The federal government says virtually all of Michigan, except for the shores of the Great Lakes, is "poor" or "marginal" for wind energy. But that's not stopping a variety of groups and some legislators from pushing to increase the state's renewable energy mandate.

In response, a protest is planned for Monday at the Kellogg Center in East Lansing during the American Wind Energy Association Wind Forum.

At issue is an ongoing effort by the wind energy industry to increase Michigan's current 10 percent government imposed renewable energy mandate. In Michigan, renewable energy has become a euphemism for wind power.

Last November, Michigan voters rejected Proposal 3 by a 64 percent to 36 percent margin. It would have constitutionally increased Michigan's renewable energy mandate to 25 percent by 2025. Yet, in spite of the voters' rejection of the idea just a year ago, wind power proponents continue to pursue higher mandates.

In fact, the mandate percentages now being discussed are higher than the 25 percent of Proposal 3. Mandates of 30 percent and higher are being promoted.

"The names on the speakers list for the AWEA event are the who's-who of wind profiteers and opportunists in the state of Michigan," said Kevon Martis, director of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, which is organizing the protest. "These are the same people who pushed for the failed Proposal 3 ballot measure last year. Our message to them is that 'no means no.' "

In 2008, the state Legislature passed an energy bill that became Public Act 295. The law mandated that 10 percent of Michigan's energy be generated by alternative sources by 2015. That mandate was sold to lawmakers and the public as a means of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, in part, by replacing so-called "dirty" coal burning plants with “clean” wind power.

A federal judge has written that the Michigan law is likely an unconstitutional violation of interstate commerce, since it discriminates against out-of-state companies.

But the law did not require that emission levels be monitored to measure whether the mandate was working. No cost/benefit analysis was required by the state's renewable energy mandate. Instead, it was assumed, apparently on faith, that wind power would be an effective method of decreasing emissions.

Because wind energy's output is dependent on unpredictable changes in the weather, activists who oppose a renewable energy mandate maintain that it is not a standalone replacement for fossil fuel-fired generating plants. Instead they see wind power as — at best — a fuel saving accessory for fossil generation, primarily gas. They point out that, in Michigan, wind energy contracts average $80 per Mwh (megawatt hour) and can only save $25 to $35 per Mwh of fossil fuel.

Those skeptical of the value of wind power in Michigan argue that a steady switch to natural gas would result in lower emissions than occur with wind power and do so at a much reduced cost to consumers.

"Energy policy is a matter of life and death," Martis said. "It must not be the playground for the latest theories of armchair environmentalists. The $2.5 billion squandered on wind energy to date could have actually cut coal emission in half by now had it been spent on gas turbine generation rather than wind (and it would have) delivered cheaper electricity than wind."

Additionally, Martis said that Michigan ratepayers would see lower costs if they could purchase wind energy produced in states where wind is more reliable than it is in Michigan.

"Michigan is locked into 20-year wind power purchase agreements at $80 per Mwh," Martis said. "That same wind energy is available for $30 per Mwh from Iowa. Why should Michigan ratepayers pay 2.5 times what that energy is worth?"

Wind power advocates maintain that higher mandates are worthwhile.

"American wind power is a proven, reliable source of electricity that provides benefits for ratepayers and job-seekers in Michigan and across the country," said Lindsay North of the AWEA. "That's probably why polls show over 70 percent of Americans support growing more wind power (according to Gallup) and nearly three-fourths of Michigan voters want to see the state's use of renewable energy expanded."

North said wind power brings economic benefits to Michigan.

"Over $1.9 billion has been invested in Michigan by wind power," North said. "Michigan landowners receive $2.8 million in lease payments annually. Because of private development of wind in the Great Lakes State, Michigan now ranks 10^th in the country in total wind energy related jobs and there are now 40 manufacturing facilities in the state, helping to support more than 3,000 jobs. With the right policies in place, Michigan can add more jobs and more private investment in the years ahead.

"In terms of savings for ratepayers, due to declining costs of wind and other renewables, Detroit-based DTE has decided to slash its renewable energy surcharge, an action that will reduce customer bills by $90 billion," North continued. "And a new report by Synapse Energy Economics indicates doubling the use of wind energy in the Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes states would save consumers nearly $7 billion per year."

When the mandate was originally signed in 2008, Gov. Jennifer Granholm promised 17,000 jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 4,256 jobs in the category that includes solar and wind jobs in 2008. By 2011, that had dropped to 3,728.

Martis and some analysts question why the state needs to mandate select energy sources if they are such good deals for businesses and consumers.

Those who oppose Obamacare talk about delaying, altering or repealing the law. Yet, without the power that only an election can mandate, those are mere disorganized mumblings.

At some point that mandate could materialize, but until that day arrives, what opponents of the law really need is to offer is a pathway out of Obamacare.

Predicting that Obamacare will be a train wreck has short-term political value. There is a possibility the law will derail itself. However, relying on that possibility alone could prove insufficient. Even if Obamacare crashed and burned, its opponents are at risk of ultimately failing unless they are prepared to deal with its residue and remnants.

Free-market policymakers should start picturing what the status of Obamacare is likely to be a year from now, or even several years from now. Sooner or later, many Americans might find themselves thoroughly disgusted with the law while at the same time being fearful of losing access to health care if the law were to suddenly vanish. The danger is that without a clear pathway out that fear might outweigh the disgust.

If Obamacare is as bad as its detractors claim, what large numbers of Americans will be seeking in the future will not only be an alternative, but a bridge leading from Obamacare to that alternative. To be politically viable this bridge will have to be in a comprehensive form around which its adherents could rally.

A list of possible reforms within Obamacare might gain popular support in the months and years ahead. But to maximize the impact of this, such a list should only be a starting point. From a political perspective, these reforms — and hopefully other changes — would work best as part of an overall escape plan. A single and identifiable plan, focused on more choices and flexibility, would be easier for the public to embrace than a loose collection of ideas.

With all the rhetoric about Obamacare churned out over the past five years, it can be difficult to have a clear picture of what it actually is. It is not government just now getting into the business of health care. Government has been up to its eyeballs in the American health care system for decades.

Obamacare is health care becoming totally immersed in government. It is aimed at converting the health care system into a complex and multi-layered government program.

Most of the worries about Obamacare aren't about it creating new problems. Realistically, what's to be feared most about it is the possibility (some would say probability) that the problems of the pre-Obamacare system, including costs, will be 20 times worse under Obamacare.

Assuming Obamacare turns out to be the train wreck that so many believe, arguments for a less centralized system will no longer be in the abstract. Reactions to the Obamacare experience could make the free market arguments come to life.

The difficulties of creating such a plan should not be underestimated. Nevertheless, the task is worth the toil.

(Editor’s Note: Jack Spencer is Capitol Affairs Specialist for Michigan Capitol Confidential. He is a veteran Lansing-based journalist. His columns do not necessarily represent viewpoints of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy or Michigan Capitol Confidential.)

#####