What Nolan Finley really means

No links in this post. Just some plain English translations of Nolan Finley's
recent column spreading unfounded terror among the citizenry.......

EPA raises risk of blackouts  As an opinion columnist, I do not need a source or any data or attribution for this statement, unlike the poor schlubs in the newsroom who are required to substantiate statements they make in their stories. Can you imagine?!

NOLAN FINLEY

An especially stormy summer gives us a taste of what life would be like if the electric umbilical cord attached to the side of our homes were to run dry.

Prepare to panic

Silent air conditioners and refrigerators full of spoiling food is the shared experience in countless neighborhoods hit by weather related power outages.

Saved by the backup

A generous generating reserve in the state kept the power interruptions fewer than they might have been. Despite an unrelenting heat wave, no blackouts occurred because of shortages in electricity supplies, says Steve Kurmas, president and chief operating officer of Detroit Edison, a DTE Energy subsidiary. The utilities did their jobs. I’m about to use their talking points to string together this column.

DTE has a production capacity that exceeds normal demand by 26 percent, and is more than twice the standard 12 percent reserve, Kurmas says. That's largely because the recession wiped out so many customers in this region. So when demand peaks, DTE can ramp up production to cover the load, even on hottest days. Customers are paying to maintain capacity they don’t need, but on a handful of days a year, the utility is able to fire up the oldest, least efficient, most expensive and dirtiest coal plants to meet demand. It may well be less expensive to buy that  energy from the electric grid, but exploring that would collapse the premise of the column.

EPA energy killers You thought I was going to use "job killers" again, didn't you!

That's the situation today. Four years from now, who knows?

Between now and then, DTE will have to shutter 10 coal-burning units, reducing capacity by 20 percent to meet new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal plants. Updating the plants to comply with the new EPA standards in the three-year period allowed would be massively expensive. So DTE will take them off line. Anybody with brainwave activity would question my contention that the utility will shut down 10 coal plants in 36 months, but I'm counting on no one applying critical thinking here.

That will reduce reserves to 6 percent and leave the system vulnerable to blackouts on scorching hot days like the ones we've had this month. Now you may panic.  I remain calm because I know full well the huge lobbying power of the coal industry will easily tie the whole thing up in court for a decade.

Kurmas says DTE has no intention of allowing reserve capacity to drop so low. The utility also is not panicking because they know this too. The company is taking time to assess the regulations, and to get some clarifications from the EPA. Michiganders are going to be funding a new team of utility company lobbyists and lawyers to castrate this idea. If there's a change in the White House next year, it will likely mean a new regulatory ballgame. We all know a new administration will mean more delays, if not a complete about face. Utility lobbyists can outlast any president.

But the plan now is to replace the coal burners with plants that operate on natural gas. That's cleaner power, but costlier. I am pointedly ignoring mountains of credible evidence that energy efficiency programs have vast potential to meet energy needs at a fraction of the cost of gas, nuclear, coal, windmills, solar, etc. Instead, I will pretend natural gas plants are our only option. I'm also not going to mention the conclusions of our state's Public Service Commission, which foresees no need for a new coal plant for more than a decade.

Watch your wallets

Kurmas says to expect electricity bills to soar by 25 to 35 percent. Panic, I tell you! I need not provide any source for this claim, because you can trust the man from the utility company. For residential customers, that'll leave less money to spend on other goods and services, further closing the damper on the economy.

For power-intensive businesses, such as manufacturers, it will mean higher operating costs that will have to be offset either by raising prices or trimming workers. Manufacturers can lower their costs with energy efficiency upgrades, but you'll have to read that elsewhere. We're against that because dope-smoking hippie environmentalists are for it.

The consequences of the coal mandate will be huge. And yet such a momentous change was pushed through by regulatory fiat, without a vote by our elected representatives.

President Barack Obama has proven wholly inept at putting Americans back to work. But as an economy killer, he is without equal. I stray from the topic here to take a generalized, gratuitous shot at the President, who by most accounts is moderately liberal but by the Detroit News’s standards is a raving, communist devil.

The EPA's move to turn the occasional summertime power outage into a daily threat is just the latest example.

nfinley@detnews.com

(313) 222-2064

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The News. Read more of his recent columns and read his blog at detnews.com/finley. Also watch him at 7:30 p.m. Fridays on “Am I Right?” on Detroit Public TV, Channel 56.

Report: 241 Michigan companies employ 10,000 workers in wind and solar supply chains

...in solar energy jobs

Michigan has 241 companies supplying parts for wind and solar industries and they employ 10,000 Michiganders according to this report issued this week by the Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC).

Michigan ranks 4^th in the nation for jobs in the solar industry, and is leads the nation in clean energy patent applications. Clean energy is the fastest growing sector of the state’s economy; there is $10 billion in new clean energy investment in the pipeline right now. 

The ELPC report isn’t complicated. It mostly lists the businesses and their locations, including maps. But it’s nice to have around the next time some grump wants to know “so where are these so called clean energy jobs?” 

This story in Crain’s Detroit Business finds some other savvy business folks who think the wind and solar industries are a pretty good bet in Michigan.

###

New data: Clean energy in Michigan comes in cheaper than coal; utility says it will only cost one-third of original projections

Everyone knows renewable energy is way more expensive than the ‘cheap’ coal touted by those slick industry advertisements Right?

Two words: Bull. Puckey. And a pair of stunning new developments in Michigan make that analysis abundantly clear.

First, a refresher: You’ll remember that the Michigan Legislature passed the state’s first renewable energy standard in 2008. It requires utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015. The utilities also are required to administer energy efficiency programs to help customers reduce their use.

You’ll also recall that the anti-tax and anti-government zealots – along with the fossil fuel lobby – opposed the measures vehemently. Their mouthpieces at places like the Detroit News editorial page complained loudly that the programs were outrageously expensive socialist plots by “the Greens” that would bankrupt the state’s ratepayers.

Now, more than two years in, we have actual data on the cost of these clean energy programs. And two documents released in February show how it’s working out:

#1: The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC), in this analysis (PDF) released last month, reports that the cost of renewable energy in Michigan is 25 percent less expensive than electricity from a new coal fired power plant. It further reports that the cost of saving energy through the new efficiency programs is one-tenth of the cost of providing it with a new coal plant. These renewable energy costs are based on actual contract prices, not guesswork. Bottom line: Cheaper. Than. Coal.

#2: Consumers Energy Co., in a rate filing in late February, reports that meeting the renewable energy law’s requirements will cost one-third of its original projection. Instead of $1.5 billion, it will cost ratepayers $500 million to meet the 10 percent standards. Bills will be adjusted. Adjusted downward. Honestly, when was the last time a contractor started a job, and then told the customer “Geez, we didn’t think it would be so easy. We’re cutting your bill by two thirds.”?

Again: Cheaper. Than. Coal. And that’s even before we begin talking about the reduced health care and pollution costs that accompany clean energy. That’s not something you’re likely to read in a Detroit News editorial anytime soon.

###

GOP scuttles two-week pause on billions in tax breaks for Big Oil; and the Tea Partiers are outraged...um....well....not so much

I don’t see the Tea Party folks quoted in this story, but I’m sure they were screaming loudly about the billions in tax breaks for big oil that were maintained by a mostly party-line vote in the U.S. House. Probably, the reporter just left out their quotes, do ya think?

The next time Republicans trash tax breaks for clean energy industry industries like wind, solar and biomass, just remember what House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said about oil breaks: “… it would single out one industry "and increase their cost of doing business."”

I'm betting he won’t make that argument when it applies to an industry that might compete with the fossil fuel lobby. And I bet the Tea Partiers will be out in force then, given their impartial and principled interest in eliminating tax-break welfare.

##

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.

###

DEBATE FAIL!: Great Lakes? Energy? Transportation? Rebuilding cities? IGNORED.

Michigan is smack in the middle of the world’s most astounding water system – 18 percent of the world’s fresh surface water surrounds us. It provides 40 million people with drinking water; fuels our water-intensive industrial economy and fertilizes our farmers’ bounty. It is threatened by sewage overflows, deposition of hazardous chemicals, and by Asian carp and other invasives.

We are on the cutting edge of advanced automotive batteries, have a burgeoning clean energy technology industrial sector and a vital tourism economy (all are growing – the only economic sectors in Michigan to do so recently).

We have world-class sand dunes, vast forests, fertile farmland and fantastic hunting, fishing, hiking, birdwatching, boating, mushroom picking, frog-spearing, cricket listening and Petoskey-stone hunting. Stone skipping, too. We also have a few cool cities where smart young college graduates want to live work and play. But not nearly enough.

So how did an hour-long gubernatorial debate take place tonight without any…ANY…mention of the role Michigan’s natural resources play in our economy and quality of life?

Not. a. single. one. Not in their opening or closing comments. Not in the questions from the moderators. The Center for Michigan says you can find the replay right here starting Monday, if you have trouble getting to sleep.

Thumbs down to moderators Stephen Henderson of the Detroit Free Press and Nolan Finley of the Detroit News for ignoring energy, transportation, vibrant cities, and the future of the Great Lakes in favor of queries like “would you forego your salary as governor?” (as if that would make a difference) or “are you tough enough” to play political hardball? (seriously Nolan, how could that question elicit anything other than a minute-long infomercial?)

And thumbs down to Virg Bernero and Rick Snyder for utterly failing to incorporate our state’s important natural assets into any of your answers.

Oh, wait. I rewound the DVR and did find that Bernero did mention “…the green automotive future, the green technology, wind turbines…” during a frenetic monologue about manufacturing. So…there you have it.

Should either candidate want to feign interest in Michigan’s water, land or air,here’s a start. Until then, the hell with it. If this is all you got, I’m leaving the governor’s ballot blank in November.

####

Attacking a wind power plan that no one's proposed. Or, are you calling Google a liar?

He’s baaaaacckkk! Russ Harding of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has penned a new column attacking wind energy as too expensive for Michigan and….get this!....a blight on our scenic vistas! http://www.mackinac.org/12798

There’s nothing wrong with the “blight on our scenic vistas” argument. Lots of people think wind turbines are ugly. And even those of us who don’t generally agree that there are spots where they don’t belong. On top of Sleeping Bear sand dunes, for example.

But it’s just a hoot that the Mackinac Center has suddenly found a soft spot for Pure Michigan. But only when it involves wind turbines. Apparently they don’t see the same aesthetic dilemma with coal plants. Or drilling rigs on the shores of the Great Lakes. Or piles of toxic mine tailings. Or paved over wetlands.

Anyway, Mr. Harding cites a study done for the right wing Heritage Foundation that “predicts that using on-shore wind to provide electricity for a family of four as opposed to coal would increase monthly bills from $188.66 to $339.58. For off-shore wind that climbs to $403.65.”

Good God. Surely this would make clean energy proponents rethink their plan to generate the entire nation’s electricity from wind power. Right?

Oh, wait….NO ONE IS PROPOSING OR HAS EVER PROPOSED GENERATING 100 PERCENT OF OUR ENERGY FROM WIND POWER! But that’s how the Heritage Foundation did the calculations cited by Russ.

No, Michigan’s just hoping to hit 10 percent renewable power by 2015, and only part of that is wind energy. Most plans to cut our dependence on dirty, polluting and expensive coal envision energy efficiency as the most important way to meet our electricity needs. That saves ratepayers money as they use less electricity. Efficiency is followed by a mix of numerous renewable energy generation sources: Wind, solar, biomass, natural gas, geothermal, hydroelectric, and, in some scenarios, nuclear.

I mean, for God’s sake, even Google has a plan to eliminate our reliance on coal by the year 2030: http://bit.ly/8HhdEJ And everyone knows Google rules the universe. The chart shows Google’s plan. Wind is a modest part of the mix.

The cost of wind energy is coming down. The cost of coal is going up. Michiganders sent $1.36 billion to other states in 2008 to buy coal according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. That’s money that would stay in our economy if it were invested in homegrown clean technologies or energy efficiency products instead.

Plus, mining coal requires blowing the tops off beautiful Appalachian Mountains and bulldozing the rubble into the streams in the valleys below: http://mountainjustice.org/facts/steps.php

Now, there’s an aesthetic concern worthy of Russ Harding’s attention.
###

Yes and No aren't complete answers to question of wind turbines in Lake Michigan

Congressman Pete Hoeskstra, R-Holland, has launched on online “survey” to gauge public support or opposition to Scandia Wind Offshore’s plans to construct a wind farm in Lake Michigan offshore from the Pentwater/Ludington shoreline. http://hoekstra.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=639

The problem with Rep. Hoekstra’s survey is not that it has no statistical validity – it’s essentially a tool to let his constituents vent, and doesn’t purport to be anything more.

The problem is that there are nine potential selections we can choose, ranging from “There are no circumstances that can convince me to accept wind turbines in Lake Michigan” to “I would accept the proposal because we must move toward renewable energy at all costs”

Yet each of the nine answers naively presupposes that the choice is simply “yes” or “no.” The survey does not acknowledge that, if the turbines are not built, the electricity needs to come from somewhere else.

A more honest survey would ask Rep. Hoekstra’s constituents which energy option they favor. If not wind turbines, would they rather see a new coal-burning power plant in town? Or a nuclear facility on the shore of the lake? Or an aggressive energy efficiency program added their current utility bill to make the additional electricity use unnecessary.

As Michigan moves to build a new clean energy economy, there will be dozens more local discussions like the ones occurring on the Lake Michigan shoreline right now. Wind turbines offshore will surely be considered an eyesore to some. That’s no different from other public utilities. Overhead power lines, interstate highways and railroad crossings are not pretty, but we accept them as a tradeoff for the public service they provide.

Robust discussions on the pros and cons of each of our energy options are worth having. But let’s not let Rep. Hoekstra imply that “Just Say No” is an effective energy policy.

###