While rental prices in Michigan have entered the political arena recently, newly released survey data shows rates here are below the national average. The survey was released on Aug. 31, a few days before roughly 200 Michiganders descended on the state Capitol Sept. 5 for a rally to complain that rental rates are too high.

Michigan ranks 30th in the nation on an important measurement of rental costs, according to rentdata.org, which collected information from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In this case, being No. 1 means having the most expensive rent, while 25 and 26 are near the national average and 30 is below it.

HUD collects data on rental units, with utilities included, focusing on the amount representing the 40th percentile in each state. The number for Michigan is $923 per month. Arkansas has the lowest number among the 50 states, at $768 per month. The ten states with the highest rent for a two-bedroom unit averaged over $1,500 per month. Hawaii has the most expensive rent at $1,951 per month.

Some Michigan legislators introduced in June what is sometimes dubbed a “renter’s bill of rights,” aimed at creating more rental properties at cheaper costs. The legislation is likely to have the opposite effect, according to a recent report in Michigan Capitol Confidential.

Media headlines report rent prices as a factor driving higher inflation. “As to whether higher rents cause inflation, or rent causes inflation, it’s neither,” said Mackinac Center Director of Fiscal Policy James Hohman. “The Federal Reserve tries to control inflation and it doesn’t do it by setting rent prices.”

The Consumer Price Index is an official measurement of inflation, and it includes rent for primary residences. Rent has increased 20.1% from 2017 to 2022, slightly higher than CPI, which increased by 19.4% over the same period.

The median household income in Michigan is 92% of the national average, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, while the median gross rent here is 82% of the national average.

A group of about 30 Michigan lawmakers are urging their colleagues to embrace nuclear energy as the state moves away from fossil fuels, Michigan Capitol Confidential has learned.

The nuclear caucus is a bipartisan, bicameral effort, said Rep. Samantha Steckloff, D-Farmington Hills, a co-chair.

“Nuclear will be part of what we do in Michigan,” Steckloff told CapCon.

“Energy is a nonpartisan, bipartisan concept, but that’s not been followed,” said Rep. Graham Filler, R-St. Johns, who co-chairs the nuclear caucus with Steckloff.

Steckloff sees opposition to nuclear as generational, not partisan. Colleagues who remember emergencies like Three Mile Island and disasters like Chernobyl are hesitant to embrace nuclear. So members of the nuclear caucus work to explain the benefits, trying to move nuclear into the Overton Window of Michigan’s energy transition.

So far, they’ve got the attention of about one fifth of Michigan’s lawmakers.

When Steckloff was asked what powers her colleagues’ fixation on wind and solar and their relative disinterest in nuclear, Steckloff said, “I don’t know.”

Filler, however, does see some politics at play.

“People who back the Dems are funded by wind and solar,” Filler added.“And philosophically, they believe in it. They live in an unrealistic world, but we have to deal with it.”

When Gov. Gretchen Whitmer gave her “What’s next?” speech recently, she touted a 100% clean energy standard for Michigan. But the marketing used wind turbines. And she never mentioned nuclear.

Filler believes the case for nuclear will win the day, once people know more about it.

Last year, Filler championed House Bill 6019, ordering a statewide nuclear feasibility study. That effort was successful, and became Public Act 218 of 2022. The law requires the Michigan Public Service Commission, the state’s energy regulator, to hire an outside consulting firm for $250,000, and to publish its findings in 18 months.

“The use of solar, wind, biomass, and other green technologies are beginning to slow[ly] have an impact on slowing the emissions of greenhouse gases,” read the House Fiscal Agency analysis of Public Act 2018. “However, some feel that these sources are not always sufficient to meet demand, especially in geographic areas where weather patterns mean that the electricity that can be produced on a daily or hourly basis does not always match the needs of consumers who rely on that electricity.”

Enter the nuclear option. Filler sees it as the best of both worlds: reliable and carbon-free. On the downside, it is expensive, and the regulatory process is brutal. Any nuclear development will take many years to get up.

“This is something that may not get done in the 2030s,” Steckloff said of bringing new nuclear resources online.

But fellow lawmakers and the governor are pushing for a “100% clean energy plan” this fall. But plans change.

Last week, Sen. Erika Geiss, D-Taylor, announced intentions to move the target date to 2040, rather than 2035 as Senate Bill 271 is now written. At a Senate Energy Committee hearing, Senate Bill 271 was on the agenda. But there was no testimony, because new language is coming, Bridge Michigan reports.

The preliminary nuclear feasibility report is expected late this year, and the final report will be published in the spring. Filler hopes the report will answer questions for doubtful colleagues, including cost estimates and financial impact.

“About three or four years ago, people started talking about ‘How can we be clean and also powerful?’” Filler said. “Well, that’s what nuclear is.”