Gretchen Whitmer Energy Bills Vaults Michigan to Top of Clean Energy Aspirants

If there was ever a time in history to go big on clean energy, that would have been 30 years ago.
But a good second choice would be now.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, perhaps emboldened by a summer of choking air and weather extremes across the state, put forward a wildly ambitious suite of energy legislation a couple months ago.
Last week, they passed the Democratically controlled Michigan legislature.

Now, the challenge is to execute in the face of fierce and desperate opposition from fossil fuel interests.

Greg Sargent in the Washington Post:

Few Democrats would deny that the party must win back working people. Yet one of the party’s long-term conundrums is whether they can pursue ambitious efforts to combat climate change without threatening those very workers’ wages or jobs.

In coming days, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is set to sign a package of bills that would transition the state to 100 percent clean electricity by 2040. The bills — which also include robust provisions for workers — are among the most ambitious efforts undertaken by any state to move toward a carbon-free future in a manner that is actively good for working people. Significantly, Democrats are testing this approach in a swing state in the heart of the industrial Midwest.

In coming days, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is set to sign a package of bills that would transition the state to 100 percent clean electricity by 2040. The bills — which also include robust provisions for workers — are among the most ambitious efforts undertaken by any state to move toward a carbon-free future in a manner that is actively good for working people. Significantly, Democrats are testing this approach in a swing state in the heart of the industrial Midwest.

Passed through Michigan’s Democratic-controlled state legislature last month, the package would mandate the generation of electricity with 80 percent carbon-free sources by 2035 and 100 percent by 2040 — sources that can include wind, solar, nuclear and natural gas combined with carbon capture. While many states have such mandates, only a few require such a rapid transition; the New York Times reports that Michigan’s pace will rival that of California.

Adrian Daily Telegram (Southern Michigan – paywall):

LANSING – Testimony and reaction from a local farmer and an advocacy group illustrate the opposition and support for legislation on siting of new wind and solar projects that passed the Michigan Legislature last week.

The Michigan Senate gave its OK Wednesday to legislation that overrides local government control over where new wind and solar projects can be placed.

Instead, House Bills 5120 and 5121 would give ultimate authority for approving such projects to the Michigan Public Service Commission, a three-member body whose members are appointed by the governor. No more than two commissioners can come from the same political party.

The bills were approved in party-line votes, 20-18. They then returned to the House, which had OK’d them earlier, because amendments were made in the Senate. The House signed off on the changes late Wednesday, sending the bills on to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who is expected to sign them.

Clara Ostrander, a Milan Township farmer, told the Senate Energy Committee on Nov. 7 about her family’s experience with deciding to lease land for solar energy production and the township’s changes to its solar zoning ordinance.

Opposition to allowing solar farms on agricultural land is largely based on neighbors and others not wanting their view of farmland to change, she said.

“The problem is they don’t own their view,” Ostrander said. “… They should not get to decide what we grow or what we harvest. And that includes harvesting the sun for electricity.”

Her family owns two centennial farms, Ostrander said. Her parents grew corn, soybeans and oats, but in the 1990s they made a difficult decision to sell some of their land to pay for her mother’s medical bills. She said she and her husband are now facing similar concerns along with the rising costs of doing business. After researching solar energy development, including talking to Michigan State University and University of Michigan experts, they decided to proceed with leasing land for a solar energy project in order to keep the farm in the family. She said Milan Township having passed an ordinance allowing for solar projects on agricultural land encouraged them to proceed.

As the project began doing outreach in the community, Ostrander said, “a few loud voices began to spread falsehoods and misinformation on the project. They criticized landowners and families who had served our township for years.”

When the township supervisor died, the project’s opponents pressured the new supervisor to change the ordinance to ban solar on agricultural land, she said. That put their project on hold.

She said a neutral body like the MPSC is needed to review solar projects on “facts and not fear or falsehoods.”

The Energy Committee also heard from a Montcalm County Christmas tree farmer, Dick Farnsworth, who expressed similar sentiments to Ostrander. He said soon traditional farm leasing agreements will not be enough to cover the rising costs farmers face. He also said township officials he has talked to have felt unprepared and overwhelmed in making decisions regarding renewable energy zoning.

After the Senate’s vote, Our Home, Our Voice Inc., a Deerfield-based group that advocates for local control on zoning issues, criticized the outcome.

“It’s shameful to witness HB 5120 and 5121 pass out of both chambers, where the voices of local communities are being disregarded and muffled,” Kevon Martis, spokesman for Our Home, Our Voice, said in a news release. “The battle to protect local control is far from over. Our organization remains committed to opposing any efforts that strip away local control and will continue to explore areas in which we can protect our communities and stand on the side of 87% of Michigan voters who also support local control of wind and solar farms.”

Martis also is a Lenawee County commissioner, representing the southeastern part of the county.

After the initial House vote, Martis suggested rather than use farmland that the state’s renewable energy goals could be met by using state-owned land, former industrial sites and rooftops.

“The state of Michigan owns 4.6 million acres of ground. All the solar we need could be sited there by using just 6% of that ground,” Martis said. “Michigan has 42,912 brownfield sites covering tens of thousands of acres. Solar can go there with no farmland impact. Michigan alone has 2 million roofs and 77% of them can host solar with a potential of 42.3 million Mwh per year.”

(note: Mr Martis continues to lead and incite opposition to clean energy even on brownfield sites. – Peter)

Dan Scripps, chairman of the MPSC, told a committee Tuesday that the change is needed for Michigan to meet accelerated clean and renewable energy targets in another set of bills. The bills with those proposed targets, which the Senate gave final approval to Wednesday and sent on to the governor, include 50% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% clean energy by 2040.

The commission estimates that about 17,000 Michigan acres are now used for wind and solar projects and close to 210,000 more acres could be needed to meet the new goals, Scripps told the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. Still, that would only represent about one-half of 1% of the state’s acreage, he said.

Shifting the authority to the MPSC would be consistent with how Michigan handles the siting of other critical infrastructure projects, such as power plants and pipelines, he said.

“There’s no question in my mind that if we allowed local governments essentially veto power over energy infrastructure, we would not build the critical infrastructure,” Scripps said.

He gave an example related to the citing of gas and oil wells. He said the legislation continues a long-standing provision that a “county or township shall not regulate or control the drilling, completion, or operation of oil or gas wells or other wells drilled for oil or gas exploration purposes.”

Also, the bills would not give the MPSC power of eminent domain or force an owner to give up their land for such projects without their consent, Scripps said. Instead, the legislation is intended for situations in which a landowner wants to allow a project and local governments refuse to give authority because of opposition by neighbors.

The Michigan Townships Association and the Michigan Association of Counties have blasted the bills as attacks on local control. Although the amended bills require developers to first work with local officials and make payments to local governments, the MPSC would have the power to overrule a local government that says no.

Sen. Roger Hauck, R-Mt. Pleasant, said most of the Democrats who supported the legislation will never see large-scale wind or solar projects in their mostly urban communities.

“The Senate gave the OK to this partisan push to strip local control and give all the decision-making power about wind and solar farms to Lansing bureaucrats,” Hauck said in a news release.

Late changes to the bill provide for payments of up to $150,000 to affected local governments, plus a “host community agreement” with the local unit of government or a community-based organization that provides for a onetime payment of $2,000 per megawatt of capacity.