Senator McBroom’s first statement is as follows:
Mr. President, while this bill was in the House of Representatives a substitute was adopted and I’m speaking to one of the changes in that substitute. They included in there a requirement that by December 1 of next year, a study be conducted to report on the particular energy situation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, especially surrounding the fact that we have a mine that takes about 65 percent of our energy needs and entered into a partnership with the state and the citizens of the U.P. through creating a new utility called UMERC a few years ago and installed natural gas reciprocating engines at that time to facilitate the closure of the coal-fired plant.
This bill, as I mentioned when it passed the Senate first, creates a situation that’s going to very adversely impact our rates. I offered an amendment at that time; it wasn’t adopted, however the House agreed to do a study on the situation. My amendment takes that study out and requires the Public Service Commission rather than having a year to do another study to simply use the study they just did of the situation. The Governor created a special U.P. energy task force in 2018 and populated it with numerous experts and politicians from across the region. They did a comprehensive analysis on the energy situation in the U.P. and released that report in 2019. Why do we need to do it all over again? We had another study similar to that one conducted around 2013. This is completely unnecessary. We have the information we need; they should just simply take a month—my amendment says within one month’s time from the enactment of this legislation, that they can take the data they already have and produce the report we need to have. I ask for a “yes” vote. Save the state money.
Senator McBroom’s second statement is as follows:
This amendment is to just directly address the situation I referenced earlier with the iron mine and the RICE units in the Upper Peninsula and the fact that we can easily analyze both those who are for this energy plan and those against it, that there is going to be at least a 10- to 12-percent rate increase because of this situation because we’re not recognizing that in switching to the RICE units, we’ve already achieved an 86‑percent decrease in carbon emissions, and that other plants around the state that will make this change going forward will get to count that. My amendment allows us to look back just the few years, back to 2017, and make those emissions drops count going forward rather than forcing our power company and mines and all the citizens of the U.P. to face a dramatic rate increase for something we’ve already accomplished, that people down here will be allowed to enjoy without that same rate increase. I ask for a “yes” vote.
Senator McBroom’s third statement is as follows:
Mr. President, this amendment would give us the amazing opportunity to have a complete understanding of the landscape of this state in support or lack of support for the entirety of this green energy plan or the clean new deal or whatever we’re calling it these days. This amendment subjects the entire thing to a referendum of the people at the next November general election. This is a great opportunity for us to know who’s right and who’s wrong and for us to see what the impact is and how that’s divided across the different demographics of this state. I highly recommend a “yes” vote on this. Let’s let the democratic process work and see where the people of this state really are at on this issue. I ask for a “yes” vote.
Senate Bill No. 277, entitled
A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “Natural resources and environmental protection act,” by amending sections 36101 and 36104a (MCL 324.36101 and 324.36104a), section 36101 as amended by 2016 PA 265 and section 36104a as added by 1996 PA 233, and by adding sections 36104c and 36104e.
(This bill was returned from the House on Tuesday, November 7 with House amendments, immediate effect and full title, and was laid over under the rules. See Senate Journal No. 98, p. 2421.)
The question being on concurring in the amendments made to the bill by the House,
The amendments were concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: