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.

###

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.

###

Taxpayer subsidies? I got your subsidies right here pal! (And why aren't my free market friends raising hell about this?)

One of the most persistent criticisms of efforts to stimulate clean energy jobs (wind, solar, etc.) is that it requires taxpayer funded government subsidies.

As Russ Harding of the Midland, MI-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy says in
a 2009 column “if the answer is yes (that they require subsidies), the end economic results are more likely negative rather than positive.”

The critics never acknowledge that the status quo is laden with huge subsidies for the coal, nuclear and oil that currently make up the bulk of our fuels.

Now we have some idea how much those subsidies are. And they’re huge.

The Environmental Law Institute has published a report, Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources, 2002-2008. The findings: Subsidies to fossil fuels “totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.”

Most of the fossil fuel subsidies were permanent alterations to the tax code. The largest, $15 billion, was the Foreign Tax Credit – a direct incentive for U.S. companies to invest in energy production outside the U.S. instead of in homegrown fuels made by Americans.

By comparison, most of the $29 billion in renewable energy subsidies were time-limited – a huge barrier to investors who are understandably unwilling to invest in industries that may get their tax breaks yanked at the whim of the next Congress.

So this raises two key questions:
1) As a country supposedly unified in increasing our energy independence and moving away from dangerous, unhealthy fossil fuels, why are we subsidizing the fuels we don’t want, rather than the ones we do?
2) Why aren’t so-called “free market” proponents like the Mackinac Center raising more – or any – hell about the tax breaks for fossil fuels? (Hint: Some of these organizations have funders with names like Exxon Mobil)

If we’re going to subsidize energy production, let’s subsidize clean, renewable, American-made energy. If we’re going to be purist “free market” proponents, let’s work to eliminate all energy subidies – and it makes sense to start with the biggest ones: Fossil fuels.

Anytime someone says clean American energy shouldn’t have to get subsidies to compete, they need to answer these questions. Every. Single. Time.
###

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.

First U.S. offshore wind farm approval a wake up call for Michigan policy makers

The nation’s first offshore wind farm is on its way to reality in Cape Cod after federal approval announced today: http://bit.ly/9chQXH

The Michigan Environmental Council says the Cape Cod decision should be a wake up call for Michigan legislators to get busy creating strong and sensible guidelines for wind farms in the Great Lakes: http://bit.ly/9NQXjn

In Michigan, no offshore wind projects have been formally proposed. But informal plans have already mobilized plenty of opposition from local who would rather not see turbines in their Great Lakes. Many of these NIMBY (not in my backyard) groups have adopted “environmental” names and themes. But I think it’s important to point out that, to my knowledge, no established Michigan environmental organization opposes wind turbines in the Great Lakes.

Most environmental groups, even Scenic Michigan www.scenicmichigan.org recognize that there are viewscapes, sensitive ecological areas and special places where turbines should not be permitted. But, overall, they serve the greater good.

We tolerate ugly overhead power lines, chunks of land marred by electric substations, and junction boxes in our neighborhoods as the tradeoff for reliable, cheap electricity from coal. We can tolerate turbines in some areas of the Great Lakes for the same reason – with the added advantage that turbines have none of the coal pollution that sickens our children, poisons our air, makes our fish unsafe to eat and changes our climate.

The Cape Wind project overcame NIMBY resistance from the powerful Kennedy family. The Kennedys are typically strong environmental advocates. But just not in their backyard, one supposes.

The decision is one more step in the slow but steady progression of sensible energy policy in the U.S.
###

U.S. military's renewable energy goal puts Congress, Michigan to shame

Don’t believe the liberal peacenick wackos when they cry about our dependence on fossil fuel being a national security problem? Then maybe you’ll believe the military: http://www.pewclimatesecurity.org/

This study released today by the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate details how the Department of Defense has set a goal of producing or procuring 25 percent of its electric energy needs from renewable sources by 2025. They also plan a U.S. Navy "green" carrier strike group to run completely on alternative fuels by 2016.

Think how sheepish some terrorist will be explaining how his cell was wiped out by some pansy carrier strike force that didn’t even run on Mideast oil!

It makes you wonder, if the military, which accounts for 80 percent of the U.S. government’s energy consumption can set a 25 by 2025 renewable energy goal, why the hell can’t the U.S. Congress? And why can't Michigan strive for something better than 10 percent by 2015?

###

Down with Big Gov't renewable energy subsidies! Let go nuclear instead.......uh, oops!

President Obama is seeking $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants planned in Georgia. The guarantees put taxpayers on the hook for the money, should the venture fail or run over budget, which is a pretty good possibility.

http://theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/02/16/news/doc4b7ab6e069874451200327.txt

So, I'm expecting to see conservatives and free-market proponents come out in force against this subsidy with the same fervor they assail subsidies for solar power or wind energy.

But, I'm not holding my breath.
 ###

Michigan House Republicans bizarre coal plant assertion: Talk to me in 2022

Michigan’s House of Representatives Republican caucus released a “Task Force on Jobs” report this past week suggesting that building new coal-fired power plants will reduce ratepayer costs.

It’s great news.

Because if had been a defensible falsehood rather than an outrageously transparent one, it might have been convincing.

A good sized coal fired power plant requires ratepayers (not shareholders) to finance $3 billion in construction costs. It saddles our children and grandchildren with a cumulative $9 billion debt to pay for coal from other states (nothing like spending locally!) It creates untold expenses to care for those whose health is damaged by pollution. And it ignores the certainty that there will be a price on carbon emissions in the future.

Western Upper Peninsula customers of WE Energy saw just what happened to their rates last year as a result of new coal-fired capacity built on their behalf. Coal cost them a 33 percent rate hike http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/536249.html?nav=5003

I’m not among those who believe that we can meet our energy demands without ever building a new coal plant. We likely will need some as a crutch to get us to a cleaner and smarter future that relies first on efficiency and second on renewable energy’s exciting new technologies.

But we don’t need those money sucking coal plant crutches yet. Especially not when our state’s own Public Service Commission staff concluded in September that Michigan won’t need a new coal plant for at least 13 years: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/756/0/1552468/Environment/Public.Service.Commission.Says.New.Coal.Plants.Not.Needed

What’s needed now is a wholesale commitment to energy efficiency. Programs that help industry, commercial businesses and homeowners become more efficient are the only ones that truly reduce ratepayer costs. They also provide in-state jobs for builders, installers, and the many Michigan companies that manufacture products that help cut energy use.

Coupled with aggressive use of renewable energy source like wind and solar, efficiency can meet our energy needs until we need to make a decision about whether a dirty, expensive coal plant is a necessary evil.

Talk to me in 2012.

###

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.

###