Polling shows strong support for clean energy among Michiganders amid state and federal GOP pushback
Solar panels in Meridian Township | Susan J.Demas
With Gov. Gretchen Whitmer introducing her MI Healthy Climate Plan in 2022 and Democrats setting a goal of 100% clean energy by 2035, Michigan's leaders — and its voters — have shown strong support for efforts to shift to green energy sources.
According to recent polling from Data For Progress, a progressive think tank, and Evergreen Action, an advocacy group focused on climate action, 62% of Michiganders support the state's clean energy standard while 34% stood in opposition. From Jan. 28 to Jan. 30, Data For Progress surveyed 566 likely voters who responded to a web panel. The sample was weighted to represent likely voters by age, gender, education, race, geography and recalled presidential vote. Participants were sorted based on self-identified party affiliation, not party registration. The survey's margin of error is four percentage points, though Data For Progress notes this may be higher for the subgroups.
Courtney Brady, Evergreen Action's Midwest deputy director, said the 2024 election sent shockwaves across the country, and with media coverage muddling the view of where voters stand on energy issues, the survey aims to understand where the average voter — particularly independents — stands post election.
Support for 100% clean energy by 2035 was particularly strong among Democrats, according to the poll, with 85% saying they somewhat or strongly supported a full transition to clean energy over the next decade.
The state's clean energy efforts also saw support from 61% of independents and 42% of Republicans.
Alongside placing a clean energy standard into state law, Michigan officials have worked to leverage business opportunities heralded by the shift to green energy, as well as supporting workers whose jobs could be displaced as industries transition away from fossil fuels.
According to the poll, 79% of all voters surveyed either somewhat, or strongly support policies that will create clean energy and manufacturing jobs. Party-line support comes in at 93% of Democrats, 78% of independents and 68% of Republicans.
Multiple reports from the communications firm Climate Power have pointed to Michigan's status as a clean energy leader, securing more clean energy projects than any other state following former President Joe Biden's efforts to boost renewables and support electric vehicle manufacturing through federal subsidies, spurring at least 751 projects across the nation.
However, with President Donald Trump pledging to eliminate Biden's climate and energy policies, and the Trump administration blocking climate spending, the future of many programs is uncertain.
Following a presentation of Whitmer's fiscal year 2026 executive budget proposal, Phil Roos, the director of Michigan's Department of Environment Great Lakes and Energy, told reporters that federal funding was vital to its programming, totaling about $500 million across the department with a good chunk of those funds being put toward energy transition efforts.
Alongside support and buy-in for clean energy efforts, the permitting and build out of clean energy efforts is vital as the state aims to hit its clean energy goals.
Overall 73% of voters said it was important to make it easier for new clean energy projects to be built, according to the poll. While 87% of Democrats said it was important for clean energy projects to receive easy approval for construction, Republicans and independents showed smaller majorities, with 68% of independents and 65% of Republicans' agreeing it is important.
As part of the Democrats' clean energy package, lawmakers approved two bills seeking to streamline permitting for large-scale renewable energy projects.
The bills place permitting for solar energy developments with a capacity of 50 megawatts or more; wind facilities with 100 megawatts or more; and energy storage facilities with a capacity of 50 megawatts or more and a discharge capacity of 200 megawatts or greater — under the control of the Michigan Public Service Commission, the state's energy regulator.
However, Republicans called the effort a power grab, arguing the bills stripped permitting authority away from Michigan communities.
The final version of the law requires energy developers to work with municipalities whose permitting process mirrors the state's, giving the parties 120 days to reach an agreement with the potential for an 120 day extension.
However, if the community fails to approve or deny an application in a timely manner, if the local zoning process is stricter than the standards outlined in the law, or if a project meets the standards outlined in the law but is denied, then the developer can submit a permitting application to the Public Service Commission.
In the House, members of the new Republican majority have already introduced an effort to repeal these changes, with Rep. Gregory Alexander's (R-Carsonville) House Bills 4027 and 4028.
Additionally, 72 townships and seven counties have filed a suit to block the public service commission from implementing the new zoning law.
While Republicans and the opposition have made repeated attempts to get the zoning changes off the books, a referendum attempting to repeal the law failed to get enough signatures to make the 2024 and the 2026 ballot, while previous bills aiming to eliminate the permitting changes also failed, Brady said.
'People want to make it easier to site these things. They want to see the investment come. They want people to be able to do what they want with their land, and they want the job creation, and also, later down the road, cheaper energy costs because we're integrating more resources into the grid,' Brady said.
'I think there's a big mismatch between what the loudest opposition, minor opposition, is saying, and really what the reality is for voters,' she said.
Alongside questions on the state's clean energy laws, the survey asked voters about several efforts to support individuals facing high energy costs, transition gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles as well as their frustrations with the state's electricity utility companies.
In addition to their support for the state's clean energy goal, the survey found a majority of voters also supported expanding Michigan's home repair program — which can lower energy costs by $145 per year by making them more energy efficient — and its program offering rebates for energy efficiency improvements, which is expected to launch in March.
Michigan voters also broadly supported efforts to support electric vehicles, with 58% in favor of the legislature taking action to expand EV chargers across the state, while 57% supported expanding rebates and other financial assistance for purchasing electric vehicles.
The legislature should also take action to help Michigan schools leverage federal funds to replace aging school buses with new electric models, according to 64% of voters surveyed. Additionally, 75% of voters surveyed supported efforts to improve and upgrade public transit in the state, as well as expanding access to buses and light rail.
Environmental justice was also a strong value for many of the voters surveyed, with 79% agreeing the state should prioritize action to address pollution in areas that face a higher burden.
The poll also highlighted Michiganders' frustrations with energy companies in the state, with Michigan rated among the worst in the nation for energy reliability, according to a report from the Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, which advocates for the state's energy consumers.
Voters demanded greater transparency from their utility companies, with 85% saying they would support legislative action requiring companies to be more transparent in their decisions to respond to and prevent power outages. They also sought greater transparency on the general decision making within these companies, with 83% in support.
The voters also generally agreed there is more action the Legislature could be taking, with 64% saying lawmakers should be doing more to ensure energy companies are keeping costs affordable, while 51% said they should be doing more to protect the state power grid from severe weather, which has caused several lengthy outages across the state. Forty-eight percent said legislators should be doing more to ensure these companies aren't taking action to delay the adoption of clean energy.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
30 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Democrats Fall Short in Subpoenaing Elon Musk in 20–21 Vote
House Democrats on Thursday couldn't get enough votes to issue a subpoena to tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to testify before Congress. The House Oversight Committee rejected the Democrats' request for Musk, a Trump adviser and former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to appear before lawmakers in a 20–21 vote.

Los Angeles Times
30 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. 'I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,' state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. 'We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.' Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the '60 Minutes' interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. 'This is a really important case,' said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. 'Legislators are starting to raise alarms.' But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. 'We would have to have a lot more facts,' Cummings said. 'Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.' Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the '60 Minutes' edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. 'If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law.' Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay 'a lot' of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. 'You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,' Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a '60 Minutes' interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show 'Face the Nation' used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, '60 Minutes' aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered 'mental anguish' as a result of the interview. CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team 'essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,' Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS '60 Minutes' lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is 'because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,' said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. 'This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,' Stern said. Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. 'The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,' Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. 'If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests.' UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could 'legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities,' Cummings said. 'He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' ' 'Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,' Cummings said.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump budget bill would kill subsidies that made home solar mainstream
By Nichola Groom (Reuters) -A last-minute tweak to the Republican budget bill passed by Congress last month would immediately end subsidies for solar leasing companies that help make rooftop systems affordable to homeowners, likely leading to a massive drop in the pace of installations, according to industry representatives. President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," now being taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate, would eliminate a 30% tax credit for solar leasing companies that charge homeowners a monthly fee for panels - one of numerous cuts directed at clean energy subsidies passed by former President Joe Biden. That provision, inserted shortly before the bill passed the House of Representatives on May 22, risks stifling a sector that buys American-made equipment, employs thousands of people and relieves strain on the grid, according to industry backers. "That's one of the harsher components of the one big, beautiful bill currently," said Gabe Rubio, a principal in the business incentives and tax credits practice at professional services firm BDO. Tax credits for homeowners who own their own rooftop systems would also be eliminated. The changes could result in as much as 40% less residential solar capacity being installed over the next five years, according to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. Solar companies are lobbying the Senate to make changes to the bill before it becomes law. "America's home solar and storage industry is a powerful economic growth engine," Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said in a statement. "Senate Republicans now have an opportunity to advance the administration's energy independence agenda by amending this bill to keep American energy prices low and create well-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs." Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal the clean energy tax credits in Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, arguing they are expensive, unnecessary and harmful to business. Republican backers of the bill say the subsidy cuts would free up billions of dollars for other priorities. More than 5 million U.S. homes have solar panels, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. LAST MINUTE CHANGE An earlier version of the bill had protected the credit for leased solar systems, but fiscal hawks including Representative Chip Roy of Texas have said publicly that they pressed for deeper cuts to clean energy credits at the eleventh hour. Roy's office did not respond to a request for comment. Solar leasing was pioneered two decades ago by companies including Sunrun and SolarCity, which is now owned by Elon Musk's company Tesla, and quickly became the primary way home solar panels were financed. Under the model, solar installers partner with financiers that own the rooftop panels and offset their federal tax bills by claiming the credit. Homeowners either pay a monthly fixed fee to lease the equipment or pay for the electricity the system generates under a power purchase agreement (PPA). In what some analysts have said could be a loophole, the House bill directly references leased systems but does not mention PPAs. About 44% of residential systems sold today are under such arrangements, according to EnergySage, an online solar marketplace. Solar installers say undermining the subsidies could have a ripple effect on U.S. manufacturers that supply them. Freedom Forever, a top privately-held installer based in Temecula, California, said in two years it has gone from using no U.S.-made equipment to now sourcing 85% of it from American facilities. That is thanks to another IRA subsidy that provides bonus 10% tax credits for using American-made equipment. "The administration wants to bring manufacturing back to the United States, and that's what our industry has been doing for the last two to three years," Freedom Forever CEO Brett Bouchy said. Sign in to access your portfolio