The point of 25x25 ... the policy question, not the constitutional amendment

by: Eric B.

Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 12:29:39 PM EDT

Most of us know Peter Sinclair, of Midland, as the force behind the important, globally popular Climate Crock of the Week videos. Most people who believe that climate change is a very serious problem that requires very serious action also wind up being very big proponents of alternative/renewable energy. James Hansen, the NASA scientist who was once a McCain Republican has since become something of a noted practitioner of civil disobedience who goes to jail protesting coal (the climate skeptic set sees this not as some kind of warning from a guy who might know what he's talking about, but as evidence that he was always a bit screwy). Peter Sinclair, the last few times I've chatted with him, has been the same way. Today, he fleshes out the 25x25 ballot proposal.

Between 2008 and 2011, the RES attracted more than $100 million in new investment to the state. Michigan electricity prices are down, due to the recession and cheap natural gas, but the report notes that renewable energy doesn’t seem to have had any discernible effect at all on prices: “The electricity market has absorbed this initial level of capacity injections and demand reductions with little to no fluctuation in prices.”

In the last year, according to an appraisal [PDF] by the commission, the state’s electricity prices have started creeping back up, but that’s due to imported coal power, not renewables. Costs for renewables have been lower than expected, causing utilities to repeatedly lower their clean-energy surcharge. In fact, the combined average price of all Michigan’s new clean energy was lower than the price of electricity from conventional coal plants.

Facts. This is also what this proposal is, and what the other proposals are. You can quibble and dislike the execution, and say it doesn't belong in the constitution. I don't think something this specific belongs in the constitution

At the end of the day, however, there are bigger questions at work than what belongs in the constitution and what doesn't. And, by the way, that's a pretty big question in itself. The question here, however, is about the future and meeting future energy needs. The political process has simply failed to deliver an answer about this, and is not likely to stop failing. In fact, the political process is hostile to anything but the status quo, which is quickly becoming the prehistoric past.

It is regrettable that so far things have so far been debated largely in terms of whether the constitution is the right place to have this stuff, because it's prevented opponents to new energy schemes from making their case in support. The thing about that is that they've tried to make their case the last five years, and it has increasingly fallen apart when applied to the real world.