Now that the meat-and-potatoes issues of the state budget and taxation are resolved, we can move on to other, less-acrimonious concerns. How about really important things like renewable portfolio standards? What's that, you ask?

Well, if you care about energy independence and the environment, please read on.

The better-known forms of renewable energy include solar, wind, wood and other biological ingredients, and electricity generated through hydropower dams. Another is methane gas, recovered from solid waste landfills.

Such sources, obviously, vary in availability depending on location. In Michigan, wind-derived energy is thought to have particular potential. Less than 4 percent of Michigan's electricity currently comes from the aforementioned renewable sources. The rest comes from coal and nuclear generation.

The problems with coal are twofold. One is that it is considered a dirty source since it emits harmful greenhouse gases into the air, and the second is that Michigan must import all of its coal.

There has been a resurgence of interest in a very clean energy source -- nuclear power -- according to a recent report in USA Today. Twenty percent of the nation's electricity supply is nuclear-generated, and many countries have employed it to a greater degree than the United States has precisely because it is a much cleaner source.

But nuclear power has problems all of its own, including storage of waste and perceived safety concerns. That is not to say that it shouldn't be considered; it's just that the public might reject this option.

An effort has been launched to persuade the Michigan Legislature to require that electric companies generate 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2015. Three Oakland County lawmakers are among sponsors of a measure that would mandate that goal. They are Paul Condino of Southfield, Marie Donigan of Royal Oak and Andy Meisner of Ferndale.

The campaign for Michigan to adopt a mandatory renewable portfolio standard is part of a national trend. Twenty-four states have adopted an RPS, according to Andrew Such, executive director of the Michigan Sustainable Energy Coalition. New York has a 25 percent goal but, in fairness, it must be pointed out that Niagara Falls generates 19 percent of that state's electricity.

Besides the environmental advantages of an RPS, many states are finding an economic incentive. Texas has huge potential for wind energy and business interests there are pushing for it, but other states find the turbines unsightly. A political consensus favoring wind power grew in Texas, in part due to public desire to become less dependent on foreign sources of fossil fuels, and also due to the wide open spaces in the state that are conducive to capturing wind power.

The desire for independence from foreign oil is a significant reason for the bipartisan support at the federal level that recently led to adoption of a mandatory federal fuel standard of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks by 2020. This will be attained in part by a seven-fold increase in the use of biologically generated ethanol -- which actually requires substantial energy to produce.

If the idea of an RPS is so good, why not mandate it federally? Well, the U.S. House of Representatives approved one, but it was rejected in the Senate -- it also rejected tax incentives for wind and solar power development on a 59-40 vote Dec. 13.

Gregory Wetstone, senior director of governmental and public affairs for the American Wind Energy Association, called that vote "out of step with Americans across the political spectrum who overwhelmingly support clean, homegrown renewable energy. We will continue to work with congressional leaders on these vital issues and are confident that we will secure enactment of the tax incentives and other policies that Americans need and want to put our nation on the path to a clean and secure energy future."

Nationally, about 6 percent of energy comes from renewable sources, according to the Environment News Service.

Of course, if they were profitable, renewable energy sources would already be employed. In the short run, such sources would be costly, but long-term, they make sense for the business interests producing them and could bring 19,000 jobs to Michigan by 2020, according to advocates.

Andrew Such also warns that higher taxes on carbon may be coming in an effort to reduce its use, so electricity costs may be headed up anyway.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce opposes a mandatory RPS as too expensive and disputes the job-creation assertion.

"Proponents of wind energy claim that mandating renewable energy will lead to job creation," Doug Roberts, Jr., the chamber's director of environmental and energy policy, told members of the House Committee on Energy and Technology. "However, proponents usually can't back up these claims with facts.

"For a quick comparison, for under half the cost of a 10 percent renewable mandate, Michigan could build a new nuclear plant (cost $2 billion to $3 billion)," Roberts added. "A new nuclear plant would provide 1,200 megawatts of reliable energy and would create 1,800 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent jobs. The average salary for nuclear engineers in 2003 was $80,000. In addition, a nuclear plant would have all of the clean air benefits that wind energy provides."

The chamber estimates that meeting the proposed RPS, which has been endorsed by the state Public Service Commission, would cost ratepayers in excess of $6 billion.

Nevertheless, the assault on coal will only intensify, whether from environmental or other concerns. And desire for energy independence certainly has merit.

Glenn Gilbert is executive editor of The Oakland Press. Contact him at (248) 745-4587 or glenn.gilbert@oakpress.com.