- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Doug Bennett (D) on August 4, 2009, to increase certain air pollution emission fees.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on August 4, 2009.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Rebekah Warren (D) on September 25, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of this fee (tax) increase. Although the substitute passed on a voice vote, a few minutes later a majority could not be summmoned in the record roll vote required for final passage, and so the vote was called off for the time being. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on September 25, 2009.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Darwin Booher (R) on December 10, 2009, to adopt a version that would increase various industrial air emissions permit fees by various amounts totalling approximately $10 million in the aggregate. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on December 10, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Michael Lahti (D) on December 10, 2009, to adopt a version that merely rewords statutory language in a non-substantive way. This is a means of sending the bill to the Senate as a "placeholder" that can be quickly amended and passed as the large fee increase contemplated in September. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on December 10, 2009.
- Passed 62 to 45 in the House on December 10, 2009, to reword statutory language in the law authorizing air emissions fees in a non-substantive way. This is a means of sending the bill to the Senate as a "placeholder" that can be quickly amended and passed as the large fee increase contemplated in September.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on December 17, 2009.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on December 17, 2009, to adopt a version that limits what the DEQ can consider in power plant permit decisions - see Senate-passed version. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 17, 2009.
- Passed 21 to 15 in the Senate on December 17, 2009, to prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality from basing electric generating plant permit decisions on factors other than ones related to pollution, such as whether the agency thinks the state needs the plant or the owner should look for alternative forms of electricity.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on December 17, 2009, passage of the bill. The motion passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 17, 2009.
- Received in the Senate on December 17, 2009, to prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality from basing electric generating plant permit decisions on factors other than ones related to pollution, such as whether the agency thinks the state needs the plant or the owner should look for alternative forms of electricity. Passed 21 to 16 in the Senate on December 17, 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on December 17, 2009.
- Failed 43 to 54 in the House on December 18, 2009, to prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality from basing electric generating plant permit decisions on factors other than ones related to pollution, such as whether the agency thinks the state needs the plant or the owner should look for alternative forms of electricity.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Motion by Rep. Kathy Angerer (D) on March 24, 2010. The motion passed by voice vote in the House on March 24, 2010.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 5220 (Reduce certain air emissions fees ) by shearwater on December 12, 2009Strap industries with these kind of draconian regulations and watch them flee to Alabama, Mexico, and China. Folks, you are killing the goose that laid the golden egg . . . free market capitalism. All this polution talk is unverified nonsense, particularly the CO2. CO2 is necessary for plant life and we can't reduce it by human activity. When we play God like this by trying, we are reaffirming stupidity.
Reply
All the hysteria about air polutiion should be tempered by the fact that industries which we need for our factories and livelihoods are producing manufactured goods and services that create wealth for our citizens. It all comes down to the notion of whether we want healthy, productive industries or clean air with industries run out of the state by tax and regulation policies that strangle life from our industrial base. One reason so many jobs and industries have left the state is that these kind of regulations make running businesses very expensive and there are better places than Michigan to operate from a business standpoint.
However bad you think business is and however much you want to tax it you are biting the hand that feeds you, or, in another metaphor, "killing the goose that laid the golden egg."
I know a good place for all you environmentalists who think business should have these oppressive regulations. Go to Wyoming where you can breathefresh air to your hearts content!
Reply
Why should munincipal utilities be exempt. Make the utilities run by politicians operate under the same rules their fellow politicians set for private industry. If the utilities were bought be a private firm, they would have to pay the emissions tax-and property taxes. Why the difference? Are the political run plants emissions less polluting? The air (and sewage) emissions coming out of Lansing certainly aren't.
Reply
View Full Conversation
