A little game of journalism compare and contrast: Proposal 3

by: Eric B.

Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 10:17:00 AM EDT

First off, there's something missing from the debate on Proposal 3. Feels like that's been said quite a bit over the last two weeks. Perhaps the reason is that the debate over this year's long raft of ballot proposals is so wholly unsatisfying. Back to the point, which is that we've heard a lot about costs of Proposal 3, and more on this in a second, but there hasn't been heard a single word about the elephant in the room, which means taking the energy generated at natural gas plants or windfarms and moving it to people's homes and maybe even their vehicles.

It's the grid, folks, and it hasn't gotten any more up-to-date since that massive blackout about eight years ago. It's old and outdated, and a huge chunk of energy is lost during transmission. If we really wanted to reduce the energy bills of homeowners, we'd start by replacing the outdated technology of transmission and figure out something better.

It's also critical to the future of energy in Michigan. You might have heard about the windfarm being built in Gratiot County. Largest one in the state, depending on which article you read. Here's a little secret ... Gratiot wasn't chosen because it has the best wind. It was chosen because it has good wind but superior access to transmission lines than other places where a huge upfront investment would also include hooking it to the grid. And, while the phrase "smart grid" currently means a different thing to every person, most people think that the way to make wind solar work (i.e. energy produced at off-peak times, and without sufficient storage to hold onto it) will come through improvements to the grid. The most visionary descriptions involve a grid hooked to everyone's homes that uses appliances and vehicles as short-term batteries while they are resting as people sleep.

It might come organically. A couple of years ago, I was told that Consumers had a pretty impressive smart grid project they were working. We'll see. But, if Proposal 3 passes, it'll be time to start looking aggressively towards a state-level investment in smart grid technology to optimize aggressive new renewable standards.

That all said, this morning brings us two pieces of journalism, one from The Bridge and one from the Lansing State Journal. They are illustrative of what happens when you hollow out your news organizations of experience and institutional knowledge.

First, from the LSJ.

The SBAM study, conducted by the Anderson Economic Group, also concluded that Proposal 3 would mean $187 million in additional real annual electricity costs by 2025, but Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs said the study erroneously assumes that renewable energy will be more expensive than nonrenewable energy and that coal, oil and other costs will decline.

Well, first off, you should know that the costs for fossil fuels -- except natural gas -- have increased dramatically over the last five years. You should know that, but especially the person who wrote this article should know that and should have asked someone at CARE why their economic study makes an assumption that is contrary to market forces over the last five years (the decrease in natural gas prices was actually mostly a matter of market speculation, by the way, brought on by a rush of leases and a glut of production, and that are apt to level out as demand increases). Unfortunately, the reporter (according to the byline, a Free Press reporter) didn't ask this, and didn't get at whether the study that he led off his story with had any real credibility. If it's a study based on facts, it's one thing. If it's a study that puts first the conclusion its clients want, it's not something that belongs atop a story.

Meanwhile, a few years ago, the most able reporter statewide on the environment beat was the Muskegon Chronicle's Jeff Alexander. He did the sort of important enterprise journalism that left readers feeling really informed, and he focused on the facts of issues rather than talking points. He was able to do that last bit, I imagine, because he'd spent enough time on the beat to know who had the goods and who had nothing but bullshit. Today, he does a little work for The Bridge, like this morning's article.

All types of renewable energy now cost less than generating electricity at a new, state of the art coal-fired power plant, according to a February 2012 study by the Michigan Public Service Commission. The average cost of energy from a new wind farm in Michigan was $91 per megawatt hour (MWh) in 2011, with newer contracts as low as $64 per MWh. The cost of electricity from a new coal-fired power plant is $133 per MWh, or 32 percent higher than the average cost of wind power, according to the PSC study.

“The cost of all renewable technologies is less than coal,” according to the MPSC, a state agency that regulates utilities. “The weighted average price of renewable energy contracts … is substantially lower than the cost of new coal-fired power plants.”

Nelson, the former PSC member who is opposing Prop 3, argues that the contract figures used in the MEC report might not reflect true market costs due to a provision of federal law. 

Of course, all fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by government, if not directly then through provisions that permit cost externalization. If you want to talk about true market costs, you have to do away with the breaks fossil fuels get and then compare and contrast on even keel. Your free market libertarian who thinks windmills are for fags and fairies, I should warn you, wouldn't be happy with a cost comparison under those circumstances.

The real notable difference, however, is that one article has a lot of numbers in it, and the other has very few. It might surprise you to learn that the more erudite article is less heavy on numbers (if you remember the introduction of Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," and why there are so few equations in the book, you're ahead of the curve here), while the one that appears thrown together in the afternoon to hit a production quota has a lot. The reason, I suspect, is that numbers look great in print, but often mean very little (Hawking left them out of his book because he said he was told that each equation would cost him half his audience, and he wanted to write a book for everyone). In the worst case, they are cooked and are used to confuse people into taking your side. Alexander's piece uses figures that are mostly rooted in verifiable studies. The LSJ piece relies heavily on lots of numbers coming from partisans on both sides (it's standard, dull "he said/she said" journalism). The end result is a helpful reminder of the old saw, "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics."