february 10, 2011

DEQ Urged to Reject Holland Coal Plant Permit:
Health, Ratepayer Costs Too High 

Clean Energy Now – Citizens groups today called on the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to reject a permit that would open the door to the unnecessary expansion of a Holland coal plant. Although the permit is back in front of the Department of Environmental Quality because of an Ottawa County Circuit Court decision, the groups point to severe flaws that require it to be denied. The groups said the Holland Board of Public Works coal plant expansion, if approved, will saddle ratepayers with higher costs, endanger public health and put the Great Lakes, land and air at risk.

“The Department of Environmental Quality should reject this dangerous and unnecessary coal plant that Holland BPW’s own studies show would cost its ratepayers $106 million more than other cleaner alternatives over the course of 20 years,” said Nicholas Schroeck,executive director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center . “Michigan is just beginning to move out of the dark ages and into a new, clean energy future and citizens cannot afford to open the door to more dirty coal plants that can derail our efforts. We must take a stand to protect the future of Holland and all of Michigan from more polluting coal fired power plants.”

"Many Holland and Michigan citizens urge the DEQ to stand up for Michigan’s future and reject this permit, which will put people’s health at risk,” said Sara E. Leeland, PhD,  Holland resident who has been active in opposing the large-sized coal-plant.  "In fact, NEED for a double-sized coal plant is a big issue for many of us.  We expect the world-class 40-year sustainable energy plan now underway to show that Holland's long-term need will be for up to 50% less electricity than now used, not double the amount.   A larger plant would likely be used to make profits by feeding electricity into the grid.  Since the pollution created drifts directly across the population center of the city that would be choosing city profit over health." 

The citizens groups said the DEQ must reject the permit on the following grounds:

• Cleaner, feasible and more prudent energy alternatives to the coal plant expansion requires the DEQ to reject the permit in light of the risk to air quality that a coal plant expansion will pose. 

• Citizens have identified many problems related to the coal plant expansion that the Holland BPW must address and comply with by the time a decision is made on the permit.

• The DEQ must substantially re-draft the terms and conditions of the permit, re-publicize the revised permit draft and give the public an opportunity to comment on it if the DEQ moves forward and issues a permit for the expansion.

 NOTE: Documents submitted to the Michigan DEQ calling for the denial of the Holland Board of Public Works proposed coal plant permit can be found here:

Michigan Environmental Protection Act Petition submitted by NRDC and Sierra Club to MDNRE/MDEQ 2/4/11

NRDC, Sierra Club, et al, Supplemental Comments, 2/9/11

February 10, 2011 

Senate Agriculture Committee Gives Agricultural Polluters
“Permission to Pollute”

The reality of Pure Michigan was put at risk today by a package of bills that were rushed through the Senate Agriculture Committee. According to their supporters, Senate Bills 122 and 123 will encourage Michigan farmers to participate in a voluntary pollution prevent program. Ironically, the bills provide a ‘Get Out Of Jail FREE’ card for livestock facilities that pollute Michigan’s waters with animal sewage. The bills were just introduced yesterday, leaving no time for clean water and public health advocates to respond with their comments and expertise.

For years the Farm Bureau and agriculture advocates have tried to put their Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) into law, to gain recognition and funding. Yet once again they’ve tarnished an otherwise valuable program with provisions that significantly lower environmental and public health protections, leading to more animal waste in Michigan’s lakes and streams.

There are 53,000 farms in Michigan; 2,200 of those facilities are livestock operations and 200-250 of those are massive and polluting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or animal factories. CAFOs are the only segment of Michigan’s agricultural industry which requires any environmental permitting. As such, the “permission to pollute” provision only benefits livestock operations subject to CAFO permitting requirements because of water quality violations, less than ½ of 1% of Michigan’s farming community.

The MAEAP program does have value and may help farmers better manage their environmental risks. However, the cost to become “verified” in the program runs between $25,000 and $100,000. Small farmers simply can’t afford the price tag. If the primary incentive in the legislation is a “free pass to pollute” for CAFOs, it’s hard to see how the Farm Bureau will reach its goal of increasing MAEAP participation by 500% with this package of bills.

Unlike in previous years, the bills don’t attempt to remove the obligation for CAFOs to obtain a permit as required by state and federal law. However, by severely weakening pollution standards, the MAEAP program would increase pollution from CAFOs and reduce penalties and fines for polluters. The bills also potentially put Michigan’s delegated authority to implement the Clean Water Act at risk, which would harm Michigan’s economic recovery. The House Agriculture Committee plans to take up the bills next week.

This package of bills may be the first to test Governor Snyder’s promise not to weaken pollution standards for CAFOs and his campaign promise of a “Pure Michigan.”  Signing these bills into law would certainly violate that pledge.

February 3, 2011

Citizens Urge Snyder Administration to Block Flawed Rogers City Coal Permit

Groups Call on Wolverine Power to Protect Ratepayers By
Cancelling Unnecessary $ 2 Billion Coal Plant

LANSING – Citizens groups today called on the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment to block Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative’s proposed Rogers City coal plant. The groups said blocking the coal plant will protect Michigan’s environment, public health and ratepayers throughout the northern Lower Peninsula who may be saddled with massive, unneeded electric rate hikes.

The groups noted that the state is declining to stand up for an earlier DNRE decision to deny an air permit to Wolverine.  A recent court decision said the DNRE failed to base its permit denial on specific air quality concerns.  DNRE can and should correct that error in denying the permit again or, if the agency decides to issue a permit for the unnecessary plant, it must apply stringent new limits for greenhouse gases and other pollutants that threaten public health.

“Wolverine Power’s permit application ought to be denied for a long laundry list of reasons,” said Anne Woiwode, Director of the Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club. “The DNRE should not act like a rubber stamp for Big Coal. The best way for the DNRE to prove that it puts people ahead of Big Coal profits is to stand by its original decision, deny Wolverine’s permit based on the overwhelming documentation and stop coal plants from proliferating in Michigan.”

While the DNRE has said they will not appeal the decision, it will comply with the court’s remand of the permit to the agency for additional consideration and a decision on whether to issue or deny the permit.  Thousands of Michigan citizens have voiced opposition to new coal plants such as the one in Rogers City. Building new coal plants would saddle ratepayers with the cost of those new facilities, even though there is no need for new coal plants in Michigan and future energy demands can be met with renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency.

If Wolverine built the unneeded coal plant in Rogers City, ratepayers’ bills would go up an estimated $76 a month to pay for the coal plant that wouldn’t be needed. In fact, Wolverine has already spent $22 million of co-op owner members’ money on the proposed coal plant which could be put on the backs of ratepayers.

"Wolverine and it’s member co-ops, Great Lakes Energy, Cherryland Electric, HomeWorks Tri-County Electric and Presque Isle Electric & Gas, have a chance to cut their losses now and move forward," said PIE&G member Wayne Vermilya of Onaway.  "It’s time for Wolverine and it’s co-op members to move on toward lower cost options, like energy efficiency and clean energy, that will create good Michigan jobs and help co-op members keep paying their bills."

A new coal plant will also worsen air pollution, increase dangerous emissions such as mercury and carbon dioxide, and harm public health. The Rogers City coal project could also open the door to a landfill quarry for coal ash, an additional danger to public health.

“We urge the DNRE to stand up for families in northeast Michigan, who want clean energy jobs and healthy air, not more coal plant pollution” said Shannon Fisk, senior attorney at the Midwest Office of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Missaukee County court’s ruling allows DNRE to reject unnecessary coal plant pollution due to specific air quality concerns, and we urge the agency to do so here.”

January 20, 2011

Sierra Club Statement on Governor Snyder's
Support for Voluntary MAEAP For Agriculture

Governor Snyder’s first State of the State offered many positive sounding initiatives, including an emphasis on building local agricultural and other businesses, and increasing urban investments.  However, the Governor’s proposal to emphasize voluntary standards for agriculture raises many questions when it comes to proper control of massive, industrial agricultural operations such as livestock factories.  The contention that “frivolous lawsuits” must be averted raises an unsubstantiated claim that there have been numerous such lawsuits against agricultural operations in the state.

In fact, Michigan’s Right to Farm act has barred hundreds if not thousands of rural neighbors of polluting factory farms from protecting their family’s health, their property and their businesses from the destruction caused by air and water pollution. In addition, the Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program, or MAEAP, referred to by Governor Snyder, has been found by state and federal environmental agencies as failing to meet requirements for protecting the environment.  

We look forward to quick clarification from the Governor as to this plank.

See Sierra Club's letter to Governor Snyder here. 

January 13, 2011

Coal-burning plants: Bad business for Michigan

 Democrats’ job-killer policy would hurt Michigan’s business climate, require electricity rate hikes

Environmental groups today criticized state House Democratic leaders today for their bewildering support for new job-killing, costly and polluting coal-fired power plants in Michigan.

“At a time when Michigan is positioned to attract tens of thousands of new clean energy jobs – on top of the 109,000 we already have – the House Democratic leadership has apparently made the choice to chase those jobs away by embracing old coal, instead,”  said Lisa Wozniak, executive director of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. “If this is the kind of short sighted decision-making we can expect from the House Democrats over the next two years, both the environment and economy of Michigan will suffer."

New coal plants create temporary jobs during construction, but compete with renewable energy projects and undermine the state’s long-term economic growth in the clean energy sector.

The groups said the Democratic proposal would trigger costly and unnecessary electric rate increases for struggling Michigan families and small businesses. It would also undermine growing clean energy industries in Michigan that are adding jobs.

With electricity demand dropping, renewable energy growing, and Michigan families and businesses struggling to make ends meet, new rate hikes for unneeded coal plants are abysmally bad public policy.

“This is bad news for Michigan workers and consumers. I challenge anyone to identify one new power plant built in this country in the last decade that didn’t result in a rate increase,” said James Clift, policy director of the Michigan Environmental Council. “Ask WE Energy customers in the Upper Peninsula. Their new coal-fired power plant resulted in a 30 percent rate increase.  The Michigan Public Service Commission projected the proposed Wolverine plant in Roger City would double customer rates – on average by almost $70 per month.”

Detroit Edison recently asked to raise its rates to cover an expected $73 million in utility bills that ratepayers are unable to pay because of the state’s poor economy.  Meanwhile, projected demand for electricity in areas served by Detroit Edison has dropped to 1998 levels.  Consumers Energy is in a similar position of excess capacity.

“Protecting ratepayers absolutely must be the focus of any utility investment decisions moving forward,” said Anne Woiwode, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter director.  “Michigan cannot afford to make bad decisions in the energy field if it wants to compete globally.  To keep our rates low, Michigan can meet future demand through a low-cost combination of energy efficiency, renewable power and demand management.”

A new power plant would lock Michiganders into sending money out of state to import more than $9 billion worth of coal for the next 50 years. All costs for new coal plants will be borne by ratepayers under legislation passed in 2008, and residential users will pay the biggest portion of that increase.

Across the nation, no utility has began construction of a new coal plant in the last two years – and plans for 138 have been dropped or put on indefinite hold.  In Michigan, CMS announced plans last year to indefinitely delay its proposed Karn Weadock coal plant expansion near Bay City because of the lack of demand for the power and forecasts for lower natural gas prices.

“States across the nation – including Michigan recently – are building new networks to produce cleaner, cheaper electricity while providing long term in-state jobs and growing local businesses,” said Cyndi Roper, Michigan director for Clean Water Action. “Why the Michigan House Democratic leadership wants to cling to a past that has failed us is a mystery.

December 22, 2010 

Groups Ask Snyder To Support Clean Energy Jobs

Letter Focuses On Incoming Administration’s Coal Plant Policies

LANSING, MI—Twelve citizens groups representing hundreds of thousands of Michigan residents today delivered a letter to Governor-Elect Rick Snyder asking him to continue state policies that require consideration of energy alternatives and the need for more energy as part of the process of issuing permits for new coal plants.

The letter to Snyder was sent by leading environmental and energy groups representing citizens from through the state.
“Coal plants are a barrier to economic progress and a hazard to public health,” said the groups in their letter.  “To attract clean energy jobs, Michigan must send a strong signal that our future lies in energy efficiency, wind, solar, advanced battery, and other clean energy technologies – not outdated, 19th-century coal.”

Snyder was urged to support state energy policies that are:

• Protecting Michigan ratepayers from expensive and unneeded power sources when cheaper alternatives are available;
• Creating much-needed clean energy jobs in one of the fastest-growing sectors of the global economy; and
• Improving public health by reducing dangerous emissions and pollution from the power sector that causes illness and contributes to climate change.

Organizations that wrote to Snyder are:

CLEAN WATER ACTION • ECOLOGY CENTER • ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT • GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER • LONE TREE COUNCIL •MICHIGAN ENERGY ALTERNATIVES PROJECT • MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS • MIDLAND CARES • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL • SIERRA CLUB • SIERRA CLUB STUDENT COALITION • WEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL

The full text of the letter follows.

Thursday, December 22, 2010

Honorable Rick Snyder, Governor-Elect

State of Michigan

VIA FACSIMILE

Dear Governor-Elect Snyder:

We the undersigned urge you to support Michigan’s path to a clean energy future by continuing to require a thorough analysis of the need for and alternatives to new sources of power before they are built.

State and federal law require consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives to new polluting energy sources like coal plants.  Examination of the need for new power is part of such consideration of alternatives, and is essential for Michigan’s clean energy future.

 Studying both the demand for new power and alternative sources of energy for meeting such demand is vital to Michigan for the following reasons:

• Protecting Michigan ratepayers from expensive and unneeded power sources when cheaper alternatives are available;
• Creating much-needed clean energy jobs in one of the fastest-growing sectors of the global economy; and
• Improving public health by reducing dangerous emissions and pollution from the power sector that causes illness and contributes to climate change.

Coal plants are a barrier to economic progress and a hazard to public health. To attract clean energy jobs, Michigan must send a strong signal that our future lies in energy efficiency, wind, solar, advanced battery, and other clean energy technologies – not outdated, 19th-century coal. Policies such as Executive Directive 2009-02 that provide for the study of the need for and alternatives to new sources of generation are a reasonable, common-sense measure that will help Michigan accomplish its goal of building a robust clean energy sector while protecting ratepayers and our “Pure Michigan” natural resources.

As a technology leader and innovator, you understand how important it is to seize opportunities before others and how essential it is to make wise and measured business decisions.   Michigan businesses and families cannot afford to shoulder the high utility bills it will take to cover the cost of unneeded coal plants with price tags in the billions.  Not only will Michigan lose out on attracting new business, but also high energy costs from unneeded plants will drive out our existing companies.

Moreover, when it comes to growing more clean energy jobs, Michigan cannot afford to delay.  By devoting limited resources toward building new coal plants that would operate for the next 50 years, Michigan will be giving up clean energy jobs to other states and countries.

Investors large and small are eagerly preparing to play larger roles in the U.S. clean energy sector. At the same time, other nations such as China, South Korea and India are ramping up their commitments to clean energy and are poised to surpass the United States in this vital sector. China is investing $12.6 million an hour to grow its clean energy sector. Meanwhile, only six of the top 30 wind, solar and advanced battery manufacturers are based in the United States, even though U.S. innovation planted the seed for key clean energy technologies.

Clean energy is already one of the few bright spots in Michigan’s economy, creating more than 100,000 jobs in Michigan from 2005 to 2008, an 8-percent increase while jobs overall declined 5.4 percent during that period, according to a 2009 Michigan Green Jobs Report.

Examining need and alternatives when it comes to the state’s energy choices will also benefit public health and help protect Michigan’s unique natural resources.  Human health must be a factor when making energy decisions and take into account the fact that air and water pollution from coal plants causes health impacts such as: premature death, asthma, developmental disabilities, and cancer.  Our fishing and tourism industries have already been harmed by the mercury contamination in our rivers, lakes, and streams that make our fish unsafe to eat.  In addition, global climate change poses grave threats to our Great Lakes way of life, and we must take steps to minimize greenhouse gas pollution.

For reasons that are vital to the health of our residents, environment, and economy, we the undersigned urge you to uphold policies such as Executive Directive 2009-02 that examine need and alternatives to new sources of energy.  Now is the time for you to support Michigan businesses and much-needed local jobs by demonstrating your commitment to clean energy, new technology and a strong Michigan future.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.  You can contact us through Anne Woiwode, Michigan Director, Sierra Club, 517-974-2112,anne.woiwode@sierraclub.org or at Sierra Club, 109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906.
 

Sincerely,

Cyndi Roper Clean Water Action Samuel E. Flenner III Environmental Integrity Project Terry Miller Lone Tree Council  Lisa Wozniak Michigan League of Conservation Voters Shannon Fisk Natural Resources Defense Council Michaela Howard Sierra Club Student Coalition

Michael Garfield Ecology Center Nick Schroeck Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Tom Karas Michigan Energy Alternatives Project Peter Sinclair Midland Cares Anne Woiwode Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Nick Occhipinti West Michigan Environmental Action Counci

NRDC Fact Sheet on the Consumers Energy Karn Weadock Coal Fired Plant

NRDC Fact Sheet on the Consumers Energy Karn Weadock Coal Fired Plant

"The Proposed Consumers Coal Plant: an Unnecessary Economic and Public Health Risk"

NRDC Fact Sheet on the Consumers Energy Karn Weadock Coal Fired Plant, "The Proposed Consumers Coal Plant: an Unnecessary Economic and Public Health Risk"