Michigan's open spaces could be dotted with turbines nearly 500 feet tall — the same height as the 40-story Guardian Building in downtown Detroit — if voters pass Proposal 3 in November.

The proposal, which would mandate that 25 percent of Michigan's energy come from renewable sources such as wind by 2025, would require a huge increase in the number of turbines across the state.

The newest turbines have rotor blades that are longer than a football field. Experts are split about how many of the mammoth structures would be needed to generate as much as 20 percent of the state's energy from wind. Most experts think 20 percent of the 25-percent proposed standard would have to come from wind.

However, advocates and opponents of the 25-percent mandate disagree over how many turbines will be needed. Michigan currently has 292 wind turbines in operation with another 240 expected to be online by 2014.

To meet the 25-percent mandate, estimates range from 2,300 to 3,790 more turbines will be needed. Both sides do agree that the newer 2.4 megawatt (MW) capacity turbines will be used.

At issue is how efficient the turbines will be once they are installed. Wind turbines are measured by capacity factor, which tracks the percentage of the maximum energy turbines are capable of producing. Wind turbines aren't always online because wind can be unpredictable. The capacity factor can range from 15 percent to 45 percent in most cases.

The Michigan Environment Council is in favor of the 25-percent mandate and estimates another 2,300 wind turbines will be needed, said MEC Spokesman Hugh McDiarmid.

The MEC is basing its estimate on a 35-percent capacity factor, while Detroit Edison says it uses 30 percent, according to Matthew Wagner, manager of wind development for the company. By comparison, the U.S. Energy Information Administration makes its projections using a 30-percent capacity factor.

Thomas Hewson, principal of Energy Ventures Analysis Inc. in Virginia, said Michigan's existing turbines operate at a 25 percent capacity factor. Hewson said he made that calculation based on data provided by Michigan wind farms to the Energy Information Administration.

Using a 25-percent capacity factor, Hewson estimates a total of 4,082 turbines would be needed, including the 292 turbines already in existence.

Kevon Martis, of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, is against the 25 percent mandate. He estimates at a 30 percent capacity factor, a total of 3,536 turbines would be needed, including the existing 292 turbines.

"The experience of several existing Michigan wind farms suggests a 25 percent to 30 percent capacity factor is more likely for Michigan," said Jack McHugh, senior legislative analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. "Higher figures are mere speculation at this time."

~~~~~

See also:

Proposal 3: '25 x 25' Renewable Energy Standard

Media Promotes Massively Inflated 'Green Jobs' Number Put Out by Ballot Proposal Supporters

Environmental Group Exaggerates Number of Jobs 'Green' Energy Mandate Would Create

Former Gov. Predicted 17,000 Jobs From 'Green Energy' Mandate, Number of Jobs Has Actually Dropped

Supporters of the referendum on the emergency manager law believe that if Public Act 4 is repealed, the state will not be able to appoint receivers to control fiscally distressed local governments. They are wrong.

Instead, voters are choosing whether to support the current emergency manager law, or whether to revert to the state's older emergency financial manager law. This is also the opinion of the Michigan attorney general.

The idea of a referendum is to make sure that voters actually support a piece of recently passed legislation. Thus, it nullifies a legislative action. Voting "yes" on the referendum keeps the law, while voting "no" stops the action.

PA 4, the emergency manager law, was signed in 2011 and repealed Public Act 72 of 1990, the emergency financial manager law. If PA 4 is repealed, that would automatically put PA 72 back in place.

This nullification is evident the last time a law was repealed via referendum. The state had passed a law providing for straight-ticket voting, meaning that voters could check a single box and vote for all of the members of their party automatically. This law was nullified handily in a referendum. But the referendum didn't get rid of the previous statutes overseeing voting, just the law that had been passed.

Thus, the emergency manager referendum is a choice between emergency managers or emergency financial managers. While there are a number of fixes to the old law and some increased powers given to the emergency manager, the main difference between an EM and an EFM is in labor relations. Emergency managers are not required to negotiate with the local government’s unions, (though as a practical matter they still do). In addition, the emergency manager may request that the state treasurer amend a union contract term if it is a reasonable and necessary fix to the government's financial problems.

These are important powers to a government facing a financial emergency. Labor costs are the primary expense in most local governments, and Michigan's municipalities and school districts are highly unionized. Loosening negotiating rules and being able to amend these agreements is an important power for local managers to quickly fix a financial emergency.

Indeed, amendments in Flint, Pontiac and the Detroit Public Schools have saved taxpayers $100 million.

If supporters wanted to get rid of emergency managers as a whole, they could propose a ballot initiative that prohibits the policy instead of a referendum that resurrects the old law.

Voters are being lied to when told by repeal proponents that this is about local vs. state control. This is a vote about whether emergency managers get the tools to fix a financial emergency.

#####

James M. Hohman is assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.