Clean energy groups are denouncing today’s decision by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to approve Detroit-based DTE Energy’s nearly billion-dollar natural gas plant proposal for East China Township.
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the MPSC green-lit the project despite evidence that Michigan’s residents and businesses would benefit significantly more from renewable energy resources.
“We are extremely disappointed with the Michigan Public Service Commission’s decision in this case,” comments Sean Gallagher, vice president of state affairs for SEIA. “Despite the overwhelming evidence that DTE failed to adequately consider alternatives, including a portfolio of renewable energy solutions that would lead to greater savings, more jobs, reduced risk and environmental benefits, the commission authorized a $1 billion plant that would not pass muster with Michigan’s laws if it were proposed today.”
According to the Sierra Club, the energy company’s proposal had drawn opposition from customers, businesses, elected officials and clean energy advocates, who submitted testimony outlining the economic advantages of energy efficiency, renewable energy and demand response over the gas plant.
The group says today’s decision concludes the MPSC proceedings regarding DTE’s request for authorization to charge its customers for the cost of building the gas plant. According to the Sierra Club, the utility says that the 1.1 GW gas plant would replace aging coal plants that have been announced for retirement between 2020 and 2023. However, studies commissioned by Sierra Club, the Michigan Environmental Council and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have shown multiple scenarios that clean energy and market purchases would be significantly lower-cost for customers.
The Sierra Club says DTE’s proposal was accompanied by an integrated resource plan in which the utility forecast that it would build a second nearly $1 billion gas plant in 2029, would not pursue additional renewable energy after 2023, and would burn more fossil fuels in 2029 and beyond than it does today. State law, however, requires DTE to submit for approval another plan in March 2019, which provides the commission and the utility another chance to put DTE on a cleaner path forward, the Sierra Club says.
“While DTE’s nearly $1 billion gas plant may benefit the utility and its corporate parent’s shareholders, it is a costly mistake for Michigan customers,” says Regina Strong, Michigan director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “We certainly hope that in its upcoming integrated resource plan, DTE will truly listen to the community, experts and advocates. It is time to make a real commitment to clean energy that would benefit customers, spur economic development and protect public health.”
Ariana Gonzalez, energy policy analyst with NRDC, says the approval of the plant “will prove to be an expensive and significant obstacle for Michigan’s clean energy future.”
“DTE is expanding gas generation, but the state is demanding more cost-effective renewable energy and energy efficiency. We must do better for Michigan families and businesses,” she says.
Sam Gomberg, senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Midwest office, notes the group is “extremely disappointed” in the MPSC’s decision. He says the utility’s proposal was based on a “flawed and biased analysis that includes unreasonably optimistic projections about natural gas prices; inaccurate assumptions about clean energy prices and capabilities; and a failure to consider cheaper, cleaner and less risky alternatives.”
“When UCS and other advocates analyzed the proposal, we found a combination of energy efficiency, renewable power and demand response could meet DTE’s power needs for less money, less risk, less pollution and fewer carbon emissions,” Gomberg continues. “It is a sad day for Michigan when robust analytics; hundreds of public comments from DTE customers; and input from dozens of economics, public health, engineering, energy and natural resources experts in opposition can’t convince the commission that another fossil fuel-burning power plant isn’t in ratepayers’ best interests. The commission’s decision means Michigan families will foot the bill for this plant, personally and financially, for decades to come.”
