Posted on 04/12/2023 4:39:21 PM PDT by Libloather
Michigan Senate Democrats on Wednesday announced a sweeping bill package that aims to put legal teeth behind efforts to wean Michigan off fossil fuels.
The package, which Democratic leaders said would be filed by Thursday, would require state-regulated utilities to stop burning coal by 2030, and would require them to deliver 100 percent clean energy by 2035.
Senate Democrats spokesperson Rosie Jones initially said Wednesday that would be a renewable energy requirement but later clarified the bill would require “carbon-free” energy. She did not specify whether that leaves the door open to utilities continuing to use fossil fuels while deploying carbon capture technology or other means of offsetting emissions.
The bill package would also require utilities to prioritize energy efficiency by strengthening the state’s so-called energy waste reduction standard and applying it to more utilities.
Senate Majority Floor Leader Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, hailed the pending package as long overdue and said legislative Democrats “really wanted to focus on climate” as they enter their second quarter in power.
Singh said the package amounts to the largest rewrite of Michigan energy law since the sweeping 2016 reforms that, among other things, required utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from renewables by 2021.
“It allows protection of our residents, it protects our (electricity) rates, and then it allows for us to be able to tackle a very difficult issue of climate,” Singh said.
He added that “it's time for us to be moving beyond just goals,” instead setting new, enforceable green energy targets that utilities must meet.
Jeff Wiggins, press secretary for Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Lawton, decried the bills as “another energy plan from the ‘lost decade,’ the first decade of the 2000s when Michigan struggled against slow economic growth and low employment rates.
(Excerpt) Read more at bridgemi.com ...
Pissing.
𝘈𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘍𝘙𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘯? 𝘐𝘧 𝘴𝘰, 𝘸𝘩𝘺?
For the time being yes; my parents are in their autumn years, and once they’re gone, I’ll be leaving. What’s left of my family is here, some property up north, beyond that I have no reason to stay.
Knowing that, we should all advocate for grid power to be fueled by energy that's both cheap and dependable (i.e. hydro and coal) because it's never a matter of what's "clean" energy: the Dims will eventually try to ban anything that we today call "clean" just like they're now trying to ban what they used to call "clean burning natural gas" and like California interferes with hydro power. Since whatever energy source for power plants will be deemed unclean by the eco-religious Dims, we should quit trying to satisfy their incessant demands and go with what works best and cheapest for grid power.
And until we win that argument, each of us should try to make his home as energy independent as we can so that energy policies are one less way the Dims can control your family. Which is why we have solar for our home where it works well for us in Alabama. Of course, this article is about Michigan where I doubt solar works half as well.
2W3 (World War 3) will bring that to an end.
Michigan is one of the most cloudy places on the planet. Solar would not work year ‘round.
Those green lawmakers have no concept for the physics of energy. For them, a kilo-watt is an extinct dinosaur of the species, Killosaurus Rex, an advanced version of frillosaursus and killosaursus (poison shooting dinosaurs). Their ignorance is going to cause America to go extinct, spitting poison. The Greenweenie politicians think power is the same power that works when they snap their fingers for the masses who catch the bone like their trained dogs. Americans will give it a try and, when it fails, will revolt like earlier Americans because of a 3% tax on tea.
Michigan isn’t capable of producing enough wind and solar. Just look back at their attempt to build a nuke in Midland and you’ll figure out they can’t do that either.
I see. Relocating would be most difficult.
They’ve already done it in NYS.
Note to MI: You can’t say you weren’t warned.
That trend doesn’t sound good.
I asked “why?” but of course a relocating decision is difficult and can be problematic beyond the decision to abandon the family area: Such as selling your home & property for an equitible return and finding similar or better in another area at a resonable price. Though, if down-sizing that can help tilt the equation in your favor.
I am looking, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.