This E&E Interactive Project requires a modern browser with Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) support.

Draft rule reduction: 31.3% (529 lbs CO2 / MWh)

Editor's note: The following summary represents state and utility stances after the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court stay of the U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan on Feb. 9, the Michigan Agency for Energy said the state will suspend work on developing a state compliance plan.

Michigan had just kicked off public stakeholder engagement process a week before the Supreme Court decision.

The agency in December announced initial Clean Power Plan modeling results showing the state could meet initial carbon reduction goals through the mid-2020s just by carrying out existing policies.

Michigan officials are now worried they may have wasted $200,000 on modeling on the rule that may be irrelevant in a year or more if the stay lifted, said Al Freeman, a staffer for the state's Public Service Commission. Freeman said his agency also has been bumping heads with the state's attorney general, who is more opposed to the Clean Power Plan than the governor. And the state faces conflicts with Wisconsin about how to manage coal plant closures in its Upper Peninsula, he added (ClimateWire, April 27).

Modeling from the Electric Power Research Institute, however, suggests those coal plant closures could position Michigan to meet its Clean Power Plan goals with ease (ClimateWire, Sept. 8).

The final version of the rule leaves Michigan's target nearly unchanged compared with the draft -- requiring the state to hold its emissions to 1,169 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hours, compared with 1,161 pounds CO2/MWh under the proposed rule.

Michigan was among 27 states that filed a lawsuit challenging the rule. Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) also was among 15 state attorneys general who requested an emergency stay on the Clean Power Plan shortly after the final rule was released.

But on Sept. 1, 2015, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced his state would develop its own plan to comply with the EPA rule, saying in a statement this means the plan will reflect "Michigan's priorities of adaptability, affordability, reliability and protection of the environment" and "seize the opportunity to make Michigan's energy decisions in Lansing, not leave them in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C."

Before the final rule's release, Snyder said even without the Clean Power Plan, his state is on track to substantially change its generation portfolio in ways that will reduce carbon emissions.

Adding to that, the state's existing 10 percent renewable energy standard and a 1-percent-per-year energy efficiency mandate mean Michigan is on track to meet Clean Power Plan targets.

Michigan utilities praised Snyder's decision to develop a compliance plan.

"We believe it's in the best interest of all Michigan residents that the state should chart its own course, taking prudent steps today that could reduce costs tomorrow," DTE Energy Co. said in a statement.

"With carbon controls for utilities on the way, Michigan public power would much rather work with our Michigan regulators to establish the best approach, because Michigan [Department of Environmental Quality] understands the value of public power and has always worked with us to find reasonable, flexible, best-cost approaches to clean air improvements," the Michigan Municipal Electric Association said in a statement.

Snyder presented the state's Republican-controlled Legislature in March 2015 with a plan for low-carbon power investment and "energy waste" reduction that by 2025 would result in at least 30 percent of its power coming from sources that are cleaner than the coal-fired generation the state has traditionally relied on. Michigan has one of the oldest coal-fired power fleets in the country.

Last updated on September 8, 2016 at 5:06 PM

For questions or comments about E&E’s Power Plan Hub or related stories, please email

Latest Stories and Videos


MISO urged to disclose power plant shutdown notices

No matter how the Donald Trump presidency plays out, or whether the Clean Power Plan survives, the Midwest power grid will see dozens of older coal-fired power plants shut down in the next few years. The region's grid operator, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), can keep plants running if they are necessary to keep the lights on. But when it comes to knowing which ones will close, and when, will the public be left in the dark?


Coal-heavy states explore carbon-cutting options with support from National Governors Association

Utah's political leaders are unequivocal about their position on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan -- they're not fans. Utah wants to see the proposal retracted or significantly revised. But state officials also don't want to be caught off guard, given the likelihood that some sort of carbon regulation will be enforced in the meantime. That's why Utah and three other states with mixed feelings about the rule have applied for and will receive assistance from the National Governors Association to explore various carbon-reducing options and model how they might affect their electricity systems.


Mich. goes face to face with pivotal energy issues in 2015

U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan already has prompted legislators and regulators across the nation to take a closer look at a laundry list of energy issues in their states. Perhaps nowhere is the debate as robust as Michigan, which faced pivotal policy decisions even before the Obama administration proposed a landmark rule on June 2 to slash carbon dioxide from power plants by almost a third.


Some state agencies prepare to challenge new EPA carbon rule

States have had several weeks to mull over U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP), which, once finalized, would set standards for greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. While most are keeping mute as they analyze the rule and prepare to submit comments, a few early movers have already taken action, either to challenge the rule or comply with it -- and, in some cases, both.

State Resources


Public Comments