How clean energy legislation could put Gretchen Whitmer on the map

The race to have the most ambitious clean energy agenda at the state level has been playing out for the last decade, if not longer. But a seemingly unexpected Midwestern state might be pulling ahead of climate champions like California — and its governor stands to benefit.

In the coming days, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) is expected to sign a raft of clean energy bills into law that would completely reform the state’s utility systems and cement the state as a leader in fighting climate change.

ANATOMY OF A DEAL: HOW THE ISRAEL-HAMAS HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS PLAYED OUT

The legislation, which passed the Michigan legislature earlier this month, would require utilities to produce electricity using 100% clean energy by 2040 — one of the most ambitious standards in the Midwest and comparable to ones established in environmentally friendly states, such as California or New York. If signed into law, the measure would enact deadlines that will gradually help the state reach its decarbonization goal, requiring utilities to generate 50% of their energy through renewable sources by 2030 and 60% by 2035.

The legislation would also raise energy efficiency standards, allow more residents to enroll in rooftop solar energy programs, and grant state regulators authority over large-scale clean energy permitting. Other provisions in the legislation would reform how the state’s regulatory agency, the Michigan Public Service Commission, will plan for future operations, requiring it to consider factors such as climate, equity, and affordability when creating long-term power generation plans. The legislation would also create an office aiding communities in transitioning from fossil fuel to clean energy jobs.

Once signed into law, the set of bills will represent a win for Whitmer, who presented a plan last year aimed at tackling climate change while creating clean energy jobs and spurring economic growth. The legislation was modeled after the 58-page plan.

Paul Sancya/AP

“With passage of these game-changing bills, Michigan will become a national leader on clean energy,” Whitmer said in a statement, touting that the bills will lower utility costs while reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

More than half of the country already has laws or standards in place to require utilities to switch to clean energy, but only a handful require the transition to happen as quickly as the pace set by the Michigan legislation. Once signed into law, Michigan would transition to zero-emission energy sources even faster than California, which has set the standard for aggressive climate change action for decades.

Michigan Democrats were given the trifecta of controlling the state’s House of Representatives and Senate, albeit with slim majorities, along with the governor’s mansion, giving the legislation a narrow pathway toward passage. Still, if you had asked those involved in crafting the bill if it would have passed a year ago, some may have hesitated to give a confident “yes.”

“If you had asked me a year ago if we were going to get to this point, I might’ve not been as optimistic,” said Derrell Slaughter, a Michigan clean energy advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But I think it’s a real testament to the groups that really fought hard to get some significance out of this process.”

Support for a bill like this would’ve once been unthinkable in a state that once fought tooth and nail to block policies curbing pollution from factories that served as the backbone of Michigan’s economy. But, according to a poll released by green groups and touted by Whitmer, 67% of voters supported the governor’s climate plan, with a majority demanding action on energy policy following massive power outages across the state.

While many environmentalists acknowledged that passage of the legislation was a huge first step for the state, they noted they couldn’t get everything they wanted. Slaughter told the Washington Examiner that activists originally advocated a stricter renewable portfolio standard of 60% by 2030, a 100% clean energy standard by 2035, and tighter efficiency standards.

Furthermore, many environmentalists raised concerns about the inclusion of nuclear power and natural gas using carbon capture and storage technology as forms of clean energy.

“Those are not things that we were advocating for but are in the final bill,” Slaughter said.

Some advocates went as far as to call lawmakers to withdraw their support for the bill after a carveout for landfill gas, nuclear power paired with CCS, biomass, gas from methane digesters using municipal sewage waste, and energy-generating incinerators were included in the final versions.

“These harmful elements are included in S.B. 271 because its drafting process was an egregious miscarriage of procedural justice,” Andrea Pierce, a network manager for the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, said in a statement reported on by the Michigan Advance. “Environmental justice organizations and communities were ignored from the start, while corporate polluters chipped away at the bill.”

Others reasoned excluding energy sources like nuclear would take away from the resources that Michigan has to offer — and provide a missed opportunity that could bring down energy costs for consumers.

“We’re allowing the full variety of low-carbon technologies to help get us” to 100% clean energy, said Ryan Fitzpatrick, a senior director of the Climate and Energy Program at center-left think tank Third Way. “We’re not taking solutions off the table. … We’re going to need these things to get the job done and do it in a cost-effective way.”

Republicans, on the other hand, fiercely opposed the legislation in both chambers, raising concerns the policies would increase energy costs and lower reliability without input from local communities.

“This legislation is jam-packed with state mandates that will make family electric bills more expensive and create the very real possibility that the lights won’t turn on when those families go to flip the switch,” Senate Republican Leader Aric Nesbitt said in a statement earlier this month. “These bills represent a destructive force of government from which generations of farms and families will never recover.”

The expected passage of bold climate legislation in an industrial state like Michigan raises the national profile of Whitmer, who has made other moves to insert herself into the 2024 cycle without being an actual candidate herself. Whitmer sits as one of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign co-chairs, the only governor on the panel. In June, she launched a federal political action committee, dubbed the “Fight Like Hell” PAC, to help raise money for 2024 Democratic candidates. Whitmer also headlined a major fundraising dinner for the Minnesota Democratic Party in October.

Much of the governor’s efforts have been centered on strengthening Democratic ties to Midwestern voters, an appealing message as the party struggles to maintain strongholds in the Rust Belt. It’s a platform that could catapult her into a bid for higher office, such as the White House, a possibility that she has ruled out for 2024 but has left the door open for later.

But the optics of passing a progressive energy bill through a state that had voted for Biden by a slim 3 percentage points in 2020 is not one to ignore.

“How she positions herself is a pragmatic realist coming from a purple state,” said Tim Minotas, a deputy legislative and political director at the Sierra Club’s Michigan chapter. “It shows that she can get a bold policy forward while working together in a bipartisan fashion in a state where it isn’t a completely Democratic stronghold, which I think kind of sets her out from the rest.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But the competition from other climate champions might be fierce, especially if Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) decides to enter the ring in 2028. Fitzpatrick notes, however, that the constituencies of both states remain starkly different and could work to Whitmer’s advantage, as Michigan stands to be more centrist than California.

“Whereas Gov. Newsom might focus more on emissions and environmental issues, I’m seeing a stronger emphasis from Gov. Whitmer on public health-related issues around climate and pollution but hitting really hard on the economics, on lowering costs, on bringing manufacturing to the state,” Fitzpatrick said. “And I think that plays well with a really broad set of important voters across the country.”

Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Washington Examiner regrets the error.