Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 20, 2007, to mandate that electric utilities acquire at least 7 percent of their power from “renewable” and "clean" sources (including "carbon capture" coal plants) by 2015, and allow the costs to be passed on to customers. The bill would authorize income and business tax credits ($2 per month for indiduals, $11 for small business, $125 for large firms) to compensate for these more costly energy sources. It would also authorize trading of renewable energy “credits” between utilities that exceed or fall short of the mandated quantity; and establish expedited approval approval processes for wind-generated electric power; establish procedures for ending the cross-subsidation of residential gas customers by commercial ones; and more. See also House Bill 5524, which mostly repeals the 2000 law authorizing competition between electricity producers

The vote was 19 in favor, 18 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 506 at Senate Journal 66)

Click here to view bill details.

I have a particular interest in SB213, "portfolio standards for renewable energy". As this bill moves thru the legislative process, it may have to address geographical boundarys, or "set-backs" as pertaining to commercial WECS. WECS stands for Wind Energy Conversion Systems. Currently potential developers of these "industrial sized" commercial wind parks are pressuring many of the states local governments to greatly reduce their established setbacks for commercial WECS. This objective is so that greater numbers of these huge rotating towers (400'+)can be jammed into what exists today as pastoral agricultural/residential districts. The current strategy of the aforementioned developers is to attempt to strip away the local authority's duty to its residents, that being to protect the health, welfare, and quality of living of its constituency, then direct this authority into the hands of higher levels of government. I question this endevor as being politically correct. A whole lot of people are going to be a whole lot of upset if and when these imposing rotating towers land in their backyards. I understand the importance of energy independence, and the benefits of domestically generated biofuels which will eventually power our conventional systems. Wind is not a real player here because its energy produced is unpredictable and non-dispatchable. Documanted facts coming in from windmill heavy European countries shows no appreciable decrease in CO2 emissions as conventional power plants over there still remain on-line in order to have the power avaialble upon demand. Wind in Michigan is not showing to be substantial, but only fickle in its nature. We as a State will only be wasting our human resources, our human energies on a concept which financially benefits a minority while the majority has to deal with its many emcumbrences. Thankyou. M J Daly Weare Twp. Oceana Co. Michigan

In my earlier posted comments I neglected to mention further items of pertainance: As the potential developers and their proponents urge that we American citizens need to play catch-up to the European Model, then we at must look at that model. Study will find that some countries in Europe have established geographical setbacks from turbine bases that far exceed those proposed in several states of the U.S. For example areas in Great Britain have established a 500 meter setback. Thats one thousand six hundred and forty feet (1640'). In France there is a rule of 2 kilometers of setback from turbine bases to residences. We know that 2 kilometers equals 6,560 feet. In summary, wind turbine park development in the U.S. should respect the citizens better interests as they seem to be doing across the Atlantic. Readers please visit the web site of the National Wind Watch for verification. M. J. Daly

Senator Brater, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 213 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Brater’s statement is as follows: Mr. President and colleagues, it is late, it is the end of June, we are finishing budgets, and we are taking up a very, very complex package of energy legislation that many members here have been working very hard on, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Rotunda for many months. We appreciate all the effort that has been going into this very important public policy issue. In her State of the State Address at the beginning of this year, the Governor proposed establishing a renewable energy standard of 25 percent by 2025. That was an achievable, aggressive standard that would truly move us forward in reducing carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Instead, we’re looking at a renewable energy portfolio standard of 7 percent in this package. We currently have a renewable energy portfolio of 5 percent in this state, so moving to 7 percent, as this package would do tonight, is rather disappointing. It’s paltry; it is exceedingly weak. Can we set our standards any lower? Many good things were in this package as the bills came out of the House and out of the Senate energy committee. There were energy efficiency standards, and integrated resource planning which would allow the Michigan Public Service Commission to evaluate proposals for new coal-burning plants and authorize them only if they were needed. After all, cheaper options have been exhausted. I understand there is some version of that certificate of need approach in these bills tonight, but we haven’t had a chance to examine exactly how they have been modified. As the good Senator from the 24th District noted, coal costs have doubled in the last year. So there is a very real possibility that new coal plants would be ruled out under this certificate of need approach. This is a very important feature to control costs to ratepayers, especially as de-skewing shifts costs from commercial and industrial to residential customers. We should be allowing unfettered competition to allow true, lower cost of alternative energy to emerge and shine through. We must factor in the economic benefits of job creation, revitalizing manufacturing, research and development in this state, and bringing in good-paying jobs; and the ripple effect that these would have on our economy. Even at the high cost that the Senator from the 24th District noted earlier in her remarks, that is a cost of $30 per citizen per year. We really can’t afford not to invest and mandate renewable energy now because there are real economic costs of climate change. There is change to agriculture and changes to the growing season; our fish habitat and population will change the cooler water loving fish will no longer be able to live in Michigan; our vegetation and types of trees will change; and we will have lower lake levels. There will be real economic effects to this state, to our agriculture and tourism, of not taking aggressive action, which we should be taking tonight to curb global warming and establish meaningful renewable energy standards.

If a new energy source is so good let private industry fund it and reap the profits! Stop TAXING US!

This is not a business deal, it's the end of life as we know it, you know, walking on land, if citizens are not nudged in the right direction. America is a big part of the problem for the planet. It's time to show the world we have characteristics other than greed. Of course, we have good characteristics, but the world sure isn't seeing them at the moment. We cause rising ocean levels for everyone. We need to show a bit of accountability and STEP UP TO THE PLATE. We can do it, but this "Oh, let the market take care of it bullshit is gettin' old real fast."

:)

:)

I'm not. Shame on you.

:)

In the 70's, we were all going to freeze to death. In 00's, were all going to burn up. Hey, have you checked the sky lately? I think it falling.. Dire sir, the earth has been much warmer and much cooler in its history. Long before we were here and long after we are gone. Virtually all large temp. variations occur with SOLAR activity, or lack thereof. Do the research instead of listening to some crooked, corupt, greedy sleezeball. We couldn't make so much as a dent in the atmosphere of this planet - Even if we wanted to. So shut your pie hole and stay out of my wallet. Idiot.

Lets put this man made CO2 B.S. in a perspective you libs can relate to. (>1% per million) Lets say you get your state welfare check of $100 EVERYDAY, including weekends for 300 YEARS. (hey, it's a family tradition to be carried on for these people, could happen) If one day during that 300 years in your raping of the working citizens of Michigan, that somehow ONE check did not show up, do you think that would have an influence on your worth(lessness)? DAH? You have a disease, it's called AlgorenessSupidenosys. Before they take everything you own (and mine as well ) for this farce, you better wake the hell up pal.

back in the day. Trust the people that got an A+, there's a problem that we need to address, so quit being dumb and selfish by driving tanks.

:)

Secondly, if everything floods after global warming becomes irreversible in less than 9 years, all of your material possessions will float away from you. I hope you can swim.

Get over it.

You would be wise not to forget that.

tenses?Wilma?excuses sought tonic .

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: This bill requires that both utility companies and consumers take certain actions to reach certain levels of renewable energy use. These are admirable goals, but unfortunately they are also mandates. I support incentives which encourage desired actions, but I oppose mandates, which drive up the cost to consumers, drive up the cost of doing business in Michigan and makes us less competitive.”

We'll know that global warming is really a problem when Al Gore does what he tells the rest of us to do and Congress does the same. Nancy Pelosi flies back to California every week at the taxpapers expense. Don't you think if we really had a problem and was concerned about it she would be one of the first to cut back????

We'll know that global warming is really a problem when Al Gore does what he tells the rest of us to do and Congress does the same. Nancy Pelosi flies back to California every week at the taxpapers expense. Don't you think if we really had a problem and was concerned about it she would be one of the first to cut back????

this "green" thing is only about green backs, it has nothing to do with the climate. algor is nothing more than a new age snake oil salesman. He is getting rich, won't debate, says he's right and the rest of us are wrong. He is very good at convincing ignorant people that they should sacrifice their lifestyle to make him money and the usefull idiots fall in lockstep behind him.

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I cannot support House Bill 5524 and SB 213. These bills will drive up the cost for both consumers and Michigan Business. This bill will reduce competition to 10%, and give Consumers Power and Detroit Edison a guaranteed customer base of 90%, which by any measure is a virtual monopoly. It also mandates that 10% of our energy must be produced by renewable energy sources by 2020, and will add an additional charge on every Michigan citizen, business, and industrial user’s bill. In a free enterprise system if someone wants to start a new business, build a new facility, or advance a new product line; they send out a venture capital, stock and bond offering inquiry to see if there is interest and support. If there is sufficient interest and support they get their venture capital, sell the stock and bonds, and they start the business, build the facility, and put the new line into production. That is how our entire capitalistic system works and has made America the greatest economic power in the world. This system should not be applied to one industry, but not another, it should apply to all industries equally. Consumers and DTE are great companies but why should the state of Michigan have to promise them anything, when they can do the same thing that every other private company does to raises capitol to build a new facility which will generate a profit. These bills limit consumer and business choice, create costly and unrealistic mandates, and monopolize Michigan’s electric system, all of which will drive up electrical costs. Government should not pick winners and losers, they should not pick one energy company over another, and they should stay out of the market place!

Senators Kuipers and George, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the first conference report on Senate Bill No. 213. Senator Kuipers moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the conference report be printed as his reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Kuipers’ statement, in which Senator George concurred, is as follows: I understand that a lot of work has gone into both this bill and the bill that we will be voting on next. Unfortunately, I think it is the wrong outcome at the wrong time. Establishing an RPS for Michigan is a discussion that I think is the appropriate discussion to have. I’m just not sure that we struck the right chord with this two-bill package. Establishing a 10 percent or 15 percent or 20 percent RPS goal doesn’t require 102 pages of new legislation. I think we could do it with a lot less. This bill along with House Bill No. 5524 will result in massive rate hikes at a time when we can least afford it. Michigan posted yesterday an 8.9 percent unemployment rate. What will the response of the members of this Chamber be when they talk to those people who have just lost their jobs and are asked the question, “How do you expect me to pay for these higher costs?” The proponents of the two bills will tell you that increases are coming anyway. The cost of natural gas and the cost of coal are all going up, so just assume that energy prices are going up. That may be true, but we don’t have to double the increase by our actions here in this chamber. The high price of energy, I think, means that people across the state are already looking for opportunities to be energy efficient. It doesn’t require us to establish a surcharge on individuals across the state that begins already on January 1 to explore energy-efficiency options. The $150 million to $250 million surcharge that is contained in this bill to go towards energy-efficiency programs isn’t needed by the people of this state. We heard from numerous companies during committee testimony that they were just waiting to come to Michigan. All we had to do was put our marker down in the form of an RPS standard. They indicated to us in testimony that the technology exists and that the money is there to bankroll companies that want to come and set up shop in Michigan. If that’s true, then why do we need to establish a separate fund and establish a surcharge, which is also part of this legislation? Do we really need, if the money exists and the companies are there to provide us with renewable energy, why do we need to have 50 percent of the renewable energy that is produced, owned by the state’s two utilities? Finally, if these two bills are approved, as I suspect they will be or they wouldn’t be on the calendar for today, the increased charges for RPS and for energy conservation begin January 1, even though the energy produced through the RPS standard in the conservation programs that are yet to be designed may not come online for the next 12 to 18 months. So I would urge the members of this chamber to think long and hard, in the five minutes you have left before you cast a vote, on whether or not you think this is truly a good direction for the state of Michigan to go.

Senator Birkholz’s statement is as follows: Senate Bill No. 213, if you recall, started out at nine pages and it is now 102 pages, but we have changed it and included things. You may remember that one of my initial responses to the bill, at that point in time, was that I wasn’t pleased with all the changes that had been made with my bill. We have since, as we have been in conference committee, dealt with several of the issues, and I think we have a good bill that will help contain cost as we move ahead with energy use in Michigan. The bottom line is we know that energy is going up. Coal, last year at this time, was about $50 a ton, and it is now $100 a ton. We all know what has happened with natural gas, what has happened with other energy sources, so to say that we are going to have cheaper utility bills is incorrect, but to say that we can help contain them is correct. We think that we have done this in this bill. We also moved us ahead on renewables. We are moving Michigan into the next century on renewables. We have done several things in the bill, and I am going to go through them just briefly to give you an idea. First of all, we have energy efficiency in this bill, but we have done it in a way that is different than how other states have done it. We have done it with an integrated plan, so that we have energy efficiency and energy optimization. We involve using both in kind of trading back and forth with both. We think by using energy optimization and energy efficiency, which, by the way, is the lowest-hanging fruit on the tree, we can save ratepayers over $3 billion in the next 20 years because we won’t have to build as many baseload plants. It gets us off those foreign sources that most of us don’t want to have. We cut the use. Therefore, you’re not pulling it off the grid, and therefore, you don’t need as much supply. Renewable energy technologies are cheaper and will be cheaper in the future. We require in this integrated plan that those costs be compared to newer, cleaner coal. Therefore, if they aren’t cost-effective, we don’t move ahead with them. We also have in this set of bills, as well as in the conference report, using less energy by using Energy Star appliances and receiving a tax credit for it. Timing the use of energy and businesses have the same opportunities as residential ratepayers. Businesses can opt out. Many of you, I think, are aware of the fact that some of our larger businesses hire people, they have consultants and/or a person on staff to help them figure out how best to use energy because they can save more than what that person’s costs are. In the portfolio, we are talking about windmills, but not just windmills. We are talking about solar; we are talking about methane digesters; biomass; wood products, by-products from wood companies; agricultural products; and agricultural waste. In doing so, we are saying we need a healthy portfolio and we will provide jobs. So we will save energy, and there is job providing in here. Our farming community is really excited about this. The U.S. Department of Energy says that a farmer can earn $7,500 a year per turbine that they put up on their property. They also say, the Department of Energy, that we are one of the top eight states for wind. So wind is an important part of it, but in this legislation we also are open to new technologies. We don’t want to shut out the new technologies that may actually come to us in the next few months. We require net metering, so those who want to use the power and yet be able to put back power on the grid can do so. We have an integrated approach, we require RPS, and we put Michigan ahead, and yet contain our costs. I urge your adoption of the conference committee report.

Senator Brater’s statement is as follows: I rise to congratulate and thank all the many people who have worked so hard on developing this package including Governor Granholm who has shown so much leadership and is right now in Japan trying to bring alternative energy jobs back to the state. It will certainly help her to have this legislation in her quiver, so that she can convince those that are producing wind energy technology and other alternative energy that indeed Michigan is open and ready for business. We are ready for those 30,000 manufacturing jobs that are projected to be coming with our adoption of an RPS standard. This is certainly an exciting day. I am very happy to see the integrated planning process that is involved in other legislation that we will be considering later today. It allows the Public Service Commission to consider all the costs and benefits before approving new coal-burning plants. I think the economics are clearly going to be in favor of wind as we move forward over coal. That will be a positive thing on our horizon also in fighting climate change. I do also salute the inclusion of these energy-efficiency savings, and I think that is going to be very important in giving citizens and businesses opportunities to increase conservation in energy efficiency. That is a very, very important component of this package. Unfortunately, there are a couple of things that I need to note that I am disappointed about and I think we need to continue to work on. I am disappointed in our 10 percent RPS, first of all, that it isn’t higher. I think that we could have been more ambitious, and I think as time goes on, we will join the ranks of other states that have started out with a lower standard and then seeing the success of it and increased it over the years. I hope that day is coming very soon for us here too. I’m disappointed that of that 10 percent, 1 percent is allowed for non-clean alternative energy sources, such as incineration and gasification. These are not clean-burning sources of fuel, and they tend to add to the greenhouse gases and other pollutants in our atmosphere. I’m sorry that those are included, but I understand that this is the way we make legislation and sausage. Having said that, it is very important that we get this RPS in the standard, even if for no other reason than that we are going to be running out of traditional sources of energy. At the current rate of consumption, we only have on our planet 50 years worth of petroleum, 60 years worth of uranium, and 70 years worth of coal to be used. We really don’t have any choice. The economics of this are not only bringing these 30,000 jobs to Michigan, but also the catastrophic effects of climate change if we don’t change course. More severe storms, we are seeing the effects of them now, and the poor people down in Texas, we could be subjected to that here in Michigan as well. Lower lake levels, we know the effects of that on our tourism and fisheries; changes to habitat that will result in different species living here in Michigan, loss of some of our cold water fish and other native species; and also in our tree species and in our growing seasons. There will be changes if we don’t take action. It is very important that we are doing this today. I do see it as an important first step. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to continue to improve these standards as we see the success of them in the near future.

Hey Moron Don't you think we citizen of Michigan are in enough trouble now paying our bill now without you moron raising our electric AGAIN we just got Nabb by you people for a 25% increase in our electric bill. WAKE UP MORON

the passage of this bill removes competition locks Michigan into two companies at a time when a number of new energy possibilities are coming on stream. It increases the burden on the private citizen. It forces us to subsidize the currently uneconomical renewal energy sources. Again another example of no leadership in Lansing.

Hey Jenny and friends: Are you listening to what John McCain is saying about energy? He wants to use all our sources and options, and not leave anything on the table. And, your move by allowing two companies to have a virtual monopoly in Michigan reeks of corruption. And you are the same folks who would put everyone on a universal health care program that would be like Medicaid. Guess what, losers in the state legislature and Loser Jenny Granholm: nobody in their right mind likes a state handout or being told what to do by the state. This government was created to elect representatives who are accountable to us, to do our bidding, not do government's bidding back at the people. People also don't like the extortion your driver responsibility fee because it is causing economic hardship on people way beyond letting the punishment fit the crime. All these things are the straw that broke the camel's back. Isn't any wonder people want to leave Michigan in droves? More and more I'm liking what McCain is saying.

No competition. Government trying to guess what the market will offer. Higher costs for the "greater good". Anyone ever heard of the USSR? Michigan is leading the way for the downfall of the United States.

 Gee, let's raise costs for Michiganders even more while limiting resources. No rolling blackouts here . . .