On March 11, I was disappointed to see these pages print a highly misleading headline, “Environmental organizations nix ‘zero coal’ plan,” about Consumers Energy’s rate case.
Last month, an administrative law judge recommended that state regulators reject Consumers Energy’s 15-year energy plan. The utility plan called for ramping up solar, energy storage and efficiency, and eliminating coal power by 2040. The plan wasn’t perfect, but clean energy advocates called for its modification rather than its outright rejection.
The reporting in Business Journal confused the position of the administrative law judge with “environmental organizations,” the interveners in the case. At no point, contrary to the headline, have these environmental organizations called to “nix” a “zero coal” plan. Rather, we want Consumers to do more, faster because their coal-burning Campbell Plant in West Olive is West Michigan’s biggest polluter and is costing customers millions of dollars in unnecessary electricity costs every year. The report featured no comment from the environmental organizations involved, even though the Business Journal has quoted us before on the Campbell Plant.
It is of critical importance that the Business Journal properly characterizes the positions of each party in ongoing legal matters and seeks our comments if clarification is needed.
West Michigan Clean Energy Organizer
Beyond Coal and Ready for 100