Though recent legislative action leaves their place in question, alternative energy suppliers are still pushing to maintain a place in Michigan's electric market. In particular, that place appears to be in renewable power.
Members of the Customer Choice Coalition, at a media roundtable Wednesday, urged legislators when they return in two weeks to look again at the packages that have passed each chamber and move toward something that will preserve customer choice, particularly in light of expected rate increases.
But supporters of their cause acknowledged that caps on choice appeared to be a done deal, at least as part of the current package moving through the Legislature.
Sen. Wayne Kuipers (R-Holland), one of the key proponents of retaining the current customer choice system, said he did not hold out much hope of expanding customer choice beyond the 10 percent cap in HB 5524 .
"I think the competitive piece is taken off the table," he said. "There's no point of difference there."
Kuipers said part of the problem was the Senate got roped into having the shorter term discussion the House was having rather than continuing the longer-term discussion the Senate had been having. "If you look out 30 years, it makes a much more compelling argument why we need choice," he said.
But he said there was still room to improve the renewable portfolio standard to be sure those energy sources are built and to allow competitors a place in that market.
Governor Jennifer Granholm, at a separate event, said the energy package should be closer to the House version, but said she hopes the Legislature can finish the proposal when it comes back in mid-July because of the job-creating potential the legislation offers for expanding the state's power plant infrastructure.
Members of the coalition argued the plan as passed the Senate was potentially a larger hit to residential customers, and a larger source of profits to the utilities, than was the House package.
"I'm very disappointed in SB 213 ," said Barry Cargill, executive director of the coalition. "It will not result in any jobs and I question whether it will result in renewable energy."
The bill as passed the Senate provides for a 7 percent renewable energy requirement by 2015 (the House plan had called for 10 percent), but allows that to be offset by energy efficiency programs, clean coal technology and existing renewable contracts.
"The only way we're going to solve the energy problem is to produce more power at a lower cost or at least a competitive cost," said former PSC Chair and alternative supplier attorney Eric Schneidewind. "Under this legislation our two largest utilities could comply and not add one kilowatt to the grid and still collect $200 million a year (in renewable energy fees)."
He and others argued that as long as the utilities were allowed to collect a fee to cover the added cost of renewable power, that power would always cost more than traditional coal.
Kuipers said the package as it stands is still incomplete. "For us to move legislation that does not include net metering and doesn't include permitting is criminal," he said.
He said changing the permitting process for power plants is critical given testimony in committee that five years of the 10 to 15 years to build a plant is tied up in waiting for permits. "We could have fixed that," he said.
Andy Such with the Sustainable Energy Coalition said there is no need for a fund to cover the added costs of renewable power because that power can be developed to match the cost of coal. But if the fund is to be created, he said it should be under the control of the Public Service Commission, not the utilities.
"That fund should be available to anybody who's going to produce renewable energy," he said. "Let's put it under the Public Service Commission so people can participate."
Cargill said the Legislature and the governor also still need to rethink the cap on customer choice. Customers will see utility bills rise after the election, and at least giving them the opportunity to look for a better deal would take some of the pressure off lawmakers, he said.
The package also is sending the message that the state is not open to new business, said Tanya Paslawski with Direct Energy. "Really what it's communicating to business outside the two big utilities is your investment isn't wanted here," she said.
