Pollution law enforcement in Michigan: Waiting to see how the Snyder/Wyant agenda plays out

Dan Wyant

Dan Wyant is the new chief of the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

During this interview with the Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) Wyant touched on numerous topics of interest for those who want fair, firm and uniform enforcement of laws protecting Michigan’s lakes, woods, cities and people.

Some of Wyant’s answers to MEC’s questions are reassuring. For instance, he said the administration has no intention of rolling back regulations on factory farm pollution.

Some raise yellow flags: He’s big on “voluntary” compliance programs for those same farms (that’s fine as long as “voluntary” isn’t code for replacing enforcement of mandatory laws).

On other answers, he punts to his boss, Gov. Rick Snyder: Wyant’s position on the wisdom of new coal-burning power plants  will come from Snyder. So, we’ll wait and see.

The most important aspect of Wyant’s DEQ leadership will be the message that he and Gov. Snyder send to DEQ staff. The staff must hear that the administration has their backs when they enforce pollution laws fairly and firmly – whether the violator is the corner dry cleaners or a powerful international company.

There is a lot of pressure from interests that would like Michigan’s environmental regulators to back off and stand down. Some in the anti-government crowd were even hoping that Snyder would eliminate the DEQ entirely. That’s not going to happen.

Both Snyder and Wyant have said publicly that Michigan's splendid natural resources are drivers for our economy -- both in terms of tourism and the quality of life that makes people want to live, work, raise families and build businesses here. They've also said they want to cut red tape, speed issuance of permits to pollute and remove regulatory hurdles for business.

Doing both -- firmly enforcing pollution laws while reducing regulatory red tape -- is possible. It will take determination, quality leadership and buy in from the DEQ staff. 

 ###

Michigan's House Dem leadership shows how NOT to reinvigorate Michigan's economy, or their beleagured political party

While we're at it, let's build this too!

Demand for electricity has dropped to a 12-year low in much of Michigan – scuttling plans for power plants like Consumers Energy’s shelved Bay City plant.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency savings – part of the energy reforms passed by the State Legislature in 2008 – are finally kicking into gear bringing jobs and revitalizing industry. Green jobs (pdf) was among the only sector of Michigan’s economy to expand during the economic despair of the past eight years.

The landscape is such that Michigan’s Public Service Commission has concluded

 that no new coal-fired power generating plants are needed for at least 12 years. Across the nation, 138 proposed coal plants have been dropped or put on indefinite hold in the past three years.

So what visionary move was announced today by the brand-spanking new leadership of the Michigan House of Representatives Democratic caucus and their chief, House Minority Leader Rep. Richard Hammel?

Why, construction of a new coal-fired power plant of course. What better way to stimulate the economy than raising electricity rates, undermining the growth of clean energy industries and forcing ratepayers to mail $9 billion to other states to buy coal over the next 40 years to generate electricity the experts say we won't need until 2022 or later?

Folks, we’re not making this stuff up.

Here’s what the environmental community had to say about the Dem plan.

Many of the House Democrats were not on board with the coal plant plank in the leadership’s job creation platform,. which included other proposals like construction of the DRIC bridge over the Detroit River. They stayed away, or on the fringes, of the press conference today. And the Democrats on the Senate side – what’s left of them after the midterm elections –  decided not to join their colleagues in such nonsense.

If I were one of the Democratic reps among the 90 freshmen legislators feeling their way along the corridors of power this week, I’d be mighty uneasy with my leadership right now. Kicking off 2011 by supporting dirty, antiquated, expensive and unnecessary power technologies hardly seems a good start to revitalizing Michigan. Or the Democratic Party.

###

Why doe-eyed liberals aren't responsible for that extra-looking renewable energy surcharge

My DTE Energy electric bill has a separately delineated $3 charge for “renewable energy plan surcharge.”

But, tellingly, there is no similar line item for coal purchases, coal plant operation, or capital costs of coal plants. Nor is there any breakout for nuclear power. None of this, despite the fact that coal and nuclear account for 85 percent of electricity generated in Michigan.

So why is there a separate line item explaining $3 worth of my bill, but no clues as to what the remaining $65.51 goes to?

When Michigan passed its renewable energy standard in 2008 (requiring utilities to provide 10 percent from clean energy sources by 2015), the utilities and their friends in the legislature wanted to make it perfectly clear  that the $3 increase was the fault of those idyllic tree huggers and their insistence on building windmills and solar panels and such. Renewable energy advocates lost their bid to simply fold the rate increase into the rest of the bill.

The renewable line item perpetuates the myth that power from nonpolluting sources is somehow an expensive, boutique hobby horse of weepy, doe-eyed, seitan eaters from Ann Arbor.

And it’s bull. When our rates go up because the price of coal rises, that increase is tucked right into the bill without any separate explanation.

In Michigan, we’ve made progress to a more sensible future. We’ve got a modest amount of renewable energy on the way, and have scuttled a number of ill-advised coal plants. But the Old Guard is not retreating without mining the bridges behind them. And the renewable energy surcharge is one of those land mines.

When it comes time to improve Michigan’s anemic renewable energy standard, it will be more difficult because of the visibility of the $3 surcharge. The response from ratepayers may well be just what the mine layers intended in 2008: “WTF? We’re already paying $3 extra on our bill!”

Kaboom!
###

PSC analysis: Holland coal plant expansion unecessary: Cheaper and more efficient options available (hey, where have I heard that before?)

The Michigan Public Service Commission on Wednesday issued an analysis of a proposed coal-fired power plant expansion in Holland. Because the Holland Board of Public Works (HBPW) plant is a municipal utility, the Commission does not regulate it, so its report is, I suppose, advisory in nature.

But the analysis essentially says what proponents of energy efficiency and renewable power have been saying for years: There are cleaner, cheaper and more efficient options than coal-fired power plants.

Power providers have been lighting coal on fire to turn turbines for more than a century. It’s difficult to break that ingrained mindset. “This is the way we’ve always done it” is a powerful and lazy rationale for any organization. Additionally, companies make no money by helping customers SAVE energy, a powerful disincentive for energy efficiency programs that are the cheapest, cleanest and fastest way to meet energy needs.

But each new analysis, study and business plan that incorporates a better way adds a little more pressure for the utilities to change. We can all do our part by voting for elected officials who support that change, and speaking out whenever we can in favor of sensible and pragmatic alternatives to setting dangerous, expensive stuff on fire to turn turbines.

You can read the report, which is long and wonky. Or you can read the following quick and dirty summary provided by Anne Woiwode of the Sierra Club's Michigan Chapter:

- HBPW failed to “adequately demonstrate the need for the proposed facility” for a number of reasons. “Under-estimating the potential impact of energy efficiency in future years, coupled with an overly optimistic load forecast results in a projected capacity need which may not fully materialize.”


- Analysis of options and scenarios were very limited: “Scenario analysis should be employed across a wide range of variables and sensitivities including: future load levels, fuel prices, renewable energy penetration levels, energy efficiency penetration levels, and other variables which impact future resource planning in order to properly evaluate the associated risks.”


- Alternative ways of meeting their power needs exist, and in fact “Other less costly alternatives were noted in the EGAA and could be selected to meet HBPW’s expected capacity shortfall, if so desired.” These included purchased power, combined cycle natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewables.

Massive coal plant plan pulled off the table, and why it's not a win for those of us who opposed it

Consumers Energy Co. announced this morning an indefinite delay in pursuing its massive proposed coal power plant near Bay City: http://bit.ly/9qCltZ Consumers cited lack of electricity demand and the availability of cheap natural gas as reasons for the delay. They called it a “purely economic decision.”

The decision tracks with recent reports from the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC). Last week, the PSC concluded that a proposed coal plant in Rogers City was not necessary to meet electricity needs, and would have cost customers an additional $77 each month. Last fall, a PSC staff analysis concluded there was no need for new electricity generating capacity until at least 2020.

The delay provides a golden opportunity for Michigan to meet its future energy needs with, primarily, energy efficiency programming that is cheaper and cleaner than building a new baseload plant that will saddle customers with debt and the cost of imported coal for decades to come.

Someone asked me if this wasn’t a huge “victory” for environmental groups that opposed the Bay City plant. The answer is no. The victory will come incrementally, when we establish functional, job-rich and reasonably priced alternatives to coal plants through efficiency and homegrown clean energy alternatives like wind and solar.

There will be predictable cries from the usual sources that this project was scuttled by job-hating environmental groups. That's bullshit. The state's environmental lobby, frankly, doesn't have the clout to pull off such a David/Goliath slaying. Consumers Energy, to its credit, did not scapegoat the enviros, but simply said the economy doesn't support their plant at this time. That's the simple truth. And one that Consumers' shareholders and customers can be thankful the company has acknowledged.

###

###

Breaking News: Michigan DNRE denies Rogers City coal plant; spares customers $77/month increase. Does Pete Hoekstra really support such a rate hike?

The Michigan DNRE just announced denial of an air permit for the proposed 600 megawatt coal plant proposed by Wolverine Power Cooperative in Rogers City. The state Public Service Commission estimates the plant would have resulted in a rate increase of almost 60 percent for the average residential customer. More to come.

Update:

Here is the Michigan Environmental Council's take on the decision: http://bit.ly/dyrP92

And the state's press release: http://bit.ly/bERWwJ 

And here's a PDF of the letter from the head of the Public Service Commission to the governor, explaining why the new coal plant would be a "big mistake," is not necessary to meet the region's energy needs, and would cost almost $77/year for the average homeowner: http://bit.ly/aJ0ax7

And here's an astonishing statement from Congressman Pete Hoekstra (who also is running for governor) decrying the decision on the grounds it would have created jobs. Is Rep. Hoekstra seriously favoring a plan that would more than double the electricity rates for Michigan families? Or favoring building a coal plant to generate electricity that the PSC says we don't need? http://bit.ly/9NXmCA