Gov. Jennifer Granholm may have had the upcoming election in mind last week in issuing a directive aimed at creating a state energy plan. That doesn't bother us, for just as there is no good time to have a power blackout, there is no bad time to engage in energy planning. This is an urgent issue, regardless of what election is coming up.

Last week the governor directed the Public Service Commission to prepare an "Energy Plan for the State of Michigan" by the end of 2006. In Granholm's words, "Michigan citizens and businesses need to know that there will be a reliable, affordable source of electricity when they reach for the light switch. This is an opportunity to be sure that we're meeting those needs in the most affordable, environmentally friendly, reliable way possible."

To this, all those who want their light switches to work on command should respond, "Amen!" But make no mistake -- though an energy plan makes all the sense in the world, there are issues herein that are bound to divide many people along political lines.

For Example:

# The governor's directive was praised by the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan. PIRGIM was especially high on that part calling for a Renewable Portfolio Standard to set targets for energy consumption derived from renewable energy sources. PIRGIM is concerned about Michigan's heavy dependence on coal (56.7 percent), nuclear energy (26.4 percent) and natural gas (13.4 percent) for electricity, and its minuscule use of renewable energy sources (about 2 percent).

PIRGIM's strategy in a nutshell: "We expect the PSC to develop a strong RPS that includes only clean, renewable sources of energy (including wind, solar, clean biomass and landfill gas) and that establishes a minimum target of 10 percent renewable-energy generation by 2015, as Wisconsin has just done."

We do agree in part. But there will be much debate over how much emphasis should be placed on renewable energy. For example, if, as PIRGIM insists, wind-turbine production has the potential to provide "over 10,000 new jobs" in Michigan, there are ancillary questions: Are wind turbines to become as commonplace -- or more so -- than cellular towers? What are the implications of that?

# Here's another flashpoint for debate. Nearly everyone agrees that Michigan's long-term energy needs justify new baseload power-generating capacity. A new plant, or plants, in other words. But what changes will it take to give Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison the assurances that such investments will pay off? Current law, which allows customers to buy electricity from the utilities' competitors, complicates the long-term planning it takes to develop new plants.

So, should Michigan abandon its competition in electricity? Should the state go back to more of a monopolistic system, if that is the only way to recreate the environment needed to build new electric-generating plants? Should the PSC build in guarantees of rate structures that reward such investments?

Neither of these two issues, nor any others that might come up, are grounds to avoid planning for Michigan's energized future. It must be done, and election or not this year, the governor is correct to issue the directive.