Michigan Democrats, now in control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s office, introduced a package of bills last week meant to meet the state’s goal of reaching 100% clean energy through both rapidly phasing out coal and other fossil fuels and drastically cutting into carbon transportation emissions by the year 2035.
In introducing the effort, Michigan joins several other Midwestern states, including Minnesota, in setting tough goals for clean power and renewable energy resources.
EV PUSH THREATENS TO STRAIN POWER GRIDS AND THREATEN RELIABILITY
The “Clean Energy Future Plan” was introduced last week by Michigan Democratic state Sens. Sam Singh and Sue Shink. The set of bills would essentially codify Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D-MI) “Healthy Climate Plan” originally released last year.
The new proposals include phasing out all coal-fired power plants by 2030 and requiring utilities to produce 100% of their electricity using carbon-free sources by 2035, according to early texts of the bills.
They also require Michigan to develop a plan to reduce its business and home heating emissions by 17% by 2030 and to establish a new clean fuels standard to reduce the carbon intensity of all transportation fuels by 25% by the end of 2035.
Whitmer, a Democrat, has described the plan as a “roadmap” to reach economywide carbon neutrality by 2050 with “interim 2030 goals.”
State utilities, for the most part, have also signaled their eagerness to get on board. DTE Chairman and CEO Jerry Norcia said in a statement last week that the utility is looking forward to helping implement the plan and stop coal use by 2030, five years earlier than originally anticipated.
Lawmakers said the bills, slated to be made public this week, will be followed with more specific proposals and targets for clean energy.
But others are skeptical, noting that Michigan, unlike some other states who have committed to fast-tracking clean energy, has yet to outline certain specifics on phasing out coal or how it plans to meet renewable energy goals.
So far, at least 11 other U.S. states have released plans to commit to 100% clean or renewable energy, accounting for more than one-fourth of total U.S. electricity consumption. But not all are created equal.
In 2020, Rhode Island led the United States by committing to 100% renewable energy by 2030, by far the most ambitious target in the nation. But Rhode Island also consumes the second-lowest amount of energy per capita, second only to Hawaii.
Connecticut and New York have also committed to achieving 100% clean energy by 2040, with Connecticut seeking 40% renewable energy by 2030, while New York has upped that commitment to 70% renewable energy generation by the same year.
And Illinois became the first Midwest state to mandate a carbon-free electricity sector in September 2021 when Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act. That law seeks a phaseout of all fossil-fueled electricity generation by 2045.
Earlier this year, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) signed legislation requiring state utilities to get 100% of their electricity from carbon-free sources by 2040.
The bill establishes a standard for utilities to supply customers in the state with 80% carbon-free resources beginning in 2030 and increasing 10% every five years to reach 100% carbon-free electricity generation by 2040.
This transition is likely to be easier for Minnesota than for Michigan, however.
Unlike Michigan, Minnesota already ranks among the top 10 renewable energy states in the U.S., according to Energy Information Administration data.
Its utilities have also already made significant strides in carbon-free energy, with a decline of 54% in carbon emissions between 2005 and 2020, according to the state’s Greenhouse Gas Report.
Still, Michigan’s efforts are significant. Whitmer tweeted last week that Michigan can “define” the future of clean energy and manufacturing through its climate action. “We’re tacking climate change head on while lowering costs, creating jobs, and growing our economy,” she said.
But others aren’t so sure that Michigan can meet those targets as they stand today.
Currently, the state is still deeply reliant on coal power, which represented 32% of its electricity generation in 2021, according to EIA data, followed by nuclear energy at 30% and natural gas-fired plants at 27%.
Importantly, Michigan’s proposal would consider nuclear power a clean energy source, like solar and wind, to allow it to generate carbon-free resources.
Analysts say including nuclear is critical for Michigan to meet its carbon-free power goals, especially since nuclear power makes up the second-largest share of energy in the state, providing 30% of power, according to the EIA.
Meeting these targets is necessary for states if the U.S. hopes to deliver on the Biden administration’s target of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Still, transitioning too quickly to renewable energy could place additional strain on power grids in the foreseeable future, adding reliability concerns during extreme weather events or times of peak demand.
Grid operators have repeatedly warned in recent months about the risks of decarbonizing the grid too quickly.
Doing so without careful planning could result in blackouts during extreme weather events or even hours of peak demand.
In the near term, they have emphasized that dispatchable resources, such as natural gas generation, will remain critical as “bridge resources” to help meet medium- and long-term demand, especially in severe weather conditions.
“As we transition our system so rapidly, it is vitally important that we are building and operating a system that can be resilient to the extreme weather we might see in the future,” the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s director of reliability assessment and performance analysis, John Moura, said in a press release last year.
And those concerns aren’t going away overnight.
That’s “part of the challenge that I see” with Michigan’s proposal, Jason Hayes, the head of energy and environmental policy at the free market Michigan think tank Mackinac Center, said in an interview.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“I question, did they actually talk to people in the utilities — the engineers, the people that are going to actually build the plants or put the solar panels on the ground? Did they question, you know, what’s the chance that this might actually work?” he said.
“Because if they had, they wouldn’t have said 2030” as the deadline, he added.
