Vote Yes on Prop #1 and No on the rest.

Vote NO on ballot proposals 2-6 because the Michigan STATE CONSTITUTION would be changed....and that is NOT good.

Vote YES on 2,3, & 4. Vote NO on the rest.

There is one MAJOR factor that the letter writer forgets to mention, of all the states that have passed some kind of green energy mandate, NONE have written it into thier constituions making it nearly impossible for an elected representative body to make adjustments as the market and economics may dictate at a later date. What if an even more efficient and cost effective means of energy production appears? We will be forced by our constitution to continue throwing good money after bad into a form of energy production that could be deemed archaic within 10-15 years. technology advances at an amazing pace and this could enshrine something to be a mandate even when it is the least sensible option in the future.

Hugh, Im glad you brought up the rising costs of coal. Why has coal increased in cost? I can tell you why, and prove it too. Its ONLY becasue this particular administration has decided to wage a war against coal with massive regulations that have pushed prices up over 1000% per mega watt hour.

Electrical Producers (the power plants) negotiate contracts with the Electrical distributer (i.e. DTE) three years in advance. The negotiated price of electricity for contracts written in 2009 for delivery in 2012 are at 16$ per megawatt hour. the contracts that were written and signed this year for delivery in 2015, the price delivered is ranging from 160$ to 357$ dollars per megawatt hour. The ONLY reason for this price rise is arbitrary regulation being placed on coal plants by this administrations EPA, the same administration that vowed "electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket" The only reason green energy looks attractive is because of deliberate manipulation of the markets to pay off a politicians political contributers favored corporations. Who pays though in the end? Everybody else, especially the poor and the retired who dont have the means to make up for the increased costs.

Maureen Taylor, longtime chairperson of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, echoed Kolt’s comments and said poor and low-income families would be in jeopardy if Proposal 3 passes.

“Locking at least $12 billion into our constitution and on the backs of Michigan’s most fragile families is ill-advised, especially during these difficult economic times ....,”

You can see this is far from a utilities’ disinformation campaign as alleged. It is about real MI people.

The real weakness in this Prop 3 is that it isn't completely about improving air quality in Michigan, but it portends to do so. As an example, switching from coal to natural gas or using nuclear for electric generation is not recognized as cleaner energy under this proposal. However, from an emissions standpoint both are much cleaner than using woody biomass, which DOES receive credit under Proposal 3.

Also, for intermittent energy like wind, you have to make a double investment (another plant to follow load). This is because wind generation is not reliable (intermittent) and a large majority of the time provides its output during hours of low electric demand.

You would also have to make large investment in very costly transmission to crisscross the state to bring the wind from its source back to the load.
Send a strong message to out-of-state interests in San Fransisco and Wall Street trying to push a high-cost scheme to line their pockets at the expense of MI taxpayers.

Anonymous John: Again, 75% non-renewable is a lot of flexibility. As for coal in Michigan, the rising costs are primarily due to the increasing cost of the diesel fuel to ship it here. Public health regulations add costs, but nowhere near the fuel costs. Also, the environmental compliance costs are higher in Michigan, with old power plants that have long outlived their intended lifespans. A bet on coal in MI is a bet that oil costs will decline long term. I'm not willing to make that bet.

There are also public health and medical costs associated with coal that the utilities are allowed to shift to the health care system. Those should be included in any cost calculus. But they never are.

Your figures don't ring true because I think you have used "megawatt hours" interchangeably with "megawatt days" You assert that 2015 coal electricity prices will be in the $160 to $300-plus range per MWh. Yet the Michigan Public Service Commission reports the price of coal electricity from current plants is in the $70/MWh range, and will be $133 for a new coal plant.

Simply put, renewable electricity is cheaper than power from new coal plants would be.

Jim: Maureen's a straight shooter, but I believe she's been misled. For low income ratepayers, cheaper renewable energy that stabilizes rates with locked-in long term contracts and zero fuel costs is a better hedge than continuing with the 70% coal generation in DTE's market. What portfolio is safe with 70% investment in a risky, volatile stock?

Additionally, every residential DTE ratepayer in SE Michigan gets an immediate rate cut because Prop 3 would deskew the unfair formula that currently forces them to pay 69% of the renewable surchage even though they only use 36% of the power.

Finally, backup power for renewable systems is necessary, but not remotely on the 1:1 basis you suggest. On a regional system, energy needs are managed across the Midwest and can easily absorb Michigan's 25% with minimal cost and no disruption.

Hugh,

Thank you for your response.

Following are a few of my thoughts to your response:

1) How is it, as you suggest, that on a regional basis Michigan energy needs can “easily” be absorbed by other resources throughout the Midwest when wind is not producing? It is because we rely on production from NATURAL GAS AND COAL BASELOAD PLANTS LOCATED IN STATES UPWIND FROM MICHIGAN. (see map of Midwest electric infrastructure/MISO). This is bad for Michigan air quality;

2) During times of high eclectic usage the wind capacity factor is less than 10% (for every 100 MW of installed capacity 10 MW is actually producing). So, while measured on a 24/7/365 basis the factor is 32-35%, it doesn’t produce on days of highest electric usage by Michigan customers;

3) Reliability has been a problem in areas like Texas because of too much wind. Reliability and affordability should be major concerns, along with environment. MI needs a balanced approach - Prop 3 is slanted to investors;

4) Lastly, 34 utilities in MI that have invested in NEW wind; hydroelectric; landfill gas and geothermal will not have any of that investment recognized under Prop 3. Those utilities relied on present MI law signed by Gov. Granholm. Is it fair to these utility customers to rely on current law only to get cut off at the knees from out-of-state investors?

One thing we can agree on is that Maureen is a straight shooter. On this one she hit the bullseye!

Best,

Jim

Bring a staggering failure to be enshrined in the MI Constitution.

Only 16% of Obamas "Green Jobs" training actually lead to employment lasting longer than 6 months. We too can bring this glowing example of fraud, waste and corruption to MI by signing it into our very highest law of the land, the Constitution.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/26/audit-green-jobs-stimulus-program-wastes-cash/

The Obama administration and environmentalists need to have balance in forcing these mandates on us. In a weak economy like we have now with high unemployment and families trying to make ends meet financially, the high cost of gasoline caused in part by environmental processing restrictions have added to their problems. Those who are lucky enough to have jobs, are having difficulty paying for the high cost of getting to work. Environmental regulations need to consider the added impact they have on strained family budgets at least until the economy turns around. I see no evidence that the human cost of living factor and negative impact on the economy is ever considered when they push through their Green Agendas. Some balance is necessary.