Economy

Re: 2007 Senate Bill 213 (Authorize higher electric bills for non-nuclear “renewable” power )

Andrea — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:10:07 GMT

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

Insanity

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:22:41 GMT

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.

Time to remove all the bums in Lansing - McCain for President!

Jennybegone — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:23:37 GMT

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.

energy bill

jimc57 — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:50:18 GMT

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.

Senior

Anonymous Citizen — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:55:14 GMT

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

"journal statement"

Admin003 — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:59:05 GMT

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.

"journal statement"

Admin003 — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:58:26 GMT

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.

"journal statement"

Admin003 — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:57:41 GMT

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.

"journal statement"

Admin003 — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:21:59 GMT

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!

Follow The Money....

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:51:14 GMT

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.

When is it time to go green?

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:11:21 GMT

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????

When is it time to go green?

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:10:09 GMT

"no vote explanation"

Admin003 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:19:18 GMT

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.”

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:30:43 GMT

tenses?Wilma?excuses sought tonic .

The market though comprised of humans has no soul, no morality.

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:12:29 GMT

You would be wise not to forget that.