First, let's start with the governor running around and freaking out respected business reporters. Look what she did to Tom Walsh at the Freep-
She's always calm, carefully spoken, fastidious about avoiding showy perks and trappings of power.
That's why I was startled, during an interview in her office this week, to hear Granholm say, "I feel very Machiavellian about this," referring to her desire to bring alternative energy jobs to Michigan. According to definitions of Machiavellianism I consulted, this suggests that she might deceive or manipulate others, or use any means necessary to get those jobs.
Uh oh. Don't think we want to see that. But it might be necessary to get the Senate to move on a very important piece of the puzzle- the most important piece of the puzzle- when it comes to creating alternative energy jobs and bringing investment to Michigan.
Yes, we are back to the RPS standard, once again. Every day we that we wait to implement this, we fall further behind.
Michigan is a laggard because other states have beaten us to the punch with policy actions that make them look attractive and welcoming to inventors, entrepreneurs and giant companies that have spied alt-energy as a growth opportunity.
Enter Bruce Patterson. Recently, some movers and shakers in this industry testified before the Senate Energy and Technology Committee, and once again the need for a RPS played a prominent role. Will the Senate Republicans listen this time?
In testimony last week before state Sen. Bruce Patterson's energy policy committee, Seth Dunn, general manager of strategic marketing for Atlanta-based GE Energy, said more than $9 billion was invested last year in wind-energy facilities in the United States. Of that total, 96% went to states with renewable standards.
"We are now at a point in the industry where the presence of RPS is very important to our investment decision," Dunn said. Fred Keller, CEO of Cascade Engineering in Grand Rapids, agreed.
"Michigan has a onetime opportunity to win a leadership role in competition among many states in the renewable energy industry that is growing at over 30% a year. But it takes enlightened policy in addition to our many other assets to do so," Keller said at Patterson's hearing.
This meeting, coupled with a trip around the state to see various forms of alternative energy already in action, seems to have softened up Patterson a bit. Check Gongwer over the flip...
An agreement between the chambers on how to address renewable energy standards may be coming closer. Sen. Bruce Patterson (R-Canton) has been averse to mandating that utilities use certain percentages of renewable power, but after hearing from manufacturers of the generating equipment this week, he said he is closer to being convinced of the need for mandates.
But he said he is not quite convinced. And his nod will likely be needed for an energy package to make it to the governor's desk.
"I'm happy to do stretch goals. I'm even inclined to do an RPS," Mr. Patterson said. But he said he would still prefer a plan such as proposed by Sen. Patricia Birkholz (R-Saugatuck Twp.) (SB 1000 ) that would require the state to purchase set proportions of its power from renewable sources, with the goal of creating some initial demand and encouraging other customers to follow suit.
We do that, and more time is wasted. This is not something that we should mess around with and try to "build demand"; we need to do this right now or we will lose out as investors go to other states that are already in the game. The evidence that this will create jobs is standard conventional wisdom. The testimony has been made. What stops the Senate Republicans?
Granholm is trying to get the Legislature to put RPS on a fast track for approval and expects action by the Michigan House on a bill this month. But she's worried that things could bog down in the Senate, where the Republican majority has expressed concerns about whether electricity costs will rise. Wind power, Granholm insisted, will be as cheap or cheaper than future power from new coal-fired plants.
It's not easy to predict the cost associated with this- but experts have done a study on the states that have set an RPS. If you want a crash course on the macroeconomics of RPS standards, check it out. So many factors go into cost projections that you could spend weeks parsing the results- but here is the conclusion that they came up with.
Cost increases will be modest at best, and some state studies have suggested that this will reduce cost-
With a few exceptions, the long-term rate impacts of state RPS policies are projected to be relatively modest. Only two of the 28 state RPS cost studies in our sample predict rate increases of greater than 5%, and 19 of the studies project rate increases of no greater than 1% (and six of these studies predict rate decreases). The median residential electric bill impact is +$0.38 per month. When combined with possible natural gas price reductions and corresponding gas bill savings, the overall cost impacts are even more modest, resulting in net consumer savings in at least one additional case.
So, we create thousands of jobs, bring in billions in investment, save the $18 billion a year we already spend on out-of-state fossil fuel energy purchases, save the environment at the same time- all for a modest cost, and maybe even reduced costs down the road. Sound like a plan?
Not if you listen to Mike Bishop.
But he warned against trying to adopt legislation to set portfolio standards for the amount of energy. "The political rhetoric does not match the reality. They (supporters of renewal energy) are trying to jam portfolio standards when they know full well the technology is not there. It's a pipe dream," he said.
Not sure what reality Mike lives in- but the 28 states that they have already studied and the investments being made in those states show that this is no “pipe dream”.
Oh, one other thing to note- the people of Michigan overwhelmingly want this to happen. In a study on global warming-
Support requiring more electricity to come from renewable sources. Among Democrats, 92% support this, compared with 88% of independents and 72% of Republicans.
Various proposals, including one requiring 20% of the state's electricity come from renewables by 2020, are pending in the Legislature. Nearly half of those surveyed said they would be willing to pay up to $50 more each year for renewable energy.
Nearly half. Well, we have to work on getting them to see the benefits will far outweigh any modest costs, and eventually will even save us money. Short term benefits, long term benefits, there is no excuse that can justify dragging our feet on this issue another day.
Let's hope that Bruce sees the light and opts for a future for Michigan instead of the standard head-in-the-sand obstruction that we have grown accustomed to from the Senate Republicans.