<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Comments: New state energy plan is sketchy </title>
<link>http://www.statenews.com</link>
<description>The big news out of Lansing last week was that a bipartisan, comprehensive and long-term energy plan was passed by the Michigan House of Representatives. Those are some adjectives that we don&#8217;t see coming out of Lansing too often. Should we, as citizens, merely accept this as a good policy on the basis of its boldness and bipartisan support?</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<generator>Foundry4</generator>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:27:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:30:58 -0400</pubDate>
<webMaster>webmaster@statenews.com</webMaster>
<item><title>Comment from seriously</title>
<link>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16005/view</link>
<description>sketchy? is this really an appropriate word for this situation? could we hear someone like jenny G saying &#8220;i dont know about this plan, it seems a little sketchy&#8221;</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:40:22 -0400</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16005/view</guid>
</item>
<item><title>Comment from Needs Research</title>
<link>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16036/view</link>
<description>&#8220;I’m not enough of an energy policy expert to dispute this case&#8221;

	That much is clear.  This article hits on the main points of this important package, but hopelessly confuses and commingles them.  The RPS and the rewrite of PA 141 (electric competition) are substantively separate issues that have been combined to forge a workable legislative/political compromise.  For someone who ran for State Representative, I&#8217;d expect a little more research and a better understanding that complex bill packages like this require compromise.  Check your facts on the alleged benefits of so-called competition in the electric market.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:42:50 -0400</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16036/view</guid>
</item>
<item><title>Comment from etch a sketch</title>
<link>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16046/view</link>
<description>Sketchy is appropriate in the editorial section, yes.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:56:06 -0400</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16046/view</guid>
</item>
<item><title>Comment from johnston</title>
<link>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16066/view</link>
<description>another pointless article by e.g.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:23:47 -0400</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16066/view</guid>
</item>
<item><title>Comment from Debbie</title>
<link>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16269/view</link>
<description>I disagree, johnston.  Finally we have a column on something other than lost iPods or cell phones (and the chaos that inevitably ensues) or last name pronunciations.  This column presents an interesting opinion on a piece of legislation that probably 95% of us have never heard about but may impact the state&#8217;s economy.  Bravo for the informative article!</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:57:19 -0400</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16269/view</guid>
</item>
<item><title>Comment from Brandon Knight</title>
<link>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16796/view</link>
<description>&#8220;Link Text&#8221;: http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2008/04/letter_collins_knight_042408</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:30:58 -0400</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/16796/view</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

