Sometimes it might be easy to do what individual members ask and other times it might be hard. Every time, there is a cost. Every time, the cost is paid by our membership. This fact has never been lost on the board, management and employees at your cooperative.
At Cherryland, our mission statement is a simple one: Member focused. Safe. Reliable. Affordable. I have now been managing your cooperative for almost 13 years. During this time, I believe everyone at Cherryland has been steadfastly behind this simple mission.
When it comes to renewable energy, it hasn’t always been easy. I have been called the “coal guy” on more than one occasion. Candidates with a green agenda have campaigned against incumbent directors in an effort to unseat them for not being more forward thinking in the area of clean energy.
In the face of past attacks in the media, YouTube videos and campaign literature, we have stood our ground and railed back with a message of affordability, reliability and fairness to all members. To the credit of many, many supportive members, we always knew we were not standing alone. Even so, it is always difficult to not take any attack to heart.
Over the years, it began to pay off. In 2006, Wolverine Power Cooperative participated in the first ever commercial wind farm in Michigan before any state mandate and at a price lower than what others were signing up for at that time. There was no rate increase involved. In 2013, Cherryland created the first community solar project in the state of Michigan. Again, no rate increase was involved.
A few years back, we fought against the 25% renewable by 2025 movement because we did not feel that mandates were an affordable way to promote any type of energy. We were never against cleaner air. Many utilities did the same and this mandate was defeated. Again, your cooperative was looked upon as not being in favor of improving the planet. Again, we stood our ground and simply stayed true to our mission statement.
Now, 2015 proved to be a year to be proud of on all fronts. Not once, but twice, the dedicated people at our power supply cooperative, Wolverine Power, closed the deal on 2 separate wind projects. Without any state or federal mandates, Wolverine simply took advantage of market conditions to negotiate wind energy prices that are very affordable. These too will not be the cause of any rate increases.
Prior to 2006, Cherryland had less than 7% of its power supply portfolio coming from renewable resources. On January 1, 2017, your power supply portfolio will be comprised of clean energy resources that exceed 30% of its total. Add this to the 14% nuclear piece and your portfolio gets very close to 50% carbon free.
We have come a long way in the past decade. Everyone at Cherryland is proud of our partners and co-op family members at Wolverine Power Cooperative. Together, we all remain member focused in order to bring each and every member safe, reliable, affordable electricity.
I have no idea what the next decade will bring but I do know we will stick to our mission. It’s what we do. It’s what we have always done.
Thank you. You are doing a great job in following Cherryland’s mission. We appreciate your steadfastness in working toward the green goals in the most economical way possible. We also greatly appreciate all the employees of Cherryland for the hard work they do, often in inclement weather, to quickly restore power whenever it is down. Thank you
“Affordable” with regards to housing is related to a definite percentage of household income. Do energy costs have a comparable percentage amount assigned? Otherwise, affordable to you and affordable to an unemployed family of six is an entirely different matter. Ever since I joined Cherryland, you have been touting “affordability” as one of the components to the energy portfolio. Can we really “afford” to keep using coal as our primary energy source?
Mr. Granlund, you are right. Affordability can mean many things. For me and to give you something measurable, I guess I would point to the rate of inflation. Rate increases at Cherryland have averaged much lower than the rate of inflation for more than a decade now. So, yes, I sincerely believe electric prices at your cooperative are very affordable. Thus, we can afford to keep using coal because it is one of the components that has helped us beat the rate of inflation. With today’s newsletter, I am happy to include wind as well. What really helps us beat inflation is a balanced portfolio of generation resources of all types. Thanks for providing your input. – Tony
I should have clarified the comment to include “can we really afford to keep using coal” in the face of the level of CO2 that it contributes to our atmosphere, helping to cause elevated levels of emphysema and other respiratory diseases, along with coal’s strategy of mountaintop removal in eastern states and rape of western lands? Can we as a human race afford that for our children?
Mr. Granlund – You obviously open up a much wider debate and one that this simple reply cannot resolve. I can only point to the newsletter and say that we are doing as much as possible to reduce the CO2 output of our portfolio. You will not find another utility in Michigan with a cleaner supply of wholesale power. Thus, I believe your cooperative is addressing CO2 levels. Debating the causes of emphysema and other respiratory diseases will not get us anywhere as I don’t believe CO2 alone can be blamed. I have no experience in the eastern states but I have lived in the western states and will respectfully disagree with the term you use. Over time, western lands have been carefully returned to their original state. I have no fear of answering to my grandchildren over that issue. Please remember, we didn’t get to where we are overnight and change will not come overnight. We may not agree on much but I am hoping we can agree that your cooperative is headed in the right direction. Again, your input and the professional debate is appreciated. – Tony
God bless you!
Dolly
While I personally appreciate the relatively low cost of energy supplied by the Cooperative, I do think we need to look beyond simple delivery cost. With coal and nuclear the cost of maintaining safe disposal of the waste (coal ash; spent nuclear rods) is not mentioned. Eventually these sites will need to be re-mediated. Who will pay for this? The current users, tax payyers (aka Superfund sites)? What about decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants,…radioactive debris has to be properly handled.
I did not mention the health costs associated with the mining, transportation, burning of coal. Again not figured into the delivery cost of energy.
Never t he less, I applaud your ongoing efforts to utilize market based cost to determine when best to purchase non polluting sources of energy. To that end, I have a suggestion which potentially could help you address the environmental concerns of members. While we lived in the Detroit metro area we opted to pay Detroit Edison a premium above our regular charge, so that 50% of our power was from green sources. I’d encourage you to look at doing something similar here. I’d be willing to pay more to support purchasing green energy.
Thank you for your consideration and thank you to your employees who are truely dedicated to their work.
Mr. Kelly – Those are all legitimate cost issues. Nuclear produces zero carbon but we have to deal with the waste. It is simply econ 101 – “there is no free lunch”. There are mining, transportation and health costs associated with the steel, concrete, silicon, etc used in wind and solar. We don’t talk about those either. We can debate over which is more but I don’t think it is a good use of our time. Today, I can’t supply power 24/7/365 without coal, nuclear and natural gas in some percentage of each. I don’t expect many to like it and some to not understand it. It is simply where we are at as a society today. We are improving, growing and moving forward but certainly not done.
The green pricing is a concept that has come and gone in the electric industry over the years. What I have seen in the past at utilities who have tried it is a high early adoption rate that slowly trickles to insignificant numbers. Over time, people tire of extra charges on their bill. Yet, the utility walks around promoting how green they are. I don’t want to be “that” utility. I would rather offer a balanced portfolio in as clean a manner as possible at a price that is shared by everyone. In 2013, we offered a community solar project. It involved 224 solar panels that are producing clean energy today. It took us almost a full year to lease all 224 panels from a membership of 34,000. We even added the 11,000 customers belonging to our neighbor, TCLP. We are working on another offering that I hope will be available in the fall of 2016. Community solar is a one time payment with a long lasting return. It adds a monthly credit to a participating member’s bill rather than one more line item charge. For now, this is the route we are going to accomplish your desire to pay more for clean energy. Thanks for your thoughtful and professional input. – Tony
We already paid some $20+++ Billion in the past three decades as a tack on electric bill cost to construct Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. Senator Read, President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu opted to shut it down even though it was complete and ready to accept nuclear waste in 1998. The 2005 Energy act requires that the $’s be returned to the rate payers-LOL! We are left with 120 temporary sites located around the nation with open air storage vulnerable to terrorists in Piper Cubs full of C4 explosive (3 in MI). Now what is better open air storage or secure Yucca Mt storage 1000 feet under the desert in 10,000 year containers? Thank your politicians for this one!
How is the 14% nuclear portion of our electric use carbon free?
Does it take into consideration the multitude of resources used to build the nuclear facility? Which nuclear facility are we tapped into?
I am excited about the 30% green in 2017! Let’s keep heading in that direction!
Thanks,
Ms Bardenhagen – I can’t point to one nuclear plant. We have market contracts with regulated/inspected/verified generation resources provided to us by our wholesale cooperative, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative. As nuclear plants are decommissioned and contracts change, our percentage of nuclear will change. The 14% is what we will be at for the next couple years at least. Thus, we have no ownership of one singular plant but instead a mix of market power purchased on short and long term contracts. Nuclear energy is carbon free. Wind and solar involve steel, concrete, transportation, minerals, etc many of which involve burning carbon at some point in the delivery process. We can peel away the layers and probably come up with which contributes more but I don’t see a point. My job is to provide electricity 24/7/365 while being as environmentally responsible as possible and keeping rates affordable. I believe we are doing that and certainly appreciate your excitement. Thanks for the input. – Tony
“Carbon Free” is a term that I have found is not at all understood by our legislators, the public or by environmentalists.
Many Energy Staffers in the US House and Senate could not answer simple questions about the atmosphere.
Senator Levin’s energy staffer actually stated that our atmosphere is composed of 40% CO2. I informed her that we all died at 20%.
The climate scientist for the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) admitted that she didn’t know the CO2 concentration as well as getting most other scientific facts about the atmosphere wrong .
I heard an opening act singer at the Opera House a few years back implore the audience to meet the next day at the Open Space to rally
for the goal of getting CO2 back to 350 PPM. The young man next to me admitted that he did not know what PPM meant. I submit that there is no human action that could achieve that goal yet so many including our President and The Pope seem to think they can just will it with a windmill or solar panel. BTW there are many rational arguments that CO2 levels are not the problem and the earth is not dangerously warming.
Bottom line is I request that you not use the CARBON terms -“carbon footprint” or “carbon free”, etc unless you educate the readers as to the scientific facts and history of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Thank you for your dedication to your customers. It’s much appreciated by me.
Clean energy is nice but it typically is not cost effective. My wife and I support your efforts to “stay the course”. Too much hype has swayed many to buy into the belief that the “sky is falling”. Windmills are, typically, not good; too costly to construct, too costly to maintain, subject to breakdown and costly repairs after short life periods. Solar and wind can not supply the current and future needs.
Coal is not bad when burning residuals are treated economically. Gas is not bad and is clean.
Thanks for moving forward sanely and doing a great job.
I have only lived inside of Cherrylands grid, so to speak, for a little over a year and a half. But I do appreciate your philosophy of following the Mission Statement. Deliberate and well thought out plans seem to be working well, and we appreciate your diligence.
Donna Mortier
In agreement with ms. Bardenhagen, wind or nuclear are not carbon free, as the substantial investment, backup and O&M costs and their material manifestations are generated from the mainly fossil-fueled economy. Until these costs are paid for from solar inputs (and these too) we can only say (probably — but lets do the math) that they are “reduced carbon emissions” sources of electricity. We need honest brokers to do these calculations. Federal programs that once allowed us to do these calculations have been reduced or eliminated or have become advocacy pieces as good science has been replaced with “let the market decide”. Wind and solar are probably desirable from the perspective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but they are not, as you say, carbon free .
Keep up the good work. There always those who think their ideas are better. Often with no research. The whole program looks good to me.
Tony, thanks for your leadership of Cherryland and the excellent service that your team provides. Reading through your newsletter and the resultant comments, the things left unsaid are that with current input costs on traditional fossil fuels the Coop could likely be passing along relatively large price decreases. So, in reality, we are paying a premium for “green” energy at the meter level, in addition to billions to subsidize the installation of these behemoth windmills littered across the countryside. CO2 is clearly misunderstood in our society, and those vehemently opposed to it should hold their breath (figuratively and literally).
Thanks for all your hard work and steadfastness!
Generally speaking, utility coops make a strong effort to provide value for members. And members should know, if they are having trouble paying the utility, you can get help. Government agencies will help, but you need to know where to find them. Here is a place to find out more about help with utility bills.
MY WIFE AND I WANT TO THANK YOU, PERSONALLY, THE CHERRYLAND COOPERATIVE, AND THE WOLVERINE COOPERATIVE FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE POWER IN THE PAST, AND AS YOU CONTINUE TO DO SO INTO THE FUTURE.
WE HAVE BEEN CUSTOMERS OF CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC SUNCE MAY OF 2008, AND WE HAVE BEEN VERY PLEASED WITH THE SERVICE YOU PROVIDE. THANKS FOR LOOKING OUT FOR OUR HEALTH, AND THE HEALTH OF THE GENERATIONS TO FOLLOW.
SINCERELY,
DENNIS E. MULL
SUSAN E. MULL
I’d say in general, the Cooperative is doing a great job. New and improved power lines were installed a couple of years ago, and I haven’t had a power outage since. Anybody want to buy a generator? I built my home in 1992 and after much research, chose to heat with geothermal. One of the contributing factors to go that route was Cherryland offered a “dual fuel discount” on my electric bill. My rate for the geothermal unit was a bit over half the rate for all of the other electric use, which kept my heating bills quite reasonable. Now, Cherryland is phaseing out that discount over time. In my humble opinion, that discount should remain (grandfathered in) for customers that it was originaly offered. If you wish to do away with the discount for new customers with geothermal, that’s fine as they know beforehand that this discount is not available. That’s my only gripe, otherwise, keep up the good work.
Mr. Drewyour – Thanks for the kind words. As far as phasing out the rate, I think there may be some confusion or a misunderstanding. We did discontinue a dual fuel rate but reinstated it a couple years ago. I suggest that you give Energy Use Advisor Tammy Squires a call at 486-9200 to clear this up. – Tony
Appreciate your common sense approach and statement about wind energy because it made financial sense not because it was federal or state mandate. I am all for solar and wind power but don’t want to go broke to get there. You know your business better than Washington or Lansing, others such as Consumers Energy seem to be a branch of government. Keep up good work and philosophy.