You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.

Economic future of Michigan will benefit if Proposal 3 passes

By Letters to the Editor

Proposal 3 (25 percent renewable electricity by 2025) will help secure a sound economic future for our state. The C.A.R.E. campaign (funded by utilities and big corporations) bases its opposition on the fear that renewable energy will increase the cost of electricity and calls it a “radical experiment." Neither is true.

Prop 3 merely continues the move to renewable sources at the same rate as the current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) (PA 295:10% renewables by 2015) is implementing. When a Republican legislator proposed repealing PA 295 the utilities asked him not to. Acts like this one from Lansing is one reason that Prop 3 is needed.

Our constitution already addresses concerns from nuclear power to gay marriage so Prop 3 is appropriate. Prop 3 will assure that this new RPS will be not diluted or repealed by a backward thinking legislature that may be more concerned about getting campaign contributions or a job after term limits than creating a secure energy future for our great state.

One may ask: If PA 295 has the utilities moving toward renewables do we really need Prop 3? Neither DTE nor Consumers Energy currently plan additional renewables after 2015. Passing Prop 3 now will insure this progress continues uninterrupted.

C.A.R.E raises the specter of drastic electric rate increases and calls Prop 3 a “risky experiment." This too is false. The rate increase is limited by the proposal to 1 percent per year at a maximum. New wind energy is cheaper than new coal and since the energy from the wind and the sun is free, the true costs of wind and solar generated electricity is a fixed 20-30 year rate.

Future costs of coal or natural gas can not be predicted and inherently pose a great risk to our future economy. Prop 3 will reduce the flow of dollars out of our state to purchase dirty fossil fuels ($1.7 billion/yr) and create a cleaner, more sustainable future for Michigan.

Please vote Yes on Proposal 3.

Wayne Appleyard

Chair of the Ann Arbor Energy Commission

Comments

Roger Kuhlman

Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 3:34 a.m.

If alternative energy production was such a sure thing as proponents of Proposal 3 suggest, there would be some private business willing to build it with money they raise themselves. Practical cost-friendly technological solutions do not exist today or anywhere in the near future to meet a 25% renwable energy requirement by 2025. Folks we need to face facts and deal with reality. If you want to deal with Michigan's and America's energy problems in ways that are going to work and be sustainable over time we need focus most of our resources on reducing energy consumption and stopping human population growth in our country. With about 320 million people and our level of consumption of natural resources in America, our nation is the most overpopulated and natural environment harming country in the World. Yet our nation continues to grow its population very quickly. By 2050 America could have easily grown to 450 million people.

Mulberry Bank

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:10 p.m.

WoW! Such negative reactions. I say yes. It is amazing how things are developed and improved when there is a dead-line. Michigan is making batteries. Michigan should be able to move ahead. We are smart and build things. Glass half-full. : ) Take a leap forward rather than backward. Can you believe that oil companies are still getting $ from the government?! ...Talking about picking 'winners and losers.'

CynicA2

Sun, Oct 21, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.

Idiot! The windmills and solar panels are all made in China, and installed mostly by highly-trained contract technicians from out-of-state, who move-on when finished. Deadlines have nothing to do with it - it is all about costs. The battery company just went bankrupt, in case you hadn't noticed (A-123). We are smart and we do build things, just not windmills and solar panels,as we can't do it cost-competitively. Oil companies have always gotten tax credits from the government to encourage exploration and production, as finding and producing oil is risky and capital intensive, but is the only way currently known to produce the large amounts of energy needed to fuel this great country at a reasonable cost.

Bubba

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.

If it's such a great idea now it will be a good idae in the future when the economy turns around. It is NOT true that utility bills won't increase that's just propaganda, and it is TRUE that our constitution doesn't need this, the lobbyists need it because they can't bribe enough of our elected officials to get what they want.

Mike K

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 5:14 p.m.

How will mandating expensive renewable energy benefit Michigan's economy? I think it would in fact hurt our economy. Society as a whole will invariably pay for this. Some in our society are already vulnerable. Taking money from everyday people cannot be good the economy. If that was the case, food stamps would be discontinued and Nancy Pelosi would be wrong. Not to mention that renewable energy in 5 or 10 years might be 5 or 10 times more efficient, and worth it.

Jim Walker

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.

When wind, solar, and other "green" energy sources can compete with the existing sources on the basis of cost, they will become larger parts of the mix. Trying to force this with a constitutional amendment is extremely foolish. It will lead to one and only one thing -- much higher energy costs, costs that lower income people in Michigan simply cannot tolerate in this terrible economy. Vote NO on 3, if you care about people. James C. Walker, Ann Arbor, MI

Brad

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.

So if some percentage of our grid power is generated by solar and wind, what happens when the sun isn't out and there isn't wind, both of which happen pretty regularly. Sure we could use that energy when it's available, but when it isn't we still need the same "peak capacity" which means we still need the same amount of "full time" energy generators, right?

average joe

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 10:51 a.m.

"...and since the energy from the wind and the sun is free, the true costs of wind and solar generated electricity is a fixed 20-30 year rate. " The true costs are a fixed 20-30 year rate? So you are saying that the costs are 'locked in' ? LOL!!!

DonBee

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 10:45 a.m.

Mr. Appleyard - It is not a simple continuation of the law, it is instead a constitutional amendment. It makes most of the laws about renewable energy void, as well as making most of the regulations challengeable in court. It does not belong in the constitution. Updating the laws on renewables, not a problem, I would be happy to help raise the numbers. Changing the constitution. NO way. Instead of importing the coal we do today, we will instead import thousands of wind turbines, and other renewable devices, all built out of state. They will be installed by the Hedge funds and Private equity (Read Wall Street 1%ers) that are funding this proposal (check the state website to see a list of out of state backers). The rate increase is for the DIRECT cost of the renewables, the indirect costs (which lawyers will decide in court cases) are uncapped - and based on a review of the MEC document and redoing the calculations with consistent use of the source documents statistics, should rise about 3 to 4 percent a year. Again the what is indirect will be decided in court over the next decade. A better choice for all would be to work this out in Lansing and update the laws. This is another Medical Marijuana lawsuit mess waiting to happen. The only people who will make money from this are the Hedge Funds and the Lawyers, everyone else will just be required to pay more.

belboz

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:55 a.m.

" New wind energy is cheaper than new coal and since the energy from the wind and the sun is free..." Sweet. Please let me know where I can plug in and get my free energy. Neil Armstrong also got a free ride to space. Does that mean it cost nothing?

Left is Right

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 2:16 a.m.

Uh huh. Can't believe this is a unanimous view of the Ann Arbor Energy Commission, Wayne. While I believe in alternative energy sources--and in making small bets even where they don't make immediate economic sense--forcing 25 by 25 and baking it into the state constitution is parallel to the California lunacy that allowed them to be gamed by Enron. We need options. More appropriately, we all need to look for opportunities to reduce our energy use. Summary: Prop 3, No way.

demistify

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.

" New wind energy is cheaper than new coal and since the energy from the wind and the sun is free, the true costs of wind and solar generated electricity is a fixed 20-30 year rate." The claim that wind is cheaper than coal is grossly wrong. Wind is at present at least 3 times as expensive. Also, the coal is mined in the US. The wind turbines are imported from China. Wind and solar do not magically turn into enrgy for free. They require capital investments into windmills, solar panels (also imported from China) and power plants. This equipment has a finite life (the 20-30 years is optimistic) and then needs to be replaced at more cost. Replacing 25% of our power plant capacity is a huge investment. The writer does not explain why Prop 3 pushes for biodiesel, which produces more pollution and greenhouse gases than petroleum, and opposes nuclear energy which produces no greenhouse gases whatever.

TommyJ

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.

Vote no on 3.

CynicA2

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:36 p.m.

Hizzoner should at least TRY to appoint more rational, credible, shills to his various commissions and boards. Some are down right embarrassing.

Brad

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:20 p.m.

"Our constitution already addresses concerns from nuclear power to gay marriage so Prop 3 is appropriate" Non sequitur alert!

Brad

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:37 p.m.

I'll also point out that there are currently 50 states WITHOUT renewable energy dictates in their constitutions.

G. Orwell

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:13 p.m.

Prop 3 would actually destroy Michigan's economy because renewable energy will be very expensive and the U.S. is being prevented from building clean coal power plants. Coal is clean because they scrub the pollutants out before the smoke is released into the air. Only things coming out are water vapors and CO2. Those that believe CO2 is a pollutant needs to go back to high school. It is naturally occurring and plants need it to grow. Let the markets handle what energies are used. If renewable energy is best, utilities will migrate to it. Let's avoid more Solyndras and A123 Systems. When will people learn government should not pick winners and losers. Always turns into losers.

Superior Twp voter

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 9:53 p.m.

Mr. Appleyard, I disagree with your opinion. And I would go a step (the other way) further. In Michigan I would like to see much more nuclear generated power, and let's utilize a few brownfields for some refineries. Get gas prices down to $2 bucks per, and watch our USA economy go bonkers.

Macabre Sunset

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.

This is something that should be decided by scientists, not by politicians or voters who have no grounding in science. If this is passed, it's entirely possible our utility rates could rise completely out of proportion to what's necessary. It could drive business and jobs out of the state. These factors would have a disproportionate effect on the poor. And for what? To make people feel better about addressing an issue even scientists barely understand today. I can't imagine voting yes on this proposal if I cared about Michigan's future.

Halter

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.

Absolutely disagree with this opinion....Vote NO on 3 --

Val

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 9 p.m.

There is no renewable energy source technocoly speaking. This proposal is bad, very bad, for Michigan. The cost of energy will go up causing businesses to leave the state for cheaper power. Oil does not produce the electricity in Michigan or any place else. It is coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro and a very little percent by oil. All the wind mills I have seen are just sitting there and not turning. And how will the energy be stored when the wind is not blowing? Our bills will go up by 30%. Even an one percent rise is unacceptable and they will find ways to up the percented because it won't pay for itself.

Nancy Shiffler

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.

The average price of electricity in Michigan went up 11% from July of 2011 to July of 2012, while the price in other north central states has declined (source: Energy Information Authority (www.eia.gov). DTE projects that the costs for their coal will increase about 7.5% annually between now and 2016. The Michigan Public Service Commission recently reported a decline in the cost of wind energy. If you are concerned about rising electricity costs, look at the impact of coal, not renewables.

Angry Moderate

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.

I don't even understand this proposal--how is this supposed to work? You're requiring the utilities to provide a certain service, but limiting the utility rate increases? What happens when the cost of the new service is much, much higher than the maximum rate--will Michigan just vanish into a puff of smoke?

DonBee

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 10:48 a.m.

No only the "direct costs" from renewables are capped at 1% all other costs can be passed on. The cap only means that if it costs 2 percent in a year that the 25% requirement in 2025 becomes a 25% requirement in 2026. The language just says to slow the program down. The costs still get passed to the customer. The cap is not a cap, it is only a cap on a SMALL, tiny part of the costs of this program, all other costs are uncapped.

Top Cat

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.

The Left's latest edition of Energy in Wonderland. Who are you going to believe, Mr. Appleyard or your own eyes ?

CynicA2

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 8:47 p.m.

Never in a million years... a complete con job and fraud. Only in Ann Arbor would anyone in their right mind buy these ridiculous, naive, arguments. Vote NO, unless you want to freeze in the dark.