, with much of that increase caused directly by the cost of adding that wind and solar power,” he said.

Ben Paulson, director of state government affairs at the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, testified against the legislation, saying it may take cost saving measures off the table.

“These polices have been built on over time as a practical way to diversify our energy mix and protect rate payers from long-term price spikes,” he said. “Wind and solar do not have fuel cost. That means they are not subject to the global price swings that drive spikes in fossil fuel generation over time. That stability shows up in customer bills.”

Mike Alimo from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce testified supporting the bills. He said the 2023 clean energy laws were not passed with a robust stakeholder process and were grounded in ideology rather than economic reality.

“As regulators voice concern with reliability, they also note that aggressive approaches taken by state legislators risk exacerbating that problem further,” he said. “We can move the economy towards a more sustainable future while also preserving opportunity for growth. Doing so in a balanced way can actually serve as an economic driver and help move the state towards a future that is both sustainable and prosperous.”

John Liskey, of Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, testified in opposition to the bills. Liskey previously was with the attorney general’s office under Mike Cox and served as a special assistant attorney general on a contract basis under Bill Schuette.

He opposed eliminating the consumer participation board funding.

“This mechanism for fighting for ratepayers has its background back in the 70s energy crisis,” he said. “This funding mechanism for interveners has got a good 44-year history. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been saved for residential ratepayers. … Our organization focuses on affordability and reliability.”

Liskey said the funding only costs residential rate payers about $0.05 a month.

“In one of our most recent gas cases … the utility company’s request for their return on equity. They tend to ask for in the range of 10% or higher. We came in asking for 9.2%, and the Commission used our testimony to lower the request,” he said. “That alone would have saved residential ratepayers $24 million a year.”

Finally, Mike Witkowski of the Michigan Manufacturers Association, testified in support of the legislation.

“Michigan continues to compete for new investment, particularly in advanced manufacturing and other emerging technologies, Energy policy plays a critical role in our ability to compete. Manufacturers rely on reliable and affordable energy to grow invest and create more opportunities” he said. “Here in Michigan, those are decisions are directly influenced by the predictability, adaptability and cost of our energy system. House bills 5710 and 5711 address these factors directly by refocusing energy policy on reliability and affordability as the primary factors for consideration.”

No further action was taken on the bills Tuesday. Wendzel, who chairs the committee, said testimony would continue next week before the bills were taken up for a vote.