The U.S Department of Energy estimated that businesses across the county have lost about $1 billion from copper thefts. It has disrupted electricity, slowed construction projects, and damaged irrigation networks.

Copper theft in our region has reached epidemic proportions. In 2007, for example, more than 400 copper-related thefts involving telephone lines occurred in Detroit, according to AT&T Michigan officials. That represents an increase of more than 140 percent over 2006 numbers. As of February of 2008, telephone wire has been cut 60 times in Detroit by people who strip the wire of its copper molding. Every time a phone is cut, residents are cut off from the emergency services they may need.

Some of the laws included within these bills would be the requirement for individuals selling scrap metal to show photo identification. Scrap dealers would also be required to make and maintain a copy of the ID. Dealers are then required to provide a copy of their records to law enforcement officials on a weekly basis.

There are several bills that have just begun legislation, but those that have gone through the state have passed unanimously or near unanimously. Those unanimous votes collected on the bills show that copper theft truly is a serious issue and that our lawmakers are willing to transcend partisan politics to try and solve the problem.

The Kalamazoo Regional Chamber of Commerce is on record as being supportive of the original versions of these energy bills. The bills supplement each other but do categorically different things. Both bills deal with electric energy generation, but Senate Bill 213 deals with renewable resources and House Bill 5524 focuses on the companies providing that energy.

Senate Bill 213 has been the source of much controversy as of late, because it will require that 10 percent of electric energy generated in Michigan by 2015 come from renewable resources. The bill itself has taken months of discussion and deliberation to resolve.

House Bill 5524 was once the focus of controversy as well. The bill rewrites the state's electric utility regulation system. Supporters argue that without the changes they could not build new baseload power plants that would in turn spur new economic development in the state and lead to the hiring of thousands of workers. Opponents of the bill argue that it would allow the state's two largest utilities, DTE and Consumers Energy, to monopolize the state after years of operating under a system that allowed consumers greater choice in selecting their power providers.

The concern that most people share about Senate Bill 213 and House Bill 5524 is the fear of cost. Proponents of the bills discussed the need to be proactive, and that the package would inevitably help control cost increases, rather than be victim to unexpected price increases. Critics of the new energy package point towards already rising energy costs, and they claim that the cost could go up significantly due to these bills.

But now Michigan businesses face strict new regulations being proposed by MIOSHA, the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration. MIOSHA is considering a rule requiring employers statewide to establish ergonomic standards and regulations that go beyond federal requirements. California is the only state with a mandatory rule and Michigan's proposal would be even stricter.

Senate Bill 843, as proposed by state Senator Alan Sanborn, (R-11) would prohibit MIOSHA from establishing mandatory ergonomic rules or standards. Voluntary guidelines are still allowable.

There are several issues with forced ergonomics reform. First and foremost, there is no national ergonomics standard. Every state could have a different measure of regulation, which could lead to fifty different sets of standards. Also, since ergonomics is not an exact science, and regulations set by the government without clear, measurable guidelines are undesirable.

Washington state grocers, who faced similar ergonomics reform, estimated that it would cost the average grocery store $675,000 to comply with that state's mandates - which were later repealed by voters. Washington's building industry calculated its compliance costs would add an additional $2,400 to the expense of building a $200,000 home.

The issue and development of ergonomics has been shown to be beneficial in the workplace; however, forcing Michigan, a state that already is above the nationwide average in preventing workplace injuries through the use of ergonomics, to endure the strictest standards of any state, is not a measure that would be favorable to business within Michigan.

Senate Bill 843 has been passed by the Senate and now awaits action in the House.

The Kalamazoo Regional Chamber of Commerce actively supports business, particularly small business, and as such the Chamber cannot support the repeal of the Drug Immunity law in Michigan.

Passage of Senate Resolution 134 would amend current law in Michigan, that has allowed us to successfully compete for life science jobs. Current protections do exist for consumers at the federal level. We believe that companies that have made a good faith effort to obtain FDA approval certifying the safety and effectiveness of their pharmaceutical products should not be offset unfairly. The appropriate venue for these penalized types of actions should be at the federal level.

The Kalamazoo Regional Chamber of Commerce joins with the Michigan Chamber of Commerce in vocal opposition to this legislation due to the damage it would cause small and large business alike. The resolution, if it were passed, would technically allow action against the FDA, but the real issue is the exposure to litigation for smaller companies that provide the FDA with sampling and testing for certain drugs that the FDA later approves.

The effect the legislation would have on our already struggling economy would be crippling. Michigan has been searching for a profitable industry to offset the struggling automobile sector, and to date the life-science industry has been the best economic option available.

The impacts of this legislation are not limited to only large pharmaceutical companies. The companies with the most to lose with the least resources to meet this challenge are the small businesses that help Michigan's economy stay afloat. If Senate Resolution 134 were passed, there would be a surge in class action lawsuits that would send countless businesses into a downward spiral that many would likely be unable to recover from.

Michigan ranks 48 out of 50 in terms of the health of its economy. Making it harder to do business in this state for one of our most important growing economic segments is not wise policy. It discourages new investment and encourages existing firms to seek a friendlier legal climate elsewhere.

The compact would prevent remote states or countries from tapping into the lakes, except for the rarest of exceptions. It would also require the Great Lakes states to regulate their own large-scale water uses and to promote conservation.

The St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact is an interstate bill, and as such it needs the approval of Congress along with a signature from the President in order to go into full effect. On August 4th, the United States Senate passed the bill unanimously.

The compact, now in the U.S. House, is expected to be voted on before the end of September. If it is passed, it would go to the President for his signature and then be enacted fully into law.

The MBT surcharge was created in order to replace the Single Business Tax, a complicated piece of legislation that disincentivized capital investment and employment; however, the MBT has proven itself to be even more problematic for many businesses in Michigan. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce polled its member, and the results of the poll showed several things:

• 80 percent of respondents in the poll indicated their tax burden is higher now with the MBT surcharge than it was under the SBT
• 30 percent of those respondents said the increase was over 100 percent.
• 11 percent of those polled said the increase in taxes was over 300 percent.

• When asked how job providers plan to react to their increased tax liability:

• 31 percent said they would delay or cancel wage or salary increases.
• 24 percent said they would delay or cancel capital investment.
• 15 percent said they would cancel their plans or relocate their Michigan facilities.
• 14 percent said they would lay off employees.
• The remaining 16 percent said they would just absorb the cost.

Despite many good intentions, the MBT is already proving to be a complicated, harmful tax to business in Michigan. More than 60 percent of respondents said the MBT is more complicated than the SBT and 80 percent said they are now worse off than they were before its implementation.

The results of this members-only poll, including member comments (unattributed), are available on the Michigan Chamber's website at www.michamber.com. Approximately 690 Michigan Chamber members participated in this poll, which was conducted March 8 through April 28, 2008. Respondents included company presidents, CEOs, senior executives and business owners from across the state.

State Representative Dan Acciavatti (R-32, Chesterfield/House Bill 5627) and State Senators Mark Jansen (R-Grand Rapids/Senate Bill 1242) and Jud Gilbert (R-Algonac/Senate Bill 1230) have introduced legislation to repeal the surcharge. We urge you to contact your legislators and ask them to support these bills.

• Phone Tax
  The Kalamazoo Chamber opposes a new phone tax. House bill 4852, as proposed by Representative Cushingberry (D-8), would add $1.35 to any phone bill capable of dialing 911. Furthermore, this new tax would be in addition to tax that already exists for the same purpose, which is 29 cents for cellular telephone service and for landlines the tax is decided at the discretion of the service provider.

  The bill is currently sitting in the House Appropriations Committee.

• Spending Restraint Amdt.
  The Kalamazoo Chamber is in support of an amendment, as proposed by State Senator John Pappageorge. The amendment, Joint Resolution E, is a Constitutional amendment to restrain annual state spending.

  The resolution, if passed, would limit state spending to 96 percent of available revenues (as determined at the state's January revenue estimating conference). The extra 4 percent would be deposited into the state's rainy day fund.

  For most states, perhaps, the bill would not be necessary and simply looked at as common sense. In Michigan, however, there is unease and concern from citizens and legislators regarding the 2007 budget impasse that resulted in the temporary shutdown of the Michigan government.

  The approval of Resolution E would result in a positive impact on the state budget's cash flow. If 4.0 percent of estimated revenue were set aside, a significant pool of revenue could be used to lessen the amount of short-term borrowing that the State currently undertakes for cash flow needs.

  The other potential impact on the State budget of Resolution E is that reserve funds would be available if actual revenue collections fell below the consensus revenue estimate. Under current law, if this situation occurs, the GF/GP and SAF budgets are in deficit. The passage of Resolution E would eliminate this deficit by using the 4.0 percent of revenue not appropriated to cover the potential shortfall in actual revenue collections.

  The resolution would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in each of the House and Senate, at which point voters would have the opportunity to vote on the amendment at a regularly scheduled, or special, election.