Viewer - Live chat on Proposal 4: 25 x 25

Live chat on Proposal 4: 25 x 25

Friday October 26, 2012

11:52

Jen Eyer | MLive.com:

Hi everyone. We'll get started here in about 10 minutes. Also, apologies for the initial mislabeling on this. Just to clarify, this is about the 25 x 25 proposal!

Friday October 26, 2012 11:52 Jen Eyer | MLive.com

11:56

Jen Eyer |MLive.com:

Please feel free to submit your questions. This is a moderated chat, which means we will hold questions and pace them throughout the chat.

Friday October 26, 2012 11:56 Jen Eyer |MLive.com

11:57

Jen Eyer |MLive.com:

We will publish general comments throughout the chat, as long as they are civil.

Friday October 26, 2012 11:57 Jen Eyer |MLive.com

11:57

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

Just to let people know it is Proposal 3, 25x 25

Friday October 26, 2012 11:57 Guest

11:57

Jen Eyer |MLive.com:

Yes, thank you, Guest. Again, apologies for the mislabeling.

Friday October 26, 2012 11:57 Jen Eyer |MLive.com

11:58

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Hi everybody. Meegan Holland here, statewide news editor. Jen Eyer of MLive and I will be moderating today's live chat on Proposal 3, the renewable energy ballot issue, also called the 25 by 25 proposal. You can start submitting your questions now - and thanks for joining us!

Friday October 26, 2012 11:58 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:00

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Today we'll be joined by Douglas Jester on behalf of proposal backers Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs, and Ken Sikkema for opposition group Clean Affordable Renewable Energy (CARE) for Michigan Coalition.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:00 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:00

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Welcome gentlemen!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:00 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:00

Ken Sikkema:

Hello, everybody!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:00 Ken Sikkema

12:00

Douglas Jester:

Good day. Thanks for hosting us.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:00 Douglas Jester

12:00

Ken Sikkema:

Hello, Doug. Thanks for hosting us, MLive.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:00 Ken Sikkema

12:01

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Prop 3 reporter Melissa Anders will also join us - she's spent the last week doing a deep dive into the issue. I'll share those links in a bit. Welcome Melissa!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:01 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:01

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Hi everyone, glad to be here today.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:01 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:01

Douglas Jester:

Proposal 3 will require each electricity provider in Michigan to generate or purchase 25% of its retail sales from renewable sources by 2025 and thereafter. It will protect ratepayers by limiting rate increases due to the cost of compliance with this proposal to 1% of total electricity rates.

This proposal will result in the gradual displacement of coal-fired generation, currently 60% of Michigan’s electricity supply, with electricity from wind, solar, biomass, or hydropower. The estimated investment of $10.3 billion in renewable generation capacity between 2016 and 2025 will be more than paid for by avoiding the purchase of $14.5 billion in coal supplies and a significant amount in coal plant operations and maintenance.

Reducing Michigan’s use of coal will reduce premature deaths due to cardiopulmonary diseases by more than 100 per year and reduce the number of asthma attacks in Michigan children by more than 40,000 per year.

Substituting construction and manufacturing, which we do well in Michigan, for imported coal will produce employment and income in Michigan.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:01 Douglas Jester

12:02

Ken Sikkema:

Michigan has already made a commitment to a greater reliance on renewable energy. The Legislature has required us to meet 10% by 2015. We're halfway there, so we need to double it in three years. The issue isn't about a reliance on renewable energy, but doing it in a way that's affordable, that's reliable, doesn't disrupt local communities, and is flexible - and that's the problem with Proposal 3.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:02 Ken Sikkema

12:02

Ken Sikkema:

It's an expensive proposal - costing at least $12 billion - resulting in ratepayers paying thousands of dollars. It has the potential to disrupt many communities that might not want wind farms. It doesn't provide a plan for the backup power when the wind doesn't blow.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:02 Ken Sikkema

12:02

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Great - thanks Ken and Douglas for giving your stands on the issue!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:02 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:02

[Comment From AlexAlex: ]

@ken, I have heard the argument that we should wait until 2015 and evaluate the current 10% standard then, how many times does business wait until after the project life cycle to decide to continue? Doesn't that type of thinking stifle investment and limit innovation?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:02 Alex

12:02

Ken Sikkema:

And on top of all of this, it locks the 25% standard into the state constitution - something none of the 29 other states with a renewable energy standard have done. The issue isn't should we have more renewable energy. This is just a reckless and foolish way to do it.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:02 Ken Sikkema

12:03

[Comment From Fred KellerFred Keller: ]

Could each of you state briefly what you think the key reasons for and against the Prop 3 would be?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:03 Fred Keller

12:03

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Fred, hopefully you saw their brief positions above.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:03 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:03

Ken Sikkema:

Alex - We're at 5 percent today, so reaching 10 percent in two and a half years is an ambitious goal. That's the proper time to evaluate the cost, the location, and the reliability of the greater commitment to renewable resources. The legislature required us to get to 10% by 2015 with the assumption that we would evaluate adjusting it at that time.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:03 Ken Sikkema

12:04

Douglas Jester:

I think the case is simple...this is the future of electricity generation. It doesn't cost more than conventional generation and has health and economic benefits

Friday October 26, 2012 12:04 Douglas Jester

12:04

[Comment From Grace SharkeyGrace Sharkey: ]

Where does CARE get this 12 million dollar figure from? I have looked for sources on your website and could not find this study.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:04 Grace Sharkey

12:04

[Comment From DougHDougH: ]

Can your panelists comment on the provision in the measure that could circumvent local zoning and planning in siting the wind farms? I am very concerned about that issue.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:04 DougH

12:05

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Ken will answer Grace's question - he's representing Clean Affordable Renewable Energy (CARE) for Michigan Coalition.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:05 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:05

Douglas Jester:

DougH, there is no provision that would circumveent local zoning. That is a strawman argument offered by CARE. I would oppose such a law

Friday October 26, 2012 12:05 Douglas Jester

12:06

Ken Sikkema:

Grace - The $12 billion is an estimate based on the $4 million per wind mill being constructed today, and the requirement of over 3,000 windmills to meet the 25% standard. The $12 billion is an extremely conservative estimate -- Moody's Investors Services from NY late last week issued a report saying it would cost at least $15 billion, and that is an independent evaluation from Moody's. Whether it's $12 or $15 billion, it translates into thousands of dollars on the backs of families and businesses in Michigan.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:06 Ken Sikkema

12:06

[Comment From ChristieChristie: ]

@Ken, how much does energy cost now, and what does $12 billion mean for each household over the course of the proposal?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:06 Christie

12:06

Douglas Jester:

DougH, further it will only take 6% of Michigan's capacity for wind on-land to meet this requirement so it isn't remotely necessary

Friday October 26, 2012 12:06 Douglas Jester

12:06

Ken Sikkema:

Doug H - The Citizens Research Council - with an independent analysis of Prop 3 - said that in order to meet the 25% standard, the state would have to revisit the issue of local zoning.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:06 Ken Sikkema

12:07

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Doug, can you explain why a constitutional amendment is needed, instead of a voter-initiated law?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:07 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:07

Douglas Jester:

We think that $12 billion is a slight overestimate - we project $10.3 billion. Importantly, this cost will be offset by avoided costs of conventional generation so that the net cost is small.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:07 Douglas Jester

12:07

Ken Sikkema:

Christie - The cost of Prop 3 will result in the ratepayers of Michigan - families and businesses - paying thousands of dollars in increased electric bills and taxes.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:07 Ken Sikkema

12:08

Ken Sikkema:

Doug, your last campaign finance report showed over 80% of all contributions were from out-of-state. How much out-of-state money are you reporting today?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:08 Ken Sikkema

12:08

Douglas Jester:

Melissa, it was our judgement that we couldn't get this done through the legislature anytime soon and there is some urgency o move ahead. So, we went to the people.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:08 Douglas Jester

12:08

Melissa Anders | MLive:

But you could have gone to the people with a voter-initiated law, right?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:08 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:09

Douglas Jester:

Ken's claim that ratepayers will pay thousands of dollars is very misleading. They will pay little more, if any, than if their electricity came from coal plants

Friday October 26, 2012 12:09 Douglas Jester

12:09

Ken Sikkema:

Thirty states, including Michigan, have made commitments to more renewable energy. Not a single state has been foolish and reckless enough to lock it into their state constitution.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:09 Ken Sikkema

12:09

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Doug and Ken, can you explain your thoughts on the current and future cost of renewable energy as opposed to cola-fired plants?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:09 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:10

Douglas Jester:

A voter-initatied law would then require 3/4 vote of each of house to amend. A constitutional amendment setting the goal and leaving the implementation details to ordinary legislation is more flexible

Friday October 26, 2012 12:10 Douglas Jester

12:10

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Oops, meant coal-fired, not cola!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:10 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:11

Ken Sikkema:

Melissa - Public Sector Consultants did a study comparing the cost of conventional generation today with the cost of renewable generation today. The cost of renewable generation is considerably higher - 67 percent higher. Projections about future costs are just that: projections.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:11 Ken Sikkema

12:11

Douglas Jester:

The Michigan Public Service Commission has already determined that new renewable generation is much cheaper than new coal-fired generation, roughly 7 cents per kwh vw 11 cents per kwh

Friday October 26, 2012 12:11 Douglas Jester

12:11

[Comment From Marco EsquandolasMarco Esquandolas: ]

Hello, Will our electric costs go up even if we vote down this proposal?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:11 Marco Esquandolas

12:11

[Comment From Marco EsquandolasMarco Esquandolas: ]

The utility companies are raising the rates anyway correct?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:11 Marco Esquandolas

12:11

[Comment From Marco EsquandolasMarco Esquandolas: ]

this is basically big utility compies vs big green companies correct?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:11 Marco Esquandolas

12:12

Douglas Jester:

Your electricity costs are going up about 4% per year even without this proposal, mostly due to the increasing costs of coal

Friday October 26, 2012 12:12 Douglas Jester

12:12

Ken Sikkema:

Marco - Whatever you're paying today, Prop. 3 will raise your rates.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:12 Ken Sikkema

12:12

Douglas Jester:

Prop 3 will not measurably affect your rates because wind generation is about the same cost as current generation

Friday October 26, 2012 12:12 Douglas Jester

12:12

[Comment From Fred KellerFred Keller: ]

Ken I think your estimate of 5% renewables today is quite low. I remember when the 10% was initiated we were at about 6 % already and that we are much closer to about 8% or more with the projects that are completed or in the pipeline.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:12 Fred Keller

12:13

Ken Sikkema:

Marco - Moody's Investor Services last week issued a report saying that this is an expensive proposal costing at least $15 billion. The $15 billion comes from ratepayers - not from the utilities. This is not a battle between industries. It's an issue of whether you want to lock such an expensive proposal in the state Constitution.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:13 Ken Sikkema

12:13

[Comment From DougHDougH: ]

I want to restate my question in a more direct fashion: If Prop 3 passes, can wind turbines be placed in communities without Township or master plan review?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:13 DougH

12:14

Ken Sikkema:

Fred - When the legislature passed the 10% standard at the end of 2008, at that point we were at about 2%. According to the Michigan Public Service Commission, we are at about 5% today.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:14 Ken Sikkema

12:14

Douglas Jester:

Ken continues to cite the investments to meet the proposal as costs, while ignoring the savings in costs of generating with coal. THe net is very small or in favor of renewables.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:14 Douglas Jester

12:14

Douglas Jester:

DougH, No.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:14 Douglas Jester

12:14

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Fred- The major utilities, Consumers Energy and DTE Energy, also have said they're about half-way toward achieving the 10 percent goal.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:14 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:15

[Comment From JeffJeff: ]

How do you respond to the fact that the true cost of wind and solar energy much much higher than tradition all power

Friday October 26, 2012 12:15 Jeff

12:16

Douglas Jester:

Wind is now cheaper than coal or nuclear generation and about even with natural gas. However, natural gas costs aren't guaranteed for more than 3 years while wind contracts can be fixed price for 25 years. Soal is currently more expensive but declining in cost rpaidly.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:16 Douglas Jester

12:16

Ken Sikkema:

Jeff - Incidentally, the Public Sector Consultants study that documented the higher current cost of renewables didn't even include the 30% subsidy that comes from the federal Production Tax Credit, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:16 Ken Sikkema

12:16

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Douglas, are you saying wind is cheaper than existing coal and nuclear plants, or newly built ones?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:16 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:17

Douglas Jester:

Jeff, nor do the costs cited for coal, nuclear, and natural gas account for the considerable subisidies they receive

Friday October 26, 2012 12:17 Douglas Jester

12:17

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

Ken, what would you say to someone who assumes that a large part of why the CARE coalition does not support Proposal 3 is because the coalition is largely funded by utility companies whose interests lie in keeping the status quo in order to avoid having to foot the bill that, according to the language of the Proposal, would be the responsibilities of these companies (DTE and Consumers) rather than ratepayers?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:17 Guest

12:18

Douglas Jester:

New wind is cheaper than new coal or nuclear. The most recent wind contracts for Michigan are about the same as the costs for generation from existing coal plants

Friday October 26, 2012 12:18 Douglas Jester

12:18

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Thanks

Friday October 26, 2012 12:18 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:18

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

I have a few questions in the lineup by "Guest" - can those of you who haven't chosen a handle please do so. I prefer not to put up questions by "guest" if possible. Thanks!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:18 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:19

Ken Sikkema:

Guest - The Moody's Investors Service study issued last week said: "This is a very expensive proposal." They went on to say that the utilities themselves aren't harmed by this, because the cost of Prop. 3 - $15 billion - will come from the ratepayers of Michigan. It's the ratepayers of Michigan that are harmed by Prop. 3, not the utilities, according to Moody's.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:19 Ken Sikkema

12:19

[Comment From LilyLily: ]

I feel like we are stifling an industry that could flourish in Michigan by not investing in renewable energy. How will this affect new industries in Michigan?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:19 Lily

12:19

[Comment From JeffJeff: ]

Wind is NOT cheaper that any of the other power soarces. That is junk science. It just isn't true

Friday October 26, 2012 12:19 Jeff

12:19

Ken Sikkema:

Doug, although I've already asked this, I'll ask it again: your latest campaign finance report showed that over 80% of your funding is coming from out-of-state. What will we see today?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:19 Ken Sikkema

12:19

[Comment From JeffJeff: ]

It's not just the electric rates alone that costs us in this, - there a lot of tax breaks to that cost the tax payer as well. And most of those "jobs" go away once the units are operational

Friday October 26, 2012 12:19 Jeff

12:20

Douglas Jester:

Jeff, you only need to look at the actual contracts. Wind is available on 25 year contracts for 4.5 cents per kwh, which is cheaper than the current cost of power on the grid

Friday October 26, 2012 12:20 Douglas Jester

12:20

Ken Sikkema:

Lilly - Four independent studies on Prop 3 have now been published. All four answer document that the higher costs of electricity will result in job losses in Michigan.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:20 Ken Sikkema

12:21

Douglas Jester:

Jeff, DTE gets susbstantial tax breaks every year for its use of coal. Renewables would be happy to compete on a level playing field.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:21 Douglas Jester

12:21

[Comment From Marco EsquandolasMarco Esquandolas: ]

how much money have each of your groups spent on this issue?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:21 Marco Esquandolas

12:22

Douglas Jester:

Lilly, those claims of job losses are all based on bogus claims about the effects of the proposal on the cost of electricity. Building and operating renewables will produce substantial employment in Michigan - see the sutdy by MSU

Friday October 26, 2012 12:22 Douglas Jester

12:22

Ken Sikkema:

Marco - I'm not privy to the amount of money spent on Prop 3. I do know that public documents show that the proponents of Prop. 3 are receiving over 80% of their money from out-of-state. Frankly, I'm grateful that someone in Michigan stepped up to oppose this constitutional amendment.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:22 Ken Sikkema

12:23

Douglas Jester:

Ken and Marco, I don't know what the financial reports will show today. I do know that there is significant support from in-state and from national organizations that are active in-state.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:23 Douglas Jester

12:23

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Marco, campaign finance reports are due out today on the ballot proposals. I believe the deadline is 5 p.m. and I'll post an article asap.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:23 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:23

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Ken, I've noticed you've mentioned a study by Moody's. Can you share a link to that?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:23 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:24

[Comment From LilyLily: ]

But aren't turbines already produced in Michigan, aren't we just expanding the market?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:24 Lily

12:25

Ken Sikkema:

Melissa - Here is a link to Moody's study: http://www.alacrastore.com/research/moodys-global-credit-research-State_Ballot_Initiatives_Potentially_Impacting_Investor_Owned_Utilities_in_November-PBC_145618

Friday October 26, 2012 12:25 Ken Sikkema

12:25

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Thanks, Ken

Friday October 26, 2012 12:25 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:26

[Comment From Marco EsquandolasMarco Esquandolas: ]

please speak about the air quality in michigan if this prop passes and where we currently get our coal from. I'm not aware of any coal mines in michigan?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:26 Marco Esquandolas

12:26

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Just to keep participants tuned in, Douglas Jester has lost his Internet, but we hope he's back on the chat soon!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:26 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:26

[Comment From ElliElli: ]

Ken, isn't your campaign 90% funded by DTE and Consumer's? How do you respond to charges that your campaign is nothing more than companies trying to protect their own profits?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:26 Elli

12:26

Ken Sikkema:

Marco - According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, both air and water quality in Michigan are the best they've been in generations. This is testimony to the fact that you can have both a clean environment and a strong manufacturing economy. You don't have to choose between them.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:26 Ken Sikkema

12:28

Ken Sikkema:

Elli - Once again, the Moody's study published last week said that although this is an expensive proposal, it will be paid for by families and businesses of Michigan. Doug, how many of your donors stand to financially benefit if Proposal 3 passes?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:28 Ken Sikkema

12:29

[Comment From MattMatt: ]

@Ken - My utility bill went up 13.5% last year - as a DTE customer. Why would we want to continue our investment in coal power that is becoming increasingly more expensive to produce here in Michigan and sends $1.7 billion dollars out of our state per year?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:29 Matt

12:29

Douglas Jester:

There are some businesses who've contributed who will benefit but most of our funding has been from nonprofits who want to protect public health and save the planet.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:29 Douglas Jester

12:30

Ken Sikkema:

Matt - If Prop. 3 passes, your rates as well as everyone else in Michigan will go up dramatically. This will affect everybody, but in particular to senior citizens and others on fixed incomes.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:30 Ken Sikkema

12:30

[Comment From DougHDougH: ]

I have read each turbine has about 200 gallons of oil inside. Will there be environmental impact studies before those units are placed? Concerned about watersheds

Friday October 26, 2012 12:30 DougH

12:30

[Comment From KevinKevin: ]

The blades for the turbines are shipped in from Germany, are they not?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:30 Kevin

12:31

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Thanks for those questions on turbines, Kevin and DougH.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:31 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:31

[Comment From ElliElli: ]

Kevin - There are 8,000 parts in a wind turbine, all of which can and will be made in Michigan

Friday October 26, 2012 12:31 Elli

12:32

Douglas Jester:

DougH, There is lubricating oil in turbines. the amount varies by brand and design. Kevin, most blades being used in the United States are made in the United States and most turbines in Michigan have blades from nearby

Friday October 26, 2012 12:32 Douglas Jester

12:32

[Comment From Barry KleckaBarry Klecka: ]

Other states with Billions in wind investment have not seen this as an expensive proposal. Iowa,Texas have had only modest increases since 2001 while Michigan had 87% increase. Why do we expect an outcome different than what the real world is doing?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:32 Barry Klecka

12:33

Ken Sikkema:

Doug - Four independent studies have documented the job losses that will occur in Michigan if Proposal 3 passes. The promise of additional jobs is just not true.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:33 Ken Sikkema

12:33

Douglas Jester:

Michigan has had an 87 percent increase in rates, Iowa has had almost no increase in rates. Iowa is at 27 percent renewable energy

Friday October 26, 2012 12:33 Douglas Jester

12:34

Ken Sikkema:

Barry - It's ludicrous to suggest that a $12 billion expense locked into the state constitution is not going to raise rates significantly for families and businesses in Michigan.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:34 Ken Sikkema

12:34

[Comment From MarissaMarissa: ]

The study by Public Sector Consultants Inc. shown on the CARE website states that "Conventional generation amount is the weighted average of Detroit Edison Company and Consumers Energy Company cost of producing electricity using their existing generation." Has CARE conducted any studies that estimate the cost of energy generation from NEW coal plants versus renewables?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:34 Marissa

12:34

Douglas Jester:

Ken, we'll just have to disagree. Those studies base job loss forecasts on rate increase forecasts that aren't credible.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:34 Douglas Jester

12:34

Ken Sikkema:

Marissa - No one is suggesting that we build new coal plants in Michigan.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:34 Ken Sikkema

12:36

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Ken, won't we have to repair or replace our aging fleet of coal-fired plants, with an average age of about 50 years?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:36 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:37

[Comment From RandyRandy: ]

I undersand that we set record peak loads for the eleectric send out this summer. I also understand that the wind turbines in Michigan that were supplying less than 1% of that total load. If we had 25% wind generation doesn't that mean we would have had to have a matching amount of none wind generation to supply the peak load we experienced?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:37 Randy

12:37

Ken Sikkema:

Melissa - Nobody knows when coal plants will have to be retired. But, I do know that we shouldn't lock the decision into the constitution.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:37 Ken Sikkema

12:38

Ken Sikkema:

Randy - You're right. The wind doesn't always blow and it often blows when you don't need the electricity. The fact of the matter is, you need backup power for wind energy.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:38 Ken Sikkema

12:38

[Comment From JeffJeff: ]

This whole wind power thing is promoted by big busineses and lobbies for them ( and polititions in their pockets) The numbers used right now for pricing have been skewed, because of the actual power from wind has very little to no Capacity Value at all. When power is needed most - daytime in July and Aug heat, they produce the least. And power from them can't be readily stored.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:38 Jeff

12:38

Douglas Jester:

We would have to have either transmission or backup generation to meet load at those ties, and those costs have been included in our estimates of costs of meeting this standard. The rest of the time when wind is blowing we avoid cost of fuel and other operating costs as well as cost of more expensive base load plans.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:38 Douglas Jester

12:39

[Comment From LukePLukeP: ]

Ken, actually there are proposals for new coal plants in Michigan (such as Wolverines' Bay City plant)

Friday October 26, 2012 12:39 LukeP

12:39

Ken Sikkema:

LukeP: Wolverine doesn't have a Bay City plant.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:39 Ken Sikkema

12:40

[Comment From c brisc bris: ]

the proposal may encourage michgian businesses but there are many unused wind manufacturers already in other states. Michigan residents and businesses deserve reasonable rates not out of this world costs. it is not going to make sense to build redundant businesses here and no one is going to want to build here so the claims of huge jobs is not realistic

Friday October 26, 2012 12:40 c bris

12:40

[Comment From JohnJohn: ]

Ken- then why are rates increasing right now if we aren't investing in coal plants or renewable energy?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:40 John

12:40

Douglas Jester:

There have been proposed coal plants

Friday October 26, 2012 12:40 Douglas Jester

12:40

Douglas Jester:

The cost of coal delivered in Michigan has increased 76 percent since 2008 and that increase in fuel cost is what's driving the increase in Michigan's electricity rates.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:40 Douglas Jester

12:41

[Comment From JeffJeff: ]

I just think that if alternitve energy was really economiclly sound, then there would be no need to force it down our thoats with a law that will be hard to change once it's on the books.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:41 Jeff

12:41

Ken Sikkema:

John - The issue faced by Prop 3 is about whether a rate increase - and associated job losses - is going to be locked into the state Constitution. I think that's a mistake, which is why I hope people vote NO on Prop 3.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:41 Ken Sikkema

12:41

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

This proposal does not guarantee jobs for MI residents or the use of MI made equipment or parts. It just states encourage laws. How is MI guaranteed these 94,000 jobs?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:41 Guest

12:42

Ken Sikkema:

Guest - Good question. As you point out, Prop. 3 does not guarantee one single job will be created in Michigan if it passes. As a number of studies have documented, the higher electric rates will result in fewer jobs in Michigan.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:42 Ken Sikkema

12:42

Douglas Jester:

74,000 are construction, operations and maintenance that will be in Michigan if the facilities are in Michigan, and 20,000 are manufacturing jobs for which we'll have to compete.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:42 Douglas Jester

12:42

[Comment From josejose: ]

it isn't 94,000 jobs...it's 94000 job years...

Friday October 26, 2012 12:42 jose

12:42

Douglas Jester:

It's job years.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:42 Douglas Jester

12:42

Ken Sikkema:

The Anderson Economic Group documented there will be a loss of 51,000 "job-years".

Friday October 26, 2012 12:42 Ken Sikkema

12:43

[Comment From RandyRandy: ]

With the Not in My Backayrd mentality where will you build all the wind turbines needed to support 25% renewables? Or are we going to take everyone's rights away to deterine how the land where they live is used and just build the turbines wherever the power company wants them?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:43 Randy

12:44

Ken Sikkema:

Randy - As the Citizens Research Council said, "It may also be necessary for the state to supersede local authority for zoning as it relates to locating windmills if Proposal 3 is adopted and approved."

Friday October 26, 2012 12:44 Ken Sikkema

12:44

Douglas Jester:

Wind generation is economically viable across all of the southern Lower Peninsula. We only need 6 percent of Michigan's on-land wind capacity to meet the standard. Wind farms provide significant local economic benefits, so we're sure that turbines can be siting in communities where they're welcome.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:44 Douglas Jester

12:44

[Comment From MichaelMichael: ]

How will this cause job loss?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:44 Michael

12:44

[Comment From c brisc bris: ]

whats a job year?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:44 c bris

12:45

[Comment From JamesJames: ]

The Anderson Economic Group used 9.7 cents a kilowatt hour for wind, when the City of Holland just entered into a contract for 4.5 cents.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:45 James

12:45

Ken Sikkema:

Michael - The Anderson Economic Group, a Michigan-based research firm, has documented that higher electric rates for families and businesses reduces jobs.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:45 Ken Sikkema

12:45

Melissa Anders |MLive:

If one person works the same job for 25 years, that's 25 job years.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:45 Melissa Anders |MLive

12:46

Ken Sikkema:

Under the "job year" theory, one person working the same job for 25 years is 25 jobs. That's just plain crazy.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:46 Ken Sikkema

12:46

[Comment From LukePLukeP: ]

Randy, in my experience harming communities welcome wind farms, but coastal communities will probable be another story...

Friday October 26, 2012 12:46 LukeP

12:46

Douglas Jester:

Ken, what have you estimated as the job losses due to DTE's rate increase this year that is larger than the total rate increase by 2025 that can be caused by this proposal?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:46 Douglas Jester

12:47

Ken Sikkema:

The issue facing voters is on Nov. 6: Prop 3, an irresponsible, constitutional amendment that will cost families and businesses $12 billion and would result in job losses to Michigan citizens.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:47 Ken Sikkema

12:47

[Comment From c brisc bris: ]

melissa if one person works 1 job no matter how long that is still 1 job or 1 position. No one in the business world uses "Job years"...not even economic development officials

Friday October 26, 2012 12:47 c bris

12:47

[Comment From MarissaMarissa: ]

To both representatives: In light of the new EPA regulations in place that now make building a new coal plant virtually impossible, wouldn't implementing a higher renewable energy standard and beginning to invest in renewable energy be more necessary now than it ever has been? Let's assume with this question that we will at some point, as Melissa stated, have to replace our aging fleet of coal-fired plants.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:47 Marissa

12:47

Melissa Anders |MLive:

c bris, I know. This was used by MSU researchers and has been criticized by the other side.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:47 Melissa Anders |MLive

12:48

[Comment From SoniaSonia: ]

According to a Michigan government study (Feb 15, 2012) "By comparing the calculated levelized cost of $133/MWh in 2008 dollars for a new conventional coal-fired power facility with the combined average levelized contract prices in Figure 9, the cost of all renewable energy technologies is less than the coal guidepost rate"

Friday October 26, 2012 12:48 Sonia

12:48

[Comment From SoniaSonia: ]

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/implementation_PA295_renewable_energy2-15-2012_376924_7.pdf

Friday October 26, 2012 12:48 Sonia

12:48

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

These job losses are due to poor management and misspending not because of rate increases.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:48 Guest

12:49

Douglas Jester:

Marissa, yes, Michigan utilities will have to make major decisions costing billions in 2014 and 2015 in order to meet regulations affecting coal plants in 2017. That's one of the reasons to establish a clear renewable energy policy now.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:49 Douglas Jester

12:49

Ken Sikkema:

Marissa: Federal regulation and federal tax policy change quickly. That is one reason why we don't lock something like Proposal 3 into the state Constitution - you need flexibility to respond to changing federal policy.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:49 Ken Sikkema

12:49

[Comment From DougHDougH: ]

I cannot understand the notion that 3,000 wind turbines will be put up without environmental impact studies or community pushback. In farms or otherwise.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:49 DougH

12:50

[Comment From LukePLukeP: ]

Randy, i meant to say Farming!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:50 LukeP

12:50

[Comment From Marco EsquandolasMarco Esquandolas: ]

would you rather live next to a coal plant or a wind turbine?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:50 Marco Esquandolas

12:50

Ken Sikkema:

Sonia - No one is proposing a new coal plant in Michigan. The cost of conventional generation today is still cheaper than the cost of renewable energy. Renewable generation is 67% higher than conventional generation.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:50 Ken Sikkema

12:50

Douglas Jester:

DougH: Installing wind farms or other renewable energy facilities to meet this standard will require environmental assessment and community engagement. Tat's the way it should be done and this proposal doesn't change that.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:50 Douglas Jester

12:50

[Comment From c brisc bris: ]

I am embarassed to say I went to MSU - I would discount their math....and discount prop 3 proponents as stretching the facts way out of proportion

Friday October 26, 2012 12:50 c bris

12:51

[Comment From MarissaMarissa: ]

Randy: And if Proposal 3 doesn't pass, are you under the assumption that, say, if a large company wants to start fracking on Michigan land that they'll be concerned about citizens rights to their own lands when they're injecting toxic chemicals into our water supply to extract natural gas? Because this is a threat that Michigan is facing right now.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:51 Marissa

12:51

[Comment From JonnyJonny: ]

Ken - constitutions were made to be amended, but changing the state constitution is a last resort, due to an inflexible and gerrymandered state congress. This is the only option for Michiganders who want to see a clean energy future.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:51 Jonny

12:52

[Comment From Barry KleckaBarry Klecka: ]

Experiences in other states show MSUs math matches what we see happening in the real world.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:52 Barry Klecka

12:52

Ken Sikkema:

Jonny - The thirty states (including Michigan) that have made a decision to pursue more renewable energy have been able to do so without amending their state constitutions. No state in the country has been foolish and reckless enough to amend its constitution for this reason.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:52 Ken Sikkema

12:53

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

OK, we're about to wrap up everyone. I'll ask both Ken and Douglas to put up closing statements. Thanks everyone for participating. And if any participants have final thoughts, please fire away.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:53 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:54

[Comment From JamesJames: ]

Since when is protecting the lives of Michigan residents foolish and reckless?

Friday October 26, 2012 12:54 James

12:54

Douglas Jester:

We encourage you to support Proposal 3. It's a modest increase in Michigan's renewable energy standard that stays well within what Michigan's utilities can afford and is consistent with the standards that have been adopted in 30 other states. States like Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado all have standards 25% or higher and Iowa is above 25% now, demonstrating that this is both feasible and cost-effective.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:54 Douglas Jester

12:55

Ken Sikkema:

Michigan is already making a significant contribution to a greater reliance on renewable energy. Our goal is to double it in 2 and a half years. So, this is not a debate over renewable energy. We need to do it in a way that is affordable, reliable, flexible and doesn't needlessly disrupt local communities and take away their control.

Proposal 3 is a $12 billion cost to Michigan families and businesses. It will result in job losses in Michigan. It doesn't provide a plan for what to do when the wind is not blowing, and it threatens local control.

On top of all this, it locks all this into the state constitution - something no other state has been foolish and reckless enough to do.

Visit http://www.CAREforMich.com to learn more - and thanks to MLive and Doug Jester for taking part today.

Friday October 26, 2012 12:55 Ken Sikkema

12:55

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Please come back to MLive.com next week for our final deep dive on the ballot proposals. Next Monday: The home health care proposal. We'll have a live chat next Friday at noon.

Here's a good roundup of our series on the ballot proposals: http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/09/michigan_decides_2012_what_you.html

Friday October 26, 2012 12:55 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:56

Melissa Anders | MLive:

Thanks, everyone!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:56 Melissa Anders | MLive

12:56

Meegan Holland|MLive.com:

Thanks Ken and Douglas for participating! And you can read a recap of this chat at any time. Pass it on to your friends, and join us again next Friday at noon!

Friday October 26, 2012 12:56 Meegan Holland|MLive.com

12:56