ROGERS CITY -- Citizen groups representing tens of thousands of Michiganders who support transforming their state's crippled manufacturing sector into a clean-energy world leader called on the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to reject Wolverine Power Supply Co-Operative's proposed Rogers City coal plant air pollution permit.
Members of the Clean Energy Now Coalition warn that the dirty, unnecessary plant would hike electricity rates by 60 percent in north and central Michigan, where poverty, unemployment, and the cost of living rates are sky high, and saddle small co-ops there with a huge, multi-generation debt.
"Wolverine has already spent well over $22 million to sell this bad, outmoded idea, and still refuses to disclose where that money is going," said Sue Harley, of Clean Water Action. "The company is throwing away lots of its members' money on a wasteful dream that will drain pocketbooks and damage our Great Lakes with mercury and other toxics."
Anne Woiwode, of the Sierra Club's Michigan Chapter, added: "People in northern Michigan cannot afford this coal and pet coke plant. Not only does the company not need it, much cheaper, cleaner alternatives are readily available."
In May of last year, the Michigan Public Service Commission reported the need didn't exist for the proposed coal-fired Wolverine power plant, and the permit was denied by the then DNRE. But earlier this month, a Missaukee County Circuit Court Judge said the state cannot deny a permit based on need alone.
The Department of Environmental Quality said it would not appeal the judge's decision and that they would grant the permit.
"It's what needs to be done to move the community forward, and the state forward," said Rogers City Manager Mark Slown.
Once the DEQ issues the permit to install, Wolverine will have 150 days to begin construction on the proposed plant. But members of the Natural Resources Defense Council say more research needs to be done.
"MDEQ's refusal to use its authority to reject unnecessary degradation of air quality is very unfortunate for the utility's customers, public health, and efforts to build a clean-energy economy," said Shannon Fisk, of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "As Consumers Energy recently discovered, new coal power is now more expensive than new wind power, and this decision points us in the wrong direction."
CEN members are pressing Wolverine to reconsider its five-year-old plan, which has not been revised even as other American companies have cancelled more than 150 coal plant proposals due to their severe financial risks, which convinced investment firms that new coal is a bad financial bet.
"Wolverine has given no indication that it is seriously considering cheaper, cleaner alternatives," noted Wayne Vermilya, Allis Township resident. "When is this company going to face reality, and use efficiency and renewables to give its customers and the environment a much better deal?"
To visit Wolverine Power Cooperative website, CLICK HERE.
Which resource do you think should be used for new power projects? Tell us "Your Point of View" by voting in the poll below and leaving your comments.
