Jason Hayes, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s sudden embrace of the Palisades Nuclear Plant is both bittersweet and long overdue.
Whitmer asked U.S. taxpayers for more money last week to maintain the nuclear generating station on Lake Michigan, which is slated to close May 31.
“Keeping Palisades open is a top priority,” Whitmer wrote in a request to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. “The State of Michigan will support a compelling Civil Nuclear Credit application by the May 18 deadline. I intend to do everything I can to keep this plant open, protect jobs, and expand clean energy production. The State of Michigan will continue working with all parties involved in this process … to protect this critical clean energy asset and ensure Michigan workers can stay in Michigan.”
Prior to her request, the governor had effectively sat out of discussions about the fate of Palisades. Her long overdue endorsement of the plant as “critical to the regional economy” mirrors Mackinac Center efforts aimed at keeping a supply of reliable, affordable, and clean electricity available to the state.
Whitmer’s eleventh-hour interest in this critical plant is, however, bittersweet. If the governor had actually been interested in keeping Palisades open, she should have come to the plant’s defense far sooner. The governor’s January MI Healthy Climate Plan failed to mention the words “nuclear” or “Palisades,” even though it described the state’s “broad vision for fulfilling the governor’s fall 2020 commitment for Michigan to achieve 100% economy-wide carbon neutrality.”
For an administration that today claims to view the Palisades Plant as “a top priority,” the complete omission of both nuclear energy and this specific plant from a major policy document is odd. It’s especially odd considering that Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Director Liesl Clark lauded the governor’s climate plan as “shaped by [input from] a multitude of Michiganders” over the past two years. The Palisades plant has been on the chopping block for more than five years, long before the governor began work on her climate plan.
Overnight reversals like this are not uncommon when elections approach. They’re even less uncommon when a newly created program — in this case, the Civil Nuclear Credit Program — offers up $6 billion in federal funding. That kind of money can supercharge the already profligate pre-election spending spree of an up-for-reelection governor in a key battleground state.
Whitmer deserves credit for getting to the right conclusion: Retaining a nuclear plant is necessary to meeting the state’s energy needs. But it’s troubling that her interest in Palisades only became obvious when more federal spending became available. The Civil Nuclear Credit program will ladle billions of additional tax dollars on top of the multiple billions in federal subsidies that have already been lavished on unreliable and weather-dependent solar and wind.
It’s difficult to take an executive seriously when she demands energy policies to address global warming concerns but then advocates for (or turns a blind eye to) plans to shut down existing nuclear plants.
Energy expert Michael Shellenberger has described what happens when a lust for green spending and energy transitions overtakes sensible, reliability-focused restraints. Germany’s Energiewende program — or green energy transition — has cost that nation nearly $600 billion, shuttered most of its civilian nuclear plants, and radically expanded its reliance on renewable energy source like wind and solar. Shellenberger explains that Germany still emits “eight times more [CO2] per unit” of electricity produced, at prices that are “50% more than nuclear-friendly France.” The elimination of nuclear power has also left the Germans dangerously dependent on Russian natural gas.
Up until last Wednesday morning, Michigan was tripping its way down the path to a very similar energy policy. In its rush to reach net-zero CO2 emissions, Consumers Energy, one of the state’s major utilities, has stated its intention to rely on weather-dependent renewables for more than 60% of its total electricity supply by 2040. At the same time, the utility intends to close much of its large, reliable generation capacity, including the 811 MW Palisades plant, which still has just shy of a decade left on its operating license.
We should protect our large, reliable energy sources. But the CNC program and other government attempts to repair damage done by past government interventions end up doing still more damage. A far better energy policy would put a stop to federal subsidies and state mandates. Rather than trying to manage the mix of energy sources utilities use — whether nuclear, renewables, or fossil fuels — government should let energy producers compete on a level and unsubsidized playing field.
—————
Jason Hayes is the director of Environmental Policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
