Michigan Land Use Institute

Clean Energy / News & Views / Will Voters Boost Michigan Jobs with More Michigan Energy?

Will Voters Boost Michigan Jobs with More Michigan Energy?

Prop. 3 advocates say “25x25” will benefit economy

Power to Change | September 12, 2012 | By Jim Dulzo

About the Author

Jim Dulzo is the Michigan Land Use Institute’s senior energy policy specialist. Reach him at  jimdulzo@mlui.org.

Recent Posts

Rep. Nesbitt: Save, Don’t Sink, MI's Clean Energy Progress!

Clean Energy | April 30, 2015 | By Jim Dulzo

MLUI just wrote to state Rep. Aric Nesbitt and the House Committee on Energy Policy, urging them to expand, not eliminate, Michigan’s fabulously successful renewable energy and energy optimization standards. Could you read our letter and then email your own note to Rep Nesbitt’s committee in the next few days? ...

Guest View: Shared Heat Can Warm MI’s Energy Policy

Clean Energy | April 7, 2015 | By Jamie Scripps

Power plants waste a lot of energy—most of it as heat fleeing up their smokestacks. But what if the plants captured that wasted heat and put it to good use—producing more electricity, warming nearby buildings, or assisting industrial processes?...

Time for Lansing to Catch, Not Ignore, the New-Tech Energy Wave

Clean Energy | March 26, 2015 | By Skip Pruss, of 5 Lakes Energy, and Jim Dulzo

We’ll always need a rock-solid, unshakably constant supply of power. But today there are other ways to do that besides merely burning more fossil fuel.
New distributed energy technologies, new grid control systems, and new demand-side energy services should be part of what has been an under-informed, truncated conversation about meeting Michigan’s future electricity needs....

Solar panels at a rest stop in Clare along U.S. 127. (Photo: Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs)

They’ve confirmed the petition signatures and approved the ballot language.

Now, it’s up to Michigan voters: Should the state boost its mild-mannered renewable energy standard and position itself to become one of the country’s, and the world’s, leading manufacturers of renewable energy technologies?

Proposal 3, also known as the “25 x 25” or “Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs” proposal, commits Michigan to do what 10 of 29 other states with renewables standards are already working on: getting 25 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2025.

While states with strong renewable energy standards are seeing good job growth as manufacturers set up shop within their borders to make parts for solar panels, wind turbines, and other renewable generating technologies, advocates here say that if Prop. 3 passes, job growth in Michigan would be much stronger.

They paint quite a picture: Just as Michigan became rich and powerful by putting the world on wheels last century, it could become remarkably prosperous in this one by exporting new energy technology to the world—wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, batteries, and more.

In fact, a recent Michigan State University study found Prop. 3 would create 74,000 new non-exportable, good-paying installation and maintenance jobs. The study also says that renewables manufacturing could increase sharply, and employ another 20,000 Michigan workers.

Those are big numbers—much larger than those seen in some other states with strong renewables goals. Why does MSU predict so many more jobs here?

Advocates explain that Michigan has several aces up its sleeve that trump other states, including a century-long industrial tradition; peerless traditional and high-tech manufacturing expertise; three great research universities; more energy technology patents than any other state; a skilled, motivated manufacturing work force; and international rail and seaway hubs.

In other words, as renewables go global (Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America this year announced $120 billion of new investment in clean energy), few other places can cash in like Michigan. In fact, if Michigan were able to capture most of the country’s future renewables manufacturing as it did for decades with automobiles, the new jobs numbers would soar past 100,000.

But little will happen, supporters say, unless manufacturing companies are first drawn to the state by a strong “home” market. That is what Prop. 3 is designed to do: establish an energy policy that triggers a $10 billion, 13-year investment in renewables.

However, the state’s two largest utilities, Consumers Energy and DTE Energy, are spending close to $6 million of their customers’ money to defeat 25 x 25, claiming it will jack up monthly electric bills because renewables are so expensive. They shrug off regulatory agency data that disproves that claim, as well as repeated surveys in Michigan and nationally that find widespread support for renewable energy—even if it costs ratepayers as much as $50 more a year.

Proposition 3 backers say they don’t need the $50 cushion. They see strong evidence that moving toward renewables is likely to slow, not speed up, monthly electric bill increases. And, they add, even if they are wrong, 25 x 25 protects all customers’ pocketbooks by capping those increases to no more than 1 percent per year.

Big Money, Small Costs

Prop. 3 uses brief, straightforward language that mirrors and amplifies Michigan’s current renewable energy mandate, Public Act 295, which requires 10 percent renewables by 2015.

The MPSC credits PA 295 with spurring $100 million in renewables investment in the first three years of its implementation. The Environmental Law and Policy Center estimated in 2011 that more than 10,000 Michiganders now work in the state’s renewable energy sector.

But passing the act proved to be very difficult. The state Legislature enacted it only after a long battle with utilities, which repeatedly predicted big electricity price increases because of those allegedly pricey renewables.

That battle largely took place within the statehouse. Now, with DTE and Consumers dumping $6 million into TV ads, Prop. 3 proponents have their hands full trying to shoot down the utilities’ cost claims and other attacks with just a $2 million budget, drawn largely from national environmental groups.

If facts matter in campaigns, however, the renewables folks seem well armed.

Their first bullet is the proposed amendment’s cap, which limits any electric rate increase due to renewables to 1 percent a year. That means a household with a $100 monthly electric bill would see no more than a one-dollar increase in its monthly bills in any given year—or $12 extra a year—a lot less than the $50 the survey considered.

Is even that small increase likely? If Consumers Energy’s renewables cost history is any guide, the answer is no.

After PA 295 was enacted, Consumers told state regulators that, to pay for its required new fleet of renewables—mostly wind power—it must tack on an extra $2.50 to every residential bill, every month, for decades.

Clean energy advocates guffawed and said the fee was way out of line, but MPSC approved the surcharge.

During the four years since PA 295 was enacted, and with a number of wind farms and solar installations online or on the way, Consumers repeatedly cut its monthly renewable energy surcharge; it now stands at just 52 cents—80 percent less than its first request. That is because, as renewables advocates predicted, the price of wind and solar power declined rapidly as Consumers added renewables.

The most recent wind power contracts in Michigan, according to the MPSC, came in at a bit more than one-half the cost for new coal power contracts—roughly 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for wind power, versus about 11.3 cents for new coal power.

Prop. 3 proponents argue that the price difference between new wind and new coal will only increase as the costs of renewables continue to fall and coal mining and transportation costs continue to climb. They also point out that the Midwestern state with the most wind power—Iowa, which so far in 2012 has generated 28 percent of its electricity with wind—saw the region’s smallest increases in electricity prices: just 4 percent over six years.

Meanwhile, Michigan, which so far in 2012 generated 0.8 percent of its electricity with wind, has seen a 30 percent increase in electricity prices over the same period—increases largely due to the rising cost of mining and delivering coal to the state.

But, critics ask, what if things go wrong and renewables’ annual rate increases exceed 1 percent?

Proposal 3 covers that, too: Utilities can hit the “pause” button and take more time to reach their goals, slowing down the rate increase.

Constitutional Questions

Prop. 3 opponents argue voters should not trifle with the state constitution to deal with something like energy. They warn that using the constitution that way makes for inflexible policies, so it’s smart to leave our energy future to state lawmakers.

But advocates say the 51-year-old constitution has been amended 31 times, covering everything from the Natural Resources Trust Fund and the drinking age to gay marriage, the Michigan Lottery, and stem cell research. To them, given how basic energy policy is to the state’s economic success, using the constitution makes complete sense.

They add that state regulators will write Prop. 3’s implementation rules, which is how Michigan always deals with new laws. If there’s a problem, regulators can change the rules, as long as they still reflect the amendment’s goals. And, they say, if people dislike Prop. 3’s effects, they can always vote the amendment out.

The “Let Lansing do it” argument mostly draws smiles and head shaking from renewables advocates. They recall how the state’s utilities used their formidable lobbying clout to drag out and water down PA 295. While what finally emerged was helpful, they say, it was far less than what leading states were already doing. What’s more, they add, some lawmakers are now pushing to repeal the act.

Why, proponents ask, should we keep fighting a battle so essential to the state’s business future, its environment, and its potential as a worldwide renewables leader? They assert that passing Prop. 3 is the only way to make sure Michigan keeps moving on renewables, becomes less vulnerable to fluctuating fuel prices and more able to generate prosperity and provide more predictable energy prices for consumers and businesses.

What will happen on Nov. 6, observers say, is anybody’s guess.

Statewide polls find strong support for 25 x25. The proposal seems a no-brainer, based largely on Michigan’s and other states’ successful history with renewables, the thousands of Michigan workers eager to get back to manufacturing, the many idled factories ready to produce new products, and a world racing toward a renewables energy future.

But advocates are worried, because, they say, it comes down to a race: Can $6 million in TV ads, the collective clout of the state’s dozens of utilities, and lawmakers who count on utility donations for their electoral campaigns beat out an idea that most others states—and many nations around the world—are quickly turning into a jobs-rich reality?

Jim Dulzo is the Michigan Land Use Institute’s senior energy policy specialist. Reach him at jimdulzo@mlui.org.


1503 days ago, 7:25pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Note that nearly the entire emphasis of this article is alleged job creation by using the constitution to create an industry by governmental fiat.

Not once does Mr. Dulzo address whether 25x25 can do what it ostensibly is intended to do: reduce GHG emissions. Nor does he project what the price per ton of reduction would be. And nowhere does he explain that far more GHG reduction could be achieved by converting our coal fleet to CCGT natural gas plants and in the process REDUCE electricity costs to all consumers. And neither does he explain that natural gas pricing would need to approach $20.00 (it is currently near $3.00) to make wind competitive in the GHG reduction price game.

Further, increasing use of indigenous shale gas would unleash a far larger jobs boom in the state (think North Dakota) than by mandating wind energy. And Mr. Jester of 25x25 is clear on this: 25x25 is in essence a wind mandate; not biomass, not hydro, not methane, but wind. And also lacking from the article is the fact that wind cannot and will never replace base-load fossil in any meaningful quantity. But it may displace non-emitting nuclear.

But most interestingly, Mr. Dulzo leaves out of his political calculus one critical fact: the same in-state generation requirement in this amendment is being successfully challenged in CO as a violation of the Commerce Clause of the US constitution. And I can assure MLUI that the IICC is watching that case very closely.

Kevon Martis

1503 days ago, 8:32pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment


"However, what is surprising is that through three-quarters of 2011 only 9,245 new “green” jobs were generated when the White House touts generating over 200,000 new jobs by 2010."

MLUI and MI25x25 appear to be working from the same Green Jobs playbook as the Obama Administration.

If turbines create an employment boom, is Huron County now bursting at the seams after 5 years of wind industrialization?

1503 days ago, 10:17pm | by Ken | Report Comment

So were supposed base our economic recovery and future on and industry that produces an unreliable and inefficient product while being entirely dependent on government mandate and subsidies for their very existence? How many bureaucrats did it take to come up with such a brilliant idea? Sign my grandchildren up for a dozen turbines, I'm sure they'll appreciate the investment.

1502 days ago, 6:49am | by Tom Stacy | Report Comment

Electricity is related to jobs. But not in the way the central planners claim. Keeping electricity costs as low as possible is a competitive tool in all industries, while improving their bottom lines, and leaving more money on the table for wages, benefits and growth.

It is one of the most outrageous lies I have heard that wind electricity will not increase costs by more than 1% per year as a result of passage of this misguided ballot proposal - and I don't even live in Michigan!

Wind electricity, which costs well over $0.12 per kWH on its own just to produce, drives the cost of conventional electricity and transmission higher, too. The math is as simple as this: the wind electricity infrastructure costs $0.12 per kWH to produce and saves about $0.025 per kWH worth of fuel if and when it displaces natural gas electricity. But the natural gas fired power plants must remain on line and new ones built because wind electricity is produced out of sync with electricity demand.

Can wind electricity reduce coal burning? Not much, if any, on its own. Coal burning power plants lose fuel efficiency rapidly when required to stop and start more frequently, or change their output significantly while running. That's one reason coal electricity serves mostly "base load" - the steady, minimum amount of power the grid serves 24/7. Above base load we have daily demand increases and seasonal peaks (on hot summer afternoons). Wind is less available - sometimes only a percent or two of its own nameplate rating - during peak hours of the year (June July August from noon to 6PM). So we still need all the gas plants and hydro power plants we already have.

To add insult to injury, wind electricity produces most at night, still threatening to force our coal plants off and on again - lowering their fuel efficiency and their annual revenue expectations on which they were built. What happens when coal plants become less profitable due to higher cost and lower sales? Rate cases.

Rate cases are when a major utility asks the MPSC to allow them to increase electricity rates so the utility remains profitable - a scenario guaranteed in regulated electricity markets like Michigan's.

Due to high subsidies offered by the federal government, wind producers can bid any unsold energy below $0.00 for their electricity in grid auctions and still make a profit. This forces dependable plants off line temporarily, and then creates a spike in demand (and real-time energy auctions) when the wind drops off, as it always does.

We have the dependable, schedulable plants already. We need to use them to their fullest to keep electricity rates as low as possible. Furthermore, putting the complex issues of our electricity grids in the hands of voters is inappropriate. The only reason this is being done is because lawmakers take the time to study the issue carefully before modifying laws, and would never pass a 25% renewable energy mandate. It's their job to understand the important economic impacts of their decisions - even if the "dream" of using a lot of wind and solar sounds like a "no-brainer" on the surface.

A vote for the 25X25 mandate is a vote for hobbling Michigan's economy by rewarding losers at the expense of winners. This is a core precept of socialism.

1502 days ago, 7:20am | by stondeez | Report Comment

A quote from Mr Dulzo,

"Statewide polls find strong support for 25 x25."

It seems that your polls didnt ask the Huron county commissioners, the home of the states first industrial wind facility.Here is the article from the Huron Daily Tribune.

Credit: By Nich Wolak, Tribune Staff Writer | Huron Daily Tribune | www.michigansthumb.com 12 September 2012 ~~

BAD AXE — Several decisions involving wind turbines were made at Tuesday’s Huron County Commissioners meeting.

The board voted 6-1 in favor of a resolution to share legal costs related to wind turbine tax value determinations.

The disagreement is with Michigan’s State Tax Commission, which voted last fall to lower the taxable value of wind turbines.

The commission voted unanimously to oppose Michigan Ballot Proposal 3, more commonly known as “25 by 25.” The proposal would amend the state Constitution to require utlities to generate at least 25 percent of all electricity from renewable resources by 2025.

The commission also voted to join the Clean Affordable Renewable Energy (CARE) for Michigan Coalition, which opposes the proposal.

The MLUI should hire Mr Martis for their energy analysis he has a unbiased view on energy policy and whats best for everyone not whats better for outside interests like "25 x 25"

1502 days ago, 10:25am | by Ella | Report Comment

If turbines create an employment boom, is Huron County now bursting at the seams after 5 years of wind industrialization?

NOPE, These monstrosities are killing tourisum, killing birds ( which in my opinion 'own that air space', making people sick and taking away our home values. I see nowhere in the U.S.A. that people are just 'flocking to own a home in turbine settings'.
In Gilford township, the people were bamboozled into living in a now construction phaze, Industrial Wind Turbine area. God help them. There are not any local people 'working' at these sites. Simple laymens terms........... Ruin one of the worlds most precious farm lands, put up MASSIVE structures, take your money and run.........

1502 days ago, 10:28am | by Ella | Report Comment

Hats off to Mr. Martis.
One smart dude!

1502 days ago, 1:46pm | by TNH | Report Comment

It's time to move forward with wind energy production. It's clean and the fuel is free. People ask why I bother planting trees, I'll never see them grown. The answer is, if you don't plant them, they'll never grow. It's the same with alternative energy. If we don't make the effort to begin, it'll never happen, not for us nor for future generations.

1502 days ago, 2:13pm | by Nick Schroeck | Report Comment

25% renewable energy is readily achievable in Michigan. Businessweek reported on August 23, 2012 that Wyandotte, MI is now at 30% renewable energy. Wyandotte got to 30% renewable power by utilizing a mix of sources, including a large solar installation on their water treatment building and wind turbines.
Iowa currently generates more than 20% of its electricity from renewables. On a windy day this year, Colorado got to 50% electrical generation from wind, and Colorado's renewable standard started out as a state constitutional amendment. Texas now regularly produces more than 20% of their power from wind. Illinois is well on the way to meeting their own 25% renewable standard.
It is true that wind power is intermittent, but fortunately grid operators can move power around the grid to where it is needed. Michigan is part of the regional MISO grid system. What happens when a large "baseload" facility has an unplanned shutdown, like what recently happened at the Fermi 2 nuclear plant? The grid operators ask other facilities in the MISO system to temporarily increase production to meet demand. Other tools, like pump storage facilities, can be used like giant batteries to store power for when the wind is less strong and the sky is cloudy.
With renewable power, old, dirty coal plants can either be retrofitted or replaced by natural gas peaking plants to smooth out the variability from renewables.
Remember that when the 25% by 2025 initiative passes, utilities can still generate 75% or their power from other sources like gas, coal, nuclear, etc. Utilities have monopolies here in Michigan, and it is our right as citizens, tax payers, and voters, to give our utilities direction as to where we want our money spent.
I choose to support investment in clean, renewable power that will create and keep jobs here in Michigan, rather than spending about $1.4 billion a year of our money importing coal from other states. Michigan does not have coal deposits so we have to import 100% of the coal burned here. Michigan companies, like Dow, are investing heavily in renewables - including the production of solar roofing shingles. Why not invest our money here in Michigan, rather than sending it out by the train car to coal producing states?
Finally, another benefit to limiting our reliance on coal, is the reduction in mercury and other pollutants that lead to fish advisories here in the Great Lakes state.

1502 days ago, 3:00pm | by Anne Woiwode | Report Comment

Thanks to MLUI for reporting on these issues! I support Proposal 3 as the smartest, surest way for Michigan to move our state forward and off our disturbing dependence on coal. Just today, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that Michigan's two largest utilities spent $1 billion of electric bill funds in 2010 ALONE just to bring coal into the state to burn at their coal plants. Go here to see their report: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/burning-coal-burning-cash-0388.html

I can't believe that the folks who were expressing opposition above are really calling for Michigan to stay tied forever to burning coal or other fossil fuels! Mercury in our fish (my family makes a point of buying Michigan fish and I fly fish) and smog and particulate matter in our air and lungs, hurting the health of asthmatics like me, are just a couple of the reasons I think Michigan needs to join most of the rest of the states in committing to move to renewables fast. We can meet the 25% renewable energy by 2025 easily with full consideration of environmental, health and other factors. The Gratiot County wind farm by Mackinaw Power is an excellent of what can be done to get us easily to 25 by 25.

How about if the naysayers join the discussion with what could be improved, instead of handing the utilities one more excuse to ignore public health and Michigan's need for them to spend money here are home, where we pay the bills, not in coal mines in Appalachia?

1502 days ago, 3:29pm | by Jim | Report Comment

Great article - thank you!

There is no question that our state will be better off economically and environmentally if we are making our own renewable energy technologies and using them instead of hauling the line to import coal and burn it.

1502 days ago, 4:06pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

"I can't believe that the folks who were expressing opposition above are really calling for Michigan to stay tied forever to burning coal or other fossil fuels! "

Anne: Wind does not liberate us from fossil fuel. It BINDS us to it at a ratio of 1 part wind to 3 parts fossil. At some point wind actually will increase the demand for gas fracking in Michigan. And when we finally have a clean and economical alternative, we would obsolesce not only our fossil fleet but the entire wind fleet as well.

And this canard of imported coal is ridiculous. We manufacture no industrial wind turbines here and likely never will. They will all be imported, often from Europe. Outsourcing our electrical generation to European and Chinese turbine vendors is progress but importation of coal is anathema? And do we want Wyoming and West Virginia to embargo our automobile production?

This argument may convince those that support faith based energy but it is unconvincing to a sophisticated and informed electorate. And as always renewable energy promoters wish to ascribe to fossil fuel negative externalities while turning a blind eye to the role they play in protecting the poor from energy poverty. Turbines are a wonderful device with which to soothe the consumption heavy conscience of affluent environmentalists while bringing no real benefit to the afflicted.

And how deep does this faith run? Deep enough to get environmentalists to turn a blind eye toward fuel for food lunacy, forests to electricity madness and endangered species devastation from 494' tall industrial turbines, all benefiting the 1% the environmental left claims to loathe.

1502 days ago, 4:17pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment


This is the most well reasoned critique I have seen of renewables, primarily solar, but also wind.

1502 days ago, 4:32pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669-2.html Ghost of Michigan's Christmas Future?

1501 days ago, 9:09am | by Nora Reid-LeZotte | Report Comment

Mr. Martis....Emotional appeals really DO NOT work in today's informed electorate.
FACT: More than 30 states have already adopted measures similar to Michigan's ballot initiative, according to the July 6,2012, edition of the Crain's Detroit Business...WITHOUT significant increases in utility costs to consumers.

FACT: Building a single coal plant locks ratepayers (Consumers) into a commitment for 40-60 years. Once construction starts. This ballot measure directs the State to set SMALL interim Steps to build toward 25 percent, renewable energy by 2025. Each RENEWABLE ENERGY project is smaller than a new coal plant and CAN incorporate the latest technology and cost-saving measures.

FACT: PROPOSAL # includes an EXPLICIT Provision saying UTILITIES CAN NOT RAISE electrical prices related to the cost of generating renewable energy by MORE THAN 1% on any given year. For the AVERAGE MICHIGAN FAMILY That's no more than $1.25 per month.

FACT: Michigan Consumers SPEND $1.7 BILLION (that's right BILLION) a year importing coal from other states, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Meanwhile, the latest wind contracts approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission have been at OR BELOW $65 per megawatt/hour---LOWER than the cost of new coal generation.

FACT: The Cost of Renewable Energy has DECREASED by 30% in the last two years, According to the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. Illinois is on a path to 25% renewable energy by 2025 and the Illinois Power Agency reports that it has REDUCED prices by $176 million.


FACT: RENEWABLE ENERGY is reining in high energy costs in other states, and the SAME IS TRUE inMICHIGAN. DTE Energy raised rates on residential customers 13.5% last year.

FACT:Using more wind, biomass, hydro and solar energy WILL REDUCE POLLUTION and GIVE Michigan CLEANER AND HEALTHIER AIR and WATER, Protect the GREAT LAKES, REDUCE ASTHMA and LUNG DISEASE according to a recent article in CERES.

FACT:The people of MICHIGAN SHALL make this decision for RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARDS for our STATE. IT IS OUR HOME, OUR PLACES of WORK and PLAY and OUR HEALTHY FUTURE, NOT the Utility Monopolie's decision, the people's decision.

I support PROPOSAL 3 and so should you if you care about the welfare of this Great Lakes State.
SCARE TACTICS will not work this time. RENEWABLE ENERGY Technologies are a proven, reliable source for CLEAN, AFFORDABLE ENERGY for our STATE.

94,000 jobs, $10.3 BILLION dollars in new Investments, 30 others States are way ahead of us. The Utility Companies are BEHIND this distortions of the TRUTH about renewable energy and the Opposition to Proposal 3.

This is a people's issue not a UTILITY Company's. GRASSROOTS people's issue NOT the affluent environmentalists you so kindly mention in your opinion piece.


1501 days ago, 11:04am | by tnh | Report Comment

"This argument may convince those that support faith based energy but it is unconvincing to a sophisticated and informed electorate"
Nice Kevon....Very nice...good to know that the sophisticated and informed are looking out for the rest of us. I feel MUCH safer.

1501 days ago, 4:19pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Ms. Reid-LeZotte:

I make the same proposal to you as I did Mr. Dulzo: I will pay for the venue and we can debate this issue before the public. Virtually every item you proclaim as FACT is demonstrably false and becoming more shrill does not advance the dialog. But I do thank you for not calling me a "windbagger".

And for the record, the latest PPA's approved by MPSC are above $90.00 and do not include over $30.00 per MWh in federal subsidies. And natural gas plants cost less than 1/2 the price of wind, can run on natural gas from our own Antrim Shale and produce 60% fewer emissions than coal plants. Oddly enough, with 25% wind, we would be building them anyway. Honestly, if one supports wind energy in Michigan, one has to also like the gas fracking that will come with it. Does Traverse City rest on the Antrim Shale?

Kevon Martis
Uncompensated and Unfunded Citizen Activist
GreenTech Action Fund free since 2011

1500 days ago, 11:38am | by Dubious | Report Comment

Kevon Martis....the contractor/developer??? Or is there more than one???
Just curious.

1500 days ago, 11:50am | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Trust me. There is only one :)

1500 days ago, 12:58pm | by Dubious | Report Comment

Now I understand the reasoning behind your bias. You guys just want it all I think.
(.) (.)

1500 days ago, 1:34pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

If you care to question my data rather than my character I would be glad to have a discussion.

Do you have a read on MLUI's bias?

1496 days ago, 8:40am | by Dubious | Report Comment

Your character is not in question...Maybe just your motivation.
If MLUI has a bias it seems to be driven by advocating for people and the environment.

1496 days ago, 10:10pm | by Good stuff | Report Comment

Kevon Martis - Just curious, what else do you do all day besides hit refresh on MLUI's website, waiting for the next comment?

1494 days ago, 8:48am | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

I write articles like this: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/09/20/calling-25x25-an-investment-is-beyond-absurd/

1485 days ago, 1:19am | by voice of reason | Report Comment

Conservative thinktanks step up attacks against Obama's clean energy strategy


1461 days ago, 9:40pm | by Teri Kildee | Report Comment

Search Archives

Michigan Land Use Institute

148 E. Front Street, Suite 301
Traverse City, MI 49684-5725
p (231) 941-6584 
e comments@mlui.org