If we do not pass this proposal the utility companies will not do on their own. They are making only very small steps now. If the proposal passed then companies who build products for alternative energy can feel confident that they can invest the money to make alternative energy a reality, and not worry it will go away in a year. That is the problem with rebates, they are great for us, but still hard for a company to invest in providing alternative energy if the government then takes those rebates away. Their company then loses business. We have to stop depending on dirty coal (no matter how "clean" they are making it) and oil from overseas which costs us so dearly in human lives.

When we made the requirement that 10% of all energy has to be from renewable sources our utility bills went up for the businesses and every person who pays an electric bill. By regulating a concept that does not financially work, we are increasing costs for everyone. This degrades our economy and causes higher prices for everyone, this is a hidden tax. Let the free market decide if these are viable solutions based on the value that is created.

This does not create jobs, it kills jobs in Michigan. They will tell you the renewable energy companies will hire and create jobs, they forget many of these jobs are not Michigan jobs and many new and existing businesses will head to other states that have lower costs for energy. They need to take a look at the jobs lost, take away the jobs gained (just a few Michigan jobs) and see how that makes sense for Michigan.

Politicians only talk about the jobs added, not the ones replaced or eliminated because of legislation. How about a truthful discussion that tells the complete story?

I am voting no, this does not belong in the constitution. This should not be a law. If it truly creates value for the consumer then it will be a hot ticket and everyone will buy without the government forcing it.

How many companies will move here if Proposal 3 passes increasing utility costs 50%, and then we pass Proposal 2 that says union contracts trup the constitution and all laws, past and future? Prop. 3 will cost $12 Billion and Prop. 2 will cost $ 1.6 Billion a year. It is hanging a sign at the borders: "Business, don't come here". No business, no jobs. In the last decade Michigan lost 800.000 jobs, 54,000 moved out of the state (want the kids and grandkids back!) and personal income went down 22%. Proposals 2,3 & 4 are absolutely toxic.

How to fix future elections....Pass a law that outlaws paying for signature petitions. All these proposals (other than the EFM) followed the same route. Special Interest Groups hire companies to get petition signatures. Paid (out of state) collectors says anything to get signatures. Ballot proposal is created to get around the legislative process...

In the end, Michigan residents will lose very badly if these pass. Business investment will drop, costs will rise significantly and the state drops back to the Granholm era of being the 49th best state in nearly every economic category.

Lets hope they see through this....

Wow. Obviously tea party and republicans are busy responding. No one cares at all about the world you are leaving your children and grandchildren. And no worries if your children or grandchildren are murdered in war protecting oil. And scare tactics of increasing utility costs by 50%. As RBLIII commented, companies have no interest in changing on their own due to the initial cost. But imagine the Big Three if they did not begin to compete with world companies and starting improving mileage. And now the Big Three are turning around and paying back their government debt.

BIG NO ON 3 All we need is another bogus alternative energy prospal to make our bills go up. We are the Windmill Jobs Debbie and Barak were are the jobs.

Some of these arguments are ridiculous. To use the good example of CAFE standards - obviously automakers protested this as it would pass on higher costs to consumers. Free market proponents always say "let the market demand handle it". Automakers 30 years ago didn't have the foresight to begin making more efficient vehicles. Where would we be now if the government mandates hadn't been put in place? Still getting 16mpg in your car? But instead cars get better MPG than ever, in the long run decreasing cost of ownership and more sustainability of our environment. Same concept applies to clean energy.
What facts are the arguments that higher energy costs will drive out new business? When was that ever the deciding factor? How about having a better educated and more agile workforce in MI that doesn't get caught assuming they can live on building cars for the rest of their life?

I generally look for disclaimer at end, then go look up their website and see who sponsors of ads and try to learn their affiliations with movements or partys. I think this year takes the cake as far as misleading ads and so many attempts to change our constitution. This stuff is for real and hopefully people take a good look before voting as there could be some tremdous consequesnces.

Ok..now that we have the definition cleared up..................where are the jobs??? Legit question.

Where are the wind generators? We only have a few and so we only have a few jobs.

My husband and I are voting absolutely no on this proposal. We do not feel the Michigan Constitution is the appropriate place for this issue. Renewable energy at this time is unreliable and extremely expensive and will raise our energy rates. Families are already struggling with increased gas and food costs. Vote no on proposals 2,3 and 4.

"In five years, you will be blown away" [Gov. Granholm]. And so will your money!

These technologies, while hopeful, and promising, are not ready for prime time. The payback on investment will never occur. Efficiencies need to be improved, installation cost are prohibitive, and maintenance, although seldom discussed, is insane!

Just look what's going on in the electric vehicle industry. a123 Systems going bankrupt. LG Chem/Compact Power, putting workings on reduced hours due to less demand for batteries. Chevy Volt going down.

I think it's going to be a no for my wife and I. We don't like the proposal.

U R A Fool, and where would u get these facts about prop 2??? Because making sure workers have the right to negotiate is what prop 2 is about. You CANNOT say it will cost whatever, so please don't throw made up numbers out to try to scare people into voting no.

We are voting yes. Proposal 3 means new investments, new jobs, and improved health for MI. For example, our coal plants are among the country's oldest and many will soon need to close. Proposal 3 would allow us to replace old coal gradually with the cheapest new source of electricity available — wind energy. The Michigan Public Service Commission determined that onshore wind turbines produce energy at about one half the cost of a new coal plant. And while the costs of fossil fuels are increasing and volatile, "fuel-less" renewable energy technologies have long-term, predictable, fixed costs that protect us against that volatility. Our home and car run on solar power; we found renewable energy to be the right choice for our family, and we believe it is the right choice for our State. It is the future of our economy.

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=18296

Questions are raised over wind turbine safety, as Scotland experiences serious cases of malfunction

Heralded by various incumbents as an important element in the global drive for renewable energies, the solution proffered by wind turbines has often proven a divisive issue. Usually though, what gripes the most for those brought into direct contact with these green sources of electricity, is the aesthetics; people consider them an eye-sore, and it’s all too often a case of ‘not in my own backyard’. Now, it seems, a new reason for aggravation may begin to be given for wanting away with expansive wind-farms.

During the recent extreme weather conditions in the UK, experienced most keenly throughout Scotland and the Northern regions of England, several instances of serious mechanic failure have been witnessed amongst the turbines. Fears are growing about the safety risks that could be caused once wind speeds exceed expected levels. In North Ayrshire (a town on the West coast of Scotland) amazed spectators have been recalling the ‘spectacular’ moment when their £2m, 100m-tall wind turbine burst into flames. Despite an internal mechanism correctly responding - designed to halt the blades movement in severe gales - breaks in electrical connections caused this fiery result, as burning shards of metal were blown across the hillside. to be continued by Tom Aston

In a separate incident in Coldinghan in the Scottish borders, large pieces of a malfunctioning turbine went crashing to ground, landing mere metres from a nearby road. Fraser McLachlan, the Chief Executive of GCube (a wind turbine insurer), has worryingly predicted that instances of this ‘rare phenomenon’ could rise over the upcoming period; on trying to dissect the cause of the failure, he explained: “It can catch on fire for a whole multitude of reasons. It can be the mechanism going into overdrive. It can be to do with the connections or oil catching alight”.

Earlier in 2011, it was revealed that for at least 38 days every year wind turbines would be shut off as they struggled to cope with drastic power surges caused by influxes in wind levels. Raising concerns caused by this necessity, Martin Livermore, Director of Scientific Alliance, said: “What we should be worried about is the fact these wind turbines cannot generate electricity when the wind is too strong so a lot of the time, they are not actually saving any fossil fuels.”

Last night 60,000 Scottish homes were without power. For those with dependencies on wind turbines this winter, an all too familiar return to fossil fuel energy may be forthcoming. With government proposals aiming to see the creation of a further 32,000 new turbines, adding to the current 3,500 already in place, wind turbines look set to become an increasingly common feature across the British landscape. by Tom Aston -- see new photo

Electricity from wind energy in Michigan is significantly cheaper than comparable coal-fired electricity. Furthermore, the price of wind energy continues to drop, while the price of coal (which provides 70 percent of the generation for DTE) has doubled since 2005 and continues to rise. The cost of coal -- not the cheaper renewable power -- is a primary reason for recent rate increases, contrary to Daryl's inaccurate and unfounded insinuation. This is all data -- not speculation -- from the most recent Public Service Commission analysis.

Do NOT BE FOOLED by the misleading ads on TV. DTE has a huge interest in coal, owning 8,000 rail cars to ship it, a massive coal processing facility, and a web of subsidiary companies that refine, market and transport coal. Coal is a winner for their shareholders and profits, but a loser for ratepayers, the environment, and public health. That's why the utilities are spending $15 million or so to defeat this proposal.

We donate $1.5 billion dollars to other states' economies every year to buy coal. Time to start keeping a little of that money here for renewable jobs that can't be outsourced and contribute to OUR economy -- not Montana's or Wyoming's.

Vote NO on ballot proposals 2-6. The main reason is because the language would become part of our STATE CONSTITUTION. Changing our Constitution is NOT a good idea. Michigan legislature needs to examine proposals 2-6 and determine the merits of the issues and help Michigan WITHOUT changing the state constitution.

Vote YES on ballot proposals 2-3-4. The Michigan legislature is out of control - see what it did to Oakland County governance.

Vote NO on the rest.

If that is all it takes to make you want to leave then you have other issues or were already planning to leave anyway. Just don't go to any "economic suicide" states like California. The companies are just running away from CA, aren't they? I am sure that Google will want to move out of Ann Arbor now that their light bill will go up :/

All I know, if Prop 2 and Prop 3 pass as the polling is suggesting they will, I have already put the word out to my out of state contacts that I will be looking hard to get the hell out of this state. You all can commit collective economic suicide all you want but simply I will not sacrifice my future prosperity for some green energy collectivist/statist wet dream.

Last one to leave MI, blow out the candle.

What amazes me the most is that if all you Green people really cared, why dont you have your own personal homes outfitted with solar and wind? I can tell you why. You dont have the tens of thousands dollars it would take to outfit your lifestyle with all the neccessary hardware. That leads to the next question, how is kicking the direct cost ovet to DET or whomever going to make it any cheaper? You will now be paying for it indirectly every month in your electric bill or the reduced power supply that will be managed with rolling brown outs to ensure they dont deliver any more than 75% via the most cost effective means.

If you are really true beleivers in this technology, why are you not practicing what you preach? go out and buy your own systems for your own houses at YOUR direct cost. That is probably too Self Reliant and Individualistic for you all because if you cant get what you want by your own means, turn to the Govt monopoly of power and force others to pay for it for you.

Who will pay the highest price? The poor and all those on fixed incomes. They will be the ones who will be hurt the worst as energy prices escalate faster than their incomes are able to absorb.

Most zoning ordinances would prohibit building wind generators in our backyards. Also neighbors who are against green energy would complain and whine to the local governments (Noise, bird strikes, danger) until we had to take them down. Current laws prohibit individuals from creating wind energy collectives and selling energy to others. Essentially utilities are a monopoly so the only option is to work through the utility companies.

If you want to know what things will look like around here if this passes, get in your car and take a ride over to Canada. Get on the 401 freeway and drive through the endless landscape of wind farms over there. Then come back and tell us if you like what you see.

The sooner humanity divorces itself from the fossil fuel age the better... sad to see even in the last presidential debate no mention of climate change... either side. -- burning coal -- just the facts:

Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:

•3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.


•10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.


•500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.


•10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.


•720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.


•220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.


•170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
 to be continued...

I don't even know where there is a coal plant around here.

•225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

•114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

We need a national common sense energy policy -- I would think one should start with this notion -- create new forms of ways to generate electricity at the local level -- instead is wasting dollars or energy to ship products that create energy. If you live in the sunbelt, solar -- if you live on the great plains/wind belt wind power -- if you are surrounded by water and are sitting on stable rock formations nuclear power -- bingo -- Michigan! Cost Comparison for Nuclear vs. Coal http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm and the cost is about the same and nuclear power has NO GREENHOUSE GASES! Plus for those concerned about the environment -- how about this ringing endorsement -- to be continued...

Patrick Moore (environmentalist)(one of the early members of Greenpeace) Moore was opposed to nuclear power in the 1970s when he "believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust" and "everything nuclear was evil", but has since come to support it, as have other environmentalists, e.g. James Lovelock, Stewart Brand and Hugh Montefiore. Moore is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a national organization of pro-nuclear industries and in 2009 he chaired their Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. As chair, he suggested that the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement is not as opposed to nuclear energy as in decades past. He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions would require increased use of nuclear energy to supply baseload power. He has also criticized the costs and reliability of wind farms.

P.S. Michigan nuclear waste ... can be recycled or stored for the next millennium in salt formations -- where, under Michigan... and these salt formations have been in about the same spot for the last 230 million years. http://www.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/saltminingG.html

All you have to do is the math...

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles. Oakland County is 908 square miles note: -- 35.49 square miles is water.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most. to be continued...

All you have to do is the math...

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

I have a question. According to the TV ads-1. it will cost $12 billion to install enough wind and/or solar to meet the 25% requirement. 2. the ads state that the companies can only raise prices 1% per year to pay for this mandate. If that $12 billion can only earn an incremental 1% and the companies would likely have to pay 4-5% for the money- what's wrong with that picture.
Next, I note that every time the price of wind is compared, it is always to the price of a NEW coal fired plant. Has anyone read about DTE or Consumers planning to build a new coal fired plant ?- advise. On the other hand, if ever this country suffers a massive solar flare or an EMP attack, it is likely that the first electric plants able to return to service would be the older coal fired plants. (see "Report to the Commission to assess the threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack")
Next, due to the fluctuation of power generation of wind/solar utilities will always have to keep some backup generation, coal, oil, gas, nuclear, running.
The ads also say that the 25% mandate would create 94,000 jobs. Let's see the breakdown of those 94,000 jobs.

Oh, where to start Daryl Patrishkoff?

(1) "California is bankrupt beyond comprehension and they keep adding to the problem and are not making the hard decisions to get their house in fiscal order."

OK, I'll agree.

(2) "Businesses are regulated beyond any sort of reason and are exiting to friendlier states."

I don't think anyone can answer this question, although one study put the costs at nearly $500 billion, and $128,000 per small business. It was criticized for not looking at regulatory benefits, among other issues. Heck, who wants to eat a burger with a load of e. coli?

(3) "California’s answer is to raise taxes, which will fix the problem in their minds. ... How about living within your means? We have to do this our personal business and budgets or we fail."

Your argument is too simple. California's financial problems have been decades in the making. The seed of the present problem is Proposal 13, passed in the 1970's that lead to artificially depressed property values. State budgets are not the equivalent of household budgets, fundamentally, because household budgets are driven by the life expectancy of the owner. Heck, will you put in that new $4,000 furnace when you are 85 or fix the old one?

(4) Since Snyder has taken over in Michigan we have a balanced budget, a surplus and have begun to create a business friendly environment. ... Keep in mind if you bring business to your state you grow wealth and jobs, government spends money and does not create wealth for the citizens.

Government can create plenty of wealth. Witness the stupidly low capital gains tax and tax breaks for big business.

As for Snyder, he RAISED taxes by $1.8 BILLION and then shifted it to businesses. Say what you want about the philosophical reasoning beyond taxing pensions, it was a tax shift and something that conservative voices like yourself have vehemently criticized as a form of socialism or communism. Yeah? Maybe. Lets not even talk about the socialism of building, eh, roads, airports, train stations, police departments, fire departments, EMS, armies, navies, air forces, hospitals, ... The argument is WHAT costs should be socialized and WHAT costs the so-called Free Market should bear.

Yeah, the state budget may show a small surplus, but it had little to do with Snyder and more to do with an improving economy and massive reductions in state revenue sharing.

:::

I will be voting NO on Proposal 1 and YES on Prospals 2-6. I would like for Snyder to lose some of the control on this State he is swinging over our heads. As for wind turbines, many farms in my area have them and love them. TX and CA are the States loaded with them and they would not keep for them years if it wasn't working for them.
These negative ads on TV are from outside sources, not invested in the Michigan workers nor the Michigan factories. My guess would be "Big Coal" SuperPacs. Wind Energy for electricity has been around for 130 years and used in 20 countries. Michigan needs to take a step into the 21st century.

Daryl Patrishkoff:

What's with the attack? Whatever, lets get to your "new" points Mr. Small Businessman Who Creates Value:

(1) While businesses have enjoyed a transfer of $1.8 billion dollars from retirees to pay for their new-found tax breaks, it did not fund a two-third reduction in their taxes.
So, frankly I don't believe your taxes were 300% higher during the pendency of the Granholm administration. Which, BTW, Granholm could not raise taxes unless the GOP state senate agreed. The GOP has had control of the senate since 1983. DUH.

(2) "Do not talk to me about how Snyder has ruined this state, he is getting it on the right path and we still are not there yet."

I did not say Snyder has ruined this state. Re-read my post Mr. Small Businessman Who Creates Value.

(3) "I love your comment about taxing pensions; it is a tag line which is false."

What was false?

(4) "I wish you well in this unreal world you live in that says the government can just keep spending their way to bankruptcy without regard to any common sense. It is all going to crash soon and you will have to survive like the rest of us and then you will change your tune. I wish you good luck."

Do you small-business-people-who-create-value go to school to learn these cliches? You are fighting an imaginary person, I did not make most of the claims you've attributed to me. But, sorry, I do have little respect for blow-hard "small business men" because you flail too much praise on yourself.

Economic reports show that most much of the economy is dependent on big business; such as manufacturing, oil, mining, telecom and farming. Not small businesses, where two-thirds declare bankruptcy within three years, regardless of the state in which it opened. How much of that unpaid debt is transferred to other people in the form of higher prices, Master of the Universe?

Liberal Fascism, the numbers and the names.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($10 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

"Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State."
-- Benito Mussolini

"The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State." -- Benito Mussolini

This proposal is being bankrolled by California Greens that have never set foot in Michigan. I have a problem with out of staters wanting to interfere with my home state. They have pushed their agenda on California and the state is suffering with $5.00 plus a gallon gas. Most of their Green ideas have been enshrined in their Constitution, which means that it will take years to correct their mistakes. If these kinds of rules are needed they should be implemented through the legislature NOT INSTALLED IN OUR CONSTITUTION which makes them very hard to change. People need to see beyond what is printed on the page to understand fully what is being put in place.

**Windmill or Wind Generator - more Bald Eagles have been killed by these THINGS than any predator in the wild. Ban these ugly killers.***

From John Doe:

"You display, or complete lack thereof, of reading comprehension is disturbing."

BTW, Brad isn't criticizing posters for spelling errors. But your comment about reading comprehension is ripe for "dis'ing."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119791&page=1

"While governments and scientists still debate climate change, Inuit tribal members on Banks Island in the far northern Canadian Arctic are already convinced the world is getting warmer.

Species of animals and birds that once never came to the island can now be seen regularly: birds such as robins and barn swallows, as well as salmon and herring. There are more beetles and sand flies and mosquitoes are staying longer in the summer months."

What I continue to say on this post -- the sooner humanity divorces itself from the fossil fuel age the better... sad to see even in the last presidential debate no mention of climate change... either side. The Republican far right doesn't believe in climate change -- "drill baby drill!" The Democrat far left is convinced solar and wind turbines can generate all of America's electrical needs.

to be continued...

The World Is Getting Warmer... But?

Name calling and a lot of useless banter, that's my take from this post... funny how something with the brain size of a robin shows more intelligence than what I've read today. Go ahead vote yes -- you're not solving the bigger picture -- read what your voting on... "Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit." Do you really think big energy can fulfill this deadline... LOL -- NO -- but with your YES vote you're giving permission to big energy to jack up you bill 1% per year -- and laughing all the way to the bank with your money they'll tell you their saving the planet!

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_Renewable_Energy_Amendment,_Proposal_3_%282012%29

I would like to address these electricity generation price quotes that Hugh keeps throwing out. I did some research based on some previous news I had read a few months back and I think people need to know what the whole story is on these prices. Coal is still one of the cheapest methods by which to generate electricity. The reason for higher COSTS at this point is because of a full scale regulatory assault being committed under Obama and his EPA. Historical FACT, the cost to produce a MegaWatt via coal on 2012 delivery contracts that were signed in 2009, 16$ / MW/hr. The currently negotiated contracts for delivery in 2015, signed just this year, 167$/ MW/hr to 357$ /MW/hr depending on which region of the US your in and the number of coal plants in the mix for overall regional delivery. That is a 1000x to 2200x increas in costs imposed for no other reason than EPA regulations arbitrarily put in place during the Obama Presidency. So, given the FACTS fo the issue, even the cost of this so called cheap wind energy could never compete on a playing field that had not been rigged for it.
two sources. Fox News for the righties and the Chicago Trib for the lefties.
By the way, this kind of market manipulation is Fascistic, by definition.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-17/business/ct-biz-0517-rate-shock-20120517_1_coal-plant-electricity-producers-electricity-costs

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/22/obamas-war-on-coal-hits-your-electric-bill/

Vote NO on ballot proposals 2-6 as the language would become part of the STATE CONSTITUTION and that is NOT good.

all i had to see was utility companies are against this proposal. utility companies have gouged us for years. i will be voting yes for this proposal.

Though I disagree time to time with Jack Lessenberry, Metro Times http://metrotimes.com/columns/those-ballot-props-1.1382150 -- he brings up some good points worth sharing.

"Proposal 3: The Renewable Energy Standard. VOTE YES. This is the "25 by 25" proposal to require electric utilities to provide at least a quarter of all their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable sources — wind, solar, biomass and hydropower.

The utilities are screaming that this is impossible, that it will lead to energy shortages and/or massively spiraling costs, etc., etc. They sound, in other words, like the auto companies did when it was first proposed they should be required to make cars that got more than eight miles to the gallon. Now, it is true that unforeseen things can happen. It is also true that you can't legislate progress.

But reputable environmentalists agree that this is achievable. Plus, the utilities don't want to admit this, but there is an escape clause. Not only would they be allowed to charge 1 percent a year in rate increases to achieve the standard, the law would allow them to put off the deadline if necessary to avoid higher rate increases.

It isn't clear who would decide if that was necessary — possibly, the state. Setting a renewable energy standard is also something that ought to have been addressed as a simple law, rather than as part of our constitution. But environmentally speaking, it is worth a yes." by Jack Lessenberry

From a certain perspective I really do not care if this is "doable" or not. It simply does not rise to being a constitutional amendment anymore than the other self-serving Props 2-6. If you believe in the theories, pass a LAW, not a constitutional amendment.

Readers should know the numbers supplied by the anonymous Mr. Doe are absolutely bogus. I think he/she may be stating the price of purchasing rights to peaking power or something. But definitely not electricity prices in our state.

According to the Michigan Public Service Commission’s 2012 analysis of 2011 prices and projections, the costs per megawatt hour (MWh) for Michigan electricity are:

-- New coal, $107 to $133 (the lower is the utilities’ estimate, the higher, the PSC’s)

-- New renewable: $94

-- 2011 20-year wind contracts net yet figured in the analysis: $61-$64.

It’s all here: http://1.usa.gov/xpHFHb

The most recent contract, in Holland, ranges from $45 to $61. That’s a 10-year guaranteed price – certainty that coal with its fluctuations can not provide.

The reason we compare renwables to new coal, rather than existing coal prices are:

--- Michigan has one of the nation’s oldest fleet of coal fired power plants and they produce about 60 percent of our electricity. One utility has already announced intended closures and the other will soon. If health and environmental regulations are more stringent, they’ll come off line faster. But even absent that, their sheer age and maintenance costs – and significantly the price of coal (2x price increase in 6 years, primarily due to diesel fuel costs to move it here) – will necessitate their closure.

We need to replace that generation. We do that with new generation – whether it’s renewable or not – so we compare the price of new vs new. The CARE ads and their study misleadingly compares NEW renewables to fully depreciated OLD coal generation.

Proposal 3 works on purely an economic level. The environmental and public health gains are harder to quantify, in cost, but they are significant. And the utilities are allowed to avoid those costs, passing them on to health care premiums and pollution cleanup. I guess that’s technically not a “subsidy,” but it sure feels like one.

As for the :”John Doe” lobbing factually inaccurate data and charges of fascism from behind the internet anonymity curtain, you’re invited to join the adult discussion at anytime. There are plenty of people on this thread who disagree but are able to do so with respect.

Maureen Taylor, longtime chairperson of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, said poor and low-income families would be in jeopardy if Proposal 3 passes.

“Locking at least $12 billion into our constitution and on the backs of Michigan’s most fragile families is ill-advised, especially during these difficult economic times …..,” said Taylor, whose organization represents more than 277,000 families across the state.

You can see this is far from a utilities’ disinformation campaign as alleged. It is about real MI people.

Also, for intermittent energy like wind, you have to make a double investment (another plant to follow load). This is because wind generation is not reliable (intermittent) and a large majority of the time does not provide output during hours of high electric demand.

Another major issue of Prop 3 is that for over 30 MI based utilities (including Wyandotte) their investment in NEW hydroelectric, NEW wind, NEW geothermal, and NEW landfill gas is NOT recognized under Prop 3. These 30 utilities relied on Michigan’s current renewable law, and now their customers will be punished. Is that just or fair? Absolutely not, it will drive up energy rates in these communities, and cause job providers to leave.

Together we can send a strong message to out-of-state interests in San Francisco and Wall Street hedge fund managers trying to push a high-cost scheme to line their pockets with $$ at the expense of MI taxpayers.

While there are obviously arguments good & bad for the concepts involved, the simple fact remains: NONE of this has any business in the Constitution of Michigan. The purpose of a Constitution is to describe the structure & function of a States’ government & the rights of the people: the separation of Church & State, freedom of religion, speech, and the press & the right to equality, assembly and to bear arms.

There’s a REASON we don’t see Articles such as “Candle manufacturers must develop candles to burn 25% less wax by 1849…” or “Horse breeders must cross breed their horses to run 25% faster by 1849…” in the Constitution to begin with! Yes, these are exaggerated examples, but the point is that they are not the basic god given/born with/self evident rights of the people or an appropriate structure/function of the government. These Proposals have to do with public policy, which should go to the Legislature.

There’s a REASON we elect them to uphold, protect & put forth our interests. One of them is the amount of time, effort & research it takes to create sound & beneficial policy. A bullet point description of a Constitutional Amendment is just not enough to address the impact of any of these Proposals. Hence, again, the purpose of the legislative branch to begin with. Pros & Cons are presented, weighed, voiced & a vote takes place. You’re not going to give it justice in 30-second political ads or the highlights of the evening news.

Bring a staggering failure to be enshrined in the MI Constitution.

Only 16% of Obamas "Green Jobs" training actually lead to employment lasting longer than 6 months. We too can bring this glowing example of fraud, waste and corruption to MI by signing it into our very highest law of the land, the Constitution.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/26/audit-green-jobs-stimulus-program-wastes-cash/

It is my belief that we should not change the state con by adding anything new. If these proposals are to be passed it should be by a trial system that should be voted on by the people every year instead of allowing politicans to vote them in, they are being paid by the special interest groups so they don't care. I don't care what party you are with, but we people united are the ones who are going to have to fix these problems we have in this state.

Isn't this what a legislature is for? I just don't understand all these proposed amendments to the Constitution. So if you cannot get a legislature to pass your bill you try to stick it into the Constitution - where it can become old, outdated and nearly impossible to change.

I like renewable energy, but this is a bad idea, just like all the others.