MPSC confirms things we already knew

Condolences to Rogers City (0.00 / 0)

Whether or not the MPSC decision is justified from a future energy needs standpoint, this is a terrible blow for the people of Rogers City and the surrounding area who are suffering from some of the worst unemployment rates in the state and who were looking forward to the construction, operations and maintenance jobs this plant would have provided and all the related economic spin-off opportunity.

I know that some people, primarily in Lansing and southeast Michigan will celebrate the MPSC's decision to keep northern Michigan pure, pristine and poor.  But for those of us who realize northern Michigan is more than just vacation land, this decision is an economic punch in the gut for ordinary working families & union families.  It's not something to celebrate.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 20:27:01 PM UTC

... (4.00 / 1)

Wow.  Ripped right from the pages of the Detroit News.

I thought the entire point of requiring that we get our input on future energy need from the MPSC and not the DEQ was so we had proper experts weighing in on whether we need these coal plants.  Now, we got the input from the people we wanted it from, and are disappointed by the results?

On the other hand, this is a victory towards movement towards a sane energy policy, that doesn't turn the entire argument about a handful of jobs, that adds to the thing certain other calculus ... like, what we might be doing to our kids and grandkids. And not just our kids and grandkids, but those poor people in Africa you just last week said were a long-ignored side of the climate change story.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 20:54:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Handful of jobs (0.00 / 0)

I haven't read and generally don't read, the Detroit News.  But if any of the Detroit papers echos my comments, I'd be surprised given their past attitude toward northern Michigan.

As far as a sane energy policy goes, this should be determined by the market, not some government agency.  Wolverine is a non-profit cooperative.  If it wants to invest the money in a new plant that meets EPA standards, it and its members are taking on the financial risk, not the members of the MPSC or those people drawing a paycheck from the Michigan Environmental Council.

Eric, I often agree with you on renewable energy strategies and I believe we share the same long term goal of a totally renewable energy future.  My motivation, whether it is for the benefit of northern Michigan or eastern Africa, is based on improving the quality of life for ordinary people.  It isn't based on some partisan fight with the right about climate change.

I would never see the loss of jobs as a victory for our state.  And I'm tired of those who deride economic development projects that create jobs by saying they are only seasonal, or are only a "handful of jobs" or are low-skill service or manufacturing jobs, while they ignore the very real pain to real people caused by Michigan's high level of unemployment.

If we as progressives are more interested in providing someone with an unemployment check than a job, we deserve no future in Michigan politics.

I appreciate the support that organized labor has provided to the Rogers City plant.  Hopefully, something develops in the very near future to make up for this job loss to Presque Isle County.  Lansing now has an obligation to make sure it does.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 23:28:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The market has spoken (4.00 / 1)

Unfortunately, you can't separate climate change and coal plants, because the latter contributes to the former.  In fact, the MPSC's decision weighed in the eventual cost of carbon based on decisions everyone capable of fogging a mirror knows are coming.  Carbon-intense activities will get more expensive in the future, because they have to.

On the other hand, the MPSC was asked -- as part of a law adopted last year by the state Legislature (presumably with support from northern Michigan's delegation) -- to weigh in whether the energy generated by these projects were needed.  After the governor came out against coal earlier this year, everyone bitched and moaned and said the DEQ shouldn't determine whether we needed these coal plants, that the job should be left to the MPSC.  Well, now you have the MPSC's answer.  We don't need the energy that would be provided by these plants, which by the way will contribute to a global problem that is currently killing people in Africa.

And, finally, I'm sorry that you're tired of people pointing out that jobs are "seasonal" or just a "handful."  If you really wanted to make things better for working people, then you'd be want economic activity that employed people all year round and in ways that didn't degrade the environment for all of us.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 09:50:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Absolutely Super Duper News!" (4.00 / 1)

That's, by the way, the subject line from the Michigan Land Use Institute's e-mail about this.  The MLUI, one of the state's oft-overlooked groups, is located in lovely Beulah, about as far north as you can get from Lansing and southeast Michigan without being the U.P.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 23:19:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MLUI (0.00 / 0)

The MLUI does not represent the majority view of most residents of the northern Lower Peninsula, especially those who work to earn a living there.  And you won't find it on any list of northern Michigan organizations working to attracts jobs to the area.  It's a southern Michigan-style environmental group located in northern Michigan.

The fact that it calls the loss of potential jobs this plant would have provided and which Rogers City badly wanted as "absolutely super duper news" says it all.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 23:35:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is your worst line of argument yet (4.00 / 1)

The people employed by the MLUI actually live and work in northern Michigan.  And, yes, they do advocate policies to create jobs (green energy, small ag, livable communities), just not jobs you apparently recognize as work.  You, on the other hand, live in Calhoun County and work in Lansing.  Yet, apparently, you fancy yourself more northern Michigan than people who actually live and work there.

What they're advocating on behalf of is what they regard as a better future for the communities its employees call home.  What you're doing is denigrating them because they disagree with your vision for where they should live.  The difference is that they actually live there.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 09:28:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

Eric, I work in Lansing because the State Capitol is located there and I work for a northern Michigan legislator.  I live in Marshall because of my domestic relationship.  But I grew up in northern Michigan and my family lives there.  I've spent most of my adult life working as a legislative staffer for northern Michigan spending most of my day communicating with the people struggling to make a living in northern Michigan and local officials trying to improve the quality of life in that region of the state.

It's very easy to determine whether "my vision" or MLUI's vision is more in touch with the reality of most northern Michigan residents.  The telephone number for the Roger City offices is 989-734-2191.  Call the mayor and city council members of Rogers City.  Ask them if they received the MPSC's decision with "bright sunshine and happy grins" like the Michigan Land Use Institute did.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 12:50:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As the irony goes sailing over your head... (4.00 / 1)

So, you understand my point that there are not "northern" Michigan people and "southern" Michigan people, that people from all across the state have a stake in this issue.

I don't doubt that elected officials in Rogers City are sorrowful to see that they won't get their small handful of jobs from the Rogers City plant.  Elected officials almost universally nod towards construction and old-style economic development over all other considerations.  However, your framing -- that people who oppose this aren't real northern Michigan people -- is insulting.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 13:42:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wait. WHAT? (0.00 / 0)

We should promote coal-burning plants in Michigan because they create some temporary construction jobs and a few dozen permanent jobs?

You really do have to be kidding. This is the future of our planet's ecology and climate we're talking about here. It's not a "jobs at ANY cost" situation.

Meet me at Eclectablog

---

by: Eclectablog @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 12:20:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jobs (4.00 / 1)

The unions estimated that the Consumers plant alone would have created 1,800 construction jobs and 100 permanent jobs.  And most of these jobs would have been living-wage, union jobs.

The bulk of tourism, logging, agriculture and construction jobs are either seasonal or temporary.  This doesn't mean that these jobs aren't just as important to Michigan's economy as health care, education or automotive manufacturing.

And while I agree we should be moving to a future which increasingly relies on renewable energy, it needs to be done in an economically responsible manner.  The coal industry "jobs at ANY cost" you deride supply the bulk of the energy to build your computer and to operate it and the network that Michigan Liberal runs on.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 12:57:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you again for the economics lesson (0.00 / 0)

We're at a point where coal industry "jobs at ANY cost" is no longer desirable, however.  That's 100 permanent jobs your talking about, at the bigger of the plants.

And, if you've ever worked a construction job through a contractor, you know that those 1,800 jobs wouldn't all be created all at once, nor will they exist for the duration of the construction period.  An electrician may be on site for four or five weeks, and then when their specific work task is completed, go elsewhere.  I was laid off and rehired twice one summer by the same company during construction of the Soaring Eagle's bingo hall. In between another down period, the contractor had me organizing his storage unit.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 13:47:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a scientist and someone heavily involved... (0.00 / 0)

...in promoting alternative energy sources, you certainly don't need to lecture me about where our electricity comes from. If I had my way, we'd have wind farms all up and down the west coast of Michigan and in any of the other high-wind corridors in our state. They could supply dramatically large amounts of electricity to Michiganders and my computer doesn't give a damn whether we burned carbon-emitting, sulfur-releasing coal to do it or if the electrons came from clean energy like wind.

Promoting wind energy in this state would create large numbers of jobs, too. Just as an example, my company makes coatings used on molds that make wind blades along with other structural components used in windmills. It's one of only two growth areas in our company right now and we're down 40% in sales from last year overall.

And, for the record, I've been a green energy advocate long before it could personally benefit me by increasing my company's business.

Meet me at Eclectablog

---

by: Eclectablog @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 18:13:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brady? (4.00 / 2)

I appreciate your insightful comments I've read on this site and elsewhere.

But I'm scratching my head, wondering why you advocate the construction of polluting baseload power plants solely to create jobs, regardless of lack of need for the power that plant would create?

I'm sympathetic to the jobs issue in the rural parts of this state, and acknowledge that the impact on the local economies would be significant. But every KWh generated by an unneeded coal plant (or a needed one, for that matter) is one KWh robbed from a clean energy industry elsewhere: A wind turbine mechanic, mom and pop insulation installers, a solar energy salesperson, etc. Those, also, are folks who live and work in Michigan -- Michigan cities, Michigan's suburbs and rural communities throughout the state.

While Wolverine is a coop, Consumers is not, it is a regulated utility. Even so, the power grid is a system operated under rules for the benefit of all Michiganders and the PSC has an obligation to the ratepayers and citizens statewide - not just the shareholders of a cooperative or the citizens of a selected community. The impact of a coal plant will be felt by asthmatics hundreds of miles downstream; anglers whose catch is poisoned by mercury and our great, great grandchildren who will be paying Lord-knows-how-much to import coal to operate those same plants long after we're gone.

As for the implication that my organization is callous toward or oblivious to the economic challenges and woes of rural Michigan......well, that's a stereotype usually fired off by those on the other side of the political spectrum, and I feel uniquely qualified to call "bull---t" on that my friend!

Hugh McDiarmid Jr.
Michigan Environmental Council

---

by: McDirt @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:16:58 AM UTC

Empathy (0.00 / 0)

Hugh, my issue here isn't with coal power plants.  It's about having empathy with the residents of Rogers City and the very painful loss this decision by the MPSC means for their community.  I'm not arguing with the decision of the MPSC.  My preferece would be to have the market determine whether these plants should be built, not a government agency.  But recognizing that the MPSC makes this decision in Michigan, I'm not taking issue with this decision.

What I am taking issue with are the people who apparently have no empathy for the pain that this decision has caused in Rogers City and surrounding northern Michigan communities.  It started yesterday when a gleeful House Democratic staffer came into our office to tell me the news.  Then we have Eric describing this decision as some sort of victory.  To top it all off we have the Michigan Land Use Institute saying...

"Here is some super duper news: The Michigan Public Service Commission has just issued what could well turn out to be death notices for Michigan's two remaining proposals for new coal-fired power plants-one each in Rogers City and Saginaw...  Wherever you are reading this, if you turn toward Traverse City, the bright sunshine you see is our happy grins around the Institute office."

they might as well have said...

"Here is some super duper news: The Michigan Public Service Commission has just issued what could well turn out to be death notices for hundreds of jobs in Rogers City and Saginaw.  Wherever you are reading this, if you turn toward Traverse City, the bright sunshine you see is our happy grins around the Institute office about the loss of these jobs to northern Michigan."

Hugh, unlike many on the right, I believe that man made climate change is a real and serious problem and I agree that we need to move quickly to a fully renewable energy future.  I'm actually in the process of drafting legislation that has the potential to make green residential energy a very affordable choice for Michigan homeowners and small businesses in the near future.

That being said, I recognize that pain this decision is going to cause many people.  The celebrations from environmentalists about this decision are very insensitive to the communities that were looking forward to these jobs and the income they would have produced.  Environmental groups may be able to raise some new memberships dollars off of this decision, but their reactions isn't going to win them any new friends with people who have genuine empathy for the people who are suffering economically in these communities.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 12:37:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am not ashamed to regard this as a victory (4.00 / 1)

The history of economic development is cluttered with the hulks of old ideas that never materialized for one reason or another.  I'm sure the people of Midland were sad when the coal plant planned for that city fell apart earlier this year because financing had dried up.  I'm sure the people of Gaylord/Grayling were sad when attempts to build an amusement park there fell apart.  I'm sure that the people of my own Union Township were sad when Wal-Mart opted to not build a distribution center there.

This, on the other hand, is a victory for intelligent, forward thinking policy making.  It's been plainly evident for some time that the demand we've been told exists for new coal plants has evaporated.  Now, rather than diving willy-nilly into new coal plants for the sake of energy needs that don't exist, we can plan out something more intelligent.

Rather than denigrating the Michigan Land Use Institute, perhaps you should also assign some blame for the disappointment of Rogers City to the people who made promises that ultimately could not be fulfilled.  I realize it's easy, simple, and popular to blame "Lansing," "state regulators," and environmentalists, but nothing that influenced the MPSC's decision was a state secret.  It was all out there, known to everyone paying attention, for months and in some cases years. Yet, news articles from the area were still filled with promises of jobs and economic spin-off by local officials and the people pushing the project.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 14:53:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So sad, too bad (0.00 / 0)

Yes, Eric, I understand your response to Rogers City is so sad, too bad, you shouldn't have put your faith in coal plants jobs.  And the MEC, MLUI and Sierra Club have no problem dancing on the grave of these lost jobs and what it means to the community if it helps raise membership dollars from places like Chelsea and Troy.  I appreciate your honesty.  Unfortunately, so do Mike Bishop and Pete Hoekstra.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 18:36:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah. NOW I get it. (0.00 / 0)

You are confusing our unbridled glee at scoring "one for the Good Guys" in the environmental arena with some sort of made-up idea you have that none of us give a damn that our fellow Michiganders are hurting.

Well I'm calling BULLSHIT! on that right here and now. I've watched neighbors lose jobs and homes. I've watched families split up and families members leave the state. I've watched as the level of unemployment in our largest metro area has risen to one-in-three. And I am positively depressed by what I see. I LOVE Michigan and it hurts me to see us so down on our luck.

So don't you dare accuse me or any of the other forward-thinking environmentalists of being uncaring about out-of-work Michiganders because that is not something you can glean from our joy at keeping these polluting, oh-so-last-century coal plants out of our wonderful state. It's a completely different topic and the two aren't even remotely connected.

Meet me at Eclectablog

---

by: Eclectablog @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 19:43:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

Actually, they are related.  They are related because the decision is costing these communities jobs.  And regardless of our opinion on the PSC's decision we should be empathic about the job loss and temper the celebration of any political victories in the environmental arena with that human cost that has resulted.  To the people in these communities, the reaction by environmental groups appears to be uncaring about their economic situation.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 20:15:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But, there hasn't been any job loss... (0.00 / 0)

The problem, Brady, is that no one has lost their jobs.  Jobs they were promised as coming out of this process will never be realized.  It's the same way as it was in Midland, and in countless other places where people have offered ideas that never came to fruition.  There is no adult in the United States of America who has not heard at some point in their life, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch."

That happened here.  Chickens were counted before they hatched.  Turns out it was a bum load of them.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 20:23:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dancing on graves... (0.00 / 0)

The fault for heartbreak in Rogers City and Bay City today is entirely the fault of the local leaders who pushed both of these plants as jobs creators.  Power plants aren't built to create jobs; they are built to provide energy.  The jobs are a secondary bonus.

What I'm happy about is that things worked exactly as they were designed to work.  The MPSC was asked to assess the need for both these plants.  In fact, it was practically demanded that the MPSC make that decision instead of leaving it to the DEQ. So, MPSC staff looked at all the same demand figures all of us have been looking at for months and concluded what the rest of us long ago concluded ... that on a demand-based analysis, these plants are not today necessary.

I am not ashamed to say that I am happy that things worked according to the way they were designed to and that the study released yesterday reflected real demand and supply rather than the inflated figures used to back last year's energy legislation (legislation, by the way, that I've been saying for months was based on out-of-date data).  I assumed that the MPSC would use the most optimistic demand figures available, rather than the real ones, and conclude that the plants were necessary.

Further, that lack of need carries with it additional financial risk.  In fact, Consumers for the last two years has pushed for reregulation in part so it could secure financing for new power plants based on a stable customer base.  That is, a reliable demand for electricity.  Absent need, financing becomes even more difficult (in an environment that is already difficult to secure financing).  The MPSC yesterday may have cost the state about 150 permanent jobs down the road; it may also have saved Michigan's rate payers a boatload of money in paying off a power plant they didn't need.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 20:20:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Congratulations (0.00 / 0)

Well, congratulations then Eric to you and the environmental groups.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 20:44:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brady (0.00 / 0)

not to be snarky...but perhaps your legislator and the governor should be working to try and get T Boone Pickings to place his wind turbines in northern Michigan, since he lost the ability to put them in Texas.

You can read my diary about it here...

He has 687 wind turbines ordered and no where to put them. He estimates $12 billion in investments...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 15:21:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

T Boone Pickings (0.00 / 0)

Nazgul, I am already working on your last energy legislation idea.  I would suggest discussing the T Boone Pickings one with one of the other legislators, maybe one from Saginaw County?  Thank you for never being snarky.  ;)

---

by: Brady @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 18:26:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

But it is vital that we communicate to the entire state that this shift to efficiency/renewables in place of new coal is not just a greenies' pipe dream, but backed by the data and research of the MPSC (among lots of other studies). Staying silent or soft peddling this important report out of sensitivity to one or two communities would be counterproductive to establishing progressive energy policy in ALL OF Michigan. It is a victory, and I have no problem calling it that.

Again, the jobs that these plants would concentrate in one or two communities will -- if the plants are not built -- be spread across the state in renewable and efficiency industries. That may be a bitter pill for those communities, but it is a win for the state as a whole and for good public policy.

If there is anger from local communities, my opinion is that it should be directed at the utilities that are using them to try and ram through unnecessary and ill-advised coal plants using the "jobs" message as a crude but effective battering ram. They're promising a bonanza they know full well they may not be able to deliver given the current energy landscape, and have with some effectiveness made environmentalists and regulators the "villians' should the plans collapse.

I look forward to your legislation on residential energy -- on of many steps necessary to transition to a better future -- and appreciate that we are in general agreement on the totality of the energy issue, if not some of the specifics!

---

by: McDirt @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 15:23:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, Hugh! (0.00 / 0)

Totally off-topic but is your dad the Hugh McDiarmid formerly of the Detroit Free Press? If so, he was the recipient of my first-ever Letter to the Editor back when I was a tender, young & naive college freshman, defending a student-driven effort to get the McGoff name off the Wharton Center because of their investments in apartheid-run South African corporations. Your dad (if that was him) thought we were foolish. :D

Man, that seems like an eternity ago...

Meet me at Eclectablog

---

by: Eclectablog @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 18:24:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

That's my father. Retired and still complaining bitterly about the Detroit News editorial page and the like.....

---

by: McDirt @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 19:28:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dosen't the Grid Extend Beyond State Lines? (0.00 / 0)

It's not often I read all the comments beyond the first couple. But these made for some interesting reading.

I agree Coal fired electrical plants are a bad thing, Nuclear power generates waste for a millennium and beyond no one knows. Why isn't the state working toward manufacturing the products that are needed to make the wind generation products. (or is that one of the Governors ideas that is just poo-pooed because she is the democratic governor?)

Power can be exported to states that don't have the capacity to make their own. Coal isn't the answer no matter how much is below ground, leave it there! I don't think Michigan is a coal producing state anyway.

I seem to remember stories about the Dutch harnessing the prevailing winds to do their work. Maybe it's time we stopped pointing fingers, relying on the people in Lansing, who by the way have some real disturbing plans for our state according to the bills proposed, and start manufacturing, installing and MARKETING the products that will harness the wind and the sun. Or have all the people capable of those duties already left?

Just my two cents..

---

by: OTRDriver @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 11:45:53 AM UTC

The current demand is met with dirty plants (4.00 / 1)

Today when we turned on our computers and found our favorite site and began commenting on this issue, we burned coal.  When we used our ipod or blackberry, we burned coal.  When we burned that coal, we did so in plants that are antiquated and cannot be made cleaner.  That will also be true tomorrow and the day after and the day after ...

Unless someone believes that alternative energy will meet our current baseload capacity in the short term, then we are simple agreeing to burn coal in the dirtiest way possible.  If an alternative energy system takes a generation to invent and use, then we will burn coal in the dirtiest way possible until the new system is here; if in fact it ever comes.

When symbols supplant reality, we make silly decisions.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 13:46:49 PM UTC

We're not talking about today; we're talking about tomorrow... (0.00 / 0)

Neither of these plants was going to go online in the short term, which I think everyone forgets.  Kern-Weadcock's start date scheduled for 2018, for instance.  So, in the short term, we're stuck with old, dirty plants.  That's unfortunate, certainly, but what your suggesting is to blame people opposed to new coal plants for the lack of vision of yesterday's leadership.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 14:56:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not blaming anyone (0.00 / 0)

I just don't think that our current energy needs will be met by alternative means in 2018.  I also don't think alternative energy will completely replace old, dirty capacity by 2068, which is why I think replacing old coal plants with new coal plants between now and 2068 should part of the overall plan.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 15:08:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Efficiency (4.00 / 1)

Ignatius:

Efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest and fastest way to meet energy needs, and it can absolutely meet our short term needs. I'm not even counting development of renewables in the mix yet.

As for the old, dirty coal plants, you are right. But to date, no utility has proposed retiring ANY of its old coal plants. They've only proposed building new ones.

---

by: McDirt @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 15:27:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Consumers is talking about retiring old plant capacity (0.00 / 0)

True, its not part of an official filing, but frankly the "requirements" from the State have been a moving target, to be generous to the State.  Its not surprising that all cards are not on the table.

Energy efficiency is incredibly important, but the costs associated with a smart grid seem astronomical at the present time.  Kind of a double-edged sword: "Yippee, the State of Michigan is going down the toilet, so we don't need new coal plants"/"Dang, the country's economy is going down the toilet, so we can't afford a smart grid/$4.50 per gallon floor on gasoline/Cap&Trade.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 15:46:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Everything is going to get more expensive, not cheaper (4.00 / 1)

You can blame past presidents (Clinton, Bush) and past Congresses (and the current one), past governors (and the current one to a smaller degree) and past and state Legislatures (as well as the current one) for not seeing the writing on the wall.  If they'd bothered listening to scientists instead of listening to fossil fuel industry flunkies, we'd be well on our way to upgrading the grid to make best use of renewables.  But they didn't.  They listened to fossil fuel industry flunkies, and now that we've figured out that the flunkies were lying and we're moving towards national energy policy, we find the national Treasury drained because the last president blew it all invading and occupying a country for no good reason ... and at a time that we find also ourselves with a failing health care system, which itself will require time and investment to fix.

Anyway, why wouldn't the state maintain moving targets?  Every time someone -- the governor, a state agency -- states the truth, the same gang of worthless jackasses pop up and complain endlessly about it.

The problem is that no matter how expensive developing renewable energy sources appears to be today, it's an investment we need to make.  Fossil fuel energy is going to continue getting more expensive, as are the material costs of investing in a new national energy policy (alternatives and smart grid).  The problem is that the costs for the energy produced will continue rising for coal and other fossil fuel-based energy once the real costs for it are covered. Right now, we pay merely for the electricity, while the externalities get shuffled off to a different bill. Once those externalities are paid for on your energy bill, it's going to become a good deal more expensive.

The choice is this ... pay a lot right now to invest in alternatives and grid upgrades, or pay a lot right now to build new coal plants and pay even more down the road when the costs of carbon are added to your home utility bill.  Yesterday's study reaffirms that the former comes with the least amount of pain.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 16:40:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I basically agree with you except for a few points (0.00 / 0)

We're not paying for the externalities right now, and I don't think we will for awhile.  I know Friedman says we should, but we're still not.  So, cost of going cold turkey v. cost of implementing over a timeline, in my opinion, is still a relevant conversation.  It is cheaper to build a new coal plant now than implement the smart grid now.  Again, that doesn't tell us what we should do in a long term strategy, its just a reality.

What you're saying about when we should have started this path is dead on, but I come to a different conclusion as a result.  We should have started in the 1970s, but if we had, we would not start by saying "death to coal".  The approach would have been incremental.  Perhaps things are bad enough now that we can't afford the incremental approach we failed to adopt a generation ago.  Nonetheless, I don't see our country being able to afford a massive cost structure shift over the next decade to get wind and solar on par with coal.

This conversation of course leaves aside the current reality in terms of energy created by wind and solar today, the issues related storage of energy, etc.  If tomorrow we decided to never burn a lump of coal ever again, the country would have to be dark at sundown.  

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 17:35:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, actually we agree entirely... (0.00 / 0)

We should have started in the 1970s, and we should have been moving incrementally all along.  The problem, of course, is that it wasn't really until the late 80s, early 90s that scientists really started having a concrete idea of how we are altering our climate so I don't know that incremental movement would have incorporated clean coal and carbon sequestration technology.  

We are today paying for the externalities.  We're paying for them through the health care system, when heat and fossil fuel emissions create Ozone Action Days.  We're also paying for extreme weather through disaster insurance premiums, federal disaster relief, and also in assistance to farmers who've suffered crop losses.  The external cost we're not yet paying is for national security and foreign policy resources that will have to be used to quell climate-related unrest in other parts of the world.  Even if we don't pay directly for those costs through the price for energy (some of it will get shifted there when carbon is given a per-ton price), we're still paying for it.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 18:09:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a fair point... (4.00 / 1)

However, the latest research suggests that a blend of renewables, upgrades to the grid that include better storage, and energy efficiency can meet our needs by 2018 without new coal plants.  If you were to top that off with a good, solid feed-in tariff program, then you could meet our energy needs while also turning loose the creative powers of the market.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 15:28:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brady! (0.00 / 0)

Here's the statement of  MEC. Please explain to me how this constitutes either glee, or dancing on anyone's grave.

Statement of the Michigan Environmental Council
September 8, 2009

No new coal-fired power plants are needed in Michigan for at least 13 years, according to a report released today by the Michigan Public Service Commission staff.

The report gives impetus to a clean energy strategy adopted by the State Legislature and Gov. Jennifer Granholm last year when they approved Michigan's first renewable energy standard and a new energy efficiency program. Accelerating those programs will meet the state's energy needs, create in-state jobs and cut down dangerous pollutants including climate-changing carbon dioxide.

"This report makes clear that our energy needs can be met with efficiency programs that save money for ratepayers and with clean energy options like wind, solar and biomass that provide manufacturing jobs for Michiganders and revenue for farmers throughout the state," said Michigan Environmental Council President Chris Kolb.

"The alternative is building more polluting coal plants that suck the life from our economy by forcing us to spend billions of dollars to buy coal from other states."

---

by: McDirt @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 23:55:26 PM UTC

Hugh (0.00 / 0)

You stated above, "I'm sympathetic to the jobs issue in the rural parts of this state, and acknowledge that the impact on the local economies would be significant."

Where is that sympathy or that acknowledgment in the press release?

While I agree that the statement of MEC is not as irresponsible as the one from the Michigan Land Use Institute, it is still completely lacking in empathy for the people of Rogers City.  Until you made the statement above on this blog, there has been no acknowledgment by the state's environmental organizations regarding the negative side of this decision.

I have a suggestion.  Perhaps the MEC and the Sierra Club would agree to meet with Rogers City officials in a planning meeting and the general public in a separate town hall meeting to help that city develop a strategy to replace the jobs that would have been provided by the Wolverine plant with green energy jobs in that community.  We'll call it the Rogers City project.  It can demonstrate how the state's environmental community can help actually create jobs rather than eliminating them as it's often accused of doing.  I'll even be willing to do the grunt work to put it together.  Keep in mind that it won't be a one shot deal for publicity purposes.  It will require a long term commitment from your organization.  

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:47:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where's the sympathy for the environment (0.00 / 0)

from those who are concerned about jobs?

Don't these people breath air too?

Gary, IN and Bethlehem, PA provided a bunch of jobs in their hayday...and they were sh*tholes environmentally.

I hope those jobs are good paying, because they are going to need the extra cash for their kids asthma treatments.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:57:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

For Snarky... (0.00 / 0)

Again, I took your suggestion for residential green energy legislation and went with it.  It makes sense for both the environment and jobs.  It very likely may become law.

Have you found a legislator yet to move your T. Boone Pickings "Mr. Swift Boat" proposal?

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 02:15:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your bill... (0.00 / 0)

Truly, honestly, if there is opposition to that bill, it will be based simply on the grounds that people wouldn't want to pass a bill authored by a Democrat.  It's a bill that should attract wide, bipartisan support (I know a guy on the southern edge of Mt. Pleasant who is financing home geothermal to power and heat a year-round hydroponic greenhouse ... and he's as Libertarian as the day is long), and if successful could create a boatload of green energy-related jobs.

That's the kind of creative, out-of-the-box thinking we need.  Denigrating the MLUI as fake northern Michigan people, and accusing others of dancing on the graves of lost jobs because we see coal as an expensive dead end, is not.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 03:09:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't care (4.00 / 1)

if it was Carl Rove's wind machines.

They would provide much needed investment and alternative power generation to Michigan.

The reason I suggested it to you is because you were talking about the need for jobs in Norther Michigan and I thought a $14 billion investment might help mitigate the loss of 100 jobs...

Plus, a wind farm is more likely to work in N Mich than in Saginaw County...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 16:54:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here is the problem, Brady (4.00 / 1)

It is entirely possible to feel two different things about one single issue.  In Hugh's case, it is entirely possible that he is sympathetic to the need for jobs in rural places while at the same time believing that the best way to employ those people is in exciting, new, clean energy industries.  I can understand that, because it's how I feel, too.

The truth is that a coal plant is not as significant an economic driver as you're making it out to be.  It would create a few permanent jobs and a revolving pool of contracting jobs in the short- to mid-term.  The loss of those potential jobs, while unfortunate, is very minor compared to the greater good that the MPSC has done in ratifying what everyone already knew about these two proposed coal plants -- the demand for them just simply didn't exist.  Now that we all know what we all knew anyway, we can get on with the business of making sure that we're not shortselling our future for the sake of a small number of jobs today.

Your objection to the MEC's statement on this decision is that because it doesn't go out of its way to express sadness that potential jobs were lost that it somehow takes glee in destroying jobs that already exist.  Unless you are predisposed negatively towards environmentalists, that is not an interpretation that a normal person would take away from that.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 02:59:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reading between the lines (0.00 / 0)

I'll take your response to mean that upon closer examination you do not detect the afore-alleged "glee" or "dancing on graves" tone from the Michigan Environmental Council's response to the MPSC.

Thousands of Michiganders truly have lost their jobs and deserve sympathy and support. Your legislation regarding residential renewable power financing will help move us that direction; but your fixation on demanding "sympathy" for the potential loss of hypothetical jobs that never existed and would have stolen future jobs from the clean energy sector seems pretty far afield in an era where there are real job losses we need to be mitigating.

The Bay City and Rogers City proposals (which by the way are far from dead) are counterproductive for Michigan and  dubious dirty energy jobs boosts for specific communities. I see no need in communications statements to mourn their hardship. Nor -- had the MPSC report been a boost for the proposed coal plants -- would I have expected Consumers Energy to issue a release mourning the loss of future clean energy jobs in communities across the NE part of the LP that would result from the construction of these plants.

I'd be glad to have lunch or coffee with you one day to discuss ways we can mutually work together with you or the Rep. to create good jobs and a better environment in Michigan (with the caveat that I do communications work and do not make policy decisions) hugh@environmentalcouncil.org

Thanks for the good dialogue.

---

by: McDirt @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 03:12:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Skip the bull (0.00 / 0)

Hugh, I'm just a cog in the machine.  Having a political lunch or coffee with me isn't going to address the situation in Rogers City.

My question to you is, if I do the work in setting up the meeting, will MEC and the Sierra Club agree to meet with Rogers City officials in a planning meeting and the public in Roger City in a town hall meeting, to lay out a plan to help build that community through green energy jobs?

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 04:01:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Skip the bull??? Really? (0.00 / 0)

You just jumped the shark. Hugh extends his hand in an effort to find common ground and you bat it away. Great way to work toward a solution, Brady. Not.

Meet me at Eclectablog

---

by: Eclectablog @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:24:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Common Ground (0.00 / 0)

What I would like to see from the MEC and the Sierra Club are direct and active efforts by those organizations to help communities like Rogers City to attract green energy jobs and economic development to their communities.  That has to happen at places like the Rogers City Hall in meetings with city officials and the residents of that city.  Wolverine Power and Consumers Energy already understand this and are doing it.  I'm suggesting that MEC and Sierra Club do the same if they want to be taken seriously about taking an active role to help create jobs through green energy.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 13:17:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (4.00 / 1)

Thank you for reminding us why progressives distrust the Democratic Party.

Progressives advocate position, usually based on facts.  They are greeted with yelling and shouting.  Progressives continue to press position by stating facts.  More yelling and shouting.  Facts are confirmed by outside analysis.  Progressives are blamed for the problem.

Do you plan to make similar demands of the former quarry owners and steel industry in general. After all, those are the people actually responsible for Rogers City's high unemployment.  Or, do you plan to simply continue blaming environmentalists for this?

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 13:19:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

Eric, you and I believe that environmentalism can be compatible with job creation and economic development.  We are working on one idea to do that.  It would be great to see the state's environmental organizations focus more heavily on that progressive approach rather than having an almost exclusive focus on stopping job creation and economic development they view as environmental unfriendly.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 13:38:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (4.00 / 1)

I didn't come by these wacky ideas about green job growth by one day stumbling across the wrong rock.  I came by them in large part thanks to resources already made available through Michigan's environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and the Michigan Environmental Council.

It's not their job to tell the people of Rogers City how to attract green energy jobs. It's the job of the people of Rogers City to decide they wish to develop green energy and go look for resources.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 13:48:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Progressive attitude (0.00 / 0)

Unforunately, the attitude that you express above reflects that of Michigan's environmental organizations.  It's unfortunate.  Environmental oragnizations in Europe, in contrast, have long been active partners in economic development projects.  The MEC and Sierra Club have the potential to be much more effective in helping to build Michigan's green future if they re-evalutate their role and re-direct their energy.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 14:01:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think you actually read my comment all the way through... (4.00 / 1)

The very same groups you have been criticizing these last three days have for years been advocating things like wind turbines and solar panels as ways to make best use of Michigan's latent manufacturing and also to combat climate change.  Yet, you pretend that a handful of press releases expressing support for an MPSC study that says the same thing that everyone already knew represents their entire body of work over the course of the last decade.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 14:11:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huckleberry-style progress (0.00 / 0)

Projects like the one in the link below are what Michigan needs.  People like Mike Huckleberry are the true progressives working to build a future for our state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 13:49:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where do you think Mike Huckleberry got that idea? (0.00 / 0)

I remember Mike Huckleberry's campaigns against Dave Camp.  At first, he was campaigning against Camp because of free trade, not green energy jobs.

The duty of advocating for green energy in the beginning fell instead to the environmental community, and the state's chapter of the Sierra Club and the Michigan Environmental Council.  Hell, it was Dave Dempsey when he still worked for the MEC who directed me to a study laying out how green energy could reinvigorate Michigan's latent manufacturing.

All of these people who you've denigrated over the last three days were on the green jobs train long before you even thought of going to the station.  Rather than dismissing them as fake progressives and southern Michiganders, you owe them a good deal of thanks for providing you with the ideas that today you are pushing.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 14:04:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Working together (0.00 / 0)

Eric, check out these Swedish environmental NGOs and what they are doing to partner with the private sector and local and regional governments to create economic development.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 14:14:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, where do you think the Democratic Party got these ideas? (0.00 / 0)

Green energy jobs was not an idea of the Democratic Party.  Green energy jobs came from the environmental community.  The basic idea behind the bill you're authoring?  It came from the same groups that you've been attacking these last three days.  The same press release you upthread criticized as dumping scorn on Rogers City cites the job growth potential of green energy.

What you've done is bought into the nonsensical rightwing demagoguery that environmental groups have no positive solutions, only hatred for America and industrialized society.  The reality is very different.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 14:24:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cooperation (0.00 / 0)

Acutally, the idea behind the bill you and I have been working on originally came from the German Green Party and was first put into practical application by the German state (if that's what they're called) of Nord Rhine-Westphalia.  I got the idea from Nazgul here on the blog.  There more I read about it, the more it made sense.  And I appreciate the help your local government friend contributed in helping to improve on this idea for Michigan.

I have absolutely no problem including Michigan's environmental groups on this bill.  In fact, I was planning on sending Gayle Miller at the Sierra Club a draft as soon as we receive it.  It's the type of positive, progressive and constructive policy that it would be great to see Michigan's environmental community taking a more active role in.

Eric, I have no hatred of Michigan's environmental organizations.  In fact, I spent an entire semester as a full-time intern for the Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter.  My objection is to the insensativity of celebrating a decision that costs Michigan living-wage union jobs without any acknowledgement of that loss.  If Nazgul's buddy T. Boone Pickings would have proposed building a wind energy farm at Rogers City and it was rejected, I doubt you would see Wolverine Energy or Consumers issuing a press release celebrating the decision.  

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 15:04:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The totality of work, not just bits and pieces (0.00 / 0)

The problem here is that Michigan's environmental community has long pushed green energy as a sustainable, better alternative to old, dirty, fossil fuel energy.  The press releases you're deriding as dancing on the graves of potential jobs lost are part of a long history of pushing and promoting cleaner energy as a better economic engine.

And while I respect the hell out of the bill you're working on, it comes to us in a political environment made more ready for it thanks in large part to that advocacy.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 15:30:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree (0.00 / 0)

I absolutely agree that Michigan's environmental organizations have a long history of progressive advocacy on behalf of green energy.  It will be wonderful to see that advocacy result in the practical application of creating living-wage jobs.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 15:40:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MEC (0.00 / 0)

The answer your your inquiry Brady is probably not. MEC's role (and the work we're funded to do) revolves around establishing strong statewide environmental policies through work in the state legislature, agencies and to a lesser extent through advocacy with our DC Congressional delegation. An endeavor such as the one you describe sounds worthy, but almost certainly is outside the scope of our current scope and funding capacity.

Our goal and expectation is that the policy and educational gains we make lays the groundwork for good bills like the one you described to pass -- laying the groundwork for good ventures that create jobs like Mastech Manufacturing in Manistee where laid off auto industry toolmakers are building residential wind turbines and like the proposed conversion of the idle Ford Wixom assembly plant into a clean energy park.

I am not being argumentative or trying to be provocative, but I wonder how familiar you are with MEC's work and mission  and with our policy folks like James Clift and David Gard? Coffee with me will not directly help the employment situation in Rogers City, but I would hope it would help forge a better understanding between us and enhance the potential for working together on future projects and legislation. Seems to me that we're 90 percent on the same page with this stuff.

---

by: McDirt @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 17:29:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eric...the plant is KArn-Weadock (0.00 / 0)

named after Dan Karn...former Consumers Power executive.

---

by: asagady @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 01:59:22 AM UTC

Noted... (0.00 / 0)

For years, I thought the Port Huron paper was the Times Sentinel.  It's the same kind of error.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:23:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]