Snyder splits with GOP colleagues in seeking coal alternatives

WASHINGTON – Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has taken a very different approach than many of his fellow Republicans in responding to the Obama administration's plan to fight global warming.

While some states are suing to stop proposed reductions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is encouraging governors to refuse to comply — Snyder has argued that Michigan should be a national leader in revamping its energy portfolio to reduce its use of coal.

"In Michigan, you're going to be seeing us make a major move from coal to other sources of energy," Snyder said last month as he unveiled a plan to reshape Michigan's energy use over the next decade.

Snyder's proposal, which emphasizes using more renewable fuels like wind and solar while reducing energy consumption through efficiency gains, is a top priority of his administration.

The governor recently created a new state energy agency to coordinate his strategy.

And Michigan is among the four coal-dependent states sending officials to a special "policy academy" aimed at helping states find low-cost ways to meet the new federal requirements. Organized by the National Governors Association, the academy will give state officials technical expertise and data to help draft a plan to comply with the controversial power plant regulations, a central part of President Barack Obama's climate change initiative.

Change is coming, Snyder said last month, "whether we like it or not in terms of timing."

"So let's be proactive and design a policy to accommodate that," he said.

The pending greenhouse gas rules are not the only reason Michigan needs to address its energy use.

At least 10 of the state's aging coal-fired power plants are likely to be retired in coming years because they're too expensive to upgrade to meet new standards for toxic emissions and other pollutants. That would be the case even without the proposed new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.

That's a significant loss of energy generation that will have to be replaced to avoid an energy shortage.

At the same time, utilities are meeting a state requirement that 10 percent of the power it sells comes from renewable resources by the end of this year. State lawmakers are debating whether to increase the requirement.

Snyder thinks the state could get almost one-quarter of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. But if the market dictates otherwise, he said, the state would instead use more natural gas.

Coal would drop from 59 percent to 43 percent of the state's power mix.

By making buildings, appliances, industrial equipment and other things that use energy more efficient, Michigan could meet 15 percent of its future needs.

"We can lead the nation," Snyder said in laying out his plan. "That's the only way we should approach our energy needs."

Michigan has historically been among the 10 states most dependent on coal for its energy generation. And it has some of the oldest, least-efficient coal-fired power plants in the country.

That made it more notable when the publication Inside EPA reported in February that Snyder appeared to be one of the few GOP governors who is not calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to scrap its proposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

By contrast, 11 states with GOP governors — along with coal-dependent Kentucky and West Virginia — will be at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia next week trying to stop the rules.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of waging a "war on coal."

And McConnell has urged the nation's governors to ignore "this deeply misguided plan." McConnell and other critics have called the EPA rules a massive federal overreach that will devastate the coal industry and jack up electricity bills.

"This proposed plan is already on shaky legal grounds, will be extremely burdensome and costly, and will not seriously address the global environmental concerns that are frequently raised to justify it," McConnell wrote to the governors. He said states would not risk anything by refusing to comply and said such resistance would give the courts and Congress more time to try to block the plan.

But if a state does not come up with a plan to meet its required reduction, the EPA will impose its own approach. The EPA's initial proposal, which could be revised when the agency reveals the final rule this summer, calls for Michigan to reduce by 31.5 percent the amount of carbon dioxide generated per unit of electricity by 2030.

The rule hits coal-fired plants the hardest, as those spew the most carbon dioxide for the amount of electricity generated. Power plants are the largest source of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions, responsible for about one-third in 2012.

James Van Nostrand, director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at West Virginia University, said states have an obligation to try to figure out how to implement the new rules in a way that will cause the least disruption to their state's economy. McConnell's "just say no strategy" may be good politics, he said, but it's irresponsible.

"It's just popular to beat up on the EPA and say everything will be fine in the coal industry if the EPA would just go away," Van Nostrand said. "But I think you have to assume that those rules are going to go into effect, or something very much like them."

It remains to be seen whether Snyder will have support from the GOP-controlled Legislature for his energy plan.

And Attorney General Bill Schuette joined 16 other GOP state attorneys general in outlining to the EPA in November what they called "numerous legal defects" in the proposed rule, adding that they "have an obligation to their citizens to vigorously resist this unlawful proposal."

Schuette also took the lead among states challenging federal regulations to cut mercury and other toxic emissions from large power plants. The states argue the EPA failed to consider the cost of compliance when issuing the 2011 rule. The Supreme Court will make a decision on that challenge by summer.

By contrast, Snyder says the health and environmental benefits from reducing mercury pollution "" as well as the pollutants that lead to acid rain and have been linked to heart and lung diseases "" are another reason Michigan should reduce its reliance on coal.

"Coal presents a huge amount of issues and problems," he said. "In terms of our environmental health in Michigan, we're moving in a positive direction with this plan."

Deidre Shesgreen of USA TODAY contributed to this story.