|
At least 26 other states have passed
renewable portfolio standards and the City of Political Will is what is lacking here - a
failure of willingness to make sure Michigan is ready to move into the future,
to do what is smart for our children both in clean energy and jobs, and
apparently a willingness to allow the 8 coal fired power plant proposals and
one nuclear power plant proposal in the state be built and operated at enormous
costs to people today and indefinitely into the future. The votes, by the way, are below on SB 213’s
passage. Apparently the votes don’t tell the whole story (voting ‘no’
may not have meant support for a stronger bill, for example) but the bottom
line is that this lousy bill passed. Find more about this bill, including
the full version that passed, at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2007-SEBS-0213.pdf
or you can track the history of this bill by going to www.legislature.mi.gov and entering
213 into the space for bill number -- this will give more details and links to
the Senate Journal with debate (go to page 244 of the June 27th version
for the start of the debate, which continues piecemeal over a the next several
pages). Roll
Call No. 509 Yeas—20 Allen Cropsey Jansen Patterson Barcia Garcia Jelinek Richardville Birkholz George Kahn Sanborn Bishop Gilbert McManus Stamas Cassis Hardiman Pappageorge VanWoerkom Nays—15 Brater Clarke Kuipers Scott Brown Gleason Olshove Switalski Cherry Hunter Prusi Excused - 1 Whitmer Not Voting - 2 Basham Thomas Anne Woiwode, State Director Sierra Club (517) 484-2372 From: owner- The Obama energy plan calls for a federal renewable energy standard --
25 percent of all electricity from renewable sources by 2025. If the Eartha Jane Melzer News Reporter
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Anne Woiwode <Anne.Woiwode@sierraclub.org>
wrote: Some
of the low-lights of Senator Patty Birkholz's Ridiculous Portfolio Standards
and Energy Efficiency Eviseration Bill, SB 213, have been summarized by folks
who know this issue inside out as literally
page after page of specific wording elements that undercut or act to prevent
the actual achievement of real energy efficiency or real Michigan-based
renewable energy. The technical details of this bill are such that
it is quite likely that this legislation would result in little or no actual
energy efficiency programs and no new Michigan-based renewable energy.
In fact, it's hard to imagine a bill that more thoroughly and
consistently interjects elements that would undermine the ability to achieve
true energy efficiency and Specifically,
it would allow a coal burning Integrated gasification combined-cycle or IGCC
facility to count toward the percentage required by all providers that was
originally an entirely renewable or energy efficiency standard. The
argument is that they would require carbon sequestration, but they also are
careful to say this isn't "renewable", but rather a "CLEANER
energy system" -- I like the "-er" at the end -- it makes it
clear (or perhaps clear-er than otherwise) that is neither renewable, nor even
clean energy -- it is just clean-ER than 50 year old coal fired power
plants. Not much of a bar. Energy
Efficiency isn't even included in the definitions of the bill. Perhaps
this goes to the motto-- "Why do the smartest, cheapest and quickest
things we can for our state's energy needs when we can cater to utilities and
massive industry interests with no concern for The
net effect of many of the provisions regarding various "credits" for
renewables in the bill add up to apparently in reality zero requirement for any
actual renewable facilities to be built in Michigan. Say goodbye to
good jobs, while we cling to the sinking ship of massive old and new coal and
nuclear facilties! The
bill would set up a difficult, expensive and burdensome process for actually
accounting for an "integrated renewable energy portfolio plan", which
is often a classic sign of a poison pill designed to kill off a bill by making
it toxic to its original supporters, or making so cumbersome that even if
passed it will be undone in the future because it is unworkable. It is apparent
that this bill was designed as a massive poison pill. More
later or from others. It is enough to make you want to … ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anne
M. Woiwode, State Director Sierra
Club Visit
us at http://michigan.sierraclub.org/index.shtml Act
Today: Join our Legislative Alerts System! http://mackinac.sierraclubaction.org Act
FOR Tomorrow: Support the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter - contact "The
idea of shifting to a carbon-free society appears to be technically feasible.
The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically
feasible." Brian O'Neil, |