Advocacy News – Sept. 25, 2026
What’s happening: Energy and environmental policy were in the spotlight in Lansing this week, with lawmakers holding committee hearings during a rare session day ahead of the election.
Why it matters: From energy affordability and carbon capture to PFAS regulation and climate litigation, the decisions being debated could have significant implications for Michigan employers, consumers and the state’s communities and economic competitiveness.
Here is what we’re watching and weighing in on:
- Carbon capture moves forward: The House Energy Committee took up the House versions (House Bills 6247-6249) of carbon capture legislation aimed at giving Michigan primary permitting authority – or “primacy” – over Class VI wells used for underground carbon storage.
Our view: Carbon capture can support energy affordability, Michigan agriculture and manufacturing while advancing environmental goals. The Chamber is urging lawmakers to keep the legislation moving and send it to the Governor’s desk before year-end.
- PFAS labeling raises concerns: The Senate Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee took up Senate Bill 816, which would establish new reporting and labeling requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS. Beginning in 2029, certain covered products could not be sold in Michigan without a required label.
Our concern: As written, the legislation could create significant compliance and cost challenges for manufacturers and other businesses. The Chamber has raised concerns about the bill’s broad PFAS classification, testing and identification requirements, access to upstream chemical data, implementation timeline and the potential for a patchwork of state regulations. In a memo to lawmakers, the Chamber called for a meaningful stakeholder process focused on workable solutions rather than mandates, penalties and added litigation risk.
- Federal court dismisses Michigan climate lawsuit: A federal judge this week dismissed Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s antitrust lawsuit against BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute. The state alleged the companies conspired to suppress competition from renewable energy and electric vehicles, but U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering found Michigan lacked antitrust standing to pursue the claims, including that the connection between the alleged conduct and energy overcharges was too distant to establish proximate cause.
The bottom line: Michigan needs energy and environmental policies that are practical, durable and provide the certainty employers need to invest and grow – while protecting our natural resources and keeping energy affordable for businesses and residents.
The Chamber will continue advocating that energy and environmental policy isn’t an “either or” and that balance as these issues move forward.
For questions or more information contact Mike Alaimo.