michigan_cpp_letter_3.2.16-adeae16c787e0a74.pdf

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

A coalition of organizations advocates for Michigan to prioritize energy efficiency to meet its 2030 Clean Power Plan compliance limits, arguing that such measures are cheaper than new power generation and provide significant economic and environmental benefits.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Energy efficiency is presented as the most economical demand-side energy resource, costing less than renewables or electric and gas generation. It allows for rapid, local emissions reductions and is the only option that simultaneously lowers consumer energy bills, creates local jobs, and mitigates the costs of implementing the Clean Power Plan.
  • Beyond utility-administered programs, Michigan can achieve emissions reductions through non-utility policies, including residential retrofit financing, combined heat and power generation, energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs), and the adoption of building energy codes with green building certification. The U.S. ESPC market alone generates over $5 billion in annual new investments.
  • The implementation of specific energy-efficiency policies—such as updated building energy codes, energy-savings targets, and increased combined heat and power generation—could meet 98 percent of Michigan's 2030 compliance limit under the Clean Power Plan. This approach is estimated to save Michigan residents over $5.5 billion and prevent more than 21 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
  • The authors recommend that Michigan opt into the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) to maximize cost-effective emissions reductions under the Clean Power Plan.

Cite the original document

APA
Environmental and Energy Study Institute (2016). michigan_cpp_letter_3.2.16-adeae16c787e0a74.pdf. https://www.eesi.org/files/Michigan_CPP_Letter_3.2.16.pdf
Chicago
Environmental and Energy Study Institute. michigan_cpp_letter_3.2.16-adeae16c787e0a74.pdf. 2016. https://www.eesi.org/files/Michigan_CPP_Letter_3.2.16.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=Environmental and Energy Study Institute |title=michigan_cpp_letter_3.2.16-adeae16c787e0a74.pdf |date=2 March 2016 |url=https://www.eesi.org/files/Michigan_CPP_Letter_3.2.16.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{environmentalandenergystudyinstitute2016michigancppletter3216adeae16c787e0a74pdf, author = {{Environmental and Energy Study Institute}}, title = {{michigan\_cpp\_letter\_3.2.16-adeae16c787e0a74.pdf}}, publisher = {Environmental and Energy Study Institute}, year = {2016}, month = mar, url = {https://www.eesi.org/files/Michigan_CPP_Letter_3.2.16.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated