Viewing Grant Proposal: Consumers Energy Spring Creek Renewable Natural Gas

• Natural gas utilities already have every ability to expand natural gas lines to the rural parts of Michigan. Neither Consumers Energy nor DTE Gas need to utilize taxpayer funds through the Low Carbon EIED grant program to expand natural gas as proposed in these seven projects. Both Consumers Energy and DTE report hundreds of millions of dollars in profits annually, and both utilities have more than enough resources to expand natural gas lines without taxpayer funded grants. Instead, the MPGA would argue that these grants should go to benefit local units of government with projects that benefit large communities.

We do not support this project for two reasons: 1) this corporation already has the economic means to build this facility and, instead of integrating into their IRP, they are asking taxpayers to fund which is irresponsible; and 2) projects of this nature should be put on hold until we fully develop truly renewable energy solutions, and this funding opportunity should not go to projects like this. The stated goal of the EIED grant program is to develop low carbon energy infrastructure. Additionally, the MI Healthy Climate Plan calls for Michigan to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, with a prioritization on actions that will provide the most rapid gains in GHG reductions. But this proposal does not further either of these goals as it focuses on the continued use of natural gas. While using renewable natural gas can slightly reduce total carbon emissions, this reduction is negligible when compared to the reductions that would happen if homes and businesses were converted to electric and powered with 100% renewable energy. Furthermore, these calculations do not account for the public health impact from the emissions of methane, NOx, and other pollutants that are emitted through the combustion of natural gas in homes and businesses. A recent study showed that pollution from gas stoves could be attributed to 12% of the childhood asthma cases, adding to the scores of research demonstrating the negative health effects from the use of natural gas in our buildings and their associated upstream emissions – something that was not analyzed in this proposal. All this information can and should be viewed in the context of providing funds and future profits to a company who reports earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profit yet will be spending a significant amount less than the taxpayers who would see the benefits. Therefore, the funds for this grant should not be awarded to this project and should instead be awarded to projects that are seeking to actually make meaningful decreases to carbon emissions through renewable, zero-emission technologies. Projects like this one that are inherently against the stated goal of the grant by locking in carbon, methane, and other GHG emissions for decades to come should not be eligible for this grant, let alone considered for being awarded funds.

I do not support this project because the utilities are for-profit and can fund this work themselves and we should be putting these funding dollars toward the development of resilient, clean, renewable energy generation.

I do not support this project as this corporation already has the economic means to build this facility, but are instead irresponsibly asking taxpayers to fund this expansion; and 2) projects of this nature should be put on hold until we fully develop truly renewable energy solutions instead of questionable renewable solutions that only further the usage of nonrenewable energy. The stated goal of the EIED grant program is to develop low carbon energy infrastructure. Additionally, the MI Healthy Climate Plan calls for Michigan to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, with a prioritization on actions that will provide the most rapid gains in GHG reductions. But this proposal does not further either of these goals as it focuses on the continued use of natural gas. While using renewable natural gas can slightly reduce total carbon emissions, this reduction is negligible when compared to the reductions that would happen if homes and businesses were converted to electric and powered with 100% renewable energy. Furthermore, these calculations do not account for the public health impact from the emissions of methane, NOx, and other pollutants that are emitted through the combustion of natural gas in homes and businesses. A recent study showed that pollution from gas stoves could be attributed to 12% of the childhood asthma cases, adding to the scores of research demonstrating the negative health effects from the use of natural gas in our buildings and their associated upstream emissions – something that was not analyzed in this proposal. All this information can and should be viewed in the context of providing funds and future profits to a company who reports earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profit yet will be funding this project through taxpayer funds. Therefore, the funds for this grant should not be awarded to this project and should instead be awarded to projects that truly need the funding and are seeking to actually make meaningful decreases to carbon emissions through renewable, zero-emission technologies. Projects like this one that are inherently against the stated goal of the grant by locking in carbon, methane, and other GHG emissions for decades to come should not be eligible for this grant, let alone considered for being awarded funds, especially when accounting for the considerable financials of the applicant who will only stand to gain additional profit at the expense of taxpayer funds.

I do not support this project for two reasons: 1) this corporation already has the economic means to build this facility and, instead of integrating into their IRP, they are asking taxpayers to fund which is irresponsible; and 2) projects of this nature should be put on hold until we fully develop truly renewable energy solutions, and this funding opportunity should not go to projects like this. The stated goal of the EIED grant program is to develop low carbon energy infrastructure. Additionally, the MI Healthy Climate Plan calls for Michigan to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, with a prioritization on actions that will provide the most rapid gains in GHG reductions. But this proposal does not further either of these goals as it focuses on the continued use of natural gas. While using renewable natural gas can slightly reduce total carbon emissions, this reduction is negligible when compared to the reductions that would happen if homes and businesses were converted to electric and powered with 100% renewable energy. Furthermore, these calculations do not account for the public health impact from the emissions of methane, NOx, and other pollutants that are emitted through the combustion of natural gas in homes and businesses. A recent study showed that pollution from gas stoves could be attributed to 12% of the childhood asthma cases, adding to the scores of research demonstrating the negative health effects from the use of natural gas in our buildings and their associated upstream emissions – something that was not analyzed in this proposal. All this information can and should be viewed in the context of providing funds and future profits to a company who reports earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profit yet will be spending a significant amount less than the taxpayers who would see the benefits. Therefore, the funds for this grant should not be awarded to this project and should instead be awarded to projects that are seeking to actually make meaningful decreases to carbon emissions through renewable, zero-emission technologies. Projects like this one that are inherently against the stated goal of the grant by locking in carbon, methane, and other GHG emissions for decades to come should not be eligible for this grant, let alone considered for being awarded funds.

I am strongly against this proposal. Both state and local governments have set ambitious goals for carbon neutrality, but achieving these goals can be difficult for many local governments due to a lack of financial resources – whereas large corporations that report profits of hundreds of millions of dollars should already have the funding for this work. Therefore, I strongly believe that funds from this grant program, the goal of which is to develop low carbon energy infrastructure, should not go towards projects proposed by these large corporations, including Consumers Energy. Corporations such as Consumers asking for taxpayers to fund their work is irresponsible and immoral. In addition, natural gas is not truly renewable, is not low carbon, and is associated with a wide variety of negative health impacts. Projects like this one that are inherently against the stated goal of the grant by locking in carbon, methane, and other GHG emissions for decades to come should not be eligible for this grant, let alone considered for being awarded funds.

Consumer's Energy should be using their current funding to build infrastructure, not competing for additional funds that could be employed by cash-strapped communities working to build actual renewable energy and reduce fossil fuel consumption.

I do not support this project. Projects like this should not be a priority over true renewable energy projects, and other efforts to reduce our initial methane emissions (composting, reducing meat consumption, etc.) need to be implemented before projects like this are taken into consideration. Additionally, this corporation already has the economic means necessary to build this facility, but they are asking taxpayers to fund it. This is irresponsible. Moreover, although using renewable natural gas can reduce total carbon emissions, this reduction is negligible when compared to the reductions from converting to electric renewable energy, and the public health impact from the emissions of methane and other pollutants that are emitted through the combustion of natural gas in homes and businesses should also be taken into consideration (for example, pollution from gas stoves may be attributed to 12% of the childhood asthma cases). The stated goal of the EIED grant program is to develop low-carbon energy infrastructure. This project from Consumers Energy is inherently against this goal because it locks in carbon, methane, and other GHG emissions for decades to come. Therefore, this project should not be eligible for the EIED grant, much less awarded funds. Instead, funds from this grant should be awarded to projects that are seeking make significant decreases in GHG emissions through renewable, zero-emission technologies.

Comments from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Strategen, Sierra Club, Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan Food for All and the Earth Project, and J Koeppel Consulting LLC have been submitted to the MPSC through email.