Nuclear power would be clean but not renewable under Michigan legislation - MLive.com
Nuclear power would be clean but not renewable under Michigan legislation - mlive.com
LANSING, MI – Legal definitions of renewable energy vs. clean energy were among the issues tackled by Michigan state senators this week.
Under three energy-related bills, nuclear energy would not be considered renewable but would instead be legally defined as clean energy – generated without emitting greenhouse gases, which drive the accelerating climate crisis. If approved and signed into law, renewable energy resources would be defined as solar, wind, geothermal, or hydropower.
Biomass fuels, which come from plants and animals, will only count as renewable energy if they don’t include industrial waste, tires, or tire-derived fuels. Landfill gas and feedstock methane digesters would also qualify as biomass.
Additionally, natural gas plants will be considered “clean energy systems” if the facilities are at least 90% effective at capturing and permanently storing carbon emissions.
Democratic state senators on Wednesday advanced the bills out of the Energy and Environment Committee to the full Senate floor. Minority party Republicans on the committee each voted against all three bills: Senate bills 271, 273, and 502.
The first bill would set a minimum 60% renewable energy portfolio standard by 2035 and a 100% clean energy requirement in 2040.
Related: Biomass, carbon-capture tech are big sticking points in clean energy bill talks
Bill sponsors said thoughtful dialogue with industry stakeholders this session led to common ground in recent weeks.
“What this will do is, I believe, move Michigan in a very responsible way toward stronger clean energy investment in our state. We will work towards decarbonizing our energy sector as well as the whole economy … but we do it in a way that is responsible,” said Sen. Sam Singh, D-East Lansing.
The second bill sent to the full Senate floor would establish required energy waste reduction plans from power providers. The third bill would empower the Michigan Public Service Commission to consider equity measures and climate impacts when making regulatory decisions about the state’s utilities.
Related: Renewable projects could sidestep local pushback under advancing bills
Democrats on the energy committee approved the legislation with substitutions.
The bills are part of a larger agenda by Democrats, who control both the House and Senate, to codify the state’s climate action plan. Proposed legislation between the two chambers is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower energy costs for Michigan residents.
The bills would force utilities off fossil fuels faster than planned and require heavy investment in energy efficiencies and reduced costs for lower-income households.
Similar bills are also proposed in the Michigan House of Representatives.
The Senate energy committee is scheduled to meet again at 3 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 26, to take up another four bills regarding state control over siting and zoning of large-scale renewable energy generation installations.
More climate news
Nuclear power would be clean but not renewable under Michigan legislation
Michigan counties must prep for new recycling laws; state says help available
Michigan to divvy $16M in grants to upgrade failure-prone power grid
Wind, solar and ending fossil fuels: See what’s in Michigan’s climate bills
Lake Erie islands are hub for Great Lakes science
Related Knowledge Center: ENERGY BASICS: nuclear
Nuclear energy provides almost 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. Advocates have called for an expanded role for nuclear as an emissions-free fuel source. But the economics of building new reactors are daunting. In addition, lingering safety concerns are an institutionalized part of the calculation of nuclear regulation, and highly radioactive nuclear waste remains a can that public officials have been inclined to kick down the road. The Energy Information Administration projects a sharp decline in nuclear power generation over the next decade, as new nuclear plants — two are planned — are more than offset by anticipated retirements of several operating reactors.