Candidates back clean‑energy goals but differ on public power and costs

Ann Arbor Ward 2 candidates told a League of Women Voters forum they support the city's clean‑energy objectives but diverged on the pace and financial risks of taking over the electric grid.

Moderator: "A separate effort is now collecting signatures to put a full municipal electric utility on the November 2026 ballot...What is your position on each of these approaches and what do you think about the trade‑offs?"

Sandy Aldrich said the city's sustainable energy utility (SEU), an opt‑in supplemental service that launched recently, is a promising way to expand renewables without the massive financial commitment of buying the distribution system. "I think it's a great option...it’s a good foray into owning some type of a sustainable utility within the city without having this huge commitment of buying the infrastructure," she said, and urged a second feasibility study before pursuing full public ownership because of potential multihundred‑million‑dollar debt.

Tisha Montigu said she supports the city's goals to transition to cleaner energy and increase local control and resilience, but that residents deserve "clear information about costs, benefits, reliability, and implementation before major decisions are made." Both candidates also addressed the green rental housing ordinance (effective Jan. 2026), which requires rental units to meet energy‑efficiency standards at inspection. Montigu called the goals sound but urged protections so tenants do not bear the compliance cost in higher rents: "We should help property owners make improvements while protecting tenants from unintended rent increases," she said. Aldrich said energy retrofits should reduce utility bills but recommended monitoring for unintended consequences.

On the A20 plan — Ann Arbor's 2030 carbon‑neutrality target — candidates acknowledged the city is behind on some targets. Aldrich suggested exploring carbon offsets tied to the city's tree canopy and transportation measures; Montigu called for a budget review, realignment of spending and possibly another feasibility study to close gaps and protect federal funding.

No ballot measures were decided in the forum; the candidates described different risk tolerances and a shared interest in more study and resident engagement before large financial commitments.