S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter of the application of ) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY for ) approval of a power supply cost recovery plan and ) Case No. U-17918 for approval of monthly power supply cost recovery ) factors for the year 2016. ) ) At the October 11, 2016 meeting of the Michigan Public Service Commission in Lansing, Michigan. PRESENT: Hon. Sally A. Talberg, Chairman Hon. Norman J. Saari, Commissioner Hon. Rachael A. Eubanks, Commissioner ORDER History of Proceedings On September 30, 2015, pursuant to 1982 PA 304, MCL 460.6j et seq. (Act 304), Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) filed an application, with supporting testimony and exhibits, requesting authority to implement a power supply cost recovery (PSCR) plan in its rate schedules for 2016 metered jurisdictional sales of electricity. In its initial application, Consumers requested approval of a uniform monthly maximum PSCR factor of $(0.00014) 1 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for all classes of customers. Consumers also requested approval of its PSCR plan for 2016. The company’s filing was accompanied by the testimony of witnesses Natalie N. Busack, 1 Also written as “negative $0.00014.”
37
Embed
CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANYfor ) approval of a power supply ...origin-sl.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/u-17918_10... · On April 29, 2016, Consumers filed the rebuttal testimony and exhibits
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
* * * * *
In the matter of the application of ) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY for ) approval of a power supply cost recovery plan and ) Case No. U-17918 for approval of monthly power supply cost recovery ) factors for the year 2016. ) ) At the October 11, 2016 meeting of the Michigan Public Service Commission in Lansing,
Michigan.
PRESENT: Hon. Sally A. Talberg, Chairman
Hon. Norman J. Saari, Commissioner Hon. Rachael A. Eubanks, Commissioner
ORDER
History of Proceedings On September 30, 2015, pursuant to 1982 PA 304, MCL 460.6j et seq. (Act 304), Consumers
Energy Company (Consumers) filed an application, with supporting testimony and exhibits,
requesting authority to implement a power supply cost recovery (PSCR) plan in its rate schedules
for 2016 metered jurisdictional sales of electricity. In its initial application, Consumers requested
approval of a uniform monthly maximum PSCR factor of $(0.00014)1 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for
all classes of customers. Consumers also requested approval of its PSCR plan for 2016. The
company’s filing was accompanied by the testimony of witnesses Natalie N. Busack,
1 Also written as “negative $0.00014.”
Page 2 U-17918
Daniel S. Alfred, Jim K. Chilson II, David F. Ronk, Robert C. Schram, Jason M. Shore, and
Sara T. Walz.
A prehearing conference was held on December 4, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge
Sharon L. Feldman (ALJ). The ALJ granted petitions for leave to intervene filed by the
Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (ABATE); the Great Lakes Renewable
Energy Association (GLREA); the Independent Power Producers Coalition of Michigan (IPPC-
Mi); the Michigan Environmental Council and the Sierra Club (MEC/Sierra); the Michigan
Department of the Attorney General (Attorney General); the Michigan Power Limited Partnership
and Ada Cogeneration Limited Partnership, jointly (MPLP/Ada); and the Midland Cogeneration
Venture Limited Partnership (Midland). The Commission Staff (Staff) also participated in the
proceedings.
Subsequently, on February 23, 2016, MEC/Sierra filed a motion to compel discovery.
Consumers filed a response on February 29, 2016. At the March 3, 2016 motion hearing, the ALJ
granted the motion with the proviso that the parties work to craft a protective order. On March 30,
2016, MEC/Sierra filed the testimony of James Clift and Melissa Whitten, with proposed exhibits
filed in part under seal. Also on March 30, 2016, the Attorney General filed the testimony of
Sebastian Coppola, with proposed exhibits filed in part under seal. On April 4, 2016, the ALJ
entered a protective order.
On April 29, 2016, Consumers filed the rebuttal testimony and exhibits of Brian D. Galloway
and Keith G. Troyer. Consumers also filed the rebuttal testimony and exhibits of Ms. Walz, and
Messrs. Alfred, Chilson, and Ronk, with portions of Ms. Walz’ and Mr. Ronk’s testimony
designated as confidential and filed pursuant to the protective order in the docket.
Page 3 U-17918
On May 18, 2016, MEC/Sierra filed a motion to unseal portions of documents designated
under protective order. On May 23, 2016, Consumers filed its response. The parties resolved the
matter prior to the evidentiary hearing.
An evidentiary hearing was held on May 25 and May 26, 2016. At the hearing, Ms. Walz and
Messrs. Alfred, Chilson, Clift, Gallaway, and Ronk appeared and were cross-examined, while
testimony of the remaining witnesses was bound into the record without need for them to appear in
person. On July 15, 2016, Consumers, GLREA, MEC/Sierra, the Attorney General, and the Staff
filed initial briefs, portions of which were redacted or filed under seal. On July 18, 2016,
MPLP/Ada submitted a letter advising that they did not intend to file an initial brief. Reply briefs
were filed by Consumers, GLREA, MEC/Sierra, the Attorney General, and the Staff on August 17,
2016, portions of which were redacted or filed under seal. The record consists of 597 pages of
transcript and 63 exhibits.
On June 9, 2016, the Commission issued an order indicating that, in order to ensure a timely
resolution to this pending matter, and pursuant to MCL 24.281(1), the Commission would read the
hearing record in this case.2 As such, no proposal for decision (PFD) will be issued and the parties
will not file exceptions to a PFD or replies to exceptions.
Overview of the Record and Disputed Issues
Consumers offered testimony from nine witnesses. GLREA offered one witness, as did the
Attorney General. MEC/Sierra offered testimony from two witness. A summary of each witness’s
testimony is set forth below, with Consumers’ testimony summarized in Section A, GLREA
summarized in Section B, MEC/Sierra in Section C, and the Attorney General in
2 See, the June 9, 2016 order in Case No. U-17918.
Page 4 U-17918
Section D. Rebuttal testimony from any party is set forth below the section of testimony that is
being rebutted.
A. Consumers
Natalie N. Busack, Senior Rate Analyst II in the Revenue Requirements Section of
Consumers’ Rates Department, testified regarding the calculation of the 2016 PSCR factor.
Ms. Busack stated that she is responsible for forecasting the company’s monthly PSCR factor, as
well as its revenue requirement. She described the mathematical calculations involved to establish
the company’s proposed uniform monthly maximum PSCR factor of $(0.00014) per kWh for all
classes of customers and noted that she employed data supplied by Consumers’ employees and
Mr. Coppola’s proposal that Consumers should be disallowed $10,827,794 attributable to the
company’s projected mix of power generation and purchases, and his recommendation that
Consumers should rely more heavily on coal than is projected. Ms. Walz asserted that
Mr. Coppola’s analysis fails on three points, thus invalidating all his relative comparisons. First,
the incremental cost of production is not the only determinate of which resources provide for the
lowest-cost mix of generation and purchased power. Second, Mr. Coppola inaccurately assumes
that if natural gas-fueled generation decreased, coal generation would increase. And third, the
incremental costs of production have since been revised, invalidating all his relative comparisons.
PROMOD IV logic considers the incremental cost of production, as well as applicable start-up and
no-load costs and operational constraints or characteristics, such as availability, minimum and
maximum capabilities, economic hours of operation, minimum run times and minimum down
times, and must-run status. The witness went on to say that, if the PROMOD IV reduces
generation from natural gas-fueled resources, other generating units’ costs are affected, and so
PROMOD IV does not generally displace all of the gas-fueled generation with coal generation.
She continued with a discussion of the revised figures, some of which were redacted from the
transcript. During cross-examination, Ms. Walz conceded that most of Consumers’ coal plants are
baseload plants and classified as must-run. Part of Ms. Walz’ remaining testimony is confidential
and not included in the public record. 3 Tr 237-243, 254-267.
Page 20 U-17918
Mr. Chilson provided testimony to rebut Mr. Coppola’s assertion that Consumers’ projected
cost for natural gas fuel is too high. Mr. Chilson stated that natural gas is a commodity that is
traded daily, and being less stable market-wise than coal, its price is more difficult to predict.
Mr. Chilson asserted that Mr. Coppola’s analysis of gas prices as of March 24, 2016, as being 11%
less than Consumers’ projection does not take into account that gas prices had risen by 8% three
weeks later on April 13, 2016. Mr. Chilson explained that this example illustrates why it is
unproductive to continuously reforecast cost whenever the natural gas prices change.
3 Tr 144-146, 201-220.
Mr. Ronk also provided rebuttal testimony to address Mr. Coppola’s assertion that Consumers
should update its forecasted fuel costs. That testimony is not part of the proceeding’s public
record. During Mr. Ronk’s cross-examination regarding his rebuttal testimony, he stated that it is
the company’s practice to use the most recent information available for the plan year prior to the
date in which the plan is required to be filed, allowing adequate time for preparation of the overall
plan, and review and verification of results. Typically, that means using information from either
the end of July or end of August as the basis for the forecasts. Mr. Ronk explained that the
company cannot use new gas prices without revising all other factors relating to the PSCR plan,
causing more work for the company and delays in filing. He expressed his belief that there is
protection within the law to assure the lowest price is achieved through the reconciliation
mechanism. Mr. Ronk opined that there is little to be gained by updating prices, except the
potential of underrecovery. A portion of Mr. Ronk’s cross-examination is confidential and not
part of the public record. 4 Tr 335-354.
Mr. Alfred provided testimony to rebut the Attorney General’s suggestion that an investigation
into rising transmission costs should be launched. He asserted that, while he shared the Attorney
Page 21 U-17918
General’s concern about rising transmission costs, an investigation is unnecessary because a
process to address transmission costs is in place with MISO. He said that Consumers, Staff,
transmission owners, and customers can and do participate in the process routinely throughout the
year. The Attorney General can also participate and has done so. Mr. Alfred went on to describe a
variety of projects in which the stakeholders have participated. 3 Tr 282-291.
Brian D. Gallaway provided rebuttal testimony regarding the Attorney General’s and
MEC/Sierra’s objection to Consumers’ inclusion of litigation costs in its PSCR plan.
Mr. Gallaway explained that he is actively involved in the litigation process against CSXT and that
CSXT is the only available transportation for coal to the Campbell plant. Through a series of
formulas and calculations, the CSXT rates were determined to be much higher than was
reasonable. Consumers has no bilateral contract with the company, but has actively attempted to
negotiate better price terms. Mr. Gallaway asserted that there is no other reason to enter into
litigation with CSXT other than to secure lower costs for customers. In doing so, Consumers is
protecting the rights of PSCR customers. On cross-examination, the witness conceded that he
does not have any level of confidence as to the probable outcome of the action. 3 Tr 87-117.
Discussion
Based on their briefs, the parties raise essentially seven contested issues for resolution in this
proceeding. As such, the discussion portion of this order is presented in seven sections, each to
address one issue. Section one addresses GLREA’s contention that Consumers has failed to
adequately include solar resources in its 2016 PSCR plan and in its five-year forecast. Section two
addresses MEC/Sierra’s concern that Consumers’ gas agency agreements result in unreasonable
price and volume risks to PSCR customers. Section three addresses the objections of MEC/Sierra
and the Attorney General to Consumers’ inclusion in its PSCR plan of litigation costs for an action
Page 22 U-17918
filed with the STB alleging excessive coal transportation costs against CSXT. Section four
addresses MEC/Sierra’s allegation that Consumers has not adequately explained its selection of
wind power purchase agreement offers. Section five addresses the Attorney General’s objection to
Consumers’ forecast blend of power generation from its fleet of plants. Section six addresses the
Attorney General’s concerns that Consumers’ forecast natural gas prices do not reflect that gas
prices have fallen significantly after the projections were prepared. Finally, Section seven
addresses the Attorney General’s concerns over the escalating cost of electric transmission.
1. Solar Resources
As in Consumers’ 2014 and 2015 PSCR plan, GLREA argued in this proceeding that
Consumers has failed to consider the growth of solar resources in its 2016 plan year and in its five-
year forecast, thus rendering both the plan and the forecast flawed and erroneous as demonstrated
in Exhibits GLREA-2 through GLREA-5. GLREA contends that the increasing use of solar
energy in 2016 will result in a $5.6 million reduction in Consumers’ fuel and purchased power and
capacity costs, a reduction in energy sales of 100 GWh, and a decrease in the PSCR rate of $0.001
per MWh. The expected solar PV use is anticipated to be greater as time passes and can be
projected to reduce fuel and purchased power and capacity costs for 2019 by $9.2 million, and
reduce the 2019 PSCR rate by $0.09 per MWh. GLREA believes these reduced costs and sales
should be, but are not, included in the company’s 2016 forecast and five-year plan. GLREA’s
initial brief. See, summary of the witness’s testimony, above.
Consumers argues that GLREA formulated its solar use figures and projected savings from
nation-wide data, and not Michigan data. Consumers claims that Michigan solar use is far less
than GLREA projections, i.e., approximately 5 MW of total customer-owned generation by the
end of 2016, rather than the 69 MW GLREA predicts. Consumers asserts that, accordingly,
Page 23 U-17918
GLREA’s claim that a reduction in power supply cost of $0.001 per MWh is neither supported nor
warranted. In any case, Consumers’ contends, the expected effect of new customer-owned solar
generation is insignificant and the company should not have to litigate its renewable energy
portfolio in two separate proceedings, e.g., both its PSCR plan case and its Act 295 case.
Consumers’ initial brief. See, summary of the witness’s testimony, above.
In reply, GLREA maintains that Consumers has considered only company-owned solar
resources, without considering other overall projections of increases in customer-owned solar
facilities, including those separate from Consumers’ solar programs. GLREA cites Act 304,
Section 460.6j(4), stating that a realistic and objective analysis and discussion of growing
customer-owned solar facilities falls within requirements that dictate that a forecast should include
anticipated sources of supply and projections of supply costs, in light of its existing sources of
electrical generation and electrical generation under construction. GLREA’s reply brief. See,
summary of the witness’s testimony, above.
Based on the testimony in this proceeding, the Commission does not find GLREA’s estimate
of customer-owned solar generation for the 2016 plan year to be accurate. The Commission
accepts Consumers’ projection of solar resources as reasonable at this time for purposes of setting
the PSCR factor in accordance with Act 304.
Earlier this year, the Commission addressed in Case No. U-17792, its reluctance to undertake
the examination of solar resources requested by GLREA in the context of a PSCR plan
proceeding. The Commission rejected GLREA’s request in light of uncertainties about legislative
changes in the area of resource planning. The Commission maintains this position given the
ongoing legislative discussions on integrated resource planning, pricing for customer-owned
generation, and related issues. See, the March 19, 2016 order in Case No. U-17792, p. 24.
Page 24 U-17918
2. Gas Agency Agreements
MEC/Sierra argues that Consumers’ gas agent contract is not economical and introduces
unreasonable risk and cost into the PSCR plan. MEC/Sierra identifies three price risks and a
volume risk. First, MEC/Sierra asserts that the gas pricing terms set forth in the contract are not
clearly defined and thus do not allow a price to be verified as competitive. Second, the terms do
not indicate how the company will determine whether a second tier price is a fair market price.
And third, MEC/Sierra objects to the so-called “fixed-price adder.” MEC/Sierra contends that the
GSA agreement also includes an unreasonable level of volume risk through the use of a
Commercially Reasonable Efforts standard of performance for transportation obligations. Finally,
MEC/Sierra does not believe Consumers’ new contract is substantially similar to the previous
contract, as claimed. MEC/Sierra’s initial brief, pp. 13-19; MEC/Sierra’s reply brief, pp. 10-14.
See, summary of witness’s testimony, above. Portions of MEC/Sierra’s initial brief are redacted.
MEC/Sierra asserts that the two-tier pricing scheme provides for first tier prices to be as stated
on an independently published index, but does not specify which price from the index is to be used
and thus, the GSA could be free to quote the highest price. The second tier purchases, often made
on the intraday market to provide for additional capacity not accepted in the day-ahead market, are
to be made at an agreed-upon price, but there is no explanation for how the company will be able
to determine that the price agreed upon is a fair market price. Additionally, second tier volumes
purchased on the timely day-ahead market are not made to offer additional capacity into market
that was not accepted in the day-ahead market. Therefore, incentives for intraday pricing do not
exist in this case. Id.
MEC/Sierra disagrees that the adder includes all added costs over and above the cost of the gas
commodity as Consumers claims. MEC/Sierra believes that the contract is worded as such that it
Page 25 U-17918
is not clear what the adder includes other than the daily act of submitting nominations once to the
interstate pipelines. MEC/Sierra insists that the adder should provide for at least some firm gas,
but does not do so. Id.
Finally, MEC/Sierra claims that the GSA contract shifts volume risk away from the seller and
onto the buyer, due to the Commercially Reasonable Efforts standard of performance for the seller.
Such service raises the possibility of imbalances between the volumes of gas that are nominated
and those that are delivered. Consumers expects the seller to provide secondary firm service for
gas nominated on a timely basis and stated its belief that failure to do so would constitute a breach
of the seller’s commercially reasonable standards obligation. However, on cross examination,
Consumers’ witness Mr. Chilson conceded that the definitions of the pertinent terms in the
contract do not support his interpretation. Id. Mr. Chilson’s cross examination is located at 3 Tr
163-246. This part of the transcript is confidential and not part of the public record.
In its initial brief, Consumers notes that the contract addressed by MEC/Sierra was not in place
at the time the PSCR plan and forecast was submitted to the Commission. The company’s initial
presentation included only the contract in effect at the time of plan submission and notes that the
contract was approved in the company’s 2010 and 2011 PSCR reconciliation cases and its 2013
PSCR plan case.13 However, Consumers indicated that it expected to enter into a GSA agreement
for the Jackson plant similar to the Zeeland plant agreement and ultimately included testimony
regarding the new contract in its case presentation. The company finalized the agreement for the
Jackson plant after the PSCR case was filed. Said contract provides for the continuation of the
agreement with the Zeeland plant, an agreement which, as stated above, has been approved by the
Commission. The company maintains that use of gas agent services for the Jackson and Zeeland
13 See, Case Nos. U-16045-R, U-16432-R, U-16890, and U-17095.
Page 26 U-17918
plant costs less than providing the same services in-house. Consumers’ initial brief, pp. 13-22;
Consumers’ reply brief, pp. 2-119. Portions of Consumers’ reply brief were redacted. See,
summary of Consumers’ witnesses’ testimony, above.
In its case presentation, Consumers explained that the pricing terms of the agreement is such
that a different method is used depending on the time of day or the need for additional volume.
Timely day-ahead purchases are priced based on a published index which is used for offering the
plant to MISO in the day-ahead market. Intraday purchases are based on the price index if
nominated prior to 10:00 a.m. on the actual day of gas delivery or by an agreed-upon fixed-price
quote for intraday purchases for the remainder of the day. The purpose of the differing price
points is to allow the company to offer any additional capacity the plants may have that was not
accepted on the day-ahead market. Consumers only purchases gas based on the dispatch of the
plants, which the MISO market determines, and the company only pays the GSA for gas that is
purchased for the plants. All purchases for the two plants are aligned with the plants being offered
to the MISO market. Thus, the plants operate only when economical to do so. Id.
Consumers disagrees with MEC that pricing risks are inherent in the GSA contract terms and
insists that MEC has misunderstood how the contract operates. The company explains that the
plants are intended to operate when market conditions are such that they are economic. Pricing
against a published index ensures a competitive market price and also ensures that the gas
generation offered into the MISO day-ahead market is competitive compared to other alternatives.
For intraday purchases, when the price offered by the GSA is not competitive, the plant will not be
selected for generation, and the GSA will receive no payment. Thus, it is in the GSA’s best
interest to provide the best price. Id.
Page 27 U-17918
In response to MEC’s claims that the day-ahead pricing terms are not necessarily competitive,
Consumers states that the parties use the published midpoint in the published indices that is
consistent with other gas management agreements the company has in place. As to the so-called
“second-tier” purchases, Consumers dismisses MEC’s concern over the intraday price being
“agreed upon” at the time of purchase. Consumers insists that a competitive price is built into the
nature of the process in that when prices are not competitive, the plant does not operate. The
company, itself, has no need to involve itself in a determination of fair pricing because the GSA
has the incentive of being paid only if the plant operates and economic plant operation is
determined by MISO. Id.
Regarding, the fixed-price “adder”, Consumers argues that there really is no adder as such,
however, the GSA is paid an all-inclusive price that includes the cost of the natural gas
commodity, and all other costs incurred by the GSA to deliver the commodity to the
interconnection point and manage daily gas balancing. Other costs included in the all-inclusive
price are those associated with maintaining transportation and storage assets on the gas
transmission system and securing and providing all necessary natural gas supplies for the two
plants to operate. Again, the GSA receives nothing if the plants do not operate. Id.
With respect to MEC/Sierra’s argument that volume risks are unreasonably shifted to the
consumer, Consumers contends that the concern is without merit. The company claims that it is
not possible to require the GSA to provide firm transportation because no proposals during the
competitive bidding process provided for such service. Consumers argues that its Gas Master
agreements, intended for use in procuring natural gas for customers, cannot be fairly compared to
the GSA agreement that is intended to procure gas to operate its electric generation plants. The
Gas Master agreement provides for volume risks and imbalance charges to be shared in a
Page 28 U-17918
particular way by the parties, but the GSA agreement provides that the GSA itself is responsible
for balancing services. The contract provides for a wide range of daily imbalances and, the
company asserts, if the gas is not provided, the plant does not operate and no imbalance can occur.
Further, the GSA aggregates the company’s daily gas nominations with the GSA’s other customer
nominations to the company that owns the pipeline. If an imbalance occurs in this situation, the
GSA is responsible for that imbalance. Finally, Consumers contends that the Jackson and Zeeland
plants are being used more consistently, thus making needed gas volumes more predictable. The
company professes that there have been no curtailments in natural gas transportation in the
previous 24 months. Id.
The Commission finds that the record supports that Consumers’ use of a gas agent at the
Jackson and Zeeland plants is reasonable and prudent. Consumers has provided evidence that the
former and current contracts were competitively bid and that the contractual terms are consistent
with the economical operation of the two plants for PSCR purposes. The Commission appreciates
the intervenors’ concerns and objections, but finds that the issues raised do not outweigh the
benefits of the contracts or render the terms to be unreasonable and imprudent. Accordingly, the
Commission accepts Consumers’ GSA agreements for purposes of setting the PSCR factor in
compliance with Act 304. Because many of the issues presented were somewhat hypothetical, the
Commission finds it is appropriate to evaluate these agreements over time under different market
conditions to determine if risks raised by MEC/Sierra materialize, and to ensure the agreements
are adequate for fuel assurance purposes while still representing the best value for customers.
Page 29 U-17918
3. Inclusion of Litigation Costs
Consumers proposed that approximately $2.2 million in expected litigation costs incurred
during an action filed against one of its coal transportation companies be included in the PSCR
case. Consumers reasoned that, if the legal action were to be successful, customers may benefit
from the reduced cost of coal. In support of its position, Consumers cited the Commission’s
support of including transmission costs and the costs related to emission control in past PSCR
cases. Consumers’ initial brief, pp. 22-24, 32-34; Consumers’ reply brief, pp. pp. 19-24. See,
summary of the witness’s testimony, above.
MEC/Sierra disagrees, stating that litigation costs, even though related to fuel transportation,
are not authorized by MCL 460.6j, wherein it states:
Power supply cost recovery clause means a clause in the electric rates or rate schedule of a utility which permits the monthly adjustment of rates for power supply to allow the utility to recover the booked costs, including transportation costs, reclamation costs, and disposal and reprocessing costs, of fuel burned by the utility for electric generation and the booked costs of purchased and net interchanged power transactions by the utility incurred under reasonable and prudent policies and practices.
MEC/Sierra maintains that Consumers’ argument that costs having some degree of relationship to
transportation expense runs afoul of the specific and clear directive from the Michigan Supreme
Court.14
The Attorney General objects to the inclusion of the CSXT litigation costs, as well, on grounds
that the expense is precluded in the PSCR statutory scheme. He notes that Consumers continued to
use CSXT tariff rates in its 2016 plan and did not include any projected savings to be gained from
the litigation. He opines that such costs would be more appropriate in a rate case as they appear to
be a one-time occurrence and any damages or cost savings awarded could be received over the
14 See, In re Application of Detroit Edison Co., 483 Mich 993; 764 NW 2d 272 (2009).
Page 30 U-17918
course of the new rates with CSXT. Consumers’ initial brief, pp. 9-12; Consumers’ reply brief, pp.
4-6. See, summary of the witness’s testimony, above.
In its reply brief, the Staff asserts its agreement with MEC/Sierra and the Attorney General on
this issue. However, the Staff proposes that if Consumers is successful in securing a lower
transportation rate through a favorable outcome of the litigation that results in a refund, then
litigation expenses incurred by the company may be recovered through an offset up to any credit or
reduction in rates experienced by PSCR customers following the favorable outcome.
The Commission finds that Consumers’ approximately $2.2 million in litigation costs with
CSXT over the rates charged for coal transportation are not appropriate for inclusion in its PSCR
case. As stated In re Application of Detroit Edison Co. to Increase Rates (see footnotes 14 and
15), “Electric utilities can recover two types of power supply costs through a PSCR clause:
(1) ‘through booked costs, including transportation costs, reclamation costs, and disposal and
reprocessing costs, of fuel burned by the utility for electric generation,’ or (2) ‘booked costs of
purchased and net interchanged power transactions.’”483 Mich App at 993. Consumers’ litigation
costs are too distantly related to the above delineated parameters to be included in a PSCR plan or
five-year forecast. The recovery of this type of expense is more suitable in a rate case.
Accordingly, Consumers’ PSCR plan is amended by the removal of the projected $2,188,247 in
litigation costs.
Page 31 U-17918
4. Wind Power Supply Contracts
The parties agree that during 2015, Consumers received three unsolicited proposals to supply
wind-generated power, rejected two of the proposals, and entered into a contract with the third, the
100 MW Apple Blossom Wind Farm. MEC/Sierra contends that Consumers must explain in its
PSCR plan why it rejected two of the contracts, but did not do so. MEC/Sierra argues that the two
rejected contracts would have provided opportunities to reduce PSCR costs, as required under
Act 304. The company need not have limited itself to only one project. MEC/Sierra’s initial brief;
MEC/Sierra’s reply brief. See, summary of the parties’ testimony, above.
Consumers asserts that it has fully explained its decisions surrounding the wind proposals, and
no additional explanation is required. Consumers contends that, even though the Apple Blossom
project did not initially offer the lowest market price of the three proposals, it was the closest to
being ready to build, having obtained agreement with the township and county that exempted the
project from a permitting moratorium that was affecting one of the other projects. The second
rejected project had not acquired all the land easements needed for that project to proceed. One of
the rejected projects may have offered potentially better value than did Apple Blossom, but it
required an undesirable greater commitment (200 MW instead of 100 MW), and the potential that
the project might not be built at all was significantly greater. The company insists that the other
rejected project did not offer as great a value as did Apple Blossom. Consumers’ initial brief,
pp. 24-28. See, summary of witness’s testimony, above.
Page 32 U-17918
The Commission finds that, for PSCR plan and five-year forecast purposes, Consumers has
adequately explained its reasons for accepting the Apple Blossom Wind Farm project. This
contract was already approved by the Commission and is consistent with Consumers’
Commission-approved renewable energy plan. Accordingly, the section of Consumers’ PSCR
plan that relates to the wind power supply proposals is reasonable and prudent, and in compliance
with Act 304 requirements.
5. Economic Blend of Fuel
Consumers argues that the Attorney General’s claim that the company’s mix of power
generation is not economical must be rejected. The company cannot rely on price alone to decide
whether a fuel is economical, as the Attorney General has suggested. There are numerous
determinants of which generating resources provide the lowest cost mix of generation and power,
all of which the PROMOD IV production cost model takes into account. In addition, Consumers
claims that the Attorney General made errors in his cost figures relating to the Jackson Unit 1
plant, as well as in other areas of analysis. Consumers reminds the Commission of the
reasonableness standard and the impossibility of being 100% accurate in a projection. Consumers’
initial brief, pp. 36-39; Consumers’ reply brief, pp. 39-43. See, summary of witness’s testimony,
above.
The Attorney General counters that Consumers is planning to operate its coal plants at 55% to
70%, while operating higher cost gas-fired plants at twice the rate projected for 2015. Although
gas prices have fallen, the Attorney General asserts, the company fails to take into account that
lower priced gas has put downward pressure on coal prices. Consumers has the capacity to
generate more power with coal than it projected rather than relying so heavily on higher price gas.
Page 33 U-17918
Attorney General’s initial brief, pp. 17-21; Attorney General’s reply brief, pp. 6-7. Portions of the
Attorney General’s initial brief are confidential. See, summary of the witness’s testimony, above.
The Commission finds that Consumers’ projected mix of fuel generation is reasonable and
prudent. As laid out by Consumers’ witness, price is only one of many factors that determines
whether a fuel generation mix is economical. The use of the PROMOD IV production costs model
provides a comprehensive prospective picture on the issue and captures various factors and
interdependencies. Consumers has provided ample evidence to support its 2016 PSCR projection
of its fuel generation costs. Accordingly, Consumers’ 2016 projected fuel generation costs
provide a reasonable basis for setting the PSCR factor is in compliance with Act 304 PSCR
requirements.
6. Forecast Natural Gas Prices
In this case, as in Consumers’ 2015 PSCR plan, Case No. U-17678, the parties disagree
whether an apparent downward trend in natural gas prices is cause to amend plan projections. The
Attorney General argues that the downward trend in gas prices should result in an approximately
$29 million reduction in Consumers’ power supply costs for 2016. Consumers argues that the
natural gas market is volatile, experiencing frequent upward and downward trends and argued that
it is not reasonable to reforecast for each price change. Attorney General’s initial brief, pp. 7-9;
Attorney General’s reply brief, pp. 7-8; Consumers’ initial brief, pp. 29-32. See, summary of the
parties’ testimony above.
The reasoning set forth in the June 9, 2016 order in Case No. U-17678 (June 9 order) is on
point for this case. The Commission recognizes the value of more recent information to set PSCR
factors and has the discretion under Act 304 to amend them, based on the record evidence, to
ensure that the factor reflects reasonable cost estimates based on the record as a whole. However,
Page 34 U-17918
it has cautioned against overly scrutinizing mere projections in plan case proceedings on more than
one occasion, in particular in the December 17, 1986 order in Case No. U-8286, wherein the
Commission stated that “in PSCR plan proceedings . . . . the projections put forth are just that –
projections, and, as such, rarely turn out to be accurate.” The June 9 order also cites the March 29,
1990 order in Case No. U-9172, in which the Commission found that given the passage of time
and the roll-in refund method15 the Commission has adopted, there is little value in amending the
company’s proposed factors to incorporate the revised natural gas projection. This reasoning is
distinguished from the May 3, 2016 order in Case No. U-17693 (May 3 order),16 a gas cost
recovery (GCR) plan case wherein the Commission agreed with the Attorney General that
Consumers should lower its GCR factor due to falling gas prices. In that case, the Commission,
recognizing that the GCR plan year was ended, stated that it was “reasonable and practical to use
the updated price forecast because the timing of the price forecasts coincides with the start of the
plan year.” May 3 order, pp. 18. The Commission acknowledged that it “was deviating somewhat
from its determination in Case No. U-17334 in which the Commission rejected the Attorney
General’s request to use more recent price forecasts.” Id. Even so, the May 3 order cautioned that
“this is not an open invitation to constantly update the numbers during the course of the
proceeding. After all, this is a plan case and the numbers will ultimately be reconciled based on
actuals.” Id. In the instant case, the Commission declines to order the forecasted natural gas fuel
cost projection be lowered. Accordingly, Consumers’ projection for natural gas fuel costs shall
remain at the figure stated in the Consumers’ PSCR plan as submitted on September 30, 2015.
15 See, the December 21, 2010 order in Case No. U-16384, pp. 3-4; and In re Application of the
Detroit Edison Company to Increase Rates, 297 Mich App 377; 833 NW2d 433 (2012) for a discussion of the roll-in refund method.
16 See, the May 3, 2016 order in Case No. U-17693, pp. 16-18.
Page 35 U-17918
7. Electric Transmission
The Attorney General requested that the Commission convene a task group composed of
Consumers employees, Staff experts, and interested intervenors to thoroughly investigate the key
drivers of transmission cost escalations to rising transmission costs. Power supply costs over the
past ten years have increased a cumulative 51%, however, transmission costs over the same period
of time have increased a cumulative increase of 258%. Consumers projects approximately
$407 million in transmission costs for 2016, but such costs are projected to exceed $476 million by
2020, representing a cumulative 17% increase in the five-year period. Attorney General’s initial
brief, pp. 13-17.
Three categories of costs account for nearly all of the increase. First, costs for network
transmission service within the MJZ, primarily through the Michigan Electric Transmission
Company (METC), have increased from $0.4 million in 2006 to $242.1 million in 2016. Second,
network upgrade transmission charges have increased from $8.3 million annually in 2009 to
$86.2 million in 2016. And third, system expansion costs began in 2012 at $796,000 annually and
has reached $34.7 million in 2016. The Attorney General is very concerned over the cost
escalation and sees no relief in sight. Surely, this escalation in cost will have a negative effect on
customers’ ability to pay their power bills. Id.
Consumers agrees that transmission costs are concerning, but argues that a task group is not
necessary because MISO has numerous processes through which transmission issues are
addressed. Utility companies, the Staff, and other stakeholders, including the Attorney General
are able to participate in these processes. For example, stakeholders have participated in the
MISO group responsible for reviewing, commenting, and proposing alternatives to proposed
transmission projects. Consumers believes that the number of opportunities available to review
Page 36 U-17918
and mitigate transmission expenses are sufficient. Further, the company does what it is able to
control transmission costs and is actively involved in activities with that goal in mind.
Consumers’ initial brief, pp. 34-35; Consumers’ reply brief, pp. 37-39. See, summary of the
witness’s testimony, above.
The Commission agrees with Consumers that there are numerous and sufficient opportunities
to address transmission costs. Certainly, the rapidly increasing cost of transmission is a concern
and the Commission does not rule out that a task group may be formed at a later date. However, at
this time, the Commission is not persuaded that it should convene a task group to study the issue.
The Commission also notes that transmission investments must not be evaluated in a vacuum,
without considering benefits such as reliability and changes to the delivered cost of power.
In summary, with one exception, the Commission finds Consumers’ PSCR plan for 2016 and
its projections through the year 2020 to be well-supported by the evidence presented in the
contested case proceeding, and to be reasonable and prudent, and in compliance with Act 304
requirements. As discussed above, Consumers’ projected litigation cost of $2,188,247 is
disallowed, resulting in a new factor of $(0.00021) per kilowatt-hour for all classes of customers.
The Commission declines to order a task group to study rising transmission costs.
Page 37 U-17918
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: A. The power supply cost recovery plan for calendar year 2016, filed by Consumers Energy
Company, is approved, as modified by this order. A factor of $(0.00021) is approved.
B. Consumers Energy Company’s five-year forecast is accepted.
The Commission reserves jurisdiction and may issue further orders as necessary.
Any person desiring to appeal this order must do so by in the appropriate court within 30 days
after the issuance and notice of this order, pursuant to MCL 462.26. To comply with the Michigan
Rules of Court’s requirement to notify the Commission of an appeal, appellants shall send required
notices to both the Commission’s Executive Secretary and to the Commission’s Legal Counsel.
Electronic notifications should be sent to the Executive Secretary at [email protected]
and to the Michigan Department of the Attorney General - Public Service Division at
[email protected]. In lieu of electronic submissions, paper copies of such notifications may
be sent to the Executive Secretary and the Attorney General - Public Service Division at 7109
W. Saginaw Hwy., Lansing, MI 48917.
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
________________________________________ Sally A. Talberg, Chairman
________________________________________ By its action of October 11, 2016. Norman J. Saari, Commissioner ________________________________ ________________________________________ Kavita Kale, Executive Secretary Rachael A. Eubanks, Commissioner