Advertisements from CARE misleading voters on Proposal 3
I for one, and simply sick and tired of the absurd, deceitful advertisement by Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison, operating in this case as the Clean Affordable Renewable Energy for Michigan Coalition, or CARE. They allege Proposal 3 will cost the state over $12 billion, costing the average household something in the neighborhood of $2600 apiece. Shame on Michigan’s utility companies for dumping upwards of $7 million on this disingenuous position.
First it bears noting that our own Public Service Commission in February stated that renewable energy was far less expensive than coal-based energy. Illinois credits its renewable energy standard as lowering electricity costs by $176 million per year.
Detroit Edison, Consumers and others spend hundreds of millions per year nursing along some of the oldest and dirtiest coal plants in the country. We also have a nuclear plant cited as one of country’s worst by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Two new fossil fuel plants and a nuclear plant will easily cost as much or more than the $12 billion cited by CARE.
CARE also assumes in its calculations that all Michigan households, businesses and factories are the same. Households use a small fraction, on average, of the use of large corporate energy users. Any increase in utility prices would be borne mostly by the heaviest users of electricity, and not by households. But what CARE really misses the point on is forgetting that the very language of Proposal 3 guarantees it will not force electricity prices to rise by more than one percent per year.
These utilities, that have demanded and received double digit price hikes this year, occasioned by a 70 percent increase in coal prices since 2008, are doing a huge public disservice by disseminating information that is false and inflammatory. Please ignore CARE, and choose a cleaner and less expensive future for Michigan.
Robert M. Gordon
Ann Arbor
Comments
Stan Hyne
Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
This proposal limits the cost to 1% a year, and the term of the proposal extended until the objective is met. Fifty years from now we may be still obligated to install more wind power. Who knows what types of problems renewables may cause, or what new technologies may be available to produce power. Even if the renewables mandated by this proposal is are good, there may be better alternatives that will not be allowed. The constitution is not the place to put an idea even if it is a good idea.
Martin Church
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
Tell that to my water bill. I use less water and I am paying more for it. Why because demand has dropped and we need to support the larger infrastructor. Same thing with energy cost. I bought a fuel effiecent e-85 flex fuel vechile, my cost per mile is higher for using this fuel than the regular fuel. As the saying goes burn me once it's mistake burn be twice and I am the reason. I am not being burned again by these liberal environmentalist who use false information and world view to demand change.
Jim Walker
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.
When the actual costs of wind, solar and other green energy sources WITHOUT subsidies is competitive with existing sources, they will become a larger part of the mix. Forcing a large percentage of renewable energies with a constitutional amendment before they become cost-competitive will be a disaster for lower income people. NO on 3. James C. Walker, Ann Arbor, MI
Robert Gordon
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 11:17 p.m.
James, taxpayers provide billions in tax support to the fully mature oil and gas industry. Those subsidies have increased nearly every year since 1916. Nuclear would never have existed without government subsidy, and in fact no reactor will ever again be built with substantial taxpayer support.
A2comments
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:58 a.m.
Vote NO to amend the constitution. YES on 1, NO on the rest.
HairyReasoner
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.
n reading the report by the MPSC it appears an effort to justify renewables. For instance, the report bases its cost for a new coal plant from and estimate for one plant that was planned in 2008 by Consumers Energy. At that time, Consumers estimated the levelized cost at $133 / Megawatt-hour. However, when Consumers updated its original estimate to reflect lower than expected costs, the commission summarily rejected the new, lower, estimate with no justification. It simply said it felt the higher price still had "merit" despite the fact the folks who did that original estimate said it was no longer valid. When looking at the next chart, I see why. They needed this higher value to show renewables as lower than coal. For example, the updated coal price (arbitrarily ignored by the MPSC) was $107 / Megawatt-hour. Wind's average price (notice they used levelized cost for a coal plant versus an average contract price for wind) was $101. When we add on the $22/Megawatt-hour being subsidized by the Federal tax credit for wind production, we see that wind is actually more expensive than coal.
Robert Gordon
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:30 p.m.
The $133 per mw price included pollution control equipment The $107 price includes no scrubbers, carbon sequestering, or any other more realistic pollution control measures. And what about the ancillary costs, such as asthma or destroyed mountains and rivers? I do not believe it realistic to believe Michigan will need no energy sources before 2025. Several coal plants are fifty years or more old. Palisades need to be closed.
HairyReasoner
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:27 a.m.
The MPSC compared the current average contract price of renewables with the levelized cost of building a new coal plant. This is an apples and oranges comparison because the levelized cost is an average cost over the entire life of the plant. Current contract prices may be lower than the levelized cost due to some current circumstance--such as the fact wind power currently receives a $22/ Megawatt-hour tax subsidy that isn't included in the contract price. It also doesn't include the increased generation reserves the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (tasked by FERC with overseeing power grid reliability) says will be needed for renewables, or the extra transmission lines, substations, and associated hardware. Most important we have to realize that if proposal 3 fails, no new power plant will be required to be built. Therefore, the real cost comparison is not between building wind and building a new coal plant. It is between sinking billions of dollars into wind generation or continuing to get our power from existing generation. Even If one later needs to be built, it will most likely be gas since utilities nationwide are moving away from coal toward gas. The comparisons to coal thrown out by the pro-proposal 3 folks is really a straw man.
HairyReasoner
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 1:08 a.m.
Before a prop 3 supporter tries to get me on a technicality, I know the report called the renewable contract prices "levelized costs" as well. However, most of the renewables were levelized over the term of the given contract, whereas the coal plant was levelized over its entire life. Therefore, the point still stands that the contract prices may be lower than if those costs were levelized over the life of the facility as was done in the case of the coal plant. My reporting it as an average contract price is an attempt at simplification to avoid confusion.
average joe
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:03 a.m.
Mr. Gordon- Exact language from the ballot proposal- "Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the energy standard. (and) Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit." The way I read this, other than the PSC, there is really nothing to stop the electric companies from raising the rates more than 1% on electricity from non-renewable energy sources as you suggest. Also, your statement -"Households use a small fraction, on average, of the use of large corporate energy users. Any increase in utility prices would be borne mostly by the heaviest users of electricity, and not by households." You are saying- So what if the big companies are the suckers that will have to pay for this proposal. Let me remind you that these companies are the real job creators, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe they get their income from the consumer. These companies will no doubt simply pass this added cost on to us. This proposal should not be included in our constitution.
Stan Hyne
Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
As I read this proposal the cost is limited to 1% a year, and the term of the proposal extended until this objective is met. So fifty years from now we may be still obligated to install more wind power. Who knows what types of problems renewables may cause, or what new technologies may be available to produce power. Even if the renewables to which this proposal is limited are good, there may be better ones that will not be covered.
HappySenior
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 8:01 p.m.
Try these articles from the right: http://www.mackinac.org/17808, Prop 3 Can't Change the Laws of Economics, No matter how badly supporters want to think it can, Posted by Jarrett Skorup http://www.mackinac.org/17658, Prop 3 Would Cost Taxpayers Billions, Posted by Michael D. LaFaive Try these articles from the left: http://bridgemi.com/2012/10/anti-prop-3-group-gets-foul-and-warnings-from-michigan-truth-squad/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=anti-prop-3-group-gets-foul-and-warnings-from-michigan-truth-squad, Phil's Column Anti-Prop 3 group gets foul and warnings from Michigan Truth Squad http://bridgemi.com/2012/10/pro-proposal-3-ads-earn-foul-from-michigan-truth-squad/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pro-proposal-3-ads-earn-foul-from-michigan-truth-squad, Pro-Proposal 3 ads earn foul from Michigan Truth Squad Short version: neither side is telling the truth. Why would anyone want this to be part of the constitution? What possible sense is there in putting this in the constitution? To me, the pro ads are bought as part of a marketing campaign by companies that sell the technology. Michigan would become their customer. I think the rational vote is No.
Robert Gordon
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.
We do not have to guess how this would affect energy prices. Most states with aggressive clean energy policies pay less than we do. Enjoy the coal based future, with 13.3% annual price hikes by DTE? Or the deaths, heart ailments, respiratory ailments tied to the burning of coal? T hen vote no.
motorcycleminer
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 7:57 p.m.
I suspect that our commentator has no problem with Matty Maroun and his cronies dumping millions in support of the unions and their bogus proposals to keep his stranglehold on US and Canadian commerece thru detroit...
Robert Gordon
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 10:09 p.m.
I have lived in Michigan most of my life, and have never seen a Constitutional Amendment ever offered before that was designed to benefit one family. NO on five and six, thank you.