Yesterday Michigan voters turned down Proposal 3 and its call to change the constitution to require 25% renewable energy by 2025. That vote made clear that while most Michiganders like renewable energy, they don’t support changing the state Constitution to make it happen.

MLUI Executive Director Hans Voss

During the debate that led up to the vote, officials from the electric-utility industry and other opponents insisted that energy policy should be made in the Legislature – and some of them went out of their way to emphasize that they do indeed support increasing Michigan’s production of renewable energy. So, now we’ll see if the Legislature and the many voices that weighed in on Prop. 3 can come together with a long-term energy strategy for Michigan.

The Michigan Land Use Institute worked hard to build support for Prop. 3. I thank all of the wonderful people and businesses that came on board as supporters and the many dedicated volunteers who worked so hard to get the word out.

We’ll continue to stay involved with what happens next in the Legislature. We’ll also keep our focus on working with diverse partners – some of whom were on opposite sides of the Prop. 3 debate – to develop model community-based projects that foster renewables and energy efficiency in our region. And we’ll make sure our on-the-ground work helps trigger and inform action in Lansing on this most important issue.

I am as convinced as ever that diversifying Michigan’s energy production and expanding renewables will bring many benefits to our environment, our state’s economy, and our ability to lead the innovation of the 21st century clean energy economy. 

Despite a tough loss on Prop. 3, we remain optimistic here at the Institute. We’re ready to work toward solutions, and we’ll keep on pushing forward toward our clean energy, pro-environment, pro-economy vision.

Thank you, 
Hans Voss

17 Comments

4397 days ago, 4:31pm | by Renee Latka | Report Comment

A big thank you to Hans Voss and all of the amazing people at the Michigan Land Use Institute for their continued work toward a better tomorrow. Hope is a great incentive. As a parent of two children I am glad to know that people like you never stop pushing for a brighter future. And hopefully that future will be full clean energy... Cheers!

4394 days ago, 8:39am | by stondeez | Report Comment

Mr Voss quote,

"That vote made clear that while most Michiganders like renewable energy,..."

How can he make this assumption, when only one county in the state (Washtenaw ) voted yes on the Mlui sponsored proposal, and that in nine counties with wind farms or active plans for them, the proposal was rejected by a greater percentage of voters than it was statewide, with 73 percent voting no. Those counties include Missaukee, Huron, Osceola, Delta, Mason Sanilac, Emmet, Gratiot, Tuscola.
That data certainly doesnt make clear that most Michiganders like renewable energy.

I dont see how Mr Voss can make that leap when the people in these counties with industrial wind turbines, who have been propped up as poster children for your misleading cause for years, have voted overwhelmingly to stop the industrialization and misuse of agricultural land by groups like yours.

So I believe with the data I have presented, not just my subjective opinion like Mr Voss', I can make the statement .....

That the vote made clear that while most Michiganders DON'T like renewable energy, they also don’t support changing the state Constitution to make it happen.

4391 days ago, 8:39am | by Greg | Report Comment

Could not agree with "stondeez" more. I was wondering about the same comment. They seem to have blinders on and assume the electorate was just confussed.

4389 days ago, 1:24pm | by Michigan Land Use Institute | Report Comment

Thank you guys for your comments and for keeping this discussion lively and ongoing.

The statement that the "vote made clear that ... most Michiganders like renewable energy" is based on recent polling. Voters cited the constitutional amendment as the main reason for opposing Proposal 3, according to the poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. Also, 73 percent of voters support increasing renewable energy in Michigan.
That includes 78 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of independents and 65 percent of Republicans.

4389 days ago, 7:44pm | by Joyce | Report Comment

While I heartily endorse renewal energy (our farm land is part of the wind farm in Breckenridge, MI), I believe that increasing energy production via renewal energy sources should be accomplished by legislative action, rather than changing the state constitution.

4388 days ago, 8:05pm | by stondeez | Report Comment

Mlui,
It seems that you forgot to mention that the "recent polling", you have quoted,was payed for by you and your partners at MIenergyMIjobs. As we say out here in the country "He who pays the fiddler, gets to pick the tune."

Here's the proof from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research's website,

Michigan voters support renewable energy

Nov 15, 2012 Posted by GQRR Category GQRR

Nearly three-fourths of Michigan voters want to see expansion of the state’s use of renewable energy, according to a new poll released Thursday and conducted for Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs

Here is the tune that I would request from the fiddler, in honor of MIenergyMIjobs use of data.....,

Ida Cox's

"CHERRY PICKING BLUES"

4388 days ago, 9:21pm | by Stondeez | Report Comment

Mlui
Its really funny that you would say that Mr Voss' statement that the "vote made clear that ... most Michiganders like renewable energy" is based on recent polling"
when Mr Voss' article was posted on November 7th and that the press release from MienergyMijobs about the polling was just released November 15th.

The polling was completed on the 5-6 of November according to the press release from MienergyMijobs, so why would MienergyMijobs wait until the 15th if they had the results on the 7th, and if Mr Voss already new the results on the 7th why didn't he put them in his article?
When it comes to executive director Voss' article and the follow up Mlui post,it seems to me, there is something funny going on here , as we say out here in the country......,

Fish always stink from the head down

4385 days ago, 10:29am | by dubious | Report Comment

"Stondeez" is all over these boards playing the dog in the manger...Never giving an alternative other than NO!!... If he doesn’t have something productive to say...he.… ( Or she…or they…) should stay off this site. We in the real world are struggling with the issue of land use and where alternative energy and especially his greatest bugaboo...wind energy may fit in.

4385 days ago, 12:48pm | by force vs consent | Report Comment

To Dubious,

Wind doesn't fit in period. It is the biggest scam currently being perpetrated on the American people. It is expensive, it costs jobs, it destroys communities and is not very effective at reducing pollution.

4385 days ago, 7:23pm | by stondeez | Report Comment

Dubious,

Mlui disagrees with you, heres a quote from their earlier post for your proof.

" Thank you guys for your comments and for keeping this discussion lively and ongoing."

As we say out here in the country.....,
We don't need a melting pot in this country, We need a salad bowl. In a salad bowl, you put in the different things. You want the vegetables - the lettuce, the cucumbers, the onions, the green peppers - to maintain their identity. You appreciate differences.

4382 days ago, 11:21am | by Dubious | Report Comment

Force versus consent....thanks for your opinion. Now just substitute coal for wind and you'll begin to see our point.

Stondeez, you have yet to offer up a solution to how our particular salad bowl can come up with a mutually satisfactory outcome.

4377 days ago, 6:01pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

According to EON Netz, wind is a very inefficient substitute for fossil fuel.

http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/EON_Netz_Windreport2005_eng.pdf

"Wind energy is only able to replace traditional
power stations to a limited extent.
Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited
load factor even when technically available. It
is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption."

4377 days ago, 6:02pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

cont....

"Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power
capacity must be permanently online in order
to guarantee power supply at all times."

Coal and wind cannot be exchanged.

4376 days ago, 9:08am | by dubious | Report Comment

....wind was never meant to replace coal, but to serve as an adjunct....a way to provide energy without compromising the air, water and land...

4374 days ago, 3:36pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Than why all the breathless comparisons between coal and wind costs? Why all the talk about shutting down coal plants with new wind? Why compare the cost of "new coal" plants with wind plants if wind cannot replace those plants? You concede that is all marketing hype?

Is you next campaign going to tell people that wind doesn't replace coal, it is an adjunct to coal and that as long as there are wind plants there will necessarily be coal plants? If so, welcome to the IICC!

4374 days ago, 6:32pm | by dubious | Report Comment

Coal plants are something we'll be living with for some time...The spirit behind the push for alternative forms of power production is a desire to provide for the energy we need without compromising the environment. What is it you don’t like about wind energy??...The subsidies??...The aesthetics of wind turbines??...what harm Kevon could the expansion of wind power possibly do??...And if there is harm how could it possibly be worse than the mess we’re in from decades of burning coal, not to ment

4374 days ago, 6:34pm | by Dubious | Report Comment

...not to mention the years to come....