The final component is the RPS will “streamline red tape” to construct new power plants in Michigan. This action is premised on the claim that our two big energy companies — DTE Energy and Consumers Energy — will not build new power plants because Michigan has a mixed-regulatory scheme that makes it too risky for them.

The RPS idea seems like a good one. We don’t want to let our energy future lie in the hands of other states, and we also know that our current energy policy is not going to create an environment hospitable to building new plants. We also know all three of the candidates for president are likely to endorse a carbon cap-and-trade program and that a carbon tax is likely on the way — so we are going to need to invest in non-carbon sources.

That last part makes me a little uneasy. The big energy companies claim we will have to buy energy from other states unless we give them access to the entire market. Without that guarantee, DTE Energy and Consumers Energy claim they will not get the proper investment to build new plants.

Well, Michigan is certainly in a bind. Power plants are multiyear, capital-intensive projects that are unlikely to be pursued unless it is clear that profits will result. Our current hybrid scheme and a deregulated system are unlikely to generate new power plants without the guarantee of long-term purchase contracts, according to a study from Public Sector Consultants Inc.

One-third of the states in this country have gone with a deregulated energy policy, and all of them experience problems with high rates and difficulty in building new power plants. Two of the states have repealed their deregulatory laws.

I’m not enough of an energy policy expert to dispute this case, but even in the face of this evidence I am not convinced that re-monopolizing our energy in Michigan is the best solution. A competitive energy environment would seem to benefit the state much more in the long run.

Testimony before the Michigan Senate showed that $9 billion was invested in wind-energy facilities across the country, and 96 percent of that money went to states with an RPS. This makes a pretty good case for an RPS, but what about the anti-competitive component? The $9 billion that was invested in wind energy was all invested in states that have open energy policies. Alternative energy generation seems to do much better in states with competitive electricity environments.

On this basis, it seems to me like we should hold off on marrying ourselves to the House package as is.

I certainly do not want to throw the RPS baby out with the anti-competitive bath water — as of right now it seems clear that we need to have clean energy in this state and that it could generate a lot of jobs. And that is why it is great to have a bicameral legislature: The Senate still has to consider the bill package.

It is clear that the Senate has different ideas about the proposal. Its legislation would let outside competitors bid to build new plants, which, in their minds, would ensure the least expensive rates. The three new power plants being proposed in Michigan are independent power producers, so this might make sense.

This is clearly a very complicated issue that is worthy of further examination. But we should never allow the words “bipartisan,” “comprehensive,” or even “job-creating” and “environmentally friendly” to persuade us to endorse a new energy policy. Before we dive headfirst into the RPS pool, let’s take a closer look at what a lack of competition would mean for Michigan.

Eric Gregory is a State News columnist. Reach him at ericwgregory@gmail.com.