January 11, Kavita Kale Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 West Saginaw Highway, 3 rd Floor Lansing MI 48909

Transcription

1 Dykema Gossett PLLC Capitol View 0 Townsend Street, Suite 00 Lansing, MI Tel: () -00 Fax: () - Jason T. Hanselman Direct Dial: () - Direct Fax: () - JHanselman@dykema.com January, 0 Kavita Kale Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 0 West Saginaw Highway, rd Floor Lansing MI 0 Re: Case No. U- Dear Ms. Kale: Enclosed for electronic filing is the Pre-Filed Direct Testimony of Kevin R. Olling on behalf of Midland Cogeneration Ventures, LP and Proof of Service of same. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC Jason T. Hanselman JTH/rlg Enclosures California Illinois Michigan North Carolina Texas Washington, D.C ID\HANSELMAN, JASON - \00000

2 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter of the application of DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY for approval of certificates of necessity pursuant to MCL 0.s, as amended, in connection with the addition of a natural gas combined cycle generating facility to its generation fleet and for related accounting and ratemaking authorizations. Case No. U- PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KEVIN R. OLLING

3 0 Q. What is your name and business address? A. My name is Kevin R. Olling and my business address is 00 Progress Place, Midland, Michigan 0. Q. By whom are you employed and in what capacity? A. I am employed by the Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership (MCV) as Vice President of Energy Supply and Marketing. I have overall responsibility to direct and implement strategies, policies, plans and programs for MCV s steam and electric energy marketing and natural gas supply procurement programs. I am responsible for the contracting and sale of steam and electric capacity and energy generated from the MCV facility including those under long-term power purchase agreements as well as short-term energy sales. I am responsible for overseeing all of MCV s activity with the Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator ( MISO ) as a generation owner and market participant. Under my direction is the management of MCV s natural gas supply procurement program including gas planning, purchasing, transportation and storage and the administration thereof. Q Please briefly describe your educational background. 0 A. I graduated from Central Michigan University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and Accounting in. Q. What is your professional background and employment history. A. Upon graduation in, I joined the international auditing and accounting firm of Deloitte Haskins & Sells and served as a Senior Auditor engaged at Fortune 00 companies, including The Dow Chemical Company and General Motors Corporation until. In, I accepted the position of Financial Controller at Anderson Marine,

4 0 0 Inc. where I was responsible for all accounting and treasury group functions for the watercraft manufacturer and its retail store outlets. In, I joined MCV in the energy supply group where I served in a number of roles with increasing responsibility including Manager of Energy Accounting, Manager of Budgeting and Planning, Manager of Energy Trading and Director of Energy Supply and Marketing until 00 when I was promoted to my current position. Q. Have you previously testified or submitted testimony in any regulatory proceeding? A. Yes. I previously submitted pre-filed direct testimony in Case No. U- related to Consumers Energy Company s application for a Certificate of Necessity for the Thetford Generating Station. Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this case? A. The purpose of my testimony in this case is to explain MCV s experience with regard to DTE Electric Company s ( DTE or the Company ) competitive bid process related to its application for a Certificates of Necessity pursuant to MCL 0.s, as amended, in connection with the addition of a natural gas combined cycle generating facility to its generation fleet. Q. Are you sponsoring any exhibits in this proceeding? A. Yes. I am sponsoring Exhibits MCV- (KRO-) and MCV- (KRO-). Q. Were copies of these exhibits prepared by you or under your direction and supervision? A. Yes. Q. Do you adopt these exhibits as part of your testimony in this case? A. Yes.

5 0 0 Q. Did MCV participate in DTE s competitive bid process related to the Certificates of Necessity contemplated in this case? A. No, MCV did not participate in DTE s competitive bid process because the Company stated that it would not consider any long-term power purchase agreement ( PPA ) option for a term in excess of years, notwithstanding that the Company proposes to construct an,00 MW baseload generating facility that would likely have a useful operating life of 0 years or more with commercial operation expected to begin in the summer of 0. Q. How does your experience with DTE s competitive bid process compare to the process described in DTE s testimony in this case? A. MCV s experience with the Company s competitive bid process is difficult to reconcile with the Company s testimony in the captioned proceeding and the governing statute. Q. How so? A. In response to the Company s request for proposals ( RFP ) dated March, 0, MCV s Vice President of Energy Supply and Marketing sent a letter dated March, 0 to the Company asking the Company to provide certain information that he considered to be necessary to develop the terms, conditions, and pricing for PPA options on a basis comparable to the self-build option contemplated by the Company. The March, 0 letter is attached as Exhibit MCV- (KRO-). In that letter, MCV asked the Company to provide information to identify the delivery point for the power, the anticipated contract term, the service life and dispatch characteristics of the Company s proposed power plant, the proposed energy source for the plant, and certain information

6 0 0 necessary to determine the anticipated cost of operating the proposed new plant. MCV invited the Company to follow-up with any questions that it might have. Q. Did the Company provide the requested information? A. No, the Company responded days later, on March, 0, with a one-page letter disputing that a long-term PPA is comparable to the self-build option, but did not give any reasons. The March, 0 letter from DTE is attached as MCV- (KRO-). Q. Did the Company explain its reasoning? A. The Company asserted that it would consider PPAs for a maximum delivery term of seven () years.... The Company provided none of the information that MCV requested to enable it to prepare one or more PPA offers for the Company to consider. The Company explained that it has not finalized plans for a self-build option nor received or considered proposals in response to the RFP. Therefore, furnishing such requested information at this time would be premature and inappropriate. Q. Did DTE ever provide the requested information? A. No. DTE did not follow-up with MCV to provide the information that MCV requested prior to DTE filing its application for certificates of need to construct its proposed,00 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle generating station. Lacking essential information and having been told by the Company that it would not consider any long-term power purchase option, MCV determined that it would be pointless to provide the Company with power and pricing options for one or more long-term power sales contracts. Q. Do you believe DTE had no plans to construct a new power plant at the time of its RFP? A. No. Q. Why not?

7 A. The Company s statement to MCV that it had no specific plan to construct a new power plant at the time of its RFP conflicts with the prefiled testimony of Company witnesses Ms. Irene Dimitry, Mr. William Damon, and Mr. Dan Fahrer, which demonstrates that the Company had fairly specific plans in mind for a new power plant to meet its needs beginning in the summer of 0, and certainly had enough information that it could have shared to enable MCV to develop a detailed PPA proposal. In light of that 0 0 testimony, I do not understand the Company s statement to MCV that it has not finalized plans for a self-build option as the basis for the Company s refusal to provide MCV with additional information to assist MCV with the preparation of a competitive alternative to the Company s self-build approach. Q. What do you understand DTE s position to be with regard to PPAs? A. The Company s position appears to be that it would consider a PPA term that would extend only until the proposed new power plant is placed into service, which the Company expects to occur in 0, but in any event for a term no longer than seven years. Q. Why do you believe that is DTE s position? A. Pages - of Company witness Angela Wojtowicz s testimony shows that the Company did not expect any offers to sell power in the near-term due to its assessment that there is a lack of surplus capacity available to serve its load zone. Q. Did any other testimony explain DTE s position? A. Yes, page of Ms. Dimitry s testimony shows that the Company s request for such short-term power sales offers was a perfunctory test of the market when she stated that

8 the Company elected to include a request for PPAs with a term up to seven years to gain insight on short-term capacity options. Q. What is the result of approaching the process with a predetermined result? A. By categorically ruling out a long-term PPA commencing with the anticipated in-service date for the Company s self-build option, the Company foreclosed competitive proposals from merchant generators such as MCV that would require a similar lead-time to obtain permits, complete construction, and achieve commercial operation for new generating facilities. The Company thereby established RFP criteria that could not produce 0 0 comparable alternatives to its preferred self-build approach. Q. Are you familiar with 0 PA ( Act )? A. Yes. Q. Did DTE comply with Act in undertaking this process? A. No. Q. How do you know that? A. Ms. Dimitry testified that the Company s proposal is the most reasonable and prudent means to meet the power supply needs of its customers, which is the standard set forth in Act No., Sections s()(b) and t()(a) and that the Company s Integrated Resource Plan ( IRP ) filed as part of this proceeding shows that its self-build proposal meets the statutory test. Direct testimony filed by Mr. Kevin Chreston explains the IRP modeling, and the direct testimony of Mr. Charles Adkins of ABB Enterprises Software, Inc. purports to confirm the robustness of the Company s IRP. The testimony of these witnesses shows why the Company has not complied with the statute because both its

9 0 0 RFP and IRP modeling did not consider long-term PPAs from new generation as an alternative to self-building a new power plant. Q. Did testimony from any other witnesses convince you that DTE did not comply with Act during this process? A. Yes. Page of Mr. Chreston s testimony states that [t]o develop a reasonable and prudent [IRP], it is important to consider all feasible options to meet customer demand. Mr. Chreston does not discuss long-term PPA alternatives to the Company s self-build recommendation except to mention briefly the equally brief testimony of other witnesses concerning the limited availability of capacity from existing resources (see, for example, the testimony of Ms. Wojtowicz), and the page of his direct testimony discusses the limited responses to the... RFP for existing capacity available to procure. Long-term PPA pricing assumptions were not part of the scenarios and sensitivities considered in Mr. Chreston s IRP modeling exercise as discussed at pages - of her testimony. This is not surprising in light of the Company s response to MCV, which demonstrates that the Company was not interested in long-term PPA alternatives, and thus did not seriously consider all feasible options to meet customer demand as Mr. Chreston recommends. Thus, the Company s IRP and associated RFP were not conducted in a reasonable and prudent manner under Mr. Chreston s criteria because the Company did not solicit offers for long-term PPAs from new capacity to meet the Company s needs beginning in the summer of 0. Q. Did any other Company witnesses solidify your concerns about the Company s compliance with Act?

10 0 A. Yes. Mr. Adkins testifies at page that [r]ecommendations are sound if and only if their premise is appropriate. Page of his testimony, however, indicates they are based upon the data contained in the electronic database provided by the Company on December, 0. According to page of Ms. Dimitry s testimony, in undertaking this review, Mr. Adkins sought to validate the results of the Company s IRP modeling begun during the summer of 0. That summer 0 analysis and the December 0 database reviewed by Mr. Adkins did not include the results of the Company s subsequent RFP, which specifically excluded long-term PPAs in any event. Consequently, Mr. Adkins does not mention long-term PPAs as a potential alternative to the Company s IRP among the sensitivities that he considered, even though Mr. Adkins testifies on page 0 of his testimony that proper scenarios and sensitivities are critical to avoiding hindsight remorse. Thus, according to his own standard, Mr. Adkins 0 endorsement of the Company s self-build recommendation is not sound. Q. Is Mr. Adkins conclusion consistent with Ms. Dimitry s? A. No. Ms. Dimitry testifies on page of her testimony that the Company conducted a second IRP analysis in the summer of 0 to update market prices, loads, and technology options. The updated analysis, which evidently was not validated by Mr. Adkins, also did not take into account long-term PPA alternatives. This undermines Ms. Dimitry s contention on page of her testimony that the Company s 0 and 0 IRP scenarios represent rational and feasible outcomes.... Q. With what specific aspects of Act do you believe DTE s RFP process failed to comply?

11 0 0 A. Act does not permit certificate of need and IRP applicants to structure RFPs to confirm an applicant s business preference to build its own generating facilities by avoiding consideration of feasible resource options such as long-term PPAs. Q. Do you base that conclusion on any specific provision of Act? A. Yes. Section s() of Act sets forth five findings that the Commission must make to grant the Company the certificates it seeks, and specifies that all five must be present before the Commission may issue those certificates. Subsection s()(d) of Act specifically requires a finding that: The existing or proposed electric generation facility or proposed power purchase agreement represents the most reasonable and prudent means of meeting the power need relative to other resource options for meeting power demand, including energy efficiency programs, electric transmission efficiencies, and any alternative proposals submitted under this section by existing suppliers of electric generation capacity under subsection () or other intervenors. (Emphasis added.) In other words, Section s()(d) of Act identifies both new power generation and PPAs as alternatives to meet anticipated power demand. Section t governing IRP filings has similar requirements, including that the plan must be the most reasonable and prudent means of meeting the electric utility s energy and capacity needs (t()(a)), must include [a]n analysis of the cost, capacity factor, and viability of all reasonable options available to meet projected energy and capacity needs (t()(k)), must include cost estimates for PPAs (t()(j)), and requires that before the utility files its IRP it shall issue a request for proposals to provide any new supply- side generation capacity resources needed to serve the utility s reasonably projected electric load (t()) (emphasis added). The Company has identified a need to meet customer demand beginning in the summer of 0 and beyond. That is the reason why the Company has proposed to

12 0 0 construct a,00 MW combined cycle gas-fired power plant, which will take that long to place into service. The Company s RFP, however, did not seek proposals to provide any new supply side generation, and did not solicit long-term PPAs from new generation. By refusing to consider long-term PPA options to meet all or part of this forecasted demand beginning in the summer of 0, the Company did not pursue the most reasonable and prudent alternative, nor did it evaluate the viability of all reasonable options available to meet projected energy and capacity needs because it categorically excluded the most obvious class of other resource options potentially available in 0. In fact, the Company specifically advised MCV that the Company would not consider any long-term PPA. This conflicts with the statutory determination that PPAs are an appropriate alternative to meet anticipated power demand and the statutory directive that the Company s pre-filing RFP must request proposals to provide any new supply-side generation capacity resources. Q. Did the Company contemplate any type of PPA? A. Page of Ms. Dimitry s prefiled direct testimony explains that the Company s RFP sought to purchase electric generating assets and short-term PPAs for terms up to seven years. The terms of the actual RFP sought proposals only from existing generating plants. Ms. Dimitry states on pages - of her testimony that the Company was open to offers to sell capacity from generating plants currently under development, subject to its seven year PPA term limit. Ms. Dimitry states on page of her testimony that she has heard that the PJM Interconnection L.L.C. region has a three-year forward capacity market that facilitates new plant construction and she postulates that the Company s seven-year PPA limit seems appropriate by comparison. Ms. Dimitry provides no 0

13 0 analysis of the similarities and differences between PJM and MISO markets, does not explain why a seven-year bilateral contract between the Company and a generation developer is equivalent to the terms and conditions of an auction-based contract with the regional market administrator in a different power market, and does not reconcile her position with the requirements of Act No.. Q. Did Ms. Dimitry explain why the Company did not consider long-term PPAs? A. No. Instead, on pages - of her direct testimony, Ms. Dimitry gives six reasons why the Company proposes to overrule the legislature by excluding consideration of longterm PPAs from new generation as viable alternatives, even though they are commonly used in the power industry. None of Ms. Dimitry s reasons are valid. First, Ms. Dimitry worries about counter-party performance risk over the contract term, but performance assurances and guarantees are typical commercial terms addressed in PPAs. Company ownership of the proposed power plant does not alleviate 0 performance risk. For example, Mr. Damon on page of his testimony testifies that typical power plants of the type the Company proposes to build are available to operate % of the time, which of course means that the Company expects that its proposed plant will not perform % of the time, on average. MCV is very much aware of performance risks through its operation of the largest multi-unit natural gas-fired combined cycle power station in the United States since. MCV understands the performance risk allocation under PPAs very well. Performance risk, therefore, does not explain the Company s refusal to consider a long-term PPA alternative, or its refusal to explore that alternative with MCV.

14 0 0 Second, Ms. Dimitry is concerned with replacement contract risk at the end of the contract term. Ms. Dimitry is mainly worried that the Company might have to compete with its supplier after the contract expires, and that the residual market value might accrue to the plant owner. It is just as possible that the plant will have little or no value at the end of a 0-year contract term. By contrast, Ms. Dimitry does not discuss ownership risks to the Company and its customers for a,00 MW power station that is expected to be in service for decades, but may be rendered uneconomic and obsolete well before its planned lifetime expires. End-of-contract risk allocation is a matter routinely addressed in PPA negotiations in a variety of ways, including renewal and purchase options. Endof-contract commercial risks does not explain the Company s refusal to consider a longterm PPA alternative. Third, Ms. Dimitry complains that a PPA gives the Company reduced flexibility with operating strategies and technology improvements, but gives no examples. Once again, operational control and the ability to make future capital improvements to incorporate technological enhancements are matters for negotiation in a PPA. These concerns do not explain the Company s refusal to consider a long-term PPA alternative. Fourth, Ms. Dimitry asserts that the interests of the third party supplier and the Company might not be aligned but that is the whole point of having a contract. Ms. Dimitry states that misaligned interests include lack of coordination of maintenance outages, but again this is a commercial matter between the parties that must be resolved in a way that recognizes the authority of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (or its successor) to coordinate and approve plant outages under its regional tariff. Operational understandings between the parties are commonly included in PPAs. The

15 0 0 need to negotiate contractual operating and maintenance protocols is not a valid reason for the Company to refuse to consider long-term PPA alternatives. Fifth, Ms. Dimitry is concerned that ownership of the supplier s power plant might change during the contract term. Ms. Dimitry states that the Company would have to perform due diligence on the new owner in advance of consenting to the change, but then inconsistently asserts that the new owner might be unacceptable to the Company. Again, this is not a valid reason to refuse to consider a long-term PPA alternative to the self-build option. Finally, Ms. Dimitry is concerned with the balance sheet impact, which is shorthand for stating that the Company believes its shareholders would be better off by building a plant that can be included in rate base and upon which it can earn a return than they would be if the Company enters into a long-term power purchase agreement. Ms. Dimitry does not claim to have any financial experience with public utility credit ratings or the metrics that ratings agencies apply. She does not discuss the balance sheet implications of the Company s self-build option, or the fact that financing the roughly $ billion cost to construct a,00 MW power plant would likely involve issuances of both debt and equity by the Company. Q. How does Ms. Dimitry address the Company s financing plans? A. Ms. Dimitry does not present the Company s financing plan no Company witness does and she does not address the impact on the Company s credit profile that its financing plan might have. Ms. Dimitry also does not discuss how the Company s financing strategy is better for ratepayers than a long-term power purchase agreement. Setting these major omissions aside, Ms. Dimitry does not mention that Act No. fully

16 0 0 0 addresses her balance sheet concern at Section s() where it specifies that with respect to PPA cost recovery the commission shall consider and may authorize a financial incentive for [the applicant] that does not exceed the electric utility s weighted average cost of capital. Thus, the legislature has provided the tools to permit the Commission to treat long-term PPAs and self-build generation options on an equal footing from a utility ratemaking perspective. The sole consideration, therefore, should be which alternative provides the best deal for consumers. Q. Does the Company appear to have properly analyzed risks involved in its proposal? A. No. Against the insufficient reasons Ms. Dimitry provides for refusing to consider any long-term PPA option are the obvious risks to the Company and its customers from pursuing the self-build alternative, all of which can be avoided by contracting with a third party supplier like MCV that is in the merchant generation business and well-suited to accepting the challenges. These risks to the utility and its ratepayers include: Cost overrun risks the actual cost of the plant is currently unknown, as Company witness Fahrer explains, whereas under a PPA the price can be fixed in advance (with cost contingencies permitted under the statute); Plant performance and outage risks for the asset life ratepayers must pay even if the plant does not perform as expected whereas a PPA can include performance guarantees and penalties for failing to meet delivery commitments Utility ownership lacks adaptability and conveys ongoing ownership and decommissioning responsibilities for the life of the plant, regardless of commercial viability in light of market and technological changes; and Permanent loss of the asset due to fire or other catastrophic failure as the Company itself has experienced with its St. Claire power station ( Q. Do you believe Ms. Dimitry adequately considered PPAs as an alternative?

17 0 0 A. Ms. Dimitry s recitation of pertinent work experience on pages - of his direct testimony does not mention PPA negotiations, which may help to explain why her testimony overlooks so many risk allocation elements commonly included in them. Equally troubling, Ms. Dimitry and the other Company witnesses also do not address Company development, construction and ownership risks to retail customers in any meaningful way. Q. Could DTE have limited risk to customers through a PPA? A. Yes. Q. How so? A. As a threshold issue, Company witness Dan Fahrer acknowledges on page of his direct testimony that self-building a power station that will cost over $ billion entails differing levels of risk associated with engineering, procurement and construction contracts, which the Company is still seeking to balance through contracts that it continues to negotiate. He admits, however, on pages - that the Company is still developing its cost estimates, and will not know the full ratepayer impact until its proposed plant reaches commercial operation, which it hopes will occur in early 0. No Company witness discusses, however, the ways in which the various customer risks acknowledged by Mr. Fahrer could be mitigated by shifting them to a third-party merchant developer through a long-term PPA because the Company chose not to explore that alternative. Q. Has the Company presented any compelling reason for refusing to explore cost-effective long-term PPA alternatives to its self-build option?

18 A. No. Worse yet, the Company s case-in-chief includes no evidence to enable the Commission to make the kind of comparative analysis required by Act No. because the Company foreclosed any consideration of a long-term PPA alternative. The 0 Company s RFP and certificate of need application, therefore, have failed to meet the statutory requirement to show that its plan is the most reasonable and prudent approach relative to other resource options for meeting power demand. Q. Could the Company have addressed that shortcoming? A. Yes. The Company could have avoided these fatal defects by engaging with MCV and other merchant generation developers in meaningful discussions about its future power supply needs and the ways they can be met through long-term PPAs, but unfortunately it chose not to do so. Q. Does this conclude your testimony? A. Yes, it does.

19 Exhibit MCV- (KRO-)

20 Exhibit MCV- (KRO-)

21 Exhibit MCV- (KRO-)

22 Exhibit MCV- (KRO-)

23 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * DYKEMA GOSSETT A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAPITOL VIEW, 0 TOWNSEND STREET, SUITE 00 LANSING, MICHIGAN In the matter of the application of DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY for approval of certificates of necessity pursuant to MCL 0.s, as amended, in connection with the addition of a natural gas combined cycle generating facility to its generation fleet and for related accounting and ratemaking authorizations. PROOF OF SERVICE Case No. U- Becky Grenawalt, an employee of Dykema Gossett PLLC, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the th day of January, 0, she served the Pre-Filed Direct Testimony of Kevin R. Olling on behalf of Midland Cogeneration Ventures, LP upon: DTE Electric Company David S. Maquera Michael J. Solo, Jr. DTE Energy One Energy Plaza, WCB Detroit, MI david.maquera@dteenergy.com michael.solo@dteenergy.com mpscfilings@dteenergy.com MPSC Staff Heather M. Durian Amit T. Singh Assistant Attorney General Public Service Division 0 West Saginaw Hwy, rd Floor Lansing, MI durianh@michigan.gov singha@michigan.gov

24 DYKEMA GOSSETT A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAPITOL VIEW, 0 TOWNSEND STREET, SUITE 00 LANSING, MICHIGAN Michigan Environmental Council Christopher M. Bzdok Tracy Jane Andrews Lydia Barbash-Riley Olson, Bzdok & Howard 0 E. Front St. Traverse City, MI chris@envlaw.com tjandrew@envlaw.com lydia@envlaw.com Kimberly Flynn, Legal Ass t kimberly@envlaw.com Marcia Randazzo, Legal Ass t marcia@envlaw.com Environmental Law & Policy Center, Vote Solar, Ecology Center, Solar Energy Industries Association, and Union of Concerned Scientists Margrethe K. Kearney Environmental Law & Policy Center Wealthy St. SE, Suite Grand Rapids, MI 0 mkearney@elpc.org Jean-Luc Kreitner Environmental Law & Policy center E. Wacker Drive, Suite 00 Chicago, IL 00 jkreitner@elpc.org Kristin Field, Legal Assistant kfield@elpc.org Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Robert A.W. Strong Michael J. Pattwell Sean P. Gallagher Clark Hill PLC S. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 00 Birmingham, MI 00 rstrong@clarkhill.com mpattwell@clarkhill.com sgallagher@clarkhill.com Stephen A. Campbell Clark Hill PLC 00 Woodward Avenue, Ste 00 Detroit, MI scampbell@clarkhill.com International Transmission Company d/b/a ITCTransmission Stephen J. Videto Amy C. Monopoli ITC Holdings Corp. Energy Way Novi, MI amonopoli@itctransco.com svideto@itctransco.com Sierra Club Cassandra R. McCrae Shannon W. Fisk Jill M. Tauber Earthjustice John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 0 Philadelphia, PA 0 cmccrae@earthjustice.org sfisk@earthjustice.org jtauber@earthjustice.org

25 DYKEMA GOSSETT A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAPITOL VIEW, 0 TOWNSEND STREET, SUITE 00 LANSING, MICHIGAN Attorney General Bill Schuette John A. Janiszewski Celeste R. Gill Assistant Attorney General Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Div. G. Mennen Williams Bldg., th Floor W. Ottawa St.; P.O. Box 0 Lansing, MI 0 janiszewskij@michigan.gov gillc@michigan.gov ag-enra-spec-lit@michigan.gov Via at the addresses above. Energy Michigan, Inc., Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, and City of Ann Arbor Timothy J. Lundgren Laura A. Chappelle Varnum Law The Victor Center 0 N. Washington Sq., Ste. 0 Lansing, MI - tjlundgren@varnumlaw.com lachappelle@varnumlaw.com Toni L. Newell Varnum Law Bridge St., N.W. Grand Rapids, MI 0 tlnewell@varnumlaw.com Becky Grenawalt