Viewing Grant Proposal: Midland Cogeneration Venture Carbon Capture and Sequestration Feed Feasibility Study

On behalf of the Michigan Chemistry Council (MCC), I write in support of a proposal to study the feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) capabilities at Midland Cogeneration Venture (MCV). The business of chemistry has placed a huge priority on achieving a net zero future in alignment with our industry’s science-based targets. The MCC and our members have been active participants in national, state, and local efforts to meet these shared climate commitments, and the MI Healthy Climate Plan in particular. We strongly support any state initiatives to help our industry navigate the carbon transition and to ensure a sustainable, competitive future for chemical manufacturing in our state. As you may know, MCV supplies steam and electricity to the Midland IPark, which is Michigan’s largest chemical manufacturing site. This site is now home to six different chemistry companies with an array of manufacturing plants, logistics, utilities, environmental, emergency response, and other resources. While most of these companies are now headquartered elsewhere, Midland remains their largest capital base, and so the long-term competitiveness of this site is of major interest to our industry. This site is also vital to the economy and workforce of the Great Lakes Bay Region. This project, if funded, will enable MCV to assess the suitability of CCS technology at the site and allow MCV’s owners and customers to together reach an informed investment decision in support of their own sustainability and growth goals. Given the current federal support for CCS technologies, this project could also help potentially leverage significant investment into our state. For these reasons, we look forward to seeing this project come into fruition and appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, John Dulmes Executive Director

I strongly oppose this proposal as it is incredibly disingenuous to the purpose of the grant. 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 of 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 – which is growing to be the largest source of emissions from many communities in Michigan. But, even if we acknowledge the efficacy of carbon capture and storage, something that is still questionable, any reduction in emissions would be negligible when compared to the reductions and consumer savings 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 childhood asthma cases, adding to the score of research demonstrating the negative health effects from the use of natural gas in our buildings and their associated upstream emissions. Therefore, the funds for this grant should not be awarded to this project and should instead be awarded to projects that are seeking to make meaningful decreases to carbon emissions through renewable, zero-emission technologies. Projects like this one are inherently against the stated goal of the grant by locking in carbon, methane, and other GHG emissions for decades to come. This is precisely the type of project we should NOT be funding as we transition to a cleaner, healthier, and more affordable Michigan.

I am strongly opposed to this project. Carbon capture and sequestration does not address the root cause of emissions and is not a viable long-term solution. The stated goal of the EIED grant program is to develop low-carbon infrastructure. This project does not support that goal and instead supports the continued use of carbon intense natural gas infrastructure. Therefore, this projet 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.

We do not support this project as it will not lead to a tangible reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Resources from this grant opportunity to go to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help the State decarbonize - not lock in fossil fuel investments.

I don't support this proposal. In order to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality, like is set out in MI Healthy Climate plan, our state needs to move away from fossil fuel electricity generation. Michigan taxpayers funding shouldn't go towards options that won't allow us to achieve carbon neutrality, and this is one of those options.