LANSING – The November ballot proposal to increase the state’s renewable energy standard to 25 percent by 2025 is heating up again after the Anderson Economic Group released a study showing the proposal would result in up to 1,700 fewer jobs every year for 30 years. But a company involved in the wind energy industry and new to Michigan said the proposal would not be a jobs killer.

“For us this isn’t a theory and the detractors (of the proposal) can’t convince me that we’re going to lose jobs,” said Marc Strandquist, CEO of Dokka Fasteners in Auburn Hills. “Not when you look at it in total.”

Dokka Fasteners is a United States manufacturer of large-diameter, safety-critical fasteners used in the fabrication, transportation and construction of wind turbines. The company was founded in Dokka, Norway, but established a U.S. base in 2010. Strandquist said 90 percent of its sales are spread across the United States, while the other 10 percent is a mix of Canada, Brazil and other locations.

The Auburn Hills location currently has about 30 employees, which he admits may not sound like much in the grand scheme of things, but noted that about 40 percent of those folks were out of work when the company decided to give them a job. Strandquist said he expects his company will accomplish about $12 million in sales this year and expects to see growth to at least $17 million next year, more if the federal subsidy Production Tax Credit for purchasing wind power is maintained after the election.

“You get 100 more people out here like us and that’s kind of the backbone of the Michigan economy,” he said, explaining why he thinks the Proposal 12-3 is not a jobs killer in the way that opponents have framed it to be. “Wind (energy) is nice in that it’s renewable, you don’t have to worry about it being destroyed or that you have to find more and look for something else.”

But a study by the Anderson Economic Group, commissioned by the Small Business Association of Michigan (which has previously stated its opposition to the proposal), found that although there may be an increase in jobs – specifically construction jobs – in the first five years, related job levels would drop down after that.

“Although jobs would be lost due to the increased cost of electricity, some jobs would be created by electricity generators (an initial six-year period) as electricity suppliers increase the proportion of their output that comes from renewable sources,” a statement by SBAM noted. “But the net effect would be to create a few jobs and destroy many.”

The study also took issue with the energy restriction in Proposal 12-3 by naming specific technologies but leaving out others.

“Mandating a production technique for a private institution is a big step to take,” said Alex Rosaen, co-author of the report.

David Rhoa, president of Lake Michigan Mailers in Kalamazoo, said he takes issue with the fact that nothing in the proposal talks about reducing energy use, whereas the current law of obtaining 10 percent by 2015 permits a utility to include in its overall energy planning a 1 percent energy reduction.

“One has to question: What are the real motives?” he said at a press conference. “This is being promoted as a green solution. This is far from a green solution. If energy reduction was a concern…it would be in there. This is bad policy.”

Patrick Anderson, principal and CEO of the Anderson Economic Group, said the study used optimistic assumptions and that the figures presented assumed new electric generation, mostly by way of wind power.

Electricity generated from renewable sources costs more to produce than electricity from non-renewable sources, the study found, using information from the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2011. That report found that “the projected national average … entering 2016, including capital, operation and maintenance, and transmission investment spread over the life of the equipment for coal was essentially cheaper than wind ($94.8 per megawatt-hour for coal against $97 per megawatt-hour for wind). Solar was expected to be most expensive ($210.7 per megawatt-hour) in that report, but geothermal and biomass were cheaper than natural gas ($112.50 per megawatt-hour versus $124.4 per megawatt-hour).

Mark Fisk, spokesperson for proponent group Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs, said that his group felt the report was “fatally flawed, based on invalid data and has no merit other than to serve as a citation in (the opponent) campaign’s latest ad campaign,” he said.

“The fundamental premise of this report is that oil and coal are getting cheaper is totally laughable and that would never be used in any business plan,” Fisk said. “It’s based on invalid data. The overwhelming evidence, including a study by Governor Snyder’s own Public Service Commission, and the experience of 30 other states show renewable energy is creating jobs, sparking investment and reducing electricity prices.”

But Anderson also took issue with the assertion that the plan is similar to what other states are doing. While other states may have renewable energy standards set at or similar to 25 percent by 2025, none, to his knowledge, were enshrined in a state’s constitution.

“We would be putting something that does not typically go into a constitution into the Constitution,” Anderson said of the matter.

Strandquist said he did not think he was in a position to respond to whether the proposal should be in the Constitution, but said that increasing the standard – as other states have – should be something to be praised regardless.

“As you look at this (proposal) versus the current situation we have, the investment that’s going to come with the state of Michigan are all important to us, as well as the stability of wind energy,” he said. “Today Michigan imports about $1.7 billion of coal from other states in order to supply what’s required. We’re supporting this because we believe … it’s a good balanced approach.”

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