LANSING - Lower utility prices and more choice for consumers. Those were the major enticements for passage of Public Act 141, The Electric Restructuring Act, adopted in 2000 by the Michigan legislature.

Eight years after its passage, PA 141 not only hasn't kept its promises, it is seen as the primary obstruction in moving ahead on billions of dollars in new construction work sponsored by the state's major utilities, DTE Energy and Consumers Power.

That's according to the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, its affiliate unions, and a coalition of business leaders and energy industry experts. Called Protect Michigan, the coalition is pushing passage of state legislation that would enact an energy stimulus plan developed by former Public Service Commission Chair Peter Lark for Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

"Advantages just haven't been there," said Patrick Devlin, CEO of the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council. "We were promised lower rates, more choices, more jobs and less pollution. None of those promises have come to fruition. We are heartened that Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon and other legislators recognize, as we do, that re-regulation of our electricity supply is necessary for Michigan's energy and economic health."

Granholm said in the near term, there's about $6 billion in investment that hinges on reversing PA 141. Last fall Consumers Energy announced that it would construct a new $1.5 billion coal-burning plant, and possibly a second unit, at its Karn-Weadock plant near Bay City - if the state's electrical regulatory environment is changed. And, Detroit Edison has started work on preparing a license application for a new nuclear plant at the existing Fermi site near Monroe.

Michigan's public energy law is described as a unique "hybrid" of regulated and non-regulated rules involving utilities. In an effort to fix what's wrong with Michigan's energy law, House Bill 5521 was introduced in December. The wide-ranging bill would re-regulate certain private utilities, provide for alternative energy suppliers and encourage use of resource recovery facilities. There are House and Senate versions of the bill, but they aren't expected to move through committees until March.

What's so onerous about Public Act 141? It opened the door for private natural gas and electric companies to approach Michigan businesses and homeowners and offer rates that undercut those of the traditional utilities. One of the problem is that those companies have been able to cherry-pick customers. Big energy users have been targeted with offers of lower prices, but homeowners and businesses that are in remote areas, are moderate energy users or poor credit risks can be ignored by those private companies - with no repercussions.

At the same time, the traditional utilities are bound by state regulations that outline who must be provided service, even if it is unprofitable.

What has resulted is that state utilities say they can't be sure of their future customer base and earnings are uncertain - especially from those profitable, cherry-picked customers - therefore they can't be sure when they would see a return on investment in building new power generating facilities. The last coal-burning power plant to be built in Michigan was 19 years ago.

And if Michigan must go to generators in other states to import electricity, our state loses the economic benefit of home-bought power, as well as the ability to regulate the power.

"The seesaw nature of this hybrid," said DTE Energy CEO Anthony Earley in testimony last year, "leaves would-be investors with no assurance that customers will stay long enough in either of the two choices to invest a billion or more dollars in a baseload power plant. Between 2003 and 2006, DTE Energy and Consumers Energy experienced a swing of over 3,000 megawatts of load from the regulated utilities to alternative suppliers and back again. That's equal to at least three baseload power plants."

Earley said 34 states have "repealed, delayed, suspended, or limited their deregulation experiments or are simply maintaining their fully regulated systems."

State Republicans, who oversaw the partial deregulation of Michigan's utilities, are more cautious about re-regulating them. Acknowledging studies exist that promote economic benefits of re-regulation and use of alternative energies in Michigan, Sen. Bruce Patterson (R-Canton) of the Energy Policy and Public Utilities Committee told Gongwer News Service that he questioned the validity of the information - and who is paying for the research. He also wondered if energy costs would increase.

According to the governor's "Michigan's 21st Century Electric Energy Plan," Michigan's peak electric demand is forecast to grow at approximately 1.2 percent per year over the next 20 years.

The plan recommends the requirement Michigan utilities must create 10 percent of energy use from renewable sources by 2015, and then 20 percent by 2025. The benefits of such a policy are expected to save money by diversifying Michigan's energy sources and reducing costs of production, result in cleaner air, and promoting job growth.

"This is a great opportunity for us," Granholm said last month at the Training Center sponsored by theIBEW Local 58/ SE Michigan Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association. "Once we require a percentage of energy to be from renewable energy sources like solar and wind, the jobs will follow."