Tag Archives: Detroit maps

Underground Storage Tanks in Metro-Detroit, and Beyond, Pose Environmental Problems

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

On Feb. 21, 2022, anglers on the Huron River in downtown Flat Rock, Michigan, noticed an oily sheen on the surface of the water near Flat Rock Metal, a steel processing company. Following investigation by the emergency response branch of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the source was determined to be a leaking 10,000-gallon underground storage tank located underneath Flat Rock Metal’s headquarters. The building was originally constructed by Henry Ford approximately 100 years prior and originally operated as the Ford Motor Company Lamp Factory. Flat Rock Metal purchased the building from Ford in the 1980s, and neither the owners nor the State of Michigan claim to have known about the tank until this incident occurred (Dickson, 2022; Ellison, 2022; House, 2022).

Underground storage tanks (USTs) are tanks with associated pipe systems that contain at least 10 percent of their volume underground. USTs that contain petroleum or other hazardous substances, such as those found at gas stations, industrial plants, and municipal facilities, are regulated at both the federal and state level; these are also referred to as non-residential USTs. Smaller USTs frequently found at older residential properties and farmsteads that would have been originally used to store heating oil are not covered by these same rules.

The primary source of regulation for non-residential USTs nationally is the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires owners to inspect USTs every three years and retain records of doing so (EPA, 2024a). In Michigan, Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994 (NREPA) revolves around remediation for any environmental contamination. Part 213 of this same act focuses specifically on leaking USTs, mandating that owners/operators perform corrective actions such as assessment, cleanup, removal, and monitoring, among others. The following maps show facilities in violation of Part 201 or Part 213 in the City of Detroit and in Macomb and Oakland counties.

The map above shows that there are 2,323 Detroit USTs in violation of the regulations mentioned above. The highest concentration of these UST sites is along Detroit’s riverfront, where many industrial sites are located. The map of Oakland and Macomb counties below shows that the concentration of USTs tends to be along major travel corridors (Gratiot Avenue, Van Dyke, I-275 and 8 Mile Road) and in the area surrounding the City of Pontiac).

As of 2024, Michigan remains one of only 10 U.S. states without an approved UST program, alongside the other Great Lakes states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and New York. According to the EPA, to receive program approval, states must establish standards for program criteria that are not less restrictive than federal standards, provide for enforcement of regulations, and, at a minimum, regulate the same USTs are also regulated by the federal government (EPA, 2024b). In Michigan, USTs are regulated by two different State departments. The Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and the Environment (EGLE) transferred much of the oversight of USTs and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) in 2012. The Remediation and Redevelopment Division of EGLE still reviews assessment and closure reports following the detection of a release from a UST (EGLE, n.d.).

The most common reasons for leaking USTs are corrosion and faulty installation of the tanks and/or associated piping. While more modern USTs are usually constructed using double-walled fiberglass, many of the decades-old USTs were constructed out of bare steel, which, over time, breaks down to soft ore. The rate at which this happens depends on soil characteristics, groundwater chemistry, and weather (Wang et al., 2009). According to the EPA’s UST mapping tool, the UST Finder, 405 USTs in the City of Detroit are currently in use with “active” status, and 899 are currently in use with “active – expired” status (meaning their permit is expired but they remain in use). Of the total active/active-expired facilities, nearly 11 percent are identified as having asphalt-coated or bare steel construction (EPA, 2024c). 

Drinking water in the City of Detroit and the inner ring suburbs is drawn primarily from surface water in the Detroit River (Great Lakes Water Authority, n.d.). While the immediate threat of leaking USTs is to groundwater, contaminants will eventually discharge back into the nearest stream or water body as part of the hydrologic cycle (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). However, a number of the USTs with recorded releases in the metropolitan area outside of Detroit are located within groundwater wellhead protection areas (EPA, 2024c; EGLE, 2024), further highlighting the need for regulation, and removal, of USTs.  

The overall best solution to leaking USTs is the systematic removal of them and remediation of the surrounding areas where they were installed. Professionals from variety of disciplines will be needed to effectively implement this solution, including geologists, environmental engineers, public health officials, planners, and communication professionals. Currently, many removal and remediation projects are initiated only after a release from a leaking UST. Recently, EGLE’s Remediation and Redevelopment Division launched the Remediation Information Data Exchange (RIDE), which allows the public to view information about contaminated facilities. However, the State of Michigan and the EPA regional office must actively work together to develop an approved program that meets the federal agency’s requirements. At the same time, a more active program removal of leaking tanks should be undertaken by the State and local governments along with a steady pace of legal action to force owners or former owners to clean up their mess.

References

Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Environment (EGLE). (n.d.). Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Program. https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/Remediation-and-Redevelopment/lust 

Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Environment (EGLE). (2024, April 16). Wellhead Protection Areas. https://gis-egle.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/wellhead-protection-areas-whpa/explore?location=42.623196%2C-83.298896%2C12.99

Dickson, J. D. (2022, March 4). Underground storage tank believed culprit in Flat Rock spill. The Detroit News. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2022/03/04/flat-rock-chemical-spill-huron-river-likely-underground-storage-tank/9374643002/ 

Ellison, G. (2022, March 4). Century-old buried storage tank the culprit in Huron River oil leak. MLive. https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/03/century-old-buried-storage-tank-the-culprit-in-huron-river-oil-leak.html 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024a, January 12). Inspecting underground storage tanks: 2005 Energy Policy Act. https://www.epa.gov/ust/inspecting-underground-storage-tanks-2005-energy-policy-act 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024b, July 15). State underground storage tank programs. https://www.epa.gov/ust/state-underground-storage-tank-ust-programs#how  

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024c, February 23). UST Finder. https://www.epa.gov/ust/ust-finder 

Great Lakes Water Authority. (n.d.). Our Water System. https://www.glwater.org/our-system/water-system/

House, K. (2022, March 2). Flat Rock’s second chemical spill points to hazards of underground tanks. Bridge Michigan. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/flat-rocks-second-chemical-spill-points-hazards-underground-tanks 

U.S. Geological Survey. (2019, March 2). Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/groundwatersurface-water-interaction#:~:text=Surface%20water%20seeps%20into%20the,and%20groundwater%20quality%20and%20quantity. 

Wang, L. K., Shammas, N. K., Wang, P., & Clesceri, N. L. (Eds). (2009). Remediation of sites contaminated by underground storage tank releases. Handbook of advanced industrial and hazardous wastes treatment (pp. 687-758). Taylor & Francis Group.

Education on the November ballot in Detroit and beyond

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

While there are no statewide proposals on the November ballot this year, Detroit residents will be asked to weigh in on two education-related measures.

Following years of financial crises at Detroit Public Schools (DPS), that entity now exists only to collect property taxes and pay down its legacy debt. As a replacement the Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD) oversees and operates public education in the city. DPSCD funding is on the ballot as Proposal S (on the ballot, the full title is “School District of The City of Detroit Proposal S: Operating Millage Restoration”). This proposal asks voters to restore the millage rate that non-homestead, commercial property owners pay by increasing it 6 mills, or $6 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value. According to DPSCD officials, the revenue earned from this millage restoration would help DPS pay off its debt. If this happens, DPSCD would be able to use future-generated property tax revenue to fund other DPSCD needs. DPSCD is holding virtual information sessions for those with questions about Proposal S on Wednesday, Oct. 30 and Monday, Nov. 4. Voters are also being asked to choose three DPSCD Board members in the nonpartisan section of the ballot.

The other proposal on the ballot in Detroit is to support the Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency (Wayne RESA). The Wayne RESA is an intermediate school district that helps to support the 33 local school districts and 97 charter schools (also known as public school academies) across Wayne County, including DPSCD. Detroiters and other Wayne County residents will be asked to vote on the Wayne RESA “Renewal of Regional Enhancement Millage Proposal,” which seeks to renew a property tax millage of 1.98 on all property, equating to $1.98 for every $1,000 of taxable value. According to the proposal language,  if passed, this revenue will be distributed across the Wayne RESA service area on an “equal per pupil basis” for six years, beginning in 2028. Voters originally approved the Wayne RESA millage in 2016 and supported its renewal in 2020. 

Other communities across southeast Michigan also being asked to vote on school district operating millages and bond proposals for infrastructure improvements include: 

  • Livingston County: Livingston Educational Service Agency (Livingston ESA)
  • Macomb County: L’Anse Creuse Public Schools, Memphis Community Schools, South Lake Schools, Van Dyke Public Schools, Warren Consolidated Schools
  • Oakland County: Almont Community Schools, Clarkston Community Schools, Farmington Public Schools, Madison District Public Schools, Troy School District, Walled Lake Consolidated Schools
  • St. Clair County: East China School District, Marysville Public Schools
  • Wayne County: Airport Community Schools (also in Monroe County), Gibraltar School District (2), Flat Rock Community Schools (also in Monroe County), Wayne-Westland Community Schools
  • Washtenaw County: Milan Area Schools (also in Monroe County), Lincoln Consolidated School District (also in Wayne County), Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), Whitmore Lake Public Schools

According to a recent analysis by Bridge Michigan and Gongwer News Service-Michigan, support for school bond proposals across the state has been decreasing in both Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning districts for the past several years. 

Thirty-Five Southeastern Michigan Communities Identified as Disadvantaged Due to Environmental Burdens

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

There are 35 communities in Southeastern Michigan described as Justice40 communities by local, state and federal government agencies because they have Census tracts that face underinvestment and have higher rates of pollutants than their neighboring communities.  Throughout the United States there are  27,251 Census tracts that are identified as disadvantaged by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (.gov) (CEJST). CEJST identifies census tracts as disadvantaged if they meet the threshold for environmental and/or climate burdens, along with an associated socio-economic burden.

With communities across the nation facing such disadvantages, President Joe Biden signed several Executive Orders into law that focus on helping such disadvantaged areas tackling climate change and addressing environmental injustices through dedicated funding and priorities.

The Justice 40 initiative sets a goal for federal and state investment in pollution remediation and reduction, climate change mitigation, and sustainability while ensuring that 40 percent of related federal investments reach disadvantaged communities, including to the 35 Justice40 communities in Southeastern Michigan. These 35 communities with identified disadvantaged Census tracts are: 

As noted, the CJEST tool helps to identify which Census tracts, and communities, that are deemed disadvantaged because they meet the threshold for environmental and/or climate burdens, along with an associated socio-economic burden.These burdens, and the criteria that helps determine if a community/Census tract are disadvantaged are described below, per the CEJST.

Climate change: at or above the 90th percentile for expected agriculture loss rate OR expected building loss rate OR expected population loss rate OR projected flood risk OR projected wildfire risk;

Energy: at or above the 90th percentile for energy cost OR PM2.5 in the air;

Health: at or above the 90th percentile for asthma OR diabetes OR heart disease OR low life expectancy;

Housing: Experienced historic underinvestment OR are at or above the 90th percentile for housing cost OR lack of green space OR lack of indoor plumbing OR lead paint;

Legacy pollution: have at least one abandoned mine land OR Formerly Used Defense Sites OR are at or above the 90th percentile for proximity to hazardous waste facilities OR proximity to Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)) OR proximity to Risk Management Plan (RMP) facilities;

Transportation: at or above the 90th percentile for diesel particulate matter exposure OR transportation barriers OR traffic proximity and volume;

Water and wastewater: at or above the 90th percentile for underground storage tanks and releases OR wastewater discharge;

Workforce development: at or above the 90th percentile for linguistic isolation OR low median income OR poverty OR unemployment and have more than 10 percent of people ages 25 years or older whose high school education is less than a high school diploma.

Additionally, all categories (except workforce development) include the criteria that the Census tract is at or above the 65th percentile for low income.

The map below is a screenshot from the Equity Emphasis Tool created by the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments, which shows communities/Census tracts that meet the threshold for environmental and/or climate burdens, per the CEJST. The map also highlights the equity, and inequity, of the region based on criteria such as income, race, sex, disability, education, access to transportation and age.The areas highlighted in blue are the census tracts deemed as disadvantaged because they meet the threshold for environmental and/or climate burdens, along with an associated socio-economic burden.

 

The first map above does show that the number of areas deemed disadvantaged by the CEJST map expands beyond the areas with high Equity Emphasis index scores. This is likely because the Equity Emphasis index scores are based on socioeconomic data while the CEJST designations also look at environmental factors, such as potential flood and wildfire risks of an area and proximity to underground storage tanks.

Detroit, its inner-ring suburbs and the City of Pontiac are highlighted in both the CEJST and Equity Emphasis maps, again highlighting how socioeconomic data impacts policy decisions, or lack thereof, related to the environment.

While the data above highlights where the focus areas of the Justice40 Initiative are, it is also important to understand what type of investments will be made in these areas.

The categories of investment are: climate change, clean energy and energy efficiency, clean transit, affordable and sustainable housing, training and workforce development, remediation and reduction of legacy pollution, and the development of critical clean water and wastewater infrastructure.

Moving forward we will carefully dig into the specifics of what criteria have made some Southeastern Michigan’s communities Justice40 Communities, and what funding they are receiving to mitigate future social, economic and environmental injustices.

Municipalities Embracing Programs to Combat Climate Change

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

The impacts of climate change are growing every year, and while those impacts vary by location, they are evident and growing. As individuals we directly impact climate change through our behaviors, for better or worse, and while personal actions can bring great change, governmental policies and programs can have lasting effects. We often hear about the climate action policies and programs set forth by the federal and state government, but local governments are stepping forward to combat climate change as well. Through the creation of sustainability offices and positions, the implementation of climate action plans, the building of climate resiliency hubs, and more, local governments throughout Michigan are stepping up to improve their residents’ quality of life.

Some noteworthy examples of local government sustainability practices and programs include:

Ann Arbor: In 2022 a 20-year, 1 mill climate-action tax proposal was approved by voters to provide funds for the city to investment in renewable energy and other initiatives that will allow Ann Arbor to reach carbon-neutrality, or the A2Zero goal, by 2030. The millage revenue will fund programs and services that will include rebates for households and businesses to use solar or geothermal energy and make energy-efficiency upgrades, the growth of accessibility of electric vehicle chargers, the creation of rain gardens, more tree plantings and increases in recycling, composting, pedestrian/cycling infrastructure and more. In addition to having community support for climate action programs, Ann Arbor also has a Sustainability Office dedicated to the sense of urgency required to combat and alleviate the impacts of climate change. The work of this office is guided by the Ann Arbor Carbon Neutrality Plan: A2ZERO. Ann Arbor’s commitment to carbon neutrality is clear, not only through its adopted policies but also through its funding allocations. From staffing to a contract selection process that prioritizes outside organizations with sustainability practices, Ann Arbor’s commitment to improving the environment, and lives, through sustainable practices is clear.

Detroit: The state’s largest city has a Sustainability Office with the mission of leading initiatives that reduce emissions, increase resiliency and improve residents’ quality of life. This office carries out items from the City’s Climate Action Agenda and Strategy, administrates Detroit’s Solar Neighborhood Initiative and aims to reduce waste and accelerate energy efficiency in Detroit. The Solar Neighborhood Initiative is one of the many programs being implemented to combat climate change. This program aims to turn 250 acres of vacant land in the city into solar energy centers that will generate enough clean energy to offset the electricity used currently by 127 city buildings. The locations will be selected in early 2024.

Additionally, Detroit just opened its first Resilience Hub at AB Ford Park called the Lenox Center, which is located on the city’s east side near the Detroit River. The Lenox Center is one of three resilience centers being brought to the eastside of Detroit through the Resilient Eastside Initiative. The other two are the Eastside Community Network’s headquarters at Stoudamire Wellness Hub near Conner and Warren, and Brilliant Detroit’s literacy center in the Chandler Park neighborhood. The Resilient Eastside Initiative is a collaborative effort between the Eastside Community Network (ECN), the City of Detroit, Brilliant Detroit, and Elevate, a nonprofit based in Chicago. Resilience hubs were built to be able withstand many of the impacts of climate change, serve as centers for emergency management, reduce carbon pollution and bring a community together regularly.

Macomb County: Through the Resilient Macomb project, a land use and community development project focused on the natural resources in Harrison and Chesterfield townships, New Baltimore and St. Clair Shores (all along Lake St. Clair), management of the areas climate variability and its impacts were studied. This project focused on the coastal issues of the area (flooding, water quality) and how they can be addressed while improving the economic opportunities in the area. This study/report was developed by the Land Information Access Association (LIAA), a nonprofit community service and planning organization headquartered in Traverse City, Michigan, and is now in the process of being implemented.

Monroe County: The Resilient Monroe was sponsored by the City of Monroe, Frenchtown Charter Township and Monroe Charter Township and resulted in a Resilient Monroe Resource Atlas. This atlas provides several recommendations focused on increasing use of multi-modal transportation, supporting local agriculture and buying from such producers, and protecting water systems. The document also focuses on growing the area’s economy while understanding the changing environment. 

While these are some notable programs and policies in place by local government entities to combat climate change and promote sustainability, many others are also doing what they can. For example, the City of Ferndale has a sustainability coordinator and office that focuses on programs such as their Waste Reduction and Recycling Master Plan and their Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Cities throughout the state are installing rain gardens to help prevent flooding and promote natural landscaping. Sustainability citizen groups administrated by municipalities, all with the goal of bringing buy-in to sustainable practices, also occur throughout the state. Regional organizations, such as the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments and the Michigan Municipal League host seminars, pull together municipal leaders for greater thought power and create programs all aimed reducing the impacts of climate change and increasing resiliency.

To witness such steps occurring beyond the state and federal levels is inspiring, but remaining committed to the implementation is key, as is weaving the principles of sustainability into all goals, policies and programs. As has already been shown, climate change is impacting Southeast Michigan through more heat waves, flooding and extreme precipitation events. To combat these impacts, and the impacts of our actions at a global scale, both large and small changes in how we conduct our lives-from grocery shopping to the work we perform to how obtain our energy and beyond-must be altered, with the goals being centered around carbon neutrality and sustainability. The programs and policies discussed in this post can serve as guide posts for all municipalities to explore and tailor to their communities’ makeup and needs.

Southeast Michigan’s Poor Air Quality a Result of Climate Change

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Air quality in Southeast Michigan has been notably poor in recent weeks, with three Ozone Action Days occurring in June thus far. According to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Ozone Action season began on May 1 in Southeast Michigan. This year is the 30th year of the voluntary program that helps keep Southeast Michigan’s air clean. In 2022, there were five Ozone Action days.

As we’ve discussed in previous posts, clean air is vital to healthy populations, and in Southeast Michigan clean air has been hard to come in recent weeks. The Canadian wildfires have been the easy culprit to blame for the poor air quality, the real root of the problem goes much deeper….climate change.

Wayne State University Center for Urban Studies Director Lyke Thompson further dives into what is causing poor quality in Southeast Michigan in this recent opinion piece published by the Detroit Free Press.

Climate Change in Michigan–Now and in the Future

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Climate change is multi-faceted in both its causes and effects. In Michigan, and more specifically Metro-Detroit, many of the causes of these drastic shifts in weather patterns are the same across the globe— the continued use and overuse of fossil fuels, increased carbon emissions, desecration of natural resources. What are the effects?

Increased Average Temperature

Temperatures have already risen 2.5 degrees in Michigan. Summers are hotter, and heatwaves are stronger and last longer. Fast forward to 2100, summers in Isle Royale National Park are expected to 11 degrees hotter, according to statesatrisk.org.

The chart below shows just how Michigan’s annual daily temperatures have changed since 1900 and how they are expected to change up to 2100, depending on the amount of emissions we continue to pump into the environment. The observed data is through 2020 and shows that Michigan’s average temperature has increased by nearly 3 degrees (Fahrenheit) over time. According to the data set from The Cooperative Institute for Satellite Earth System Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), even with lower emissions temperatures are expected to increase in Michigan by a minimum of 3 degrees through 2100. That number could increase to at least 12 degrees though if the emissions we produce increase.

Increased Flooding

With increasing temperatures that means hotter air, which holds more water. More water means storms produce heavier rainstorms that are slower to move on, meaning greater accumulations of rain.

In 2020 30,000 residents of Southeast Michigan found their homes flooded. Six years earlier, in 2014, there was another great flood—these 100 year events happened within six years of each other.

According to the June 2021 report “Household Flooding in Detroit” by Healthy Urban Waters, in partnership with the Wayne State Center for Urban Studies and others, 43 percent of 4,667 Detroit households surveyed between 2012-2020 reported household flooding. Furthermore, in an online Detroit Office of Sustainability survey published in 2018, 13 percent of those survey reported they experienced flooding very often; 23 percent reported they experienced flooding somewhat often and 32 percent reported they experienced it occasionally. Additionally, a cross-sectional study published in 2016 of 164 homes in Detroit’s Warrendale neighborhood indicated that 64 percent of homes experienced at least one flooding event in during that, with many experiencing three or four events, according to the report.

The map below is a projection map developed by the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments group that shows how precipitation is expected to increase in Southeastern Michigan and the middle of the state to about 2.25 inches between 2040 and 2059 with increased emissions. While Southeastern Michigan will face continued potential flooding events, the data prediction also shows that the western side of the state will have a decrease in precipitation.

An Increased Number of Heat Islands

A heat island, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is an area where heat is intensified due to structures, such as buildings and roads, that absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat far more than natural landscapes, such as forests and bodies of water. Urban areas, where these structures are highly concentrated and greenery is limited, become “islands” of higher temperatures relative to the outlying areas. Temperatures in such heat islands can be 1 to 7 degrees higher than neighboring areas. The Detroit metropolitan area contains heat islands.

Heat islands can be problematic, according to the EPA, because they can lead to increased energy consumption, increase the emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases and compromise water quality—all of which just further perpetuate climate change. Additionally, heat islands can have negative effects on human health. 

The map below was developed by the CAPA Heat Watch program, through a partnership with the National Integrated Heat Health Information System, NOAA Climate Program Office and the National Weather Service. This map was created from 2020 data and highlights how afternoon temperatures varied depending on the land coverage. For example, on the east side of the City, closer to the river, those areas have greater tree coverage so therefore tend to have cooler temperatures. However, areas with fewer trees, denser residential areas and wider streets have higher temperatures. As noted, this is how heat islands are created and these exist, for example, across the river from Belle Isle and several pockets on the City’s west side.

 Less, or More, Ice Coverage

According to the GLISA, the depth of a lake impacts how rapidly ice can form. So with a shallower lake, there is a greater chance of ice coverage. While depth impacts the ability for a lake to freezer over so does temperature, and with temperatures above freezing there is less to no ice coverage.  Less ice means moisture evaporates into the atmosphere easier, leading way to increased amounts of snow and rain in Michigan.

Also, according to the GLISA,  water temperatures in the fall determine the amount of evaporation from the lake surface because the temperature difference between the air and lake surface temperatures can accelerate evaporation, with warmer water temperatures resulting in greater evaporation. According to the GLISA, “the evaporation removes latent heat from the surface, resulting in a cooling of the surface, and the potential for greater ice cover. For example, if the previous winter experienced low amounts of ice cover (more solar warming), higher evaporation rates (strong cooling effect) during the fall would lead to increased ice cover the next winter. Conversely, cooler water temperatures during fall leads to lower evaporation rates (less cooling) thereby decreased ice cover.”

The effects of climate change on Michigan and Metro-Detroit are apparent with impacts on the daily lives of many. Over the next year we will dig into some of the major contributors to climate change in the region, what policies are being developed to combat the impacts climate change (and how they will work) and what the future of Metro-Detroit may be with a new climate to adapt do.

Michigan’s Potential Future with Nuclear Energy

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

The consumption and production of nuclear energy is not new in Michigan. In fact, according to the most recent data from Energy Information Administration, Michigan produced more nuclear energy in 2020 than any other kind of energy. At that time, Michigan had three functioning nuclear power plants- Fermi 2, Cook and Palisades. In May of 2022 though the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant, which is located on the west side of the state, ceased operations.

Now, however, Palisades’ operations might re-start. Several lawmakers in Michigan want the nuclear plant to re-open, both for energy and economic purposes. On Sept. 9, 2022 Gov. Gretchen Whitmer sent a letter to the US Department of Energy supporting the new owner of Palisades Power Plant’s (Holtec International) federal grant application to the Civil Nuclear Credit program. This program was established to save “premature” retirements of nuclear reactors due to financial hardships. While Michigan lawmakers, such as Gov. Whitmer, believe the nuclear plant is eligible for the program there are several groups, including the Michigan Sierra Club and Michigan Wildlife Conservancy that believe otherwise.

When the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant closed on May 20, 2022 it closed 11 days early because of the performance of a “control rod drive seal,” according to a press release from the Governor’s Office. It was on May 20 that its fuel supply ran out and the power purchase agreement with Consumers Energy expired. The environmental groups say that the plant isn’t eligible for the federal grant program.

Opponents say ineligibility stems from the fact the plant is in fact retired now, according to the Holland Sentinel, and the program is intended for plants that are still operating. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it has never received a request to return a nuclear plant to the grid after it has been permanently defueled. If Palisades becomes the first this could mean the 600 jobs lost when the plant closed could be brought back.

Proponents say economic development is a factor to consider when seeking to  re-open the plant as well as the amount of energy produced and consumed. They argue its long-term effects on Michigan and beyond should also be considered.

Data is not yet available to determine how the closure has impacted the state’s energy production and consumption for 2022, but according to the Governor’s Office more than 800 megawatts of nuclear energy was produced by the Palisades plant on an annual basis. And, as the charts below show, the amount of nuclear energy produced in Michigan is equal to the amount consumed.

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2021, coal provided the largest share of Michigan’s electricity net generation (32%), followed by nuclear energy (30%) and then natural gas-fired power (27%). The data in BTUs was not available for 2021, but the charts below show that in 2021 316.7 trillion BTUs of nuclear energy was both produced and consumed in Michigan.

In the last 20 plus years the amount of nuclear energy produces, and consumed, has grown slightly (except for a production dip in 2009). In 2000, 196.9 trillion BTUs of nuclear energy was produced and consumed in Michigan, and by 2020 that number increased to 316.7 trillion BTUs. It will decline substantially now with the closing of Palisades, a loss of roughly 800 megawatts.

While the reasoning behind the closure of Palisades Nuclear Plant was based on business reasons, its reopening offers the possibility of a non-carbon-based source of electricity. Michigan has a heavy reliance on carbon-based energy.  The goal is for the state to be carbon neutral by 2050, have all coal plants closed by 2035 and to use at least 50 percent of renewable energy for consumption by 2030, according to the MiClimate Plan. Nuclear energy is not renewable, but it is a non-carbon-based source of energy. It’s advocate, the Office of Nuclear Energy, argues:
•It does not produce emissions (nuclear energy produces energy through fission);
•It utilizes a relatively small footprint to produce energy than others sources (more than 3 million solar panels are needed to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines, according to the Office of Nuclear Energy);
•Nuclear fuel is dense so it produces minimal waste.
Opponents support the decommissioning of plants, including Palisades. Their reasoning considers first, the radioactive waste that remains on-site. The waste can remain on site for decades and the storage and removal of the waste is a concern because of potential spills, groundwater contamination and more.
In addition, the risk of an accident at a nuclear plant also causes grave concern for those in the plant and the surroundings of the nuclear power plant, including long-term radioactive pollution of the area—just look at Chernobyl. Recent  threats to Ukrainian nuclear plants raise the specter of new ways that nuclear disasters could occur.  Other concerns are that the mining of uranium is controversial, nuclear plants can be viewed as national security threats, and these plants cost an exorbitant amount to build.
With the pros and cons to nuclear energy fairly well known, now the federal government, the new Palisades’ Nuclear Power Plant owner and the State of Michigan must decide whether redeveloping Michigan’s nuclear energy supply is worthwhile.

Michigan’s Energy Consumption Tops its Production

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

https://forms.office.com/r/WZB2vvRXNt
https://forms.office.com/r/WZB2vvRXNt

In Michigan, we consume more energy, overall, than we produce, and the type of energy we produce is more limited than the types of energy sources we consume. For example, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Michigan does not produce any coal for energy. However, in 2020, according to the EIA, 334.4 trillion BTUs were consumed. The coal powered energy consumed in Michigan is brought in from elsewhere, primarily Wyoming and Montana.

The largest energy source produced in Michigan is nuclear energy, with 316.7 trillion BTUs being produced in 2020. The amount of nuclear energy produced in 2020 is nearly a third more than what was produced in 2000; in 2000 196.9 BTUs of nuclear electricity was produced in Michigan. In the last 20 years, the largest amount of nuclear energy produced in Michigan was 344.2 trillion BTUs in 2011.

In 2020 there were three nuclear power plants in Michigan. However, in May of 2022 one of the nuclear power plants shut down. We will dig deeper into Michigan’s nuclear power next week.

While nuclear energy most recently reigned supreme in energy production totals, at one-point, natural gas was the largest energy source in Michigan. The amount of natural gas energy produced in Michigan reached its peak production at 312 trillion BTUs in 2000. Since then, the amount produced has steadily declined. Between 2007 and 2008 the amount of natural gas produced in Michigan declined from 275 trillion BTUs to 162 trillion BTUs. By 2020, the amount produced was 69.9 trillion BTUs. Overall, between 2007 and 2020 the amount of natural gas produced in Michigan declined by 204.7 trillion BTUs.

In 2020, Michigan ranked 19th in the amount of natural gas produced.

Crude oil production has ranged between 45 and 24 trillion BTUs since 2000, with a steady decline happening since 2013. According to the EIA, Michigan ranked 18th out of the 50 states for crude oil production in 2020. In 2020, 24 trillion BTUs of crude oil was produced.  This is a decrease from the 45.9 trillion BTUs produced in 2000.

Crude oil production in the state comes from reserves; in 2020 about 4.5 million barrels of crude oil were produced compared to the 34.7 million barrels that were produced in 1979.  Please note the chart references BTUs, while barrels of crude oil is another measurement used to detail production of this energy source.
The amount of renewable energy produced in Michigan has grown since 2000, outclimbing energy production numbers of crude oil and natural gas. In total in 2020, according to the EIA, 225 trillion BTUs of renewable energy was produced. While this was a slight decrease from 237 trillion BTUs produced two years earlier, it is still an increase overall in the amount of renewable energy produced.

The highest amount of renewable energy produced by a source was from wood and waste since 2000. In 2020 the amount of wood and waste renewable energy produced in Michigan was 99.4 trillion BTUs, a decline from the 119.5 trillion BTUs in 2018.

In 2002, biofuels did not produce any energy, and by 2020 that number increased to 43.1 trillion BTUs. This was a slight decline from the 50.8 trillion BTUs produced.
 
For “other” renewable energy sources, which include wind, solar and hydroelectric energy, there has been a steady increase in production. There was however somewhat of a spike in 2014 when the amount produced shadowed the amount of biofuel energy produced in Michigan. In 2014 there were 58 trillion BTUs of “other” renewable energy produced in Michigan; in 2020 that number increased to 82.5 trillion BTUs.
While there has been somewhat of a shift in the type of energy produced in Michigan, such as a more nuclear and renewable energy being produced and less natural gas, the overall amount produced has remained fairly stable. The gap between the amount of energy produced in Michigan and the amount consumed has also remained somewhat stable, but large. In 2000, there was a 2,559.8 trillion BTU gap between the amount of energy consumed and produced in Michigan. By 2020 that gap only decreased to 1,975.1 trillion BTUs.

As noted last week, Michigan consumes 240.2 trillion BTUs of renewable energy sources, 100.3 trillion BTUs of natural gas and more than three times those amounts in both coal and oil energy sources. With consumption levels where they are at, and the necessary shift to clean energy sources growing greater and greater, Michigan’s energy policies should also shift. There needs to be further encouragement, and enforcement, of creating more renewable energy production sources in the state, with that energy than being used in-state. Michigan should prioritize consuming the clean energy it produces and increasing such production.

Michigan’s Energy Consumption Declined in 2020

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

In 2020, Michigan’s primary energy consumption was 2,610.6 trillion British Thermal Units (BTU), the lowest it has been since 1984 when it was at 2,597.4 trillion. This total consumption number is based on all categories of energy, including (but not limited to) coal, petroleum, natural gas and renewable energy sources. Between 1984 and 1999 energy consumption in Michigan continued to regularly increase; in 1999 Michigan’s total energy consumption was 3,227.4 trillion BTU. Since then, Michigan’s energy consumption decreased to 2,610.6 trillion BTU in 2020. In 2020 Michigan ranked 10th in total energy consumption out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia (this includes residential, commercial, industrial and transportation).

The decrease can be linked to several factors including, Michigan’s population decrease, the commercial sector becoming more energy savvy, the implementation and use of Utility Waste Reduction Programs and an overall awareness on energy consumption and its environmental and financial impacts. 

However, while energy consumption is declining in Michigan, energy use is still a key factor in everyday life. The chart below highlights some of the key energy sources consumed in Michigan in 2020.

**The data provided in this post is from the to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and can be found here.***

In the State of Michigan, petroleum is the most highly consumed form of energy, according EIA.  In 2020, 1,010.9 trillion (BTU)s of petroleum were consumed in the State of Michigan with natural gas being the second highest consumed energy source at 1,003.4 trillion BTUs. For context, , petroleum represents the use of motor gasoline, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel and jet fuel and natural gas is used for heating, electricity and industrial use. One of the largest energy sources produced in Michigan is natural gas.

Coal was the third largest type of energy consumed in Michigan in 2020 at 334.4 trillion BTUs. Although coal is the third largest type of energy consumed in Michigan, coal fired-power plants provide the largest share of the electricity generated in Michigan. However, Michigan has no active coal mines, most of the coal consumed in the state is brought in by rail from the west.

Renewable energy consumption in Michigan is not even half of the consumption of petroleum, natural gas or coal, but there are continuous strides to utilize it as a reliable energy source. Biomass, all together, was the largest consumed renewable energy source in Michigan at 157.7 trillion BTUs in 2020. Biomass includes organic matter such as wood or crop waste. Wind energy is the second largest consumed renewable energy source in Michigan at 59.1 trillion BTUs.

While petroleum has long been an energy source that has been heavily consumed in Michigan, there has been shifts in its consumption numbers, along with the consumption of other energy sources. The charts below show how energy source consumption habits have changed in Michigan between 2000 and 2020.
Some key takeaways include:

Petroleum: There has been an overall increase of usage since 2012, when it was reported that 787.2 trillion BTUs were consumed. Prior to 2012, use of petroleum remained steady between 2000 and 2005. Consumption then began to drop to the 2012 low point. This pattern of decline, then resurgence, is one that follows economic activity related to the Great Recession. We will likely see a decline in consumption for 2021, and even 2022, in reflection of the pandemic and its economic impacts.
Natural Gas: Consumption of natural gas hit a low point in 2009 at 750.8 trillion BTUs. Since then though, consumption steadily increased through 2019. In 2020 there was a slight decrease, with consumption dropping from 1,055 trillion BTUs in 2019 to 1,003.5 trillion BTUs in 2020.
Biomass: Consumption of biomass as an energy source steadily increased between 2002 and 2018. In 2002 81 trillion BTUs of biomass was consumed and by 2018 that number increased to 175.7 trillion BTUs. Since 2018 consumption has been slowly declining. A decrease in consumption of wood and waste and fuel ethanol were the largest contributors to that decline.
Geothermal: The consumption of geothermal as an energy source steadily increased from 2000 to 2011, (from 1.2 trillion BTUs to 5.1 trillion BTUs) and has since leveled off, with 5.2 trillion BTUs being consumed each year between 2012 and 2020.
Wind: Consumption of wind power energy in Michigan truly took off in 2009 and has only increased since then, with the 2020 consumption number being 59.1 trillion BTUs.
Solar and hydroelectric: Solar and hydroelectric are the lowest consumed renewable energy sources in Michigan. According to the EIA, 3.2 trillion BTUs of solar energy was consumed in Michigan in 2020; this is an increase from the 0.2 trillion BTUs consumed in 2000. This was also the highest amount consumed to date.
Consumption of hydroelectric energy has been erratic, with consumption of this energy source fairly consistently increasing since 2012.

While fossil fuels are still a large part of Michigan’s energy consumption, the data shows there is a shift, albeit somewhat slow, toward renewable energy. In 2008 Michigan enacted a renewable energy standard that required the state retail electricity providers, such as DTE, to generate at least 10 percent of their energy sources from renewable energy; that requirement increased to 12.5 percent to be met in both 2019 and 2020 and 15 percent in 2020.

Even with renewable energy policies in place, the data presented here indicates that carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels are likely to continue to dominate energy consumption for many decades. Policy makers must take stronger, more immediate approaches to address the dangers of climate change, which directly impacts our environment, economy and children.

Life Expectancy Declines in Michigan, US

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

The average life expectancy for Americans decreased in 2020, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, and the same goes for Michiganders.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, which is run by the Centers for Disease Control, the average life expectancy of an American in 2019 was 79 years of age and by 2020 that decreased 77 years of age. In 2021, the National Center for Health Statistics reported the average life expectancy of an American decreased to 76 years of age. For Michigan, the Michigan Department of Community Health did not have data for 2021, but for 2020 the average life expectancy of males and females, both white and black, declined.

The first chart below shows that between 2019 and 2020 the life expectancy for females declined from 80.6 years of age to 79.2; for males the average life expectancy declined from 75.7 years of age to 73.6. Prior to the reported 2022 average life expectancy ages, the last times they were as low was in 2002 for females (79 years of age) and 1999 for males (73.4 years of age).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the top 10 contributing factors to death for those who live in Michigan in 2020 were:

•Heart Disease (117,087 deaths)

•Cancer (21,118)

•COVID-19 (11,362)

•Accidents (6,044)

•Stroke (5,873)

•Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease (5,644)

•Alzheimer’s Disease (4,860)

•Diabetes (3,408)

•Kidney Disease (1,940)

•And Influenza, Pneumonia (1,880)

While we know the leading causes of death, it is believed by the CDC that the pandemic likely drove the recent decline in the average life expectancy for Americans, across the board. In Michigan, COVID-19 itself attributed to 11,362 deaths in 2020. We also know that the number of deaths related to heart disease, accidents, influenza/pneumonia, kidney disease, diabetes and stroke increased between 2019 and 2020, as did the drug overdose rates.

So, while the numbers above help frame the story as to why Michigan’s average life expectancy is decreasing, digging into the data another way also tells another story.

The Michigan Department of Community Health publicly presents data on the average life expectancy broken down by both sex and race. As shown above, overall, females have long had a higher life expectancy over males. However, when further breaking down the data, we see that black females and white males in Michigan have had nearly the same life expectancy since 1910. In 2020, the average life expectancy for black females in Michigan was 73.3 years of age, a decrease of 3.3 years from 2019. The average life expectancy of white men in Michigan was 75.3 years of age in 2020, a decrease of 1.3 years from 2019. White females in Michigan experienced a 0.9 decrease in average life expectancy, which was the smallest decrease of the four groups. It was black males who had the largest decrease in life expectancy between 2019 and 2020 in Michigan at 4.8 years; in 2020 the average life expectancy for black males in Michigan was reported at 64.9 years of age. The last time the average life expectancy for black males was that low, or lower, was in 1995 when it was reported to be 64.4 years of age.

According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, the top leading causes of death for black males in Michigan in 2020 were:

•Heart Disease (2,430 deaths)

•COVID-19 (1,610)

•Malignant neoplasms (1,272)

•Accidents (799)

•Assault ( 512)

Note that assault is not even among the overall the top 10 causes for Michigan citizens overall.

While we mentioned the effect COVID-19 has had on life expectancy, as well as drug overdoses and the increase mortality rates related to other diseases, it should also be noted that number of individuals with access to health care has increased in recent years. So, as the average life expectancy is decreasing, more individuals are receiving greater access to health care, an odd result, but probably the effect of COVID has overtaken the benefits of better care.

Overall, decline in life expectancy for all sexes and races is concerning as it means people are dying earlier than they should be.