Proposal 3: Michigan voters to decide on mandating renewable energy standards for utilities
Michigan voters on Nov. 6 will decide whether state utilities should have to derive at least 25 percent of their annual electric retail sales from clean renewable sources by 2025.
Stoupa | Dreamstime.com MLive looks at arguments on both sides of the issue as part of a series of reports on statewide ballot issues.
Supporters of Proposal 3 say it will lead to $10 billion in investments, create jobs and help the environment. Opponents say it will lead to $12 billion in costs, high electric bills for consumers and unsightly wind turbines, according to the MLive report.
Read the full report from Mlive.com: Michigan Decides 2012: Proposal 3 dictates renewable energy standards for Michigan utilities
Read the full ballot language below:
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
This proposal would:
- Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% 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% 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% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.
- Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.
Should this proposal be approved?
Comments
Jim Walker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 5:08 p.m.
If and when wind, solar, and other forms of "green" energy become competitive with current sources of energy, they should be come a larger and larger part of the mix. But not until this happens. Lower income people cannot afford wind, solar, etc. at anything like today's costs. Vote NO on 3. James C. Walker, Ann Arbor, MI
Stan Hyne
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 2:22 p.m.
At times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine ( at night) we will still want electricity. The power companies will still require enough generation to carry the entire system load. Requiring 25 % of the power by renewable sources will, by the intermittent nature of wind and solar, require HUGE investments in renewables and transmission lines to meet this objective. At this time there is already a 3 dollar a month charge for renewable energy. The idea is not feasible and even if it was should not be in the Michigan constitution.
goosenews
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 2:03 p.m.
Vote NO on 3. Plain and Simple. YES on 1 and NO on the rest.
Westfringe
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 2:39 a.m.
DTE and Consumers are not very innovative and won't push us ahead to future fuels. Change is painful but we better get on board or be left in the dust.
goosenews
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.
Whose Dust?
Dan Ezekiel
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.
This is a fine proposal that deserves our support. Every environmental initiative receives howls of outrage when it is first proposed. There are always cries that the costs will break the bank. This has been true of fuel efficiency for cars, the 10% renewable energy portfolio requirement that is already in place, the bottle deposit bill, etc., etc. Remember how the Greenbelt was going to jack up the price of homes in A2 because there would be no place left to build? Almost every kilowatt of renewable energy we use in Michigan replaces one generated from fossil fuels imported from other states or countries, mostly coal strip mined in Wyoming that pollutes the air with mercury and contributes to global warming. We have almost no control over the cost of these fuels in the future. After the sunk investment in the renewables, the fuel sources are free, so the total cost is predictable. When was the last time you heard of the environment being fouled by a huge sunlight spill or wind spill?
DonBee
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 12:47 a.m.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyQD83NLDc or http://whenwindturbinesgobad.blogspot.com/ or http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/wind/wind-turbine-starts-fire-near-tehachapi.html or lots more where those came from
LXIX
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.
Given the recent experience of weather oddities - with more projected to come, the dependance of peace errupting in the Middle East - and any troops going back there without a budget, and some fat-cat monopoly at the pump dictating the weekly family budget, I don't think it matters what the reality of the propsal is for most MI voters. It is a poorly constructed piece but just as people will vote for any lesser-evil party candidate - where's the better alternative? What about fusion? Wave and water current power? Cow flatulence? Any energy is better than none.
Kai Petainen
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
For those who read what I write on these boards... folks know I'm pro-enviro... so pro-enviro you're sick of hearing from me. Nonetheless, I have a hard time understanding this proposal. I don't understand how one could get 25% even if they tried. If you look at windpower... http://tinyurl.com/9w6zk4s Then one realizes that Michigan geographically, sucks for windpower. There are only a few spots that might be good enough to do it. You could try going into the lakes for windpower, but quite often the folks on the shore have incredibly expensive homes/cottages, and money will dominate. Take one of the best spots for wind power... it's located near the town of Pointe Aux Barques... but that's a private town for rich people and their cottages.
demistify
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.
When a wind farm was proposed at sea off Cape Cod, the Kennedys fought it bacause it would spoil the view from their compound.
Brad
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 8:28 p.m.
Since both wind and solar are not "full time" energy sources how does that affect our investment in infrastructure? Don't we wind up paying for some capacity twice since it seems like we always need enough "full time" sources to meet peak demands?
DonBee
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 12:43 a.m.
leaguebus - To do the 25% thing it would have to be 4 times larger. The environmental movement stopped the Consumers from making it larger. It already is used to optimize the energy production in Michigan. Changing the use of the existing system will mean raising prices on the rest.
DonBee
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.
Brad - MISO (the system operator) has set wind at a capacity factor of 16.8 percent - that means that we get wind resources equal to about 16.8 percent of what is installed, so if you install 100 MegaWatts you will get 16.8 MW of wind energy. So we will not pay twice, but rather several times to get to the energy demanded by this proposal and then the gas fired turbines to back it up when the wind blows too little or too much (yes wind turbines stop making power when the wind blows too fast).
leaguebus
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
The Consumers plant at Ludington that pumps water into a reservoir at night and releases during the day to make electricity was opened in the early 70"s and Consumers is going to spend $800M to increase its efficiency in the next few years. This plant works along with wind power to provide a dependable source of electricity during the peak usage periods during the day.
Robert Gordon
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 7:48 p.m.
Since 1916, oil and gas has received uninterrupted tax subsidies. Coal receives billion of dollars in hidden subsidies paid by taxpayers due to the health woes caused by burning coal. Iowa gets over 20% of its electricity from wind, and its residents pay less for power than we do in Michigan. Do not believe what CARE, Detroit Edison, or Consumers Energy tell you. Proposal 3 locks in rate hikes of no more than 1% per year due to clean energy. Note that both our large utilities have raised prices over 12% this year. Coal and natural gas prices are rising, while wind and solar prices are falling. Protect our pocketbooks and public health, and vote yes on 3.
Nancy Shiffler
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 5:22 p.m.
It's also worth noting that DTE owns a coal transportation company. They pay themselves to deliver their coal, and when the price of coal goes up, it gets passed on to their customers.
DonBee
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.
More renewable resources are good. Locking in which ones count and which ones don't in the state constitution is bad. This proposal excludes landfill and farm biogas - resources that exist and should be included. Letting the methane just drift in to the atmosphere is bad - methane is 16 times worse than CO2 according to the EPA. This proposal excludes wave power - something that the great lakes can provide with little impact. This proposal excludes geothermal - which is a very clean source of energy. If the direct cost of the renewables is higher than 1 percent in a year the program stretches out, with no ability to recover the schedule - what do we do then? Another constitutional amendment. Right now - it looks like because of this clause 25% in 2050 is closer to the the truth. There are no cap to rate increases overall, only for the direct cost of the renewables. Jobs - you say - only a requirement to encourage Michigan jobs, no requirement, because the authors know that the Constitution of the US - the commerce clause prevents that kind of preference. Overall - this is a bad way to do things. Too many flaws. Lets enact the right laws to do it right instead.
DonBee
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 10:29 a.m.
soulful - Right now it is 6 metres square of 21 percent of efficiency to make 1 Kilowatt. So for your 3 x 6 foot panel - efficiency would have to be something close to 100 percent. Please let me know when you get there. Efficiency has only moved up from 15 percent in the 1970s to 21 percent for commercial panels. Some lab results are showing 40 percent - which would mean about 3 meters square or about 30 square feet per kilowatt. You 18 square feet would be right in the edge of 100 percent. Lets also not forget that between the roof and the breaker panel at the house that about 23% of the electricity made is lost in conversion to A/C, voltage step up, etc. So a 1 Kilowatt roof system is really a 770 watt system with the losses.
Soulful Adrenaline
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 12:52 a.m.
Is geothermal viable in Mi? Like is there hot magma close enough to the surface to work something like that? How efficient is this wave power you speak of? In 25 years they should have 3'x 6' PV panels that can kick out 1kw. Now were only at 300w. Also within 25 years there should be more Tesla's coming coming out of the woodwork to void out the energy cabal.
DonBee
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.
Mr Gordon - You have not been paying attention to local employment ads have you? General Electric has one of their fastest growing groups here in SE Michigan. They were originally going to hire a couple hundred people, now they are pushing 1,000. All because Michigan has the talent they were looking for. As to the folks in Lansing, I doubt they would have any problem raising the bar on the laws they already PASSED for the current renewable portfolio standard. As to where the money is coming from, the pro-side of the proposal is getting 80% of their money from out of state, mostly hedge funds and private equity that are seeing $$$ for themselves from the ratepayers in Michigan. All of that money will leave for Wall Street. Neither side is doing themselves any favors in this one. Let's figure out what is right, avoid the lawyers and get the right laws in place.
Robert Gordon
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.
If anyone really believes our legislators, both parties of which receive healthy contributions from DTE and CMS, would ever act to put in place an aggressive clean energy policy, well. . . . And if want quality investment in Michigan by the General Electrics of the world, we need to demonstrate a long term commitment, something our legislature is nowhere near willing to do.
LXIX
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.
Force the free market to give up foreign oil? No need, see, gasoline prices are already dropping to $3. Not that marketeers would be able to manipulate fuel prices in Michigan (conservative governor) to swing voters against the idea of producing native power there, while jacking prices up to $5 in California (liberal governor). Never happen. Trust in the forever free carbon economics,
Halter
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.
Vote NO on 3...and 2, 4, 5, and 6
djm12652
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 8:23 p.m.
I agree with you...tying these proposals to our Constitution frightens me
Arboriginal
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
Head north on 27 and you'll see the wind farms. Vote YES! Let's get on with the future already!
motorcycleminer
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 9:13 p.m.
If your lucky maybe they'll put one in your back yard...