Comments on: Energy policy by constitutional amendment debated

By: Energy policy by constitutional amendment debated « « Electric Stocks Electric Stocks

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:30:17 +0000

[...] Energy policy by constitutional amendment debated If approved, Proposal 3 will mandate that 25 percent of electricity sold in Michigan comes from renewable energy by the year 2025. The initiative's … Once in the constitution, that definition would be difficult to change and the lack of flexibility … Read more on Great Lakes Echo [...]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Bill may increase renewable energy competitiveness; possible implications for … | Green Energy Investing

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:03:06 +0000

[...] Energy policy by constitutional amendment debated [...]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Energy policy by constitutional amendment debated « Environmental News Bits

Energy policy by constitutional amendment debated « Environmental News Bits — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:28:00 +0000

[...] Read the full story at Great Lakes Echo. Voters will determine this November if Michigan will be the first to insert a clean energy requirement into its state constitution. [...]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:52:46 +0000

I don’t need many words to express my opinion about this….

STUPID IDEA

Like or Dislike: 0 1

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:20:59 +0000

Teri, your personal interest will be heightened when you or one of your loved ones becomes afflicted by a medical condition resulting from environmental contaminants. You may be more interested in your budget now, but, guaranteed you will curse the polluters when your insurance fails to cover all the costs. This has nothing to do with tree hugging, it has to do with our long term quality of life, both aesthetically and health wise.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:49:23 +0000

Teri-
$160 a year is $13 a month. Not much, in my opinion, in return for the positives we get back.
In reality, though, the final cost has been estimated at less than $6 a year, or about $.50 a month, and may actually be a long-term reduction in cost, because there are no fuel expenses.
Compare that to the big utilities who got PSC permission to increase their rates by 30% over the last 3 years- mostly to pay for the increased cost of transporting coal.
Now tell me who’s looking out for your budget.
While I really enjoy a good tree hug, my agenda actually is more concerned about the health of your children and my grandchildren. Reducing coal emissions will reduce public health costs related to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and from mercury poisoning, which comes almost exclusively from coal-fired power plants.
Those public health costs are hard to quantify, but very real, especially if it’s one of your children with asthma.
As Nick says above, the constitution is the perfect place for this law.
Vote Yes on 3, please.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

By: Teri

Teri — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:54:56 +0000

Even if the dollar per month was accurate, that’s $12 dollars the first year, $24+ the second, $36++ the third year until at least 2025 when it will cost us $160 per year. We then continue to pay these increases forever. The amount gets much more if it takes longer than 2025 to get to the full 25%. I am more interested in my budget than I am in your tree hugging agenda. Stay away from my constitution with your personal interests.

Like or Dislike: 0 2

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:50:19 +0000

There are too many buzz words: clean energy, renewable energy, green energy, and so on. The only things I can see politicians doing is reducing allowed emissions of things such as mercury and carbon dioxide into the environment; and reducing the use of certain natural resources which includes timber used for heating. Otherwise, clean energy is cheap energy. It reflects the amount of emissions used to create a unit of energy.

In addition, if you reduce the amount of allowed emissions of something like mercury, you encourage the development of methods that capture mercury. This makes more sense than doing something like requiring vehicles to get better mileage. This would encourage the production of vehicles with inadequate standards.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:09:13 +0000

Why put it in the state Constitution? 1. There is a 1% cost cap on rate increases to comply with the 25% standard in the ballot initiative. Without it being in the Constitution, legislators would listen to the utility lobby and raise the cost cap – even though reputable studies show that it will cost less that $1 per month per average customer. 2. The legislature was asked to pass a law to strengthen the RPS, there is legislation introduced to do so, and they have refused. 3. Some in the legislature are actively seeking to undermine the existing 10% by 2015 RPS. 4. Other important things – like the natural resource trust fund – are in the Constitution so that the legislature can’t raid the fund or alter it for political purposes. 6. Energy policy is an important, statewide issue, and over 530,000 people signed petitions to put it on the ballot.

Unlike other Constitutional amendments like stem cell research, marriage between one man and one woman, the drinking age, etc. this proposal has a built in end date – 2025. As the Michigan Supreme Court held this September, Article 1, § 1 of Michigan’s Constitution provides that “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.” Within our state Constitution, the people have allocated certain portions of their inherent powers to the branches of government. But the people have also reserved certain powers to themselves. Among these powers is the right to amend the Constitution by petition and popular vote.

Article 2, § 9 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution has reserved to the people the power to enact any law the Legislature could enact. The Michigan Constitution specifically grants the Legislature, and therefore the people, the power to enact laws that, like Proposal 3, ensure the energy we use in the future is safe for people and the environment. A few existing state Constitutional provisions illustrate my point: Sec. 50: Provide safety measures and regulate the use of atomic energy and forms of energy developed in the future, having in view the general welfare of the people of this state; Sec. 51: The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health. Sec. 52: The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction.

The Michigan Constitution is much different than our federal Constitution. It is a living document that reflects our values, and is designed to change over time. The state Constitution even requires that we vote every 16 years on whether to hold a convention to rewrite it. A yes vote on Proposal 3 is good for the state economy, ratepayers, the environment and public health, and it is entirely appropriate to have it in the state Constitution.

Like or Dislike: 2 2