A few points that need clarification, or, outright correction:

1.    The $36/year figure and the other figures you use to compute your total are ceilings - requested by the utilities to ensure the renewable power does not end up being prohibitively expensive. The real cost is very likely to be lower. Quite possibly significantly lower.

2.    You present the "additional" cost of renewable power in a vacuum. Properly viewed in context it needs to be compared against the expense of new coal-fired power plants. IE: The additional energy we'll need has to come from somewhere - coal, nukes, renewables or saved through efficiency. The truth is, and many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle understand this, is that coal is becoming and increasingly expensive proposition. Renewables are now cost competitive with new coal plants, and may be cheaper once economies of scale bring down capital and operating expenses. The cost of new coal-fired generation was pegged at $1,600 per kilowatt of generation by the PSC one year ago. In less than a year, that cost has skyrocketed. Recently, Consumers Energy filed paperwork on its proposed Bay City plant that would cost $3,500 per Kw. Meanwhile, wind generation costs continue to drop.

3.    If you are going to refer to the cost of new electricity generation through renewables as a "tax", you should also begin to refer to the costs of building proposed new Michigan coal and nuclear plants as a "tax" also. Those plants are financed and secured by ratepayers, but I've never seen that cost referred to as a tax. Why not?

4.    Five Republicans on the House Energy Committee voted to pass these bills out. One voted against.

5.    You notably failed to include information about the energy efficiency programming included in the legislation. Energy efficiency costs about 3 cents per kilowatt hour saved, compared to 6 to 8 cents for existing coal-fired power, and double-digits for any new coal or nuclear plant. The cost savings for Michigan's businesses and homeowners will be tremendous, especially with all the low-hanging fruit available after a decade without any state EE programming.

6.    We import almost all of our coal, oil and natural gas in Michigan; funding jobs and economic development in other states and countries. Renewable energy and energy efficiency will mean significant jobs for installers, contractors, manufacturers and plenty of others in-state. This study http://aceee.org/pubs/e07x.htm shows how this stuff does more for the economy than a coal plant construction. And these folks aren't your left-wing enviros.

7.    25 States now have renewable energy standards. And most states have energy efficiency programs while Michigan has none. Those states are where wind turbine manufacturers, appliance makers, efficiency contractors and others are locating. Last year I asked the guy at Sears why they had only a handful of Energy Star refrigerators for sale. The answer was that the good stuff is shipped to states where energy efficiency programs provide consumer and business rebates and incentives to buy this stuff. Not Michigan. "We get the bottom of the barrel."

8.    Big, business savvy Michigan companies including Dow, Guardian Industries and Whirlpool have much to gain from this legislation. That's why they've lobbied Lansing for strong efficiency bills.

To be certain, there are parts of a new energy program that by necessity get entangled in the philosophical differences between the political parties. And those are fair game for debate and even hyperbole.

But there is SO MUCH win-win stuff that Michigan ought to be doing on the energy front that transcends party differences that it's disappointing to see it being used indiscriminately as yet another caveman club to swing at the opposition.

Thanks for listening.

Oh, and as I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with anonymity (and this post will narrow the field of anonymity even more!) I'll out myself as Hugh McDiarmid Jr. Although I post as an individual and any view I express is my own, my job is with the Michigan Environmental Council. I consider myself neither and DEM nor a REP. More often (but not always) agreeing with MichigalLiberal than RightMichigan but always open to a good argument or mind-changing.

I haven't been able to locate anything in my copy of the Michigan Constitution to support the assertion that this is within their purview.

That having been said, if the Senate shows some spine, this bill should did a quick and appropriate death.

Now that is out of the way, I'll add my $0.02 to the "renewable energy" argument.

Going through my e-mail today, I was sent an article about a method to kill two birds with one stone (so to speak), on a process called Plasma Arc Gasification. The process essentially converts landfill waste into energy and slag, which can be used to produce other products (and also cuts down on landfill space). The process is not trash incineration like the City of Detroit uses at the corner of I-75 & I-94. Waste isn't burned, but literally broken down into componet elements, which can be used to generate energy to power to plant or to be used in the power grid.

Instead of mandating renewable energy, how about working to promote something along those lines (i.e. easing any restrictions to getting some plants placed into operation)?