Statement from Sierra Club On Proposed Oil Industry Sweetheart Bills

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                 MORE INFORMATION:

Monday, January 27, 2014                 Mike Berkowitz  

                                                            248-345-9808

Statement from Sierra Club On Proposed Oil Industry Sweetheart Bills

Giant Tax Breaks, Eminent Domain Privileges Considered Tuesday By House Panel

LANSING--Proposals before a legislative panel Tuesday that would give oil and gas companies new powers to construct pipelines on private property over the objections of Michigan landowners--and give new tax breaks to the industry--were strongly opposed today by the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, which issued the following statement from State Director Anne Woiwode:

 On Tuesday the state House Energy and Technology Committee will hear testimony for the first time on House Bills 4885, 5255 and 5254.   House Bill 4885 would reduce state revenues from oil and gas development by dramatically reducing the so-called severance tax on gas and oil enhanced recovery drilling, including the controversial fracking process. Under the proposed legislation, oil and gas companies would get a 40% break on the oil severance tax, from the current 6.6% to 4% while gas drilling taxes would be reduced by 20%, from 5% to 4%.  This proposed handout to the oil and gas industry not only gives them an unneeded tax break, but encourages drilling activities that threaten our Great Lakes system, putting our waters at risk.  We believe fracking is too risky to continue in Michigan and should be stopped.  Giving tax breaks to the oil industry to encourage more fracking is the last thing Michigan’s elected officials should be considering.  Instead, Michigan lawmakers should take up legislation introduced last year that would strengthen weak environmental protections for fracking and invest more money in environmental monitoring of our water and air and other protections to safeguard human health and our natural resources.

Moreover, House Bills 5254 and 5255 pose an alarming new threat for all local Michigan residents who are facing aggressive oil, gas and related pipeline construction in their communities.   Sierra Club strongly opposes giving new eminent domain authority to private oil and gas companies at the expense of the rights of private property owners and the public.  We call on lawmakers to reject both bills. The proposed legislation would also restrict the amount of information pipeline companies would have to release to the public. The recent expansion of oil and tar sands pipelines in Michigan has led to many private landowners witnessing pipeline construction within a few yards of their homes or businesses.  Giving oil and gas companies more ability to take lands for the transportation of fossil fuels and pipeline development is the wrong decision for Michigan, for clean water, and for property owners.

 

###                        

 The Sierra Club is the nation’s largest grassroots environmental organization, with over 150,000 members and supporters in Michigan.

Sierra Club: Let Voters Decide Wildlife Issues

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE        More information:
News from the Sierra Club                   Marvin Roberson 906-350-0288
Tuesday, January 14, 2014         

Sierra Club:  Let Voters Decide Wildlife Issues
Conservation Group Defends Keeping Wolves, Others Issues Subject To Ballot

LANSING—Michigan Sierra Club has endorsed keeping voters involved in the state’s wildlife decision-making by announcing its support for one citizen petition drive and opposing another, both of which are linked to Michigan’s controversial wolf hunt.

Michigan Sierra Club’s 18-member Executive Committee voted unanimously to support a petition drive undertaken by Keep Michigan Wolves Protected to repeal Public Act 21 of 2013 and to oppose a separate effort launched recently by Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) to block voters from having a say over hunting and other wildlife decisions.  

“Many citizens do not want wolves hunted. We believe they should have a voice,” said Marvin Roberson, Michigan Sierra Club Forest Ecologist.  “We believe that the values of a majority of Michigan citizens should be heard on this and future wildlife issues.”

Conservation organizations have historically advocated for keeping the voice of the public in natural resource management decisions because wildlife and other state natural resources are owned by Michigan’s citizens.

Both current petition drives were launched in the wake of the successful effort by Keep Michigan Wolves Protected to give voters an opportunity to ban wolf hunting.  The group early last year gathered enough petition signatures to place the question before voters this November. But moves by the Legislature, Gov. Rick Snyder and most recently MUCC are attempting to thwart any vote to ban wolf hunting.   The MUCC-sponsored citizen initiative, called Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, would go a step further and place all future decision-making on hunting and other wildlife issues entirely in the hands of Lansing lawmakers and the politically appointed Michigan Natural Resources Commission and out of the hands of voters. 

“Our leadership from throughout the state felt strongly that stewardship of Michigan’s natural resources and wildlife has a long tradition of being held in the public trust and that removing voters from any decision-making in how these resources are managed is not the Michigan way,” said David Holtz, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Chair.  “Those who are working to take democracy out of wildlife protection would like us to believe this is all about science.  It’s not about science. It’s about politics and privilege.  Michigan’s natural resources belong to the people, not to politicians or special interests.”

In 2012, the Michigan Legislature passed Public Act 520, which added the wolf to the list of game species in Michigan.  Sierra Club opposed the legislation because had failed to follow through on commitments under the state’s wolf management plan to begin scientific studies related to proper management of the wolf.  Almost immediately upon passage of PA 520, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected launched a petition drive. The petition drive succeeded in collecting enough signatures to place a referendum on PA 520 on the ballot in 2014. This would have allowed Michigan voters to either approve or overturn the legislative decision to add wolves to the list of game species.

However, in a move clearly designed solely to thwart any vote on wolves as a game species, the Legislature passed and Gov. Snyder signed into law Public Act 21 of 2013. This allowed the Natural Resources Commission to add species to the game list as well as the Legislature. It also gave the NRC sole authority over issues regarding fisheries management. Keep Michigan Wolves Protected then initiated a second referendum petition challenging PA 21 to reverse this bald-faced move to thwart a legitimate vote of the people on the referendum to repeal PA 520. 

The citizens initiative petition drive launched by MUCC is identical to PA 21 except that it includes a $1 million appropriation.  As a citizen’s initiative MUCC is seeking to collect enough signatures to bring this measure directly to the Legislature, which can approve the initiative without going to a vote of the people.  The inclusion of an appropriation in this measure also means the provisions transferring authority to the NRC to set game and fish species in the citizen’s initiative would remove any opportunity for referendum and a vote of the people. Decisions by the NRC are not subject to referendum by the voters. This would have the practical effect of making the outcome of a 2014 vote on Keep Michigan Wolves Protected petition drive to ban wolf hunting meaningless.

##

The Sierra Club is the nation’s largest grassroots environmental organization, with over 150,000 members and supporters in Michigan. 

Answers to Questions Raised about Coal Plant Permits Included in Governor Snyder Scorecard

January 9, 2014

Questions have been raised about the inclusion of Governor Snyder’s decision to issue permits for two proposed coal plants within his first months in office in Sierra Club’s Scorecard ^[1]evaluating Governor Snyder’s environmental record during his first term.  Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Director Anne Woiwode responds to these questions with the below summary and documentation on these issues, and she can be reached at anne.woiwode@sierraclub.org, at 517-484-2372 x 11 or by cell phone as 517-974-2112.  

Governor Snyder’s decision to approve permits for the Holland and Rogers City coal plants reversed then existing state policy that advanced cleaner alternatives to coal and reflects the governor’s lack of commitment to clean energy. Approving permits for coal plants that would emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide contributing to climate disruption, expel toxic metals like mercury, and directly contribute to Michiganders developing respiratory illnesses from particulate matter emissions is the wrong decision for the people of Michigan and our environment.

Within a month of taking office, Governor Snyder’s Administration began abandoning a process developed under the Granholm Administration that sought to assure that the people of Michigan’s interests were protected by considering whether proposed coal fired power plants were needed and whether there were other alternatives that were less polluting. Governor Snyder’s reversal of decisions to deny permits to two coal fired power plant proposals both delayed Michigan’s move toward cleaner energy sources and led to the ratepayers of each of those facilities carrying the costs of the continued investment in developing those plants.

On February 3, 2009, Governor Jennifer Granholm issued Executive Directive 2009-2^[2], based on both the Michigan Environmental Protection Act and on the federal Clean Air Act, that directed the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, in cooperation with the staff of the Michigan Public Service Commission, to review proposed coal fired power plants that were applying for air permits to install (PTI) for whether the power they would produce was needed, and whether there were alternatives available that would meet this need with less pollution.  

Granholm’s action reflected concerns about pollution from new coal power plants (including mercury, acid rain precursors, ozone-causing chemicals and the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide) as well as concerns that investing in massive, polluting coal power plants instead of alternative cleaner technologies would cost ratepayers an excessive amount of money and would divert funding from cleaner technologies, including renewable power and energy efficiency measures. 

The staff of the Michigan Public Service Commission reviewed three proposed plants^[3]: Consumers Energy’s proposed expansion of the Karn Weadock coal plant in Essexville; Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative’s coal plant proposed for Rogers City; and the City of Holland’s proposed expansion of the James DeYoung plant.  The MPSC staff concluded that in the case of Consumers Energy’s proposal, the plant could only be justified if Consumers committed to closing existing coal fired plants.  Consumers did proceed with the proposed plant and committed to closing multiple existing coal plants in exchange,  but ultimately the utility concluded it could not justify proceeding with building an expanded coal fired power plant^[4].  Later, Consumers sought permission from the MPSC to charge its customers $22 million to cover the costs of the failed power plant proposal^[5].

In the MPSC staff reports to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality on both the proposed Wolverine plant and the proposed Holland plant expansion, the agency staff concluded that neither plant was needed to meet power needs of their utilities and that there were available alternatives that would meet the needs in the future.  MDEQ’s decisions to deny each of these permits was based on the findings of these reports^[6] and cited relevant state and federal law.  Litigation was brought by each utility in the respective Circuit Courts in their counties, which reached significantly different conclusions.  The Ottawa County court in December of 2010 reversed the Holland permit denial based on the MDEQ’s decision to base the denial on the lack of need for the plant.  In January 2011, the Missaukee County court in the Wolverine case concluded that the MDEQ had failed to adequately document their decision in their permit denial letter, even though the full record of the permit consideration provided extensive documentation.  The court remanded the permit to the MDEQ allowing them to further document their decision.  

In January 2011, Governor Snyder took office, and the new Administration declined to effectively defend the permit denial decisions and ultimately issued both permits.  Last December, both proposed plants were cancelled.

ATTACHMENT (note: this document is no longer available on the State of Michigan’s website)

www.michigan.gov  (To Print: use your browser's print function)	Release Date: February 03, 2009 Last Update: February 03, 2009
EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. 2009 - 2
Consideration of Feasible and Prudent Alternatives in the Processing of Air Permit Applications from Coal-Fired Power Plants WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 vests the executive power of the State ofMichigan in the Governor; WHEREAS, under Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, each principal department of state government is under the supervision of the Governor unless otherwise provided by the Constitution; WHEREAS, under Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the Governor is responsible to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; WHEREAS, under Section 52 of Article IV of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the conservation and development of the natural resources of this state are matters of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people; WHEREAS, under Section 51 of Article IV of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the public health and general welfare of the people of the state are matters of primary public concern; WHEREAS, Part 17 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.1701 to 324.1706, provides in part that "[i]n administrative, licensing, or other proceedings, and in any judicial review of such a proceeding, the alleged pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, or other natural resources, or the public trust in these resources, shall be determined, and conduct shall not be authorized or approved that has or is likely to have such an effect if there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare"; WHEREAS, Part 17 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act is supplemental to existing administrative and regulatory procedures provided by law; WHEREAS, under Part 55 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5501 to 324.5542, and Executive Order 1995-18, MCL 324.99903, the Department of Environmental Quality has the authority to grant permits for the construction and operation of sources of air emissions under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 to 7671q; WHEREAS, Section 5541 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5541, provides that Part 55 of the Act "does not repeal any of the laws relating to air pollution which are not by this part expressly repealed.  This part is ancillary to and supplements the laws now in force, except as they may be in direct conflict with this part"; WHEREAS, under Section 165(a)(2) of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7475(a)(2), the Department of Environmental Quality has the discretion to consider alternatives to proposed sources of air emissions when determining whether or not to grant an air permit to that source; WHEREAS, coal-fired electricity generating plants annually emit thousands of tons of air emissions, including, but not limited to, greenhouse gases, that threaten the air, water, and other natural resources of Michigan and the health, safety, and general welfare of Michigan residents; WHEREAS, circumstances have changed since the 21st Century Energy Plan, issued pursuant to Executive Directive 2006-2, projected that Michigan's total electric generation requirements would grow at 1.3% annually until 2025, as evidenced by the Michigan Public Service Commission's projection in its Winter 2008/2009 Energy Appraisal that electricity sales decreased 1.4% in Michigan in 2008; WHEREAS, the enactment of the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act, 2008 PA 295, MCL 460.1001 to 460.1195, has reduced the need for additional coal-fired electricity generating plants in Michigan by providing for the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet future electricity needs in this state, reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels such as coal; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of the State of Michigan, by virtue of the power and authority vested in the Governor by the Michigan Constitution of 1963 and Michigan law, direct: A. Before issuing a permit to install under Part 55 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5501 to 324.5542, for the construction of a new coal-fired electricity generating plant, the Department of Environmental Quality shall determine whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare that would better protect the air, water, and other natural resources of this state from pollution than the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant. B. Before making the determination required by Paragraph A, the Department shall first determine whether a reasonable electricity generation need exists in this state that would be served by the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant.  If a reasonable electricity generation need exists in this state, the Department shall estimate the extent of the reasonable electricity generation need. C. The Department shall next consider alternative methods of meeting the reasonable electricity generation need, including, but not limited to, each of the following: Constructing new electricity generating resources that use technologies other than the burning of coal or that generate electricity from coal using technologies that reduce or sequester emissions. Reducing electricity demand and peak demand through energy efficiency programs or load management techniques. Generating or purchasing electricity from existing electricity generating resources. D. If the Department determines that a feasible and prudent alternative to the construction of a new proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant exists consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare that would better protect the air, water, and other natural resources of this state than the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, the Department shall not issue a permit to install. E. The Michigan Public Service Commission shall provide technical assistance to the Department in making determinations required by this Directive. F. All departments, committees, commissioners, or officers of the executive branch of this state shall give to the Department of Environmental Quality any necessary assistance required by the Department in the performance of the duties of this Directive, so far as is compatible with its, his, or her duties.  Free access shall also be given to any books, records, or documents in its, his, or her custody, relating to matters within the scope of inquiry, study, or review of the Department under this Directive. This Directive is effective immediately. Given under my hand this 3rd day of February in the year of our Lord, two thousand and nine. ____________________________________ JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM GOVERNOR
Copyright © 2009 State of Michigan

---

[1] Find the Scorecard here: http://michigan.sierraclub.org/politics/articles/SnyderScorecard.html

[2] Under the Snyder Administration, all of Governor Granholm’s Executive Directives have been removed from the State of Michigan’s website.  An analysis of Executive Directive 2009-2 is found on the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center website here and the full Executive Directive is included at the end of this memo  http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/2009/02/michigan-governor-puts-the-brakes-on-new-coal-plants.html

[3] A report was prepared for each proposal:
the Consumers Energy proposal report is here http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/15996/0190.pdf;
the Wolverine proposal report is here http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/16000/0144.pdf; 
and the Holland proposal report is here http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/16077/0077.pdf.

[4]“Consumers Energy's statement on decision not to build coal-fired plant,” MLive, 12/2/11  http://www.mlive.com/business/jackson-lansing/index.ssf/2011/12/consumers_energy_releases_stat.html

[5]“Consumers Energy wants customers to pay $22 million for failed coal-fired plant, but many readers don't want to pay”, MLive, 12/8/11 
http://www.mlive.com/business/jackson-lansing/index.ssf/2011/12/several_readers_upset_about_co.html

[6] MDEQ letter denying Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative permit, May 2010 http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/downloads/permits/pubnotice/317-07/DenialLtr.pdf 
MDEQ letter denying Holland Board of Public Works permit, August 2010 
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/downloads/permits/PubNotice/25-07/25-07DenialLtr.pdf

Sierra Club Releases First-Ever Report On Governor Snyder’s Performance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

News from the Sierra Club

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

CONTACT:

Mike Berkowitz, 248-345-9808, mike.berkowitz@sierraclub.org

Sierra Club Releases First-Ever Report On Governor Snyder’s Performance  

Gov. Snyder Gets a Failing Grade on Energy, Environment, Good Government Policies

MICHIGAN — The Sierra Club Michigan Chapter today released its first-ever gubernatorial Scorecard, which evaluates Rick Snyder’s performance on energy, environment, good government and related issues.  Michigan’s chief executive got a failing grade, scoring 22% on the most important environmental actions taken during his first three years in office. The full scorecard is available here.

“Nearly 80 percent of decisions made by Gov. Snyder in our Scorecard contribute toward polluting our water, air, land and undermining public health and good government.  These are the wrong priorities for residents of the Great Lakes State,” said Mike Berkowitz, Legislative and Political Director of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter.

“Governor Snyder’s biggest environmental accomplishment over the past three years was establishing a regional transportation authority for southeast Michigan,” said Richard Barron, chair of Sierra Club’s Political Committee.  

“When Gov. Snyder campaigned for election there was optimism that as governor of the Great Lakes State he would be a leader on clean energy, pollution protection, and water quality,” said Barron.  “With the exception of transportation policy there’s been no substantive leadership on these issues, and in a majority of cases Michigan has moved backwards.”

The Scorecard release comes as Gov. Snyder prepares his 2014 State of the State address. It is intended to provide a substantive, detailed guide to his record on issues important to Sierra Club members and all residents of the Great Lakes State.

“Michigan used to be a leader in making conservation a top priority under Republican Governors such as Bill Milliken, but not anymore,” said James D’Amour, the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter’s Political Committee Vice Chair.  D’Amour described Governor Snyder’s environmental record as “disappointing and disheartening for Republicans like me who care about clean air and water.”

The Scorecard includes 36 key decisions made by Gov. Snyder on environmental issues including 29 bills signed into law, two bills vetoed, and five administrative actions regarding permits and DEQ/DNR programs. Governor Snyder signed 21 bills into law that were direct attacks on environmental protections. He signed 6 bills designed to protect the environment and also vetoed one bill attacking environmental protections. He signed four bills into law and vetoed 1 that were direct attacks on our democracy. The five administrative actions weakened access to clean air, water and land.

The Sierra Club is the nation’s largest grassroots environmental organization, with over 150,000 members and supporters in Michigan.

###

Holland to Cease Burning Coal at James De Young Power Plant

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 18, 2013

Contact:

Alison Flowers, Sierra Club, 303-246-6297, alison.flowers@sierraclub.org

Tiffany Hartung, Sierra Club, 231-747-7489, tiffany.hartung@sierraclub.org

Holland to Cease Burning Coal at James De Young Power Plant

Holland residents to benefit from improved environmental quality, affordable energy

HOLLAND, Mich. – Today the City of Holland and the Holland Board of Public Works have announced an agreement with the Sierra Club to cease burning coal at the three remaining coal-burning units at the nearly 75-year-old James De Young power plant. This settlement resolves all pending litigation between Sierra Club and the City of Holland.

The city, which owns the plant, had originally obtained an air permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to expand the plant’s coal-burning capabilities. A multi-year review, however, showed a rapidly changing economic outlook and prompted the city to move toward a cleaner, more affordable energy future. Holland also negotiated an agreement with the Sierra Club, the largest and oldest grassroots environmental organization in the country, to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at the James De Young facility.

“This is a critical move toward Holland’s energy future,” said Jan O’Connell, energy issues organizer for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. “We applaud the city’s decision to protect public health and the environment.”

Under the terms of the agreement, Holland’s biggest coal-fired electric generating unit will cease burning coal in 2016. The two remaining smaller units will gradually reduce their coal use beginning in 2020 and will completely cease burning coal by 2024.

Air pollution modeling conducted by the Sierra Club in 2011 showed the James De Young power plant was emitting pollution at 3.5 times the limit that the EPA says is required to protect public health. Thanks to the actions Holland is taking, the community can expect to experience fewer asthma attacks and ER visits, as well as heart- and lung-related ailments.

Independent of the agreement with the Sierra Club, Holland has taken several steps on its own to move beyond coal, most notably signing two power purchase agreements for wind energy, including one with a wind facility under construction in Gratiot County, Michigan. The Sierra Club applauded Holland for its wind energy purchases.

“I am relieved that the coal plant issue is settled,” said Larry Spitzley, Holland resident and Sierra Club member. “It should now be easier to focus on the Holland Community Energy Plan. I’m especially excited about part of the plan that may make energy audits and affordable improvements available to people here. We’re on the way to becoming a world-leading, energy efficient city.”

The Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign aims to replace coal with clean energy like wind, solar and energy efficiency.

###

Thanks!

Jan

Jan O'Connell

Development Director and

MI Beyond Coal ~ Clean Energy Campaign

  

Sierra Club Michigan Chapter

Phone: (616) 956-6646

Email: jan.oconnell@sierraclub.org

Support the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter!  Go to http://tiny.cc/MISierraClubSupport to make your donation and join the EVERGREEN

sustaining program that allows you to give throughout the year with monthly, quarterly or other gift options. 

-- 

Milking the System: Polluting Factory Farms Flourish in Gratiot and Midland Counties Courtesy of Taxpayers

Sep. 12, 2013                                                           Media Contact: Gail Philbin

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                              312-493-2384, gail.philbin@sierraclub.org

Milking the System: Polluting Factory Farms Flourish

in Gratiot and Midland Counties Courtesy of Taxpayers

Alma, Mich.—Factory farms in Michigan are “milking the system,” receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies even when violating environmental laws and unfairly competing against sustainable livestock operations, according to an updated report from the Less=More Coalition released in Alma today. 

Two of the nation’s most respected experts on factory farms or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) -- Joe Maxwell, a Missouri hog farmer and an official with the Humane Society of the United States, and 2010 Goldman Environmental Prize winner Lynn Henning, a Lenawee County farmer who works with Sierra Club -- also gave an overview of the environmental, health and economic problems these facilities pose. A driving tour of some of the factory farms which exemplify the concerns in Midland and Gratiot Counties immediately followed the press conference. 

Less=More, a coalition of farmers, food safety, environmental and animal welfare organizations, is calling on federal and state officials, in particular the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Michigan State Conservationist, to fix the unfair bias in farming subsidies toward factory farms. 

“We released our report seven months ago, and nothing has changed, especially in Gratiot and Midland Counties, home to 24 CAFOs,” said Henning. “Together, factory farms in these two counties raked in $11,243,026 in subsidies from 1995-2012.”

Since 1996, 14 of these Gratiot and Midland County facilities have been cited for environmental violations, with one of those receiving fines and penalties of $45,344. Yet from 1995 to 2011, owners and operators of these facilities in violation received $4,793,488 in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Restoring the Balance to Michigan’s Farming Landscape, released by Less=More in February this year, was updated today with an in-depth case study examining the Mibelloon Dairy, LLC, and four affiliated businesses in Gratiot and Midland Counties. From 2001 to 2012, they received $744,941 in federal farm subsidies and tax-subsidized loans of $5,000,000.  During that same time period, Mibelloon Dairy, LLC, was cited by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for environmental violations in 2004, and in a 2008 administrative consent order with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), it was assessed fines and fees of $45,344 related to five separate incidents. 

“The Mibelloon operations are another example of the unfair advantage our tax dollars are giving to CAFOs,” said Anne Woiwode, director of the Michigan Sierra Club, a Less=More Coalition member. “Michigan’s sustainable livestock producers shouldn’t have to compete against massive animal factories like these that receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax payer subsidies and subsidized loans, even while Mibelloon Dairy was polluting the water in violation of the law.”

Incidents for which Mibelloon Dairy, LLC, was cited that resulted in fines and costs of $45,344 included discharge of wastes into county drains, improper storage of wastes and stockpiling of wastes near a road.

“A single factory farm generates millions of gallons of waste annually, the equivalent of 16,000 people, but unlike a city with as many residents, these facilities aren’t required to treat the waste,” said Tia Lebherz, Michigan organizer for Food & Water Watch, a Less=More Coalition member.

“This is not your garden-variety animal manure—factory farm waste contains antibiotics, chemicals, pathogens, and other contaminants. This waste inevitably runs off in to our local rivers and streams, polluting our water.Taxpayer dollars should not be used to prop-up these polluting factory farms.”

Restoring the Balance explores how federal tax dollars create an uneven playing field for sustainable livestock operations in Michigan by overwhelmingly favoring grants of subsidies to polluting CAFOs. In particular, it examines how one Farm Bill program, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), encourages unsustainable agricultural practices that threaten public health and the environment, while putting Michigan’s independent and local producers at a severe competitive disadvantage.

The report highlights opportunities to reverse this inequity through NRCS Michigan State Conservationist Garry Lee’s authority to change priorities set for EQIP in Michigan. It also recommends measures of accountability in the application process to ensure funds are awarded to environmentally responsible farmers. The Less=More Coalition presented the report and its concerns and recommendations to Lee on Feb. 14, 2013.

“With the release of this update to Restoring the Balance, we call upon Mr. Lee once again to take action on our recommendations,” said Woiwode. “The time to act is now. Factory farms are a huge threat to the clean water, air and land every Michigander depends on for our food, our families and our future.”

More than 2,300 concerned Michigan consumers have signed petitions and postcards urging Mr. Lee to take action on inequitable subsidies. The online petition to Mr. Lee is found at http://tinyurl.com/CAFOpetition

The update to Restoring the Balance as well as the original report can be downloaded at: http://tinyurl.com/L-Mreport. 

---

For questions about the report, contact Anne Woiwode, Sierra Club, anne.woiwode@sierraclub.org or 517-484-2372, ext. 11, or Lynn Henning, lynn.henning@sierraclub.org or 517-605-7740.

The Less=More Coalition is a group of organizations engaged in various aspects of our food system who seek to level the playing field for sustainable farmers in Michigan. They include: Beery Farms of Michigan, LLC, the Center for Food Safety, Crane Dance Farm, LLC, ELFCO food cooperative, Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan, Food & Water Watch, Greater Grand Rapids Food Systems Council, Groundswell Farm, Zeeland, Humane Society of the United States, Michigan Farmers Union, Michigan Voices for Good Food Policy, Michigan Young Farmers Coalition, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and Socially Responsible Agricultural Project. 

Less support for polluting factory farms means a more sustainable Michigan.  For more information, visit, http://MoreforMichigan.org.            

Groups Join DOJ to Halt Serious Air Pollution from DTE Coal-burning Power Plants

Plants lack modern pollution controls that protect human health

Contact:
Shannon Fisk, Earthjustice, (215) 717-4522
Tiffany Hartung, Sierra Club (248) 933-2451

Detroit-Conservation groups took legal action late last week to support the Department of Justice (DOJ) efforts to clean up several of Detroit Edison’s coal-burning power plants in Southern Michigan by requiring them to comply with the Clean Air Act.

Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, amended its complaint in the case of US v. DTE Energy Company, to clean up Detroit Edison’s River Rouge, Trenton Channel, and Belle River coal-fired power plants. Earlier last week, DOJ amended its complaint to add the same claims on Trenton Channel, River Rouge and Belle River, and additional claims against the Monroe coal plant.

According to the Clean Air Task Force, these additional three coal-burning plants collectively contribute to 157 deaths, 254 heart attacks, and 2,480 asthma attacks each year.

“The River Rouge and Trenton Channel coal plants are aging dinosaurs that Detroit Edison continues to operate without readily available and legally required pollution control technology,” said Shannon Fisk, an Earthjustice attorney handling this case.  “It is far past time for Detroit Edison to protect public health and create jobs by cleaning those plants up or retiring and replacing them with affordable clean energy resources.”

The violations stem from Detroit Edison’s major, multi-million dollar modifications at those plants without installation of the legally-required modern pollution controls that would help protect public health.  As a result of these violations, Detroit Edison’s coal plants have emitted hundreds to thousands of tons of additional harmful air pollutants every year.

Emissions from coal-burning plants include dangerous pollutants like carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury. High levels of exposure to these emissions can cause irritation of the throat and lungs, leading to difficulty breathing, increased asthma symptoms, more respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.

“When I think about clean and renewable sources of energy, I think about the infinite possibilities of creating jobs and powering Michigan through cleaner sources like wind and solar power,” said Douglas Myers, River Rouge resident and Sierra Club member. “If DTE were to focus on forward thinking in the problem areas we could remove a lot of the dirty and harmful elements being emitted through their current facilities.”

This case was initially filed in 2010 by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. EPA as an enforcement action regarding an illegal modification at Unit 2 of Detroit Edison’s Monroe coal plant.  Sierra Club intervened in that proceeding.   While the federal district court initially ruled against DOJ and Sierra Club, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit earlier this year reversed the district court decision.  As a result, DOJ and Sierra Club’s case against Monroe Unit 2 continues, and both plaintiffs are seeking to expand their claims to address legal violations at other Detroit Edison coal units.

 When Congress enacted the Clean Air Act of 1970, thousands of power plants, refineries, and other facilities were emitting large volumes of various air pollutants. The act required new facilities to be equipped with the most modern and efficient pollution-control technologies available. Many existing plants were let off the hook on the theory that they would be taken out of service fairly rapidly and replaced with new, clean plants.   The coal industry lobbied congress and the EPA to be allowed to continue running these old plants without adding modern pollution controls.  As a result, many of these aging, polluting facilities are still operating today, over 40 years later.

The law did, however, include important provisions addressing the older plants: If and when they make changes that increase emissions, they are required to retrofit with up-to-date technologies.  This is a key part of what the law calls the New Source Review (NSR) program. 

“Big coal has fought against NSR with respect to existing plants ever since the program was created,” continued Fisk.  “It has filed many lawsuits to challenge the program and simply refused to abide by it.”