Published on February 28th, 2012 | by Silvio Marcacci


Renewables Now Cheaper than Coal in Michigan, Could Be $5-Billion Industry

February 28th, 2012 by  


New renewable energy generation is now cheaper than new coal generation in Michigan, and could  be a $5-billion annual industry for the economically hard-hit state.  So say two recent reports analyzing the state’s progress toward renewable energy goals.

While both findings are impressive, new renewables falling below the cost of new coal is a more important long-term trend. The analysis comes from a Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) report detailing implementation costs of meeting the state’s 10 percent renewable energy standard.

Renewables 10% Cheaper Than Coal

New wind, biomass, landfill gas, and hydroelectric generation all cost less than new advanced-supercritical pulverized coal plants with a 40-year life cycle, according to the report. PSC staff estimated in 2009 that electricity generated from new coal plants would cost $133 per megawatt-hour (MWh), and reiterated that estimate, saying “new coal capacity would likely require significant capital costs (and potentially increase rates for customers).”

By comparison, the report finds “the cost of all renewable energy technologies is less than the coal guidepost rate” of $133/MWh, especially in the service territories of the state’s two largest utilities. The combined average levelized renewable energy contract prices for Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison from 2009-2011 are at least $12 cheaper per MWh compared to coal, and “the actual cost of renewable energy contracts submitted to the Commission to date shows a downward pricing trend.”

Competitive Costs Driving Investment

So, not only are renewables cheaper than coal, but that gap is widening, and competitive costs are driving new investment. This trend is shown by the $100 million in advanced energy projects investments the PSC reported between 2008-2011, with 1,000 megawatts of new wind capacity since the RPS took effect.

“Throughout the MISO footprint, increased growth in wind generation appears to have displaced relatively high cost generation, resulting in lower cost base-load plants more frequently setting the marginal electricity price. The continued growth in Michigan’s wind generation is expected to make a much greater contribution to this displacement in the MISO footprint by the end of 2012 as over 800 MW of new wind generation will be operational in the state.”

Key To Long-Term Economic Recovery?

That growth could ultimately wind up being a $4.9-billion annual industry in Michigan, support 20,800 jobs, and generate $163 million in tax revenue by 2015, according to a recent report from the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council (MEIBC). Those figures could rise even higher, to $6.2 billion and 26,000 jobs, in an ideal scenario, perhaps if the state increased its RPS target to 25 percent by 2025.

Considering manufacturing employment in the state dropped 42 percent between 2001 and 2010, these new clean energy jobs could be exactly what Michigan’s economy and environment needs to thrive in the 21st century.

Source: John Hanger’s Facts of the Day

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About the Author

Silvio is Principal at Marcacci Communications, a full-service clean energy and climate policy public relations company based in Oakland, CA.

  • Pingback: Marcacci Communications()

  • Pingback: The Renewable Revolution is Here. Will the US Compete? « Climate Denial Crock of the Week()

  • James Van Damme

    Awful lot of water going down the St. Clair river, doing nothing.

  • curly4

    So why don’t Michigan shut down the old technology and use only this new technology? It looks like it would be cheaper and save the customers money or they could charge the same price and the state could take the difference to balance its budget.

    • T_

      Becouse you have to have constant wind blowing or sun shining 24/7, which is obviously not possible. And there are not enough ways to store the produced energy for the periods when the sun is not shinig/wind blowing. So, for now we need the old infrastructure, becouse the new one cannot do the job. But it is catching up fast and this is very nice! :-)))

    • Study is talking about new coal. And existing plant just has the fuel and operation to pay for, for the most part. But new production is a diff story.

  • Pingback: Green News Roundup: Wednesday, February 29th, 2012()

Back to Top ↑