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
Showing posts with label Pete Hoekstra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pete Hoekstra. Show all posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Here's where to hear a replay of the gubernatorial debate on the environment. To the no-shows: Click on the link and hear how candidates with courage sound!
You can listen to it here: http://bit.ly/cqFxez
To the four candidates afraid to take the microphone and defend their records and/or ideas on protecting our natural resources: Bad form guys. You should have strapped on a pair and got in the ring last night.
I have serious reservations about supporting candidates who are only willing to appear before adoring audiences. Voters should want a governor who shares their views, yes. But we should also demand a governor with the courage and self-confidence to engage with people whose ideas and world views differ from theirs. It’s a big, sprawling state with a diversity of people and opinions. Our next chief executive needs to represent all of us….including the 45 percent or so who will vote for someone else in November.
State Sen. Tom George, as an example, stood his ground on several issues that were at odds with the majority of the audience. He clearly understands the issues. Kudos to Tom.
Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero and businessman Rick Snyder were sharp on the issues, especially Snyder whose answers plainly showed that he has invested time in understanding – in far more depth than talking points -- how Michigan’s natural resources are integrally linked to the economy and the health of Michiganders.
Mike Cox – whose views differ fairly dramatically from the environmental community on many issues – spoke with my colleagues at the Michigan Environmental Council early in his campaign. He gets credit for engaging. But where was he Wednesday?
Mike Bouchard, Pete Hoekstra and Andy Dillon? AWOL. Pathetic.
The forum was sponsored by Michigan Radio, the Detroit Free Press, and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters among others.
A shout out to MichiganLiberal.com for good coverage of the forum, even if one of their posters declared me a “jobs killer” http://bit.ly/dnayQk MichLib’s counterpart, RightMichigan, carried no mention of the forum.
See you at the primary election in August.
Again,
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Michigan voters take note: Three candidates for governor step up to debate environmental issues; four others run for cover, or couldn't care less
Michigan's candidates for governor have one chance to debate environmental issues head-to-head, and that is at Wednesday night's forum at Central Michigan University, sponsored by the Detroit Free Press and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, among others: http://bit.ly/9QA5q9
Pathetically, four of the seven candidates said "no thanks, we've got better things to do than discuss how to protect the Great Lakes, reduce health-related heartache caused by toxic pollutants, or and preserve our state's majestic forests." Really. That's exactly what they said.
Kudos to the three who apparently see our state's natural resources as worthy of an hour or two of their commitment: Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, State Sen. Tom George and businessman Rick Snyder.
The message from the no-shows is either that they do not consider Michigan's environment a priority; do not understand the monumental importance of natural resources to our economy; or they are unwilling to defend the decisions and votes they've made in the past on environmental issues.
The no-shows are Attorney General Mike Cox; Congressman Pete Hoekstra; House Speaker Andy Dillon and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard. Hoekstra has miserable record of environmental voting -- scoring less than 10 percent according to the League of Conservation Voters. Dillon has exhibited little interest in, or understanding of, the importance of strong policies to protect our state's natural resources in his legislative tenure. Bouchard? Not certain where he stands, but if he's been banging the drum for environmental issues so far I haven't heard it. Cox....well, Cox has successfully positioned himself as a leader of the state's fight to prevent Asian Carp from decimating the Great Lakes. And while he has been tone deaf to other environmental imperatives, I'm a bit surprised he isn't coming.
Anyway, again, the candidates who care enough to show up:
Rick Snyder: http://www.rickformichigan.com/
Tom George: http://www.georgeforgovernor.com/
Virg Bernero: http://www.votevirg.com/
* My opinions do NOT REPRESENT those of my employer, the Michigan Environmental Council. As a 501c3 nonprofit, the Council is not permitted to campaign for or endorse candidates for office.
Pathetically, four of the seven candidates said "no thanks, we've got better things to do than discuss how to protect the Great Lakes, reduce health-related heartache caused by toxic pollutants, or and preserve our state's majestic forests." Really. That's exactly what they said.
Kudos to the three who apparently see our state's natural resources as worthy of an hour or two of their commitment: Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, State Sen. Tom George and businessman Rick Snyder.
The message from the no-shows is either that they do not consider Michigan's environment a priority; do not understand the monumental importance of natural resources to our economy; or they are unwilling to defend the decisions and votes they've made in the past on environmental issues.
The no-shows are Attorney General Mike Cox; Congressman Pete Hoekstra; House Speaker Andy Dillon and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard. Hoekstra has miserable record of environmental voting -- scoring less than 10 percent according to the League of Conservation Voters. Dillon has exhibited little interest in, or understanding of, the importance of strong policies to protect our state's natural resources in his legislative tenure. Bouchard? Not certain where he stands, but if he's been banging the drum for environmental issues so far I haven't heard it. Cox....well, Cox has successfully positioned himself as a leader of the state's fight to prevent Asian Carp from decimating the Great Lakes. And while he has been tone deaf to other environmental imperatives, I'm a bit surprised he isn't coming.
Anyway, again, the candidates who care enough to show up:
Rick Snyder: http://www.rickformichigan.com/
Tom George: http://www.georgeforgovernor.com/
Virg Bernero: http://www.votevirg.com/
* My opinions do NOT REPRESENT those of my employer, the Michigan Environmental Council. As a 501c3 nonprofit, the Council is not permitted to campaign for or endorse candidates for office.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
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.
###
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.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)