[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ SB 213 -- the Senate's Ridiculous Portfolio Standards and Energy Efficiency Eviseration Bill

The Obama energy plan calls for a federal renewable energy standard -- 25 percent of all electricity from renewable sources by 2025.
If the Michigan energy package is a "poison pill" as you describe, how will clean energy advocates respond? Do you think there will be a shift in focus toward action on the federal level? Has anyone here examined the Obama energy plan? Is this workable?
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 Michigan based renewable energy. 


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 Michigan's future instead?"


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 Michigan Chapter - 109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906  - 517-484-2372    anne.woiwode@sierraclub.org

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 Wendi Tilden at wendi.tilden@sierraclub.org


"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, National Center for Atmospheric Research