Renewable, clean energy is the goal that most states strive for, but should it be included in a state's constitution?
That's the question voters will answer at the polls on Nov. 6.
Michigan is among 29 states with renewable-energy policies already in place, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Public Act 295, passed in October 2008, requires 10 percent of the state's energy to come from renewable sources by 2015.
If passed, Michigan would be the only state to put a standard in its constitution.
Opponents such as Consumers Energy and DTE say the move will cost too much money and that many smaller utilities may have trouble generating the 25 percent required to meet the new standard.
The proponents biggest argument is that the standard will create jobs in Michigan.
The following language for proposal 12-3 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
- Require electric utilities to provide at least 25 percent of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025
- Limit to not more than 1 percent per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard
- Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25 percent standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1 percent limit
- Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents
If you vote:
Yes – If voters vote "Yes," the Michigan Constitution would be amended to require 25 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2025.
No – If voters vote "No," Michigan utility companies would not be required to provide 25 percent of electricity sales from renewable energy sources by 2025.
"Proposal 3: The Renewable Energy Standard. VOTE YES. This is the "25 by 25" proposal to require electric utilities to provide at least a quarter of all their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable sources — wind, solar, biomass and hydropower. The utilities are screaming that this is impossible, that it will lead to energy shortages and/or massively spiraling costs, etc., etc. They sound, in other words, like the auto companies did when it was first proposed they should be required to make cars that got more than eight miles to the gallon. Now, it is true that unforeseen things can happen. It is also true that you can't legislate progress. But reputable environmentalists agree that this is achievable. Plus, the utilities don't want to admit this, but there is an escape clause. Not only would they be allowed to charge 1 percent a year in rate increases to achieve the standard, the law would allow them to put off the deadline if necessary to avoid higher rate increases. It isn't clear who would decide if that was necessary — possibly, the state. Setting a renewable energy standard is also something that ought to have been addressed as a simple law, rather than as part of our constitution. But environmentally speaking, it is worth a yes." by Jack Lessenberry
According to the Michigan Public Service Commission’s 2012 analysis of 2011 prices and projections, the costs per megawatt hour (MWh) for Michigan electricity are: -- New coal, $107 to $133 (the lower is the utilities’ estimate, the higher, the PSC’s) -- New renewable: $94 -- 2011 20-year wind contracts net yet figured in the analysis: $61-$64. It’s all here: http://1.usa.gov/xpHFHb The most recent contract, in Holland, ranges from $45 to $61. That’s a 10-year guaranteed price – certainty that coal with its fluctuations can not provide.
--- Michigan has one of the nation’s oldest fleet of coal fired power plants and they produce about 60 percent of our electricity. One utility has already announced intended closures and the other will soon. If health and environmental regulations are more stringent, they’ll come off line faster. But even absent that, their sheer age and maintenance costs – and significantly the price of coal (2x price increase in 6 years, primarily due to diesel fuel costs to move it here) – will necessitate their closure. We need to replace that generation. We do that with new generation – whether it’s renewable or not – so we compare the price of new vs new. The CARE ads and their study misleadingly compares NEW renewables to fully depreciated OLD coal generation. Proposal 3 works on purely an economic level. The environmental and public health gains are harder to quantify, in cost, but they are significant. And the utilities are allowed to avoid those costs, passing them on to health care premiums and pollution cleanup. I guess that’s technically not a “subsidy,” but it sure feels like one.
As for some of the other comments, politics this years seems more crazy than usual. Name calling? Really people? Grow up! We can each have our opinions. I will probably vote no on most things not because I don't think that energy sources need improvement, I do NOT feel that amending our constitution is the way to do it. I try to be as conservative as possible. I can't afford an electric car (well I could with other sacrifices) but I can easily afford a car with better gas milage. I try to make smarter decisions and less of a negative impact. One would hope that the utilitiy companies do research and development for cleaner energy. We are trashing this planet and they should have an obligation to do more. Amend the constitution to do so?...No, I'm not really on board with that.
On a level playing field, there is only one source of energy production that can beat coal and thats nuclear. Maintenance and Operating costs of coal are far lower than any green, even the old outdated fleet of coal plants you cite. I still contend, and you have no reasonable response for, DTE does not care where its energy is coming from. All they care about is its the least expensive option they can purchase from any producer. If green is cheaper, it will win in the competitive market making it unnecessary to enshrine its FORCEDE use in the Constitution.
“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 …..,” said Taylor, whose organization represents more than 277,000 families across the state. You can see this is far from a utilities’ disinformation campaign as alleged. It is about real MI people. 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 does not provide output during hours of high electric demand. Another major issue of Prop 3 is that for over 30 MI based utilities (including Wyandotte) their investment in NEW hydroelectric, NEW wind, NEW geothermal, and NEW landfill gas is NOT recognized under Prop 3. These 30 utilities relied on Michigan’s current renewable law, and now their customers will be punished. Is that just or fair? Absolutely not, it will drive up energy rates in these communities, and cause job providers to leave. Together we can send a strong message to out-of-state interests in San Francisco and Wall Street hedge fund managers trying to push a high-cost scheme to line their pockets with $$ at the expense of MI taxpayers.
There’s a REASON we don’t see Articles such as “Candle manufacturers must develop candles to burn 25% less wax by 1849…” or “Horse breeders must cross breed their horses to run 25% faster by 1849…” in the Constitution to begin with! Yes, these are exaggerated examples, but the point is that they are not the basic god given/born with/self evident rights of the people or an appropriate structure/function of the government. These Proposals have to do with public policy, which should go to the Legislature. There’s a REASON we elect them to uphold, protect & put forth our interests. One of them is the amount of time, effort & research it takes to create sound & beneficial policy. A bullet point description of a Constitutional Amendment is just not enough to address the impact of any of these Proposals. Hence, again, the purpose of the legislative branch to begin with. Pros & Cons are presented, weighed, voiced & a vote takes place. You’re not going to give it justice in 30-second political ads or the highlights of the evening news.
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/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgN1n4YOIZQ&feature=relmfu for my full presentation on renewables. Kevon Martis Director www.iiccusa.org
I like renewable energy, but this is a bad idea, just like all the others.