In October, the Michigan Legislature swiftly passed several major energy policies that will impact Michiganders for generations to come. The bills passed on party lines, with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans voting against.
The Detroit News described the committee hearings as “one-sided and brief” while lamenting the passage of legislation in the middle of the night “without thorough debate or much, if any, public input.”
The most ambitious piece of the bill package is a requirement that 100% of Michigan’s electricity must come from clean energy sources by 2040 (SB 271). This bill requires utilities to get 50% of their energy from renewables by 2030 and 60% by 2035. Starting in 2035, the mandate begins recognizing nuclear energy as a clean energy source for all utilities.
Our statewide association successfully lobbied for a provision in the bill to allow Cherryland to count the output of Palisades Nuclear Power Plant sooner than 2035. This is a big win for our cooperative, reinforcing the value of the long-term vision we have for Palisades and nuclear energy in our power supply portfolio.
While the cooperative is well-served by our nuclear commitments, the bill overall is still problematic for Michigan. It sets an aggressive pace for renewable energy development over the next 8–10 years. This timeline is likely unachievable given the time it takes to finance, permit, and build projects. Most of these projects will be built in a high-inflation, high-interest rate environment, which will drive up costs and lead to higher electric bills.
But, most importantly, this bill does not give enough attention to electric reliability. To keep the lights on today, Michigan is dependent on importing power from outside the state 88% of the time. Forcing the rapid replacement of always available electric generation resources, like coal and natural gas, with variable electric generation resources, like wind and solar, will further destabilize Michigan’s electric grid.
The overall goals of SB 271 are laudable. Mitigating the environmental impact of electricity production is important. The development of renewable energy is good for Michigan. Independent of the mandate, Cherryland and its power supplier, Wolverine Power Cooperative, are already developing enough solar energy to power over 100,000 homes. Those resources will be incorporated into our portfolio alongside plenty of reliable, always available energy from our nuclear-, coal-, and natural gas-generating units.
Good energy policy balances three needs: affordability, reliability, and environmental impact. I am concerned that the policies that were passed last fall focus exclusively on environmental impact and were not appropriately vetted for their impact on reliability and affordability.
As we begin working toward these ambitious clean energy standards, I would encourage you to continue to remind all of your current and aspiring elected officials how electric reliability and affordability impact you.
When it comes to energy policy, there is too much at stake if we get it wrong and leave Michiganders in the dark.
Video Update January 2024
Michigan’s Clean Energy Challenge
The time for trying to maintain an equally balanced approach to our energy generation has passed. Because of all the foot dragging and slow walking of the desperately needed move to less carbon dependent sources we now find ourselves in a situation where it may already be too late to stop some major effects of climate change. Many, many climate scientists not on the payrolls of gas and oil companies or other large power providers are telling us that we need to take dramatic action immediately in order to prevent possible future disasters. I applaud the Democrats and the Governor for having the guts to face the truth of what our situation really is and taking some serious action to take Michigan in the right direction on this issue, keeping in mind that it still may not be enough to make the required correction before it’s too late. Putting heavy emphasis on the environment at this point in time is exactly what is needed. The past approaches have not been balanced, placing too much emphasis on affordability and reliability and not enough on the environment so really our Legislature and Governor are simply making the necessary course correction toward the proper balance that we have always needed.
“The past approaches have not been balanced, placing too much emphasis on affordability and reliability”
God forbid we have a reliable, affordable electric grid. How dare they prioritize reality over fantasy.
Exactly Dave. This climate change issue is a hoax. According to AOC the planet and everyone on it will be dead in about 6 more years. The scientist on the renewable energy payroll are saying we need to go to all renewable energy before it’s to late. Look at some of thier prediction from the past saying it would be the end of the world before now. There needs to be a balance. Thier agenda is about power and control.
Tom – I appreciate your perspective on this. I do understand the sense of urgency that many feel about this issue. However, I sincerely believe it is possible to produce energy in cleaner ways without sacrificing electric reliability and affordability. These aren’t simple issues. It’s a complex industry and they are complex problems. Balanced solutions will always be my priority. I hope you and I can continue to find middle ground in that effort.
Amen, Tom, you said this perfectly.
Rachel, Thank you once again for speaking truth to power. The leftists who have adopted Global Warming as their religion care not one iota whether we have reliable energy to sustain our lives. They simply pass unreasonable measures with no regard for reality and pat themselves on the back for “accomplishing something” when instead they are condemning society to a bleak future. Please read the book “Apocalypse Never” for the truth about the “Climate Crisis” fear mongers.
I agree, all policy should be pragmatic, policy that is founded in dogmatism is rarely practical.
Thanks for the book recs, I love to read so you’re speaking my language.
Our out of touch virtue signaling elites in Lansing should be working to assure reliable, abundant, affordable energy for citizens and businesses. In stead they are doing the opposite. This outrageous overreach must and will be overturned.
I’m in the bottom 20% of income earners in Michigan, and I will end up paying more of my limited salary on energy than most people and yet I applaud the changes that have been made by legislators recently. Why? Because I have four children who will be living in this world long after I’m gone. I do not want them to have to live with the effects of the climate extremes we are beginning to see happening on our planet. If I have to go without the few small luxuries I can currently afford, so be it. They are my kids, and I think the sacrifice is well worth it for them. To do otherwise is shortsighted and selfish.
Hi Lori –
Thanks for the comment. I genuinely don’t think this has to be an either/or effort. We make things more expensive when we impose false timelines and limit the clean technologies that can qualify. My goal is that your children would have clean, reliable and affordable energy.
Lori, please do not allow yourself to be swindled by the climate activists who really only desire to gain control over society by creating a false crisis. They hate our free society and are determined to destroy it.
John Kerry, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab and their ilk are the greatest threat to your children and grandchildren. Their tactics and motives are easy to see if you stop allowing yourself to be duped by them.
I’m with you, Lori, happy to pay more for the welfare of future generations and for our planet. I don’t know how climate change deniers continue to be self deluded when we see the evidence nearly daily and scientific evidence is extensive. We have gone on too long kicking the can down the road.
Hey PL and Lori, How’s the global warming forecast for this coming weekend?
Kudos Rachel ! Its great to see how common sense is so upsetting to the environmetal zealots. Continue the good work .
As a native Texan who has owned a home in Michigan since 2012 I support the legislature and governor for their farsightedness. It is past time to pretend that we can ease our way to stopping climate change. We must move forward toward renewable energy and get off the fossil fuel train. Legislators attempting to save the earth are not zealots but are instead realist who recognize that we must act now not tomorrow.
I moved to Michigan because the Southwest is drying up due to climate change. Michigan is blessed but must plan and work to maintain its precious climate and water. Don’t be fooled by the Fox News disinformation machine. Climate change is real.
I don’t think that calling for balance and realistic timelines is the equivalent of calling legislators zealots. We can continue to modernize our power supply without sacrificing electric reliability and affordability.
I understand that you and I may see this problem differently. Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment.
useful idiot
noun
: a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda
It is one task of the KGB [in 1982] to apply its skills of secrecy and deception to projecting the Soviet party’s influence. This it does through contacts with legal Communist Parties abroad, with groups sympathetic to Soviet goals, with do-gooders of the type that Lenin once described as “useful idiots” … .
Rachel, you are so right! Energy is a very complex issue, not just by how it’s produced, but the distance far it is distributed, at what times, and how it’s consumed. The future challenges may hopefully be solved by new developments in storage systems such as solid-state and or NNDB batteries, but until then keeping our nuclear power available can be advantageous.
“Good energy policy balances three needs: affordability, reliability, and environmental impact.”
Almost correct but the order of importance is now environmental impact, reliability, and affordability.
This legislation is aggressive, but has it right.
Too bad this forum has devolved into a political battle between the leftist, “virtue signaling elites” and the Trump folks. Glad to see that Rachel Johnson agrees that “all policy should be pragmatic” and is thankful that books like “Apocalypse Never” are high on her reading list. Go Rachel – teach those leftists a lesson! I’m not sure how the KGB in 1982 got involved in this discussion. I think it means that means that anyone who disagrees with Cherryland policies are “useful idiots”.
Hi Tom,
The useful idiots are those who have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into thinking the world will end (as Greta Thunburg predicted: “In June 2018, climate activist Greta Thunberg fired off an urgent tweet: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.” ).
Thoughtful, balanced people agree with Rachel that a measured approach is necessary in order to protect our reliable power that sustains our lives while we increase renewables as the technology develops that provides that reliability. In other words, it is I, who posted the “useful idiots” definition that agrees with you and Rachel. The leftists are using Lenin’s tactics to destroy our culture and Capitalism. I’m not a Trumper, just a realist.
Climate change is not a hoax; i.e. global weather patterns and the increasingly intense weather events worldwide. Check in with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a coalition of experts. Michael Shellenberger, author of “Apocalypse Never” is a journalist with opinions. We may have to pay more for the convenience of our gluttony, but we are terribly behind schedule in changing our infrastructure and habits.
Rachel, I found you piece disappointingly coal/fossil fuel/politically slanted, and hope the timeline will be motivating, rather than “likely unachievable.” Roll up your sleeves – with your colleagues – and work hard on the financing, permitting and building of projects required in this low inflation, currently well subsidized environment that will create a bright future, and protect our beloved Michigan and the globe.
Sarah – I can tell that you and I have different perspectives on this issue and I appreciate you taking the time to share yours. If anything, I would say my column is probably frustratingly moderate to you. I just don’t think good energy policy happens in the extremes (either extreme).
I do want to take a second to respond to your call to “roll up our sleeves.” We currently have two large solar projects in progress and have made a significant commitment to nuclear energy in Michigan. As these projects come to fruition, Cherryland’s power supply portfolio will likely be as much as 90% carbon-free, well in advance of other utilities in Michigan. So, our sleeves are pretty rolled up as it pertains to building and procuring new power supply for our members.
That said, the high utility-inflation environment we are working in will lead to higher prices for consumers. We also continue to have grid reliability threats tied to closing 24/7 electric generating resources and replacing them with intermittent electric generating resources. These are real challenges and my responsibility to my members is to be honest and transparent about those challenges so people can plan accordingly.
Hi Rachel,
I’d ask Cherryland to advocate for accelerated permitting of low carbon sources (solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, etc). My understanding is that:
-wind & solar are cheaper than coal and competitive with gas, even with batteries; and
-batteries can be installed very quickly to handle daily peak demand & intermittency.
Does that agree with your understanding?