Returning citizens, a job and second chance

So much comes down to employment. Having a good job that allows someone to sustain themselves and their family is so fundamental that it almost seems too obvious to state.

Yet, it’s important to say it out loud. at’s because we have a segment of society that wants to work — crucial at a time of low unemployment — yet struggles to nd a job. Why? Because they made mistakes in their past and have a criminal record.

ey are often referred to as “returning citizens,” meaning they are re-entering society after a period of incarceration.

A recent Crain’s Forum devoted to the topic found that Michigan has more than 30,000 people locked up in state prisons. ousands more are held in local or federal institutions. Ninety- ve percent of people incarcerated will come back to the community, Stephanie Hartwell, a criminal justice expert who is dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Wayne State University, told writer John Gallagher.

“If we’re not open to employing them, we’re not going to have good outcomes,” Hartwell said.

We are talking about people who have paid their debt through incarceration, and they are now back to living among us. It is in everyone’s interest that they nd meaningful employment so they can support themselves and be productive members of society.

To be sure, returning citizens face challenges beyond employment. Barriers to nding housing, mental health issues and lack of education are all key issues for those trying to reintegrate into society.

But landing a meaningful job is a critical stepping stone along the path to rebuilding a life.

Kevin Harris shared his story of struggle with Crain’s Forum about when he got out of prison nearly two decades ago. It took longer than needed for him to get on track because of problems with nding good employment.

Now he is the pastor of a church in Detroit where he helps young Black men facing challenges in a neighborhood with too many guns and drugs.

Harris has a message: “It’s vital that people that are in positions to help somebody give them a chance, if we’re going to have a better community out here.” ese are important steps and, at the core, employment remains a vital building block. Employers can help.

E orts are being made. Wayne State has a program called Educational Transition Coordination that helps recently released people get into job training and university classes. e city of Detroit o ers Skills for Life, a job training program available to returning citizens.

In mid-April, the state of Michigan sealed all or some of the criminal records of more than 800,000 Michigan residents under an automatic expungement process.

Any employer is going to want to scrutinize new hires, and those who might have criminal records even more so. But many employers also report that returning citizens can be their most dedicated employees.

Tony Gant, policy director of Nation Outside, an organization dedicated to helping the formerly incarcerated, told Crain’s Forum that a good job is critical.

“People who have served long periods of time oftentimes are the most ambitious people you’re going to meet,” Gant said. “I just want employers to understand that.”

O ering an opportunity to a returning citizen can be good for business and good for the community.

Recently a seven-bill package from Michigan Democrats has been introduced that would update renewable energy standards, set a clean fuel standard, reduce building emissions and allow state regulators to consider climate factors when evaluating utility plans. However, these bills do not address some of the key problems driving higher and higher electricity rates and poor reliability.

According to the most recent year of data (2021) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Michigan has the 12th most expensive retail price of electricity in the country.

Let’s take a closer look at some of these energy laws.

Utility use of projected costs

When a utility seeks a rate increase, it les an application with the Michigan Public Service Commission. In that application, the utility will list all its costs and revenues over a 12-month period to support the notion that a rate increase is necessary.

at 12-month window is called the “test period” or the “test year.” For over 60 years, the utilities in Michigan were required to use a historical test year, based on actual costs and revenues, and only adjusted for known and measurable changes. However, the 2008 energy law authorized utilities in Michigan to utilize a fully projected future test year based on costs and revenues projected by the utility seeking a rate increase. e subjective nature of projecting costs and revenues — and the obvious inability to accurately predict what future costs and revenues will be — has resulted in higher rates for customers. However, even when the actual costs are lower than predicted, it is the utility — not the customers — which receives the bene t. Customers still pay the higher rates based on the projected higher costs. is system put in place by Michigan Legislators allows the utilities to collect the costs to improve reliability, then not actually spend the money on reliability but instead give it to their investors as an increase in dividends.

10-month rate cases

Instead of giving the MPSC and customers more time to scrutinize the utility projections, however, the legislators also passed a law to shorten the amount of time the MPSC and any interveners have to review a utility’s rate increase ling. In fact, the 2016 energy law shortened the time frame to an extremely fast 10 months. Not only did this law signi cantly reduce the time to review the accuracy of utility projections, it also allowed the utilities to le rate increases more frequently. is one law passed by Michigan legislators thus limited the authority of the MPSC to determine how much time was necessary to review a utility rate increase ling and allowed utilities to le for rate increases more frequently — a compound impact on increasing electricity rates.

10.7% ROE for renewable portfolio standard

Another change in the 2008 energy bill was to require the utilities to have a certain percentage of the electricity supply come from renewable generation. is is a good thing. But what the 2008 energy law did was once again limit the authority of the MPSC to determine what is a reasonable pro t for the utility to make regarding investments in renewable generation and locked in a premium return on equity/pro t for the utility. What do I mean by premium pro t? Well in both Consumers Energy’s and DTE’s most recent electric rate cases, the MPSC approved a 9.9% ROE for all other capital investments made by the utility, still above the national average for electric utility ROEs. e law requires the MPSC to allow the utilities to earn a 10.7% ROE on the renewable energy investments which, you guessed it, results in unnecessary higher electricity rates.

Energy e ciency incentive

e 2008 energy bill also created an energy e ciency program. is law requires the utilities to collect money from all customers and then use that money to fund projects that reduce energy usage by customers. Using electricity more e ciently is certainly a good thing. However, the law also then authorized the utilities to collect millions of dollars of pro t as an “incentive” for running this energy e ciency program.

So, in summary, the MPSC’s authority to ensure reasonable rates and reliable service has been signi cantly limited by several prior laws passed by Michigan legislators. Michigan’s electricity rates and reliability are headed in the wrong direction. It’s time for legislators to do something to help customers and pass a 2023 energy law that changes some of these old laws that are not working, lower electricity rates and improve reliability.