Clean energy vital for some business owners to increase employment opportunities
With Proposal 3, we have a choice to invest in clean, local energy sources like wind and solar — energy that can be generated right here in our backyards and can employ our friends and neighbors instead of increasing our dependence on energy imported from other states. We send $1.7 billion a year — and the jobs that money could create — to other states for energy instead of creating clean energy here at home.
I know firsthand as a local business owner who installs clean energy systems that Proposal 3 will support Michigan businesses, create tens of thousands of jobs in our state, and give customers more control over their energy costs.
If Proposal 3 passes, I’ll be able to hire more workers and contractors to install clean energy systems and more businesses and homeowners in my community will be able to access clean, reliable energy that supports our local economy and cleans our air. Michigan businesses like mine, and thousands of workers ready to build on Michigan’s growing clean energy economy, are counting on our votes for Proposal 3 this Nov. 6. It’s a choice worth making for Michigan.
Damon Dotson
Whitmore Lake
Comments
NoSUVforMe
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.
Anyone silly enough to think that monopolies DTE and Consumers are watching out for rate payers is just being stupid. These villainous monopolies are run by reckless executives that care about bonuses and coulnd't care less that they are killing hundreds of people every year and making thousand of children sick with asthma and other diseases. A No vote is a vote for their fat bonuses and more sick children. And you'll pay more for electricity because natural gas will increase as the carbon fuel of the future. Your choice.
jcj
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 1:42 a.m.
NoSUVforMe Only an idiot would support more of Obama's failed green energy schemes! Failed Green Energy Companies Backed by President Barack Obama Beacon Power: FAIL! – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy protection in October, 2011 just a year after Obama approved a $43 million Government loan guarantee. Ecotality: FAIL! - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money and remains on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from President Obama A123 Solar: FAIL! - A123 Solar received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama's Department of Energy loan guarantees even after the Solyndra bankruptcy and is getting another $500M from Obama after a loss of $400M. UniSolar: FAIL! - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20, 2012 after laying off hundreds of workers. Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy in June , 2012 wasting millions in Obama "Stimulus" money and received abatement on taxes owed and and several tax credits. Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama and filed bankruptcy in late 2011. Ener1: FAIL! Ener1 Inc. received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant from President Obama to make electric-car batteries but filed for bankruptcy protection January 2012 And this is the type of thing YOU want voters to support? WOW!
DonBee
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
NoSUVforME - I am not, nor have I ever been paid - this is the fourth time we have had this issue. I want an apology here in AnnArbor.Com. In Spain the studies show that for every green job created in the Wind Industry, 2.2 were lost. Green Energy costs more so if you divide the number of dollars in investment by a fixed ratio (which is how the government decides how many jobs are created) of course it creates more jobs. But the reality is that we have good daily long term in state jobs in the existing power plants that will go away if this passes. We have assets that have useful life that will be decommissioned and written off the books (and increase the rates for everyone - because that is what state law says has to happen and proposal 3 does nothing to change that). Keep working to drive up the residential and small business rates sir, keep working at it. Because of the way the Michigan Electric market is structured, Ford, GM and other large companies mostly get to ignore this proposal, they can buy directly from anyone, so any rate increases land on the homeowners and small business people.
DonBee
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 6:35 p.m.
NoSUVforME - Thank you for the backhanded apology. No one can predict the future. The Energy Information Agency has predicted that the natural gas prices would be higher the next year each of the last 5 years and been wrong each time. What I can say is that the future is unknown. I can also say with certainty that the analysis of both sides documents shows a that they both decided to misrepresent the sources they used - the pro-proposal 3 people to the level that rises to an outright lie in the MEC document. You tend to toe the pro-line heavily and I really doubt you have done any research beyond - what do the talking points say. I suggest before tuesday you actually pull out the calculator and take apart these two documents, look, really look at where the numbers are coming from and also look at how the specific numbers were selected. If you are not angry with both sides for manipulated the data you are not trying hard enough. As I have said from the beginning I will help push thru laws to raise the percentage of renewables, but I can not and will not support this constitutional amendment that is only good for lawyers.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.
My apologies accusing you of cutting and pasting garbage from the CARE website. It is entirely possible that CARE cut and pasted garbage from you. How can you suggest that electric rates will go up when you don't even know - by your own admission - what gas prices will be next year, much less in 2025? Sounds like an argument for DTE and Consumer bonuses, not for rate payers.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.
So, you don't know the price of natural gas 3 years from now, much less in 2015. Don't you get it? Wind and sun are free, and they'll be free in 2025. Only an idiot would trust DTE and Consumers. They are just deceiving people so they can collect big bonuses. Uninformed people who believe their garbage will be sorry.
DonBee
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.
Sorry NoSUVforME - Had not even heard of CARE before you mentioned it. I wrote from my own experience, not from anything that anyone else did. I tore apart both sides reports - they both are full of lies and mistakes. I want an apology from you here. As to natural gas - the likely price depends - do we keep drilling for it - then the price is likely to stay in the $2 range. If the EPA and others stop natural gas drilling then it will probably be $10 or more. No one knows what the regulators will do. You sir spout the line from the hedge funds that are backing this - so the only thing I can assume is you must then by your standard be a shill and silly as well. I stand by my analysis. I did not pick up anyone's talking points, I did deep analysis on the proposal and the reports, similar to what I have done on the AAPS budget. Taking in all available materials and doing analysis, some thing that almost no one bothers to do anymore. Sometimes I wish I was paid, it would make it easier to swallow the cost increases that I will see in my bill from this proposal if it passes.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 : midnight
I read your post from a month ago. It was cut and paste from the garbage spewed by DTE and Consumers on their CARE site. So how much will we be paying for natural gas in 2025? The villainous monopolies don't care because they can pass it on to rate payers. You may be silly enough to believe and in fact repeat their garbage but anyone who trusts these devils couldn't be an independent poster, just a shill.
NoSUVforMe
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 : 12:27 a.m.
Apparently some are naive enough to believe that DTE and Consumers will do the right thing for rate payers. That would stupid. We send $2 billion a year out of state to buy coal. Coal kills 200 people a year in Michigan and causes lung related illness in tens of thousands of people, including children. For those that believe Consumers and DTE lies, what will be the cost of natural gas in 2025? What will be the cost of wind and sun? FREE! Don't believe the paid posters and their parroting of DTE and Consumers deception. Vote like your life and wallet depend on it. Say yes to Proposal 3 and no to DTE/Consumers deception and distortion.
HairyReasoner
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 : 12:01 a.m.
While I'm sure proposal 3 would help those who make money from the renewable energy systems, and will increase employment in those firms, it will not create a net increase in jobs. Consider it this way: For every dollar mandated to be spent installing a "clean energy" system, that same dollar is diverted from some other way the company or individual had planned to spend that dollar. For example, suppose the company had planned on purchasing some new equipment to increase production. That equipment can not now be bought because the money has been spent elsewhere. Hence, all that has happened is a job shift from the equipment manufacturer to the "clean energy" company. No net employment is created. Further, the employer now has spent the money and only has received an energy system it did not think worth buying if it had not been mandated. If there had been no mandate, the company would have spent the same money and would have the energy system it wanted to provide its energy needs plus it would have a piece of equipment to help it grow its business. Therefore, there is a net loss of the production of one piece of equipment to the economy.
HairyReasoner
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 : 2:40 a.m.
Here's a somewhat extreme example to illustrate the point that simply looking at the number of people employed in a given industry can not be considered an indicator of economic growth or job creation. If renewables help the economy and job growth because they employ more people, then why don't we take this one step further and hire millions of people to blow on the wind turbines to make them turn? After all, I'd bet we could provide nearly 100% employment from this one idea. We'd really have a great economy then, wouldn't we?
HairyReasoner
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.
Whoops, cut off the last part of the last sentence. I meant to conclude with the statement that the "power generated has a lower marginal value."
HairyReasoner
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 : 2:05 a.m.
NoSUVforMe, I don't think you get the economic principle. Only economical spending creates an increase in production and therefore economic growth. I'm not sure it's true coal mining and natural gas extraction require very few people, but for the sake of argument lets consider that true and consider it to require fewer people than renewable generation. Then the money spent on those extra people employed by renewable generation could have been spent on something else. In this case the economy would have produced both the cheaper electricity and the "something else." Hence, the economy would have produced more, and the jobs created by renewables can only be considered to be at the expense of the jobs that would have been created supplying the "something else"--and therefore a net employment wash, at best. Probably, the famed classical economist Frederic Bastiat explained this principle more clearly than I can. Google his essay "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen", the text of which is available free online. Note the simple example from the broken window. I would post the link, but I believe policy of this site is to hold posts with links for manual review prior to publishing them. The real question, then, becomes whether or not renewables are more economical than traditional generation. If this is really true, then why is the wind industry nearly shutting down for fear the wind production tax credit will not be renewed the end of this year? If it were really more economical, then it would still be competitive without the $22/Megawatt-hour tax credit. While wind is free the building of wind generators, the extra necessary transmission lines, substations, and high voltage equipment necessary to take the generation from the generally more distant source of generation to load centers costs much more. Also, since wind generation is generally produced more during off-peak load periods, the power generated has a lower margina
NoSUVforMe
Tue, Oct 30, 2012 : 12:39 a.m.
Bad reasoning Hairy. Renewable energy creates more jobs than either coal or natural gas. Wind and solar is free. Electric generation from wind and solar is all about equipment. Coal and natural gas has high fuel costs. Natural gas extraction requires very few people, and coal even less. With coal, the just rip the tops of mountains, requiring almost no labor. DTE and Consumers win if the can build gas plants now and charge you more and more year after year as natural gas goes up in cost. Here's a question for DTE and Consumers: Will you guarantee that you will never increase the fuel component for natural gas in your rates above 2012 levels? With renewable energy, you can make that guarantee. Vote yes for Proposal 3 and stop the energy monopolies from killing more people.
DonBee
Mon, Oct 29, 2012 : 7:51 p.m.
Mr. Dotson - Please read the proposal carefully. There is no promise that any manufacturing will happen in the state - none. There is no promise that any Michigan citizen will get a job. The promise of thousands of jobs is off set by the loss of thousands of jobs at our existing power plants. As to exporting money - who do you think will own the wind farms and solar plants? Hedge funds and private equity on Wall Street, not local businesses. So we will continue to export our funds when it is all done. Don't believe me - check out the 80% of the money that is being contributed from outside of Michigan to support the ballot proposal. Local farmers can't play - since they make biogas and the proposal specifically excludes biogas. So their methane - 16 times worse than CO2 for the environment (EPA) will either go unburned into the atmosphere or it will get burned and make nothing. The same for the work being done with sterling engines powered by cold lake water. And of course wave energy in the great lakes is right out too. Those three are not in the ballot proposal because the big hedge funds don't have a play there. Biomass - oh, yes, biomass - that thing that was delisted in MA is one of the big three winners in this proposal. The MA hearings found that biomass put out up to 10 times the mercury of coal fired power plants and higher levels of sulfur compounds that cause acid rain. The only winners in this proposal are the lawyers - since they will have lawsuits to file. Then there is the cap on rates - which is not a cap - it only says if the direct costs of renewables are higher than 1 percent a year the program is extended another year and the rate of accepting renewable slows down. So welcome to 25 percent in 2050 or 2060 if we are lucky. And because it is in the state constitution, there is no easy way to fix the problems or the court decisions. Working to create good laws is a better answer.