Michigan voters are faced with 6 ballot proposals in the November election.
Proposal 1: Referendum on the Emergency Manager Law
Proposal 2: The ‘Protect Our Jobs’ Amendment
Proposal 3: ’25 x 25′ Renewable Energy Standard
Proposal 4: The Unionization of Home-Based Caregivers
Proposal 5: The Two-Thirds Majority Tax Limitation
Proposal 6: The International Bridge/Tunnel Voting Requirement
I will have something to say on each of these. I start with Prop 3, because I have serendipitously found some dots related to it. These dots connect themselves.
Because renewable energy must by law have priority in supplying the grid, the owners of conventional power stations, finding they have to run plants unprofitably, are so angry that they are threatening to close many of them down. The government response, astonishingly, has been to propose a new law forcing them to continue running their plants at a loss.
No one is allowed to “go Galt” in Germany. A warning to the UK, certainly, and to Michigan: The Projected Economic Impact of Proposal 3 and Michigan’s Renewable Energy Standard
Unfortunately, wind-power fits perfectly with the president’s plans for redistributing wealth and ensuring “…Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket”.
As it happened, the president couldn’t get Cap and Trade passed. Instead, he loosed the dogs of regulation at the EPA.
Without cheap and effective energy storage, wind-power will never fill more than a niche. It may increase greenhouse gases by forcing the real power plants to run at idling speeds. Wind-power dependency will reduce the reliability of the grid.
Proponents must necessarily purport to know precisely the best alternative energy technology 13 years from now. This is spectacularly risible, given the result of their taxpayer funded bets on the ethanol and battery corporatists. A Constitutional amendment to enforce such a
fever dream vision is incredibly stupid.
Proposal 3 is a very bad idea. I am voting NO.