By Kennedy Maize
Michigan’s Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison have won a $383 million judgment against Toshiba in a long-running dispute over botched repairs to the 57-year-old, 2,292-MW, six water turbine Ludington Pumped Storage project on the banks of Lake Michigan. 
The massive generating project cost $327 million (in 1973 dollars) and four years to build. At the time, it was the largest pumped storage electric generating plant in the world, although it is now in sixth place. China’s Fengning Pumped Storage Power Station, commissioned in 2019 after six years of construction, now leads the pack at 3,600-MW of capacity.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a 50-year license for the Ludington project in 1969 and renewed it in 2019.
In late September, Judge F. Kay Behm of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan affirmed a $383 million jury verdict against Toshiba American Energy Systems for work refurbishing the plant between 2015 and 2019. Consumers Energy paid Toshiba some $560 million for the work.
As a report by the Bradley national law firm explains, “The contract provided that Toshiba would return the plant as nearly to new condition as possible and allow the plant to operate with a minimum 30-year service life with only minimal routine maintenance. Within a few years of reopening, the owner allegedly observed degraded metal in two of the units during a periodic inspection.”
The plant owners sued Toshiba in 2022 claiming that the plant “could only operate two of the units approximately 50 hours per year due to Toshiba’s allegedly defective work.” The utilities sought $800 million in damages.
Toshiba moved for summary judgment. Judge Behm denied the motion in August 2025, ordering a jury trial. A Michigan jury in October 2025 found for the utility owners, awarding $385 million in damages. Toshiba appealed and Behm ruled for Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison on legal grounds.
Toshiba moved to set aside the jury’s verdict, claiming the contract language ruled out a jury trial. As the Bradley analysis noted, Toshiba also claimed the jury decision “was excessive and against the weight of the evidence. Toshiba also argued that the jurors, as utility ratepayers, were not financially disinterested, and that the trial court improperly admitted certain damages evidence.” Toshiba called for a new trial.
In upholding the jury verdict, Judge Behm wrote that “the contract does not bar a jury trial and the trial was not Infected by a financially interested jury.”
As for Toshiba’s claim that the $383 million award was “excessive,” Behm agreed with the argument from the owners that the judgment “does not take into account the 2025 value of the dollars the utilities paid” to Toshiba, $837 million.
She noted, “The verdict therefore represents less than 50% of the value paid” to Toshiba. Behm added, “More importantly, (Toshiba’s) arguments seem to represent mere speculation regarding how the jury might have calculated the damages.”
The Quad Report, covering energy policy and politics
