LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- As state lawmakers wrestle with how much more electricity Michigan will need in the future, many energy experts are saying: use less.
The potential savings from using less energy are enormous. For every $1 invested in more efficient lighting and appliances, $2 to $3 is saved down the road by avoiding or at least delaying the need to build new multibillion-dollar power plants.
"It's the cheapest power available," says Rep. Kathy Angerer, a Dundee Democrat who's sponsoring a bill that would put energy efficiency programs back in place.
Sweeping energy legislation approved last week by the state House and now before the Senate includes a requirement that utilities restart efficiency programs canceled a decade ago.
Although details would have to be sorted out by utilities and state regulators, the plans generally would mean utility customers could get rebates for buying more efficient light bulbs and household appliances in the future. But they'd likely have to pay more -- 50 cents to $1 -- on their monthly bills so the rebate program could be put in place.
Utilities in turn would have to reduce the amount of electricity they sell starting in 2009.
Utilities generally are rewarded for selling more power. Under the energy-efficiency plan, utilities likely would collect the same amount of revenue or more even though they sell less.
That might sound backward to some. But the monthly surcharge is a great bargain considering residents could pay an extra $3 to $4 a month for a new power plant, says Martin Kushler, a former Michigan Public Service Commission staffer who's now with the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy based in Washington, D.C.
Utilities likely would use the surcharge fees to cut bulk deals with stores selling energy-efficient products, which generally are more expensive.
Stores could give customers instant rebates -- paid for by the utilities -- if they buy high-efficiency clothes washers, furnaces and compact fluorescent light bulbs. Utilities could help homeowners and businesses with insulation and weatherizing techniques.
Utilities would give customers information on how to reduce their electricity usage, because persuading people to use different light bulbs is as much about changing old habits as it's about overcoming price concerns, says Terry Mierzwa, manager of marketing and customer research for Jackson-based Consumers Energy, the state's second-largest utility.
"Awareness and education is first and foremost," Mierzwa says. "Some of these energy issues just aren't at the top of mind for people as they go about their day-to-day lives."
According to the federal government, if every home in the United States replaced just one incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, it would save enough power to light more than 3 million homes a year and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equaling the output of 800,000 cars.
"There is no doubt when it comes to meeting future electric demand that energy efficiency is the lowest-cost, cleanest and cheapest resource we have," Mierzwa says.
In the Capitol, efficiency efforts have received less attention than other parts of the energy package.
The bills that moved last week through the House would limit competition facing Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison -- the state's dominant utilities -- so they would have the stable customer base they say they need to build new power plants. The bills also would require that 10 percent of electricity sold in Michigan come from renewable sources by the end of 2015.
The House tied the bills together so none can become law unless all are signed, though the Senate may break the issues apart in coming months.
Some House Republicans opposed the legislation, including the efficiency bill, because they fear it could increase electric rates and set energy policy based on government policy rather than market demand.
But many lawmakers and leading business and environmental groups say that's a disingenuous argument because electric rates are going up regardless as prices for coal and natural gas rise and demand increases.
"While investing in energy efficiency will cost money, doing anything else, including doing nothing, will cost much more," says Gayle Miller, lobbyist for the Sierra Club's Michigan chapter.
Rep. Mike Nofs, a Battle Creek Republican who worked on the House energy plan, says conserving energy would offset parts of the legislation that may raise rates.
"You'll see your bill go down," he says.
There's also a potential economic development benefit.
Angerer estimates the efficiency measure would create 8,000 jobs over five years because more money would go to stores, energy-saving auditors would be hired and businesses saving energy costs could invest in other things.
"Instead of going out to Wyoming to buy trainloads of coal, money is going to local businesses," Kushler says.