Positive outcomes of Proposal 3 outweigh any negative attention it receives
Nov. 6 is shaping up to be one of the most exciting elections in recent memory, particularly for Michigan voters. A "Yes" vote on Proposal 3, which will require utility companies by 2025 to derive 25 percent of their retail sales of energy from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, will result in a tremendous win for businesses and all citizens of "Pure Michigan."
As a 25-year veteran of the transportation industry, employed as a manager for Metro Delivery, a same-day delivery company of 60 employees operating in Southeast Michigan, I've had unique opportunities to travel all over our beautiful state. I've talked with thousands of Michigan residents from all walks of life, from patients receiving home health care, receptionists and warehouse workers, all the way up to CEOS and business leaders in any industry you can imagine. We share these issues: we recognize Michigan desperately needs to find new ways to generate jobs and revenue with the changing times, and we have an appreciation and concern for the precious nature of our waterways and lakes.
Both issues are imperiled by the sustained assault wrought by our outmoded energy choices. Michigan sends $1.7 billion out of our state annually to import coal, which furnishes 60 percent of our current energy. And our coal plants belch out so many toxins that pretty much every fish from inland lakes and streams is so contaminated with deadly mercury and other impurities that you can't eat them more than once a month, and cancer-causing chemicals fill our air.
Instead of spending that $1.7 billion per year out of state, we could retain some of that money to build new jobs in renewable energy. According to an MSU study, as many as 94,000 Michigan jobs could be created, manufacturing, maintaining and operating the equipment. And jobs in tourism can only benefit if our lakes and rivers aren't polluted to the point where nobody wants to fish and swim in them.
Opponents of Proposition 3 pretend to argue the technology doesn't exist to convert to renewable sources, an argument which my grandmother, a lifelong Michigan resident like most of my immediate family for the last 150 years, would have characterized as "horsefeathers." Germany, with similar wind and solar potential to Michigan, is operating at 25 percent renewable right now, this year.
There's little argument that continuing to make the dirty choice results in greater profits for utility companies, so it's easy to understand the well-funded ads that you'll see opposing the measure. But Proposition 3 also includes language that forbids those utility companies from charging consumers more than 1 percent annually to make this necessary transition, so the average household could see an increase of only around $1.25 per month.
Forward-thinking businesspersons like myself understand the costs of shortsighted profits over long-range returns. Voting "Yes!" on Proposal 3 is the smart thing to do for business in Michigan, and the right thing to do for future generations.
Sebastian Wreford
Ann Arbor
Business Development Manager, Metro Delivery
Comments
Hot Sam
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 1:53 a.m.
I like solar power. I like wind power. I think this is one of the worst proposals I have ever seen...please vote NO!!!
motorcycleminer
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.
Another good example of a business representative who should keep his and the companys views to himself ..No deliveries for my company from them.....
clownfish
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 8:55 p.m.
Opponents say this will make energy cost rise. How do we know this? Coal and natural gas are only going to continue to rise in price. I will be voting no on the principle that this does not belong in the constitution, but I have seen no reliable study that proves moving to renewable sources will indeed drive up costs in the long run.
DonBee
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-liberals-green-energy-contradictions/2012/10/15/8c251ba2-16e6-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html
Halter
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:28 p.m.
Absolutely disagree with this opinion, and it is going to be soundly rejected by the voters.
Jim Walker
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
As wind and solar energy become more competitive on a cost basis, they will become larger proportions of our energy supply. If they remain significantly more expensive, they will be larger proportions ONLY if mandated - and energy bills will necessarily go up to compensate. Mandated "green" energy plans often have large unintended consequences. As the obvious example, ethanol has been a disaster in many ways. Food costs more and that issue has heavily affected some countries like Mexico. E85 as a motor fuel costs more per mile driven because the reduction in mileage is greater than the reduction in fuel cost. The new E15 is insane and hopefully very few stations will offer it. It ruins older engines, small engines and marine engines - and costs more per mile driven. I am 100% for experimental technology to find ways to make greener energy more competitive. I am 100% against mandating unproven technology in our Constitution at the cost of higher energy bills, especially for lower income people. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
So, once again, we have a proposal that says: Let's institute a corporate welfare program so that "investors" will create something we need. That's what many proposals say now days: that giving government subsidies is the the way to produce corporate initiatives for things we want. Sounds like a bribery / extortion system* to me - and now there's talk of making it part of our state constitution. Brilliant! (ha-ha) * Just to be clear: there's also an element of government coercion here - the proponents obviously think we can get positive results if we only coerce private companies into giving us "some" renewable resource generated electricity. Instead we might ask ourselves how technological advancements have come about in our past. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that most of the major advancements came after an individual produced the first workable model (they invented something). James Watt: steam engine, Edison: the light bulb and household electricity, Marconi: radio broadcasting and radio communications, etc., etc. Tech development: "General Motors was founded on Wednesday, September 16, 1908, in Flint, Michigan, as a holding company for Buick (then controlled by William C. Durant)." It was Durant who organized the fragmented auto companies into GM, the largest car & transportation corporation in the world. -- that's about where we're at now: waiting for further development AFTER the initial discovery is proven practical. It remains for someone to improve on the system of wind / solar power generation before it can become a mainstay in our country. Wind / Solar power is coming - but it'll have to wait for another Durant, another Edison (founded GE) before that'll happen.
Ed Kimball
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:36 p.m.
Now that technology has gotten so complex, there are some inventions that would probably not have happened without government funding. As I noted elsewhere, I consider the Internet, communications (and other satellites) and GPS among them.
daytona084
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.
If this is such a great idea, why not make it 50% instead of 25%? Heck, why not 100% renewable?. And while we are at it, let's write into our constitution that all vehicles sold in the state must get 100 mpg. All homes and buildings must be passive solar heated by 2025. Yeah, that's the ticket!
DonBee
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:43 p.m.
LOL - The MSU study is job-YEARS, not jobs. The pro-proposal 3 people continue to push this LIE. They know the truth and still put it out there. AnnArbor.Com has helped them in several articles, only to correct it later. I support renewables, but I will vote AGAINST this proposal because of the flaws it has, the better choice is to get new laws passed in Lansing. Here is what is true: 1) There is NO requirement in the proposal for ANY job to be in Michigan. There is a vague statement that their should be a preference for Michigan resources. 2) According to the MSU study about 3,000 installation jobs (seasonal) and 4,000 manufacturing jobs would be created somewhere. Most installers are from out of state crews, they RV in and do their work and leave today, based on site visits I have made. This is a far cry from the 75,000 jobs the author of this letter has stated. 2) This is not a proposal to limit rate increase, the limit only applies to DIRECT costs of the renewables, all other reasons for rate increases don't apply - so expect that rates will rise more than 1 percent per year. 3) Biogas and Geothermal are EXCLUDED from this proposal, so expect lawsuits about this. Farmers will end up having to sue to include farm methane in the renewable portfolio 4) Neither side has the right numbers for cost, the anti-proposal 3 are too high and the pro-proposal 3 are too low. (Please see continuation in the reply section)
DonBee
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
5) Doing the numbers following the methodology from the pro-proposal 3 authors and using constant data (not cherry picking the highs and lows like they did) the number is 8 to 15 times higher than they are quoting. 6) How this gets changed over time with it embedded in the constitution is beyond me, do we have to vote on a new proposal when we get to 25 percent to go to 26 percent? 7) What happens if the costs are much higher - and the 25 percent ends up not being able to be done before 2050 based on the limit of 1 percent for direct cost rate increases? 8) The impact of Federal regulatory changes, will end up with lawsuits because of the inflexibility of the constitution, a simple change via a law will not work. In short, while renewables are needed and should be pursued this astroturf attempt by hedge fund managers, private equity and other wall street 1 percenters to hijack the wallets of Michigan citizens should be turned down. {if you don't believe that this is a 1 percenter play - check the state website to see who is funding the advertising - you will be amazed}.
nekm1
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:25 p.m.
Don't legislate the future. The economy, and free democracy will do just fine. Next you will legislate food portions, life expentancy, and the like. Horse and buggies ended with the gas engine. The same will occur with cheaper energy sources. Windmills are not the answer! A yes vote on 3 is and insane set of handcuffs for our children. Follow the money on this one, and you will see the real answer.
Arno B
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:47 p.m.
Spending money out of state to import commodities? Sounds like a new boogey-man to scare the sheep! Why - I just remembered all the money that we are shipping out of state to import oranges and bananas too! Jobs could also be created by building and heating enclosed areas to grow oranges and bananas! Why not give it a try? Of course Mr. Wreford would also want the Washington subsidies to arrive with the newly-created jobs. He also does not explain the basis of the "1%" utility fee increase. The actual cost to accept these un-economical facilities may well be higher. I suppose that Mr. Wreford would be happy to also endorse more advanced technology research, especially now that another darling of the current administration has just enetered bankruptcy: A123!
Ignatz
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.
The fact that it's going in our Constitution is the only thing that concerns me. However, I can't see our representatives passing this, so it's up to us. I'd rather spend more per BTU on non-petroleum based energy, than give it to the big oil companies.
Machine
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:03 a.m.
Sure, why don't we put this in our CONSTITUTION? Stupid idea. Constitutional amendments should not be thrown around at every special interest we see. Once it's in the Constitution, it becomes VERY difficult to remove when we discover that it was a bad idea.
Ross
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
No, it can just as easily be amended in the state constitution in the future with another proposal. Always amendable. Stop repeating the fear campaign.
Eat Local A2
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:48 a.m.
A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy today. Why would we hard-wire doubling down on bad bets with the public's money? Good ideas will get the start they need from the capital markets, to an extent and at the time that they are likely to pay off. And when they don't, the businessmen--not the rest of us--will count up their losses and move on.
Ed Kimball
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.
Nice theory, but sometimes it doesn't work. There would be no Internet, no communications satellites, and no GPS, for example, if we'd had to wait for the capital markets to create them. There's a place for the private sector and a place for government. That said, I agree with those who say that these provisions should not be part of the state constitution, even though I would like to see us use more renewable energy.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:24 a.m.
Anyone who trusts the energy monopoly in Michigan - Consumers and DTE - is xxxx. Their distortions of proposal 3 are criminal. Take their monopoly status away. They are corrupt.
DonBee
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 2 p.m.
NoSUVforME - So are the pro-proposal 3 distortions. To the point that I may write a letter to the Professional Engineering board about the two people who wrote the document for the MEC. I may also write to the MPSC recommending that they not be allowed as witnesses again. All three of the report authors (pro & con) should be taken to the woodshed in Singapore for the way they distorted the facts and statistics. I expected it from the anti-side since they used a political figure. I did not expect the level of distortion from engineers that the pro-side hired.
average joe
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 10:57 a.m.
Like Bob states- The power companies will still be producing the cheaper version of power. Only they will be sending it to other states that don't have such a "restriction" in their constitutions.
Basic Bob
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:41 a.m.
Funny, those energy monopolies will be forced by this amendment to buy up the expensive green energy and deliver it to your meter. They will be happy to sell the cheap and dirty electricity on the grid to savvy customers in Ohio, Ontario, and Indiana.
Laura Jones
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:14 a.m.
Love the idea. Despise the vehicle: A constitution is not an appropriate place for ANY of the proposed amendments being offered. " A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed." - definition of Constitution I believe all of them are better suited to being enacted as laws.
Ross
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
Unfortunately, we'd need to clean house in the state government for that to ever happen.
Mike
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 2:24 a.m.
One of the basic elements of a robust economy is cheap energy. This measure will necessarily raise the cost of energy in the state, as we will not only have to subsidize-for decades-the renewables, but will also have to pay for the baseline generation that must be maintained to augment power NOT generated by renewables. Codifying energy generation as a constitutional amendment only serves to remove the market from the equation. A free market in energy will soon enough replace coal as not only reliable sources come on line, but sources that are cheaper than coal. We all understand that we will need to find sources to replace fossil fuels, but relying on government for these answers is not the path to take.
nekm1
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
Ross, how do you think windmills are made? What materials do you think make up the base, the blades and the wires? Where does silicon come from for solar panels? Where does the material to create batteries for cars come from? (it is strip mined by the way, with vehicles that use OIL to run) How do you think your IPad or computer would work without plastic (oil) for the parts? Enough with save the planet logic, get real.
Ross
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
Except that our current "cheap energy" does not reflect the true cost to society. What is the cost of dynamiting an entire mountain in West Virginia and losing it forever? What is the cost of the slag ruining an entire river ecosystem? What is the cost of the mercury pollution emitted from every coal power plant affecting our health? What is the cost of a warming atmosphere due to our carbon emissions (scientific consensus, btw) ? These very real costs are not reflected in the price we pay for energy now, but I can guarantee you we will all be paying for them eventually. Yes, renewable energy might cost us a little more in the near term, but it will prove beneficial to society in the long run. Many of us see it as a crucial move. Not everything should be left to the "free market" principle. We've seen how that works for the banking industry, etc.
TommyJ
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.
We don't need so much special interest garbage in our state constitution. I'm voting no across the board on all those proposed amendments.
jcj
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:37 a.m.
"Forward-thinking businesspersons like myself' This claim could be debated!
DonBee
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
I wonder how he would feel if we put up a proposal to require that all of his delivery vehicles have to run off batteries? He is part of one of the most carbon intensive parts of the transportation business. Maybe he feels bad about the amount of CO2 that Metro Delivery creates and wants to avoid having to deal with is part in global warming directly?
City Confidential
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:17 a.m.
My concern is that most of the renewable energy produced will probably come from burning biomass, rather than the other sources. The air pollution from biomass is not good for the environment - arguably could be worse than coal.
DonBee
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:52 p.m.
City Confidential - This is exactly what Massachusetts determined in their hearings. In their 2 year long fact finding they determined that biomass ended up putting more mercury, sulfur and other toxins in the air than coal did. So the result - biomass does not qualify for renewable status in Massachusetts. http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/renewable-energy/biomass/renewable-portfolio-standard-biomass-policy.html
1bit
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:09 a.m.
I'm for renewable energy sources but I'm not sure why it should be enshrined in our State Constitution. If you want a law or decision like this, shouldn't it go through the State legislature?
nekm1
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
Ross, the only failure in the legislature is that you party was replaced by my party and party thinking. The "people" have given us great working cities like Detroit and Cleveland. And how long did it take Green Energy czar Jennifer G to leave our state? Let voters decide through the legislature, and keep your policies to yourself.
Ross
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.
Heck no it wouldn't have support in the legislature. They are politicians, elected based upon campaign donations, with aspirations to attain higher levels of office. They pretty much ALL make sure not to offend any big corporations or energy companies. Power to the people with this proposal. The legislature has already failed us.
a2trader
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:53 a.m.
Agreed. If this was such a win-win - good for the environment, good for jobs - wouldn't it have had the backing of both democrats and republicans in the legislature.
average joe
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 10:51 a.m.
Enshrining it into the state constitution is exactly why this prop, along with others is a questionable idea.
motorcycleminer
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:49 a.m.
Mr. Wreford respectfully your artice is full of the same stuff found in abundance at most council meetings...
motorcycleminer
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 10:29 a.m.
JCJ...same stuff is true ..only its a larger bovine animal on 5th ave...
jcj
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:36 a.m.
And its the same stuff I see picked up by most dog owners.
Radar
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.
Proposal 3 is a tax on the poor and those on fixed incomes. The well off can afford to pay higher utility bills, the poor cannot. It will also send businesses to other states. This proposal is very bad for the entire state.
jcj
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:20 a.m.
Think energy is expensive now? Better start saving now to pay for this!
jns131
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:29 p.m.
And if you vote vote yes on 6 you are letting Morooney keep his bridge and money all to himself. Canada is paying for that bridge. Vote no on 6. Keep that guy out of our amendment.
Nancy Shiffler
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
Better start saving if we continue to rely on coal. The price of electricity in Michigan increased an average of 11% from July 2011 to July 2012. In other midwestern states the rates declined or remained flat. (Source: Energy Information Authority). Michigan utilities pay more for coal than utilities in all other industrial states. DTE expects its coal costs to increase roughly 7.5% per year between now and 2016. And, by the way, DTE owns over 8500 coal rail cars, fuel blending and storage facilities for other utilities and a major coal shipping terminal on Lake Superior to ship coal to US and European destinations.
jns131
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
That is why I am voting no on this one. I agree we need better ways to spend our money instead of using coal but I am very worried as to how expensive this can get.
Jack Campbell
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:05 a.m.
The nay-sayers are always out in force when there is something that could possibly make their environment better. I don't get it fellas, improving your surroundings is a good thing. If you lust after pollution and concrete so much Detroit has all you need for cheap. I am a conservative and I am all for the measure, it's good for all of us.
Halter
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:32 p.m.
I am SO SO glad to see nay-sayers on this issue in Ann Arbor -- remember, this is the same group that overwhelming voted for that ridiculous Greenbelt folly, that has resulted in thousands of lost jobs, skewed and poorly planned development both inside and outside the greenbelt, and millions upon millions of dollars used to buy up swatches of nothing.
tdw
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:12 a.m.
Will you help me or my parents help pay for the increased utility bills ?
Stephen Landes
Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 11:58 p.m.
There aren't 90,000 people working in renewable energy in the US, so I can't imagine what kind of accounting trick will be played to get to 94,000 in Michigan. Ask the folks at A123 how the battery business is going. They will have a few surplus employees to lend to your wind farms.
DonBee
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:47 p.m.
Mr Landes - The MSU study is in Job-years - so the real number of jobs is about 7,000.
nekm1
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
Ethanol biomass is only a business because of the heavy government funding. It doesn't turn a profit, and it isn't a viable energy alternative! Love how you folks think all of this free government money means a business or service is a success! For real info, check how the Green initiative is working in Spain!
Stephen Landes
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:17 a.m.
For those who doubt the numbers check out this table from Management Information Services, Inc. and American Solar Energy Society, 2007 as cited at http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=1386. The table shows that total direct jobs in the renewable energy industry for the entire US for 2006 was 193,550 if you include 142,000 employees in ethanol biomass biodiesel, and government employees. That means just a shade over 50,000 working in areas that would be affected by Prop 3 for the entire US. So the number of jobs forecast by MSU is just not believable.
Stephen Landes
Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 11:45 p.m.
Here are some thoughts on how well the experiment in Germany is going.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9609777/Germany-facing-power-blackouts.html
Ross
Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 11:45 p.m.
Hear Hear, Sebastian! I could not agree more. Every please vote yes on Prop 3! Don't let the fear campaigns being funded by big oil/coal scare you into voting no. They are driven by one thing only - personal profit. At the expense of our collective health, financial security, and future civilization. We need to invest in alternative energy NOW!
M-Wolverine
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:18 p.m.
I find it hilarious that right before you dinged tdw for "fuled" you wrote "Every please vote yes"...
tdw
Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 11:33 p.m.
I'll bet $10 it goes down like a high octane fuled plane in flames
Ross
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:56 p.m.
Correct. "Aviation fuel" is just gasoline though. Decent octane, ISO certified, very expensive gasoline. Jet fuel is pretty much just diesel.
tdw
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:01 a.m.
Difference between jet fuel and aviation fuel.I had a friend that used to go to Ann Airport to get fuel for his muscle cars.
Ross
Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 11:47 p.m.
Just $10? Not $10,000, like your buddy Mittens? I never seen a plane "fuled" by high octane anything, btw. All jet engines run on the same basic fuel, and, they pretty much never explode into flames in the air. But, we get your point.