LANSING – When Sen. Mike Nofs unveils his proposal for reforming the state’s 2008 energy law at the end of the month, he expects to keep the 10 percent cap on electric choice competition but with new conditions, he told Gongwer News Service on Thursday.

Though a lot of discussion has surrounded Nofs’ (R-Battle Creek) Senate Energy and Technology Committee, they actually have hardly met to discuss updating the state’s energy law – an issue expected to be a major priority this year. Many provisions of the current law are set to expire at the end of 2015, and on top of that, there is increased pressure to have something to work with as new standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency especially as they relate to air emissions.

Currently, alternative energy suppliers are allowed to comprise 10 percent of the energy marketplace for the major utilities, and Nofs has previously stated that he’d like to allow those in the choice market to stay there if they’d like but perhaps set parameters around when they could jump back to the regulated utilities. While Nofs’ committee members are still weighing the pros and cons of the choice provision Governor Rick Snyder seems to be on a similar page as Nofs in that he has proposed keeping the 10 percent with reform.

Meanwhile, Rep. Aric Nesbitt (R-Lawton), chair of the House Energy and Technology Committee, has unveiled a plan to eliminate choice though his committee is also largely undecided as a whole.

Nofs also has two bills in his committee on choice, SB 235 by Sen. Mike Shirkey (R-Clarklake) that could incrementally increase the choice market as demand increases and Sen. Ken Horn (R-Frankenmuth) that eliminates choice but allows those in the market to stay there under certain conditions. So where is the committee chair on those bills?

“I’m right in the middle,” Nofs said Thursday. “I think in the end what I’m leaning toward is people in choice should stay in choice but there will be new conditions. That was a promise we made in 2008. The question will be the conditions and when they can come back. That will be outlined in the proposal.

“There’s a lot of good ideas in both proposals and we’re taking them seriously,” he said of the two bills.

Nofs said his logic is that if the circumstances both at the state and federal level are right for customers to come back to regulated utilities like DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, then perhaps they will and perhaps the loss of those customers in choice could be backfilled with those “in the queue” to be serviced by an alternative supplier. Or, if the conditions are better for those customers to stay with their AES, then so be it, but he wants to craft a solution that allows for reasonable flexibility.

What exactly that solution looks like is yet to be determined, Nofs said. He has been working with various groups, agencies and legislators for at least a year, he said, and the discussions are ongoing, with the goal of unveiling a product by the end of the month.

“We’re still working with (the Legislative Service Bureau),” he said. “We’ll have some conversations with people on both sides where there’s disagreement.”

The points of disagreement, he maintained, are the same ones that have been making headlines for some time now: electric choice and when customers can return; renewable energy and whether there should be a mandate versus goals, and how goals can effectively drafted; how much competition is good or bad; integrated resource plans and how to set that up; and the authority of the Public Service Commission.

Part of the balancing act, Nofs said, is watching the federal government and what it is they expect to mandate. In January, the EPA said it would delay issuing its final carbon rules for power plants to “mid-summer,” though when exactly that could be has not been clear. Some have speculated that would take place in June, but the EPA’s website doesn’t give an exact month.

After that point, compliance plans are slated to be due back to the EPA by summer 2016.

Nofs said he still expects those rules could spend some time in court, so he is trying to work with the EPA’s timeline but not be 100 percent reliant upon it.

“I think what we’re trying to do and lay out with this new proposal … is having a planning time, a good transition if in fact the federal rules are upheld and put on the states,” he said. “It’s not about getting it done quick, it’s about producing a great product that will help Michigan move forward. We want to do it the most cost-effective way with the conditions presented to us.”

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com