Like CapCon on Facebook
Follow CapCon on XActivist's Critique of Prop 3 Study Completely Incorrect
Union of Concerned Scientists analysis of Mackinac Center study wrong on every single point
Jeff Deyette at the pro-Proposal 3 “Union of Concerned Scientists,” makes factually incorrect assertions about the Mackinac Center’s study on Proposal 3’s economic impact.
In fact, not a single one of his criticisms is accurate.
- Deyette states that the Mackinac Center “cherry picks only the negative impacts on the economy,” and does not include the benefits of increased investment. The STAMP model used in our analysis, however, explicitly considers the increased investments this mandate will cause as well as the decreased investment caused by the increase in electrical costs. In fact, our study is the only study on the 25 percent mandate that includes both the costs and the benefits. Ironically, Deyette points to a study that considers only benefits but no costs of the mandate (and even uses the misleading “job-years” as its primary metric).
- Deyette asserts that we do not consider the marginal costs of the 25 percent mandate above the current 10 percent mandate. He forgets Graphic 2, which does so.
- Deyette makes the judgment that the study used “very little state-specific data,” though he does not state whether that makes any assertion in the study inaccurate. Further, the study used state-specific information on electrical prices, usage, projections, mostly available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
- Deyette wrongly alleges that the study “ignores” the cost cap included as part of the proposal. The cap is fully addressed in the study and does not have an impact on the economic consequences of the mandate.In short, the study shows that the cost cap only addresses the cost of "compliance" with the mandate. This requires further bureaucratic interpretation to be an effective cap on consumer rates. The calculated cost of compliance can shift the economic costs of mandate into other "recoverable charges" passed along to consumers. In addition, the costs of subsidized power would not be included in the mandate, though this has economic consequences. Finally, utility firms may decide to pay an increase in the cost of the mandate out of their accumulated reserves, which would also have economic impacts. These points are spelled out in the study but ignored by Deyette’s criticism
- He also asserts that the study uses overly conservative estimations for wind energy capacity. But his preferred figure is within the range used in the study.
He offers no other substantive criticism, though he comments about the trend toward lower costs in renewable energy. This tactic indicates the issue: if the electricity sources he prefers become cost-effective, then no mandate is necessary to encourage their use. Mandating the generation of more expensive electricity costs the state economy, period.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Trump administration sues Michigan over climate litigation against oil and gas companies
State climate conference to tout clean energy plans that will raise electricity costs
Two Democratic lawmakers agree: AG Nessel sicced government on business owners during pandemic
Proposal 2: More Power for Government Unions
(Editor’s Note: The following is excerpted and abridged from the text of a speech delivered by Michael LaFaive, director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative for the Mackinac Center, to various groups around the state about the ballot proposals on the Nov. 6 ballot. We'll post one part each day this week explaining Proposals 1 through 5.)
Monday: Proposal 1 a Referendum on PA 4
Today: Proposal 2, The 'Collective Bargaining' Amendment
A “yes” vote on Proposal 2 would allow government union collective bargaining agreements to supersede state laws. It would make passing a right-to-work law impossible, repeal existing laws like “paycheck protection” and “dues check off” and probably cost taxpayers at least $1.6 billion in projected savings annually.
It also would abrogate in some way 170 Michigan laws, and over time make Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act all but worthless. A no vote rejects this union power grab.
Here’s part of what the proposed amendment says:
In other words, mandates written into government collective bargaining agreements will hold the power of constitutional mandate. No past, present or future law could change that.
If Proposal 2 is adopted, passing a right-to-work law — where workers need not financially support a union to work in a unionized environment — would be impossible. Americans are migrating to right-to-work states because of more job opportunities in those states. Paycheck protection and dues check off reforms for government employees would be repealed because these affect union dues collection and so are explicitly written into the initiative.
Paycheck protection prohibits unions from spending member dues on political campaigns without an employee’s express consent. Dues check-off requires government workers to give written permission to have union dues automatically deducted from their paycheck and delivered by their employer to the union.
If Proposal 2 passes, other solid labor and fiscal reforms could be reversed, costing Michigan taxpayers some $1.6 billion in annual projected savings, according to my colleagues F. Vincent Vernuccio and James Hohman.
It is also conceivable that unions would use their new powers to limit citizens’ access to government information through the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. Under Proposal 2, nothing would prevent government unions from inserting a collective bargaining agreement provision prohibiting disclosure of government documents, regardless of FOIA. They could even prohibit making public the collective bargaining agreement itself, and this provision would trump the requirements in Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act.
A "yes" vote on Proposal 2 would protect government employees unions directly, raise the cost of public services dramatically and ultimately place real limitations on acquiring government information. A “no” vote would reject the scheme.
For more information on the Nov. 6 ballot proposals, please see www.MIballot2012.org.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Want to support our work?
Keep free-market news flowing with your gift to Michigan Capitol Confidential today
Make a gift! Already a supporter
More From CapCon