Consumers Energy asks to cut customers' renewable energy cost by 72 percent !

Mitten State reported weeks ago that Consumers Energy customers’ utility bills would be lowered because renewable electricity was turning out to be substantially less expensive than originally predicted.

Today we learn just how much. The utility is asking to reduce the renewable energy charge on residential bills from $2.50 to 70 cents per month – a 72 percent cost cut.

Whether the money goes back to ratepayers or is funneled into solar energy development is a discussion worth having. But the bottom line is that meeting Michigan’s target of generating 10 percent of its electricity from clean, renewable energy by 2015 will be neither as difficult nor expensive as  opponents  would have you believe.

###

U.S. House committee findings: Sixteen hundred miles away, Enbridge Energy technicians scratched their heads for 18 hours

Enbridge restarted the pipeline twice before finally shutting it.

There was a leak in the gas line to our clothes dryer last year. We called Consumers Energy Co.

Their truck was there within minutes. The guy’s Deteco-machine found gas in the house and within minutes another truck with two guys and a gal screeched up and began unloading gear like a Marine Corps assault team.

The dug holes, took out ceiling tiles and combed every nook and cranny in the place. At one point they were suggesting that a backhoe might be called shortly to claw around our foundation in a frenzied treasure hunt.

Thankfully, they found the problem and shut it off. Then they noticed our outdoor gas meter was outdated. In a few minutes they’d torn off the old one and installed a new one – a procedure that involved an awesomely deafening few seconds of high-pressure gas blasting out of the pipe as he swapped meters. Think jet engine. And no smoking. Then they were gone with dark warning of what might become of us if I turned that gas line back on before getting it repaired.

It was professional, efficient, and fast – and I remain impressed to this day with how seriously these folks took their jobs when safety was at issue.

How is it then, that when the alarms detected Enbridge Energy Co.’s oil leak in Marshall, that it took technicians monitoring the problem 1,600 miles away in Alberta, Canada 18 hours to shut valves? 
That and other vexing issues are raised in a U.S. House committee report reconstructing the timeline of the oil spill. The Free Press’ Todd Spangler wrote this excellent account.

Folks who want to keep abreast of the latest on the Enbridge Oil spill have numerous places to do so…..one reason why I haven’t written more about it, others are doing it much better than I could.

But this committee report needs noting. It paints a picture of a company inexcusably out of touch with the infrastructure of its pipeline system – 1,600 miles away – infrastructure critical to maintaining the safety of Michiganders.

By the time one 911 caller told an operator that “the entire downtown smells like gas” Enbridge was still pumping oil into the water and scratching their heads. Or some other part of their anatomy.

A libertarian-minded friend told me, he hopes the disaster will be a wake up call to other companies to make sure their safety protocols are as close to infallible as humanly possible.

I hope so too. But wouldn’t mind our regulators kicking the backsides of violators too.
###

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.

###

###

Consumers Energy swamped with appliance rebate applicants; jerkwater Bubbas seethe

Consumers Energy figured it would get 2,000 applications for appliance rebates as part of its energy efficiency program. It received 12,000.

The rebates are part of the efficiency standards mandated by a 2008 Michigan law. That law requires utilities to help customers use less electricity. That’s counterintuitive for an industry whose success has traditionally depended on selling as much energy as possible.

As a result of the program’s success Consumers may be entitled to a $5.7 million reward.

That rankles the jerkwater Bubbas commenting underneath the Jackson Citizen Patriot’s story: http://bit.ly/beYjNu. They seem to think the efficiency program is a socialist/liberal plot hatched with Consumers Energy to rob ratepayers.

But I would prefer to pay Consumers Energy a bonus for helping customers use less electricity. The alternative is paying them even more to build new coal plants or wind farms to produce more electricity. That’s electricity we do not need if efficiency programs keep doing their jobs.

Numerous and little-disputed studies show that saving energy through efficiency costs about one-third the amount that the energy would cost if it were supplied through new baseload power plants.

Those high rates are what we’ll get if we can’t set up a system where utility companies and their shareholders profit from helping reduce demand for their product.

As for the Bubbas, I have a solution to cut your energy costs to zero: Get off the grid and let the grown ups talk among themselves.

###

Electric customers: 86 million, Consumers Energy: 0 Thank you MEC

From today's Jackson Citizen-Patriot:

"State regulators have ordered Consumers Energy to repay its electric customers about $86 million after finding the utility improperly kept the money as general revenue......James Clift, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council, which was one of several groups involved in the case against Consumers, said they had been raising the issue with the MPSC for eight years. Clift said the way Consumers was handling the money was a 'financial gimmick.' 'It's been a long time coming' Clift said."

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2010/02/state_regulators_order_consume.html

 http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/0,1607,7-159-16400_17280-231260--,00.html