Michigan can meet its energy needs while improving its economy, protecting the environment and ultimately slowing the pace of global warming, according to a report recently released by the Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center.

The report—Energizing Michigan’s Economy: Creating Jobs and Reducing Pollution with Energy Efficiency and Renewable Electric Power—compares the outcomes of three potential energy plans:

Environment Michigan’s New Energy Future, which eliminates growth in electricity demand through energy efficiency and generates more electricity from renewable sources; Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s 21st Century Energy Plan, which makes a smaller commitment to efficiency and renewables; and a business-as-usual scenario, which includes no new efficiencies or renewables.

According to Mike Shriberg, director of Environment Michigan, the most significant difference between the two formal plans is that Gov. Granholm’s proposal includes construction of a new coal-fired power plant because of its tepid recommendations on clean energy, while Environment Michigan’s approach does not.

Environment Michigan’s plan specifically calls for increasing the state’s use of renewable energy to 25% of all electricity generated by 2025 and creates a $225 million annual fund for efficiency activities. The 21st Century Energy Plan proposes a 10% renewable energy goal by 2015 and a $68 million annual fund.

According to Environment Michigan’s report, the difference between these two proposals has ramifications not only for the environment, but for consumers’ pocketbooks.

Economy
Between 2007 and 2020, the New Energy Future scenario would create 5,000 more new jobs than the 21st Century Energy Plan—and those jobs would pay out $2.3 billion more in wages.

These new jobs and wages could exist through the use of renewables and efficiencies which would replace part of the $18 billion annually sent by Michigan residents to other states for imported fuel. By re-routing that money back into Michigan, according to the report, the revenue influx will generate new and more high-tech jobs.

But will this change create costlier energy for consumers?

No, according to Shriberg. “There are two ways it lowers bills. The first is directly, when people invest in energy efficiency. For instance, using a compact florescent light bulb would lower the amount of energy you use, and thus lower your bill—plus, our program would help offset the cost of buying [that light bulb] in the first place.”

The second, more indirect decrease is by reducing overall consumption. “When everybody reduces electric use, everybody’s rates go down. That’s because prices are driven up by peak demand periods—think of the hottest summer day—and when that happens, the gap is filled by natural gas, a much more expensive form of energy,” Shriberg explained. “So if you have fewer peak-demand periods, you use less natural gas, and, in turn, everybody’s rates go down.”

Environment
According to Environment Michigan’s report, each megawatt-hour of electricity generated in Michigan produces about 6.5 pounds of soot-forming sulfur dioxide, 2.2 pounds of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and increased mercury emissions—all of which create public health problems. It also sends 1,440 pounds of carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global climate change, into the atmosphere.

And Michigan’s warming-induced changes are already visible. “Before 1980, Grand Traverse Bay froze during most winters (85%). But since 1980, the bay has frozen only approximately 20% of the time,” the report says. “Spring is arriving sooner, cherry trees are blooming about a week earlier, and Canada geese are shifting their migration patterns…in Michigan, scientists predict that summer temperatures could be 7 to 10 degrees warmer than today by the year 2100.”

Today
According to Shriberg, the Environment Michigan report has moved the debate in Lansing and across the state. “It’s already had a large impact in terms of changing the frame of the debate in Lansing. They have been debating how we’re going to fund a new power plant or two, and this report presents the possibility of not doing that,” he said.

—Katie Coleman, MEC