Posted on 09/27/2012 6:21:24 AM PDT by MichCapCon
Michigan would have 10,540 fewer jobs in 2025 if Proposal 3 passes in November, according to a new study on the renewable energy mandate proposal.
The study, done by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Beacon Hill Institute in Massachusetts, also concluded that Prop 3 would lower disposable income in Michigan by $1.42 billion; reduce net investment in the state by $147 million and impose net costs on the Michigan economy of $2.55 billion.
"Our study also indicates that even if voters reject Proposal 3, Michigan residents will still bear some of these costs," David Tuerck, one of the study’s authors from the Beacon Hill Institute, said in a release. "Michigan already has a 10 percent renewable energy standard in effect, and our economic modeling indicates that it, too, has substantial net economic costs for the state, not benefits."
Cost estimates for Prop 3 were not included in a study coordinated by the Michigan Environmental Council and Michigan State University that has been widely — and inaccurately — quoted for the number of jobs the mandate will create. The study said Prop 3 would create 74,000 job years, but many in the media have continued to report that as the number of actual jobs. The difference is significant. One job held for 20 years is 20 job years, but still only one job.
Proposition 3 would add to the state constitution a mandate that Michigan produce 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025.
If the proposal passes, conventional energy sources will need to be kept on standby because of the intermittent source of wind in the state, the study concluded. It also will be costly for residents and businesses.
Residential electricity users could expect to pay between $170 and $190 in 2025 for the mandate; industrial businesses could see costs between $49,730 and $55,680, according to the study.
I got an ad in the mail, vote no on 2.
Somebody, please, run down the proposals for me and everyone else in Michigan, thanks!
THANK YOU for the link, there have been some weird fear mongering commercials here about these proposals, so I have been wanting to study them.
OK I’ve read through them all. Care to comment on #1 and #5 and why you would vote no? I am inclined to vote yes on these 2. The rest are a definite NO. Thanks.
On 1 I think the emergency manager is a proven success at getting some of the city budgets under control. Unions have such a firm grip on the cities that they’ll never do anything to get themselves under control.
On 5 I’m somewhat torn but don’t see the point of needing a two thirds majority to raise taxes. I guess I need to know that it won’t also require two thirds to cut taxes as well.
Its all my own personal opinion nothing more.
Thanks, now I have to get busy and investigate the judges on the ballot.
Thanks cc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.