Truth has a habit of emerging from unexpected places. An article in the Daily Kos about the desire to end dependence on fossil fuels for energy needs reveals a “nasty little secret” about wind energy: It relies on fossil fuels. That’s a message wind energy opponents in Michigan have been trying to get across to the news media and the public over the past few years.

The article is part of a series titled “Getting to Zero,” by Keith Pickering, and is written with the premise that global warming is a dire and immediate threat. It states, “If civilization is to survive, we need to get to zero emission of fossil carbon, and we need to get there rapidly.” Overall it paints a pessimistic portrait of efforts to reduce carbon emissions from human sources.

A major aspect of the article’s pessimism about actually “getting to zero” pertains to wind energy. The following paragraphs serve as an example:

Wind farms are dependent on the weather to work, and most of the time they're sitting idle or underperforming because the wind isn't strong enough to turn the blades. The capacity factor (CF) for wind varies by location, but Iowa is pretty good, so let's assume a CF of 35 [percent]. Nuclear has no such dependency and can operate around the clock.

In the [U.S.], nuclear plants have an average CF of 90 [percent].

So when we factor CF into those prices … most of wind's advantage is wiped out by just that factor alone.

Over the long term it gets even worse for wind, because nuclear plants today are engineered for a 60-year lifetime, and wind generators are engineered for a 20 or 25 year lifetime. ... That means that wind is cheaper than nuclear in the short term, but more expensive in the long term. Then there's the backup problem. ... When the wind dies, the lights still have to stay on. Right now that's done with natural gas. ...”

According to Kevon Martis, director of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a non-profit organization concerned about the construction of wind turbines in the region, what the Daily Kos article shows is that people knowledgeable about the technology understand that wind energy depends more on fossil fuels than on wind, no matter their views on contentious issues like global warming.

“Any informed student of wind energy, regardless of whether they are on the left or the right politically, understands that, far from freeing Michigan ratepayers from fossil-fueled electricity, wind energy actually binds us to fossil fuels at roughly a two-parts-fossil one-part-wind ratio,” Martis said. “Properly understood, wind energy should always be called ‘fossil-wind.’ What’s sad is that the vast majority of Michigan residents and probably members of the news media as well are not aware of this information. That situation needs to be remedied.”

In its assessment of wind energy, the Daily Kos article states: "Wind-plus-gas-backup is certainly better than gas alone, but it's not the endpoint of a fossil-free grid, and it never will be."

One of the strongest arguments against wind energy is the assertion that “natural gas alone” would produce fewer emissions than when it is combined with wind. That's because having to switch natural gas generation on and off, literally at the whim of the way the wind blows, is less efficient and therefore less clean.

However, a news media and public that mistakenly believe wind energy is just wind, rather than two-thirds fossil fuels, cannot be expected to comprehend or participate in such a debate. Restricting important facts or (as some still insist) “alleged facts” about wind energy to the province of “experts only” is an affront to transparency and an obstacle to open public discourse. The Legislature owes the people of Michigan a hearing or series of hearings on this issue.

David Wand, deputy director of strategic communications with the American Wind Energy Association, did not return a phone call offering him the opportunity to comment.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could extend virtual “right-to-work” status to government employees in every state. Under such a ruling, those workers would no longer be required to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.

The case is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, brought by teachers in a forced unionism state who object to so-called “agency fees” that workers must pay to the union even if they elect not to be a “member.” First, however, the justices must decide whether to place the case on their docket for the next term.

“We hope the court will hear this case and decide that agency fees are unconstitutional for all public employees,” said the brief’s counsel of record, Patrick Wright, the director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation.

Federal law requires unions to represent all workers in a union-organized workplace, members and non-members alike, and the agency fees are supposed to include just the cost of that representation and no other union activities. Unions claim it is not unreasonable to ask workers to pay for these services. The Supreme Court upheld agency fees in a 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

The percentage of full dues that agency fees represents varies from union to union. And in practice, those fees go to union activities beyond just directly representing members – like rallies and attempts to persuade workers to vote a certain way.

Wright says the issue resurfaced last year when the Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that agency fees could not be charged to home-based health care workers. But the Court did not address the question of whether agency fees are proper for employees in actual government workplaces and units.

In her dissent in Harris v. Quinn, Justice Elena Kagan argued that broad elimination of agency fees would hamper individual states as they seek to determine how best to manage government workforces. Some states may decide it is in the public interest to grant collective bargaining privileges to government employee unions, and if workers are not required to pay agency fees, their refusal could leave public sector unions with insufficient resources to participate in the bargaining process.

(Federal labor law does not apply to state and local government employers, leaving it up to individual legislatures to decide whether to grant government employee unions collective bargaining privileges.)

In its brief to the Supreme Court in the Friedrichs case, the Mackinac Center seeks to demonstrate that unions can weather the elimination of agency fees. The brief uses data to show that union membership did not drop precipitously after Michigan’s right-to-work law went into effect two years ago. It also includes comments from union leaders themselves suggesting there was no exodus of dues-paying members.

One of these comments came from Michigan Education Association spokesperson Doug Pratt. A state Senate committee member asked him if the union wished to be relieved of the burden of “exclusive representation” and the possibility of “free-riders,” or people who could still receive union representation without paying either dues or agency fees.

After a pause, Pratt said “no.”

Under exclusive representation, employees in a union-organized workplace who choose not to be union members are still subject to the rules and conditions set forth in a collective bargaining agreement.

Wright argues that such comments are proof that even the unions don’t regard “free-loading” as a threat to their existence.

Specifically, the Mackinac Center’s brief asks the Court to hear Friedrichs and overturn Abood.

Friedrichs could give the Court the opportunity to clarify its thinking on exclusive representation once and for all, says Wright.

“Friedrichs has a chance to be a monumental decision,” Wright said. “Our experience with right-to-work here in Michigan gave us expertise that we have provided to the Court, and we hope it ends the practice of compelling individuals to contribute to a union they may want nothing to do with.”

The Mackinac Center has created a website showing the union membership data it used in its argument. Readers can also find a copy of the brief here and a copy of tables with supporting data here.

~~~~~

Unionization Case Before the Supreme Court Could Have Lasting National Impact

Harris v. Quinn