Actually, that part is the one surprising positive in a very dismal, destructive package. Businesses have been subsidizing residential customers all along, and Michigan just can't afford that anymore.

The most dismal part is the completion of the repeal of electricity competition begun by the PSC in 2004. That shows the absolute moral bankruptcy in Lansing - those SOBs just sold Michigan's energy future to DTE for 40 pieces of silver deposited in their caucus campaign warchests.

There are two silver linings to the "renewable" mandates. First, they're phony. I haven't dug in yet for the details, but the bill contains a circuit breaker to allow the mandate to be suspended any time it costs too much, which means an amount that will piss off middle-class rate-payers and voters. Which of course will be triggered every year, since the mandate is impossible.

1. Had this package not passed, our utility bills would have increased substantially anyway. Energy legislation characterized as "raising your bills" often implies the alternative is not paying higher bills. This is a false choice. Coal costs are skyrocketing. Capital costs for plant construction...ditto.

2. The cost of wind power is now very near, and in some projections lower cost than comparable generation of nuclear, new coal, and all other conventional generation. Even if that turns out NOT to be the case, this package has a safety valve that gives utilities an off-ramp should the cost of renewables be more than 5 percent more expensive than new generation.

3. The fact that the "renewable" charge you'll soon see on your utility bill is a sad concession to the utility companies who like to deflect the blame for the higher costs on the "greens." The mix of renewables will actually lower bills in the long term, and be a valuable hedge against rising conventional fuel prices. When was the last time I saw a special line item on my DTE bill for capital costs of the coal plants? Why should I see a special line item for wind turbines?

4. The energy efficiency program is the ONLY portion of this package that will reduce energy bills. Surely. Demonstrably. Unquestionably. Even Mike Bishop said so. It is a travesty that Michigan has not done this for more than a decade. THIS PROGRAM WILL SAVE YOU MONEY.

Nick labels efficiency and renewables "green guilt" projects -- an unfortunate and wholly inaccurate moniker that neither recognizes their huge economic value nor their job creation potential.

The 1970s were fascinating. And fun. But this is 2008 and discerning observers should be able to stop parroting tired old cliches and recognize what has changed: Renewable energy is mainstream for economic reasons. Preventing power plant pollution has as much to do with public health and economic costs as with saving the planet. And the environmental movement has as many Phd's as hippies.

But, sorry, "Fledgling Wind Energy Inc." you'll get no help whatsoever in competing on a level playing field with them.

Now, since I am unable, for some reason, to post a response to your last two posts, I must comment on both of them in this one Comment. With that said, you made the claim that NO ONE is saying that wind will replace fossil fuel en toto. Au contraire, mon ami.

Obama has an ad which states that he can, 10 years, replace fossil fuel with wind. Will you join me in saying that he is a liar?

In your response to Mr. Gillman, you talk about energy efficiency. Sorry to say, dear friend, that energy efficiency does NOT lessen our consumption of energy - quite the contrary. Energy efficiency causes prices to drop (that old productivity thing again), and entices people to use more of it. Thus, we need more of it.

Let's look at a couple of examples. Cars of 30-40 years ago got between 7-20 miles to the gallon, depending on the make and model. Today's mid-size V-6s get easily 30 mpg (just went to Texas over Labor Day with my cousin in his 2003 Ford Taurus, and we got 31 mpg overall). Has this decreased the demand on fuel? Hardly, the average driver in America consumes more gasoline today than 30-40 years ago (when we were told that we had less than 40 years of oil left in the world).

Let's consider electricity as our other example. All new appliances boast of being energy efficient. Has that lessened our demand for electricity? Again, not so much. Instead we fill our houses with new appliances. Whereas our parents had 1 TV, most Americans have 2 or more. We have DVD players and VCRs that our parents didn't know about. Central air is a relatively new invention. There's a whole host of other things we have in our homes now that consumes energy - even though we have become more energy efficient.

Reader's Digest published a book years ago that I think is called "Back to Basics." (I could be wrong about the title). In it, they explain how to build your own windmill, and solar panels. What I encourage you, McDirt, to do is to do that. Go off the grid. Get yourself a couple windmills, cover your rooftop with solar panels, and replace what appliances you can with non-electric ones (the Mennonites have a catalogue full of all kinds of stuff like that). See how well you do.

A couple things: since you seem like a man who will at least consider a variety of positions on the subject, please read "The Bottomless Well," by Huber and Mills. They are NOT anti-alternatives, but argue instead that the technology is outpacing all these government mandates. Please take a shot at the book.

In regards to my comments on wind and solar, I was not trying to be frisky, I was serious. I have known of a couple of guys who had two different experiences with wind in the past. One, a friend from Anaheim CA, had 3 windmills and had to supplement. Another, here in Michigan, was an acquaintance of a friend of mine, and he had one windmill and seems to have had more than enough power. Also, Karl Hess, the noted libertarian (backed Goldwater) and neo-leftist (would probably back Obama today), used wind and solar to help his communities that he founded; one in downtown Washington DC and the other in rural West Virginia. You can read about these experiences in his book "Community Technology."

You see, I don't believe that the answers are to be found with large government-mandated monopolies, but in small investors and entrepreneurs who will find workable solutions to these problems. I personally like the Waste-to-Energy (burning trash for electric generation) that is being used successfully in a number of cities. With oversight, they have minimized (very much so) the pollution potential, and generate around 15% of each city's needs. Better than throwing it in a landfill or in the ocean, right?

I'll see about a wind turbine for our house. But first I'll probably need a big govt loan from Barack to make it happen :)