ABRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ...

ABRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL

October 29, 2019

Via E-Filing Only

Ms. Lisa Felice

Michigan Public Service Commission

7109 W. Saginaw Hwy.

P. O. Box 30221

Lansing, MI 48917

RE: MPSC Case No. U-20471

Dear Ms. Felice:

Please find enclosed Initial Brief of Soulardarity in Case U-20471 and proof of service for

electronic filing in the above referenced matter. The confidential paragraphs of the brief were

filed separately under seal. An electronic copy of the brief, including confidential paragraphs

was served to those parties who have signed the Non-Disclosure Certificate in this case. An

accompanying proof of service has been included below. Please do not hesitate to contact my

office with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Mark N. Templeton, pro hac vice

6020 S. University Avenue

Chicago, IL 60637

Phone: (773) 702-9611

Email: [email protected]

xc: Parties to Case No. U-20471

mailto:[email protected]

STATE OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In the matter of the application of

DTE Electric Company for

approval of its integrated resource

plan pursuant to MCL 460.6t, and

for other relief.

Case No. U-20471

ALJ Sally L. Wallace

INITIAL BRIEF OF SOULARDARITY

Dated: October 29, 2019

Table of Contents*

I. INTRODUCTION [Outline I. INTRODUCTION] ............................................................. 1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [Outline II. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS] ..................... 3

III. LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK [Outline IV. JURISDICTION AND

STANDARD OF REVIEW] ............................................................................................................. 5

IV. RENEWABLES ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELING [Outline VII.C.2. Wind and Solar

Inputs, Outline VII.C.7 Decentralized Power or Distributed Generation (DG), and Outline D.

Modeling Results]: DTE’s Renewable Analysis Was Not Reasonable or Prudent ........................ 8

V. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS [Outline

VII.E. IRP Public and Stakeholder Engagement (open houses and technical workshops)]: DTE

did not meaningfully engage the public in its IRP process, particularly low-income customers . 19

VI. PLANNING PRINCIPLES [Outline VII. G. Risk Analysis (including Planning

Principles)]: DTE provided incomplete and inadequate definitions of the planning principles, did

not use them in the generation of potential pathways, and did not justify the proposed flexible

pathways with the planning principles sufficiently. ..................................................................... 24

VII. CONCLUSION AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF........................................................... 43

* Each Section of Soulardarity’s brief corresponds with a section of DTE’s proposed brief

outline.

U-20471, Initial Brief of Soulardarity Page 1 of 47

I. INTRODUCTION [OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTION]

The 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP” or “Plan”) of DTE Electric Company (“DTE”

or the “Company”) is not “reasonable and prudent,” MCL 460.6t, and therefore the Commission

should reject it. The Company neglected to model a wide range of renewable and distributed

generation (“DG”) options that ratepayers demanded and that would have achieved the

objectives of the Company’s planning principles. DTE failed in its effort to engage ratepayers in

meaningful conversations about its IRP, hosting either overly technical workshops or simplistic

public open houses that did not discuss assumptions DTE was considering for the IRP, and DTE

did not act specifically on the input it received from the general public. DTE utilized planning

principles in its risk analysis for assessing the plans, but the definitions of the planning principles

were incomplete, and DTE did not used the planning principles to generate plans to be analyzed.

The Company gestured towards considering Community Impact and the Company’s emissions in

the planning principles, but DTE relegated both concerns to second class status. In sum, the

Commission should reject this IRP because DTE failed to engage its ratepayers meaningfully in

the IRP process, ignored the range of viable renewable energy and distributed generation

resources, and failed to create a transparent decision-making process that “appropriately

balanced” its planning principles. MCL 460.6t(8)(a).

DTE’s neglect for a comprehensive analysis of renewable energy and distributed

generation options led to an incomplete review of the “means of meeting energy and capacity

needs.” Id. Despite the modelling from a previous Commission proceeding, U-18418, indicating

a shift toward non-fossil fueled resources, the Company rejected this modeling as “inconsistent

with DTE’s experience and projections.” Mikulan Direct Testimony at 35. DTE’s neglect

became a self-fulfilling prophecy: At the outset it minimized renewable energy and then used the


analysis in its IRP to support its prejudgment. Further, the DTE Voluntary Green Pricing

(“VGP”) program rests on poorly substantiated projections and excludes low-income and people-

of-color communities. If the expensive, poorly-designed VGP program does not meet the

Company’s targets, the Company should support the construction of more renewable resources

and should not build polluting natural gas plants, which will likely become stranded assets.

The Commission Order in U-15896 laid the framework for how Michigan utilities should

engage stakeholders in the IRP process. See generally, U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own

Motion, to Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Ex. A. This included

transparent decision-making process, an opportunity for feedback, and robust and informed

dialogue. Id. As this brief will demonstrate, DTE failed to engage its ratepayers as required by

the Commission Order. Public open houses were not geographically dispersed, did not always

provide translation services or childcare, and did not inform attendees about the options the

Company was considering.

Finally, while DTE attempted to utilize planning principles throughout its decision-

making process, the principles DTE used suffered from incomplete definitions and were only

used in a qualitative analysis of the plans, when quantitative scrutiny would have been possible.

The planning principles were not used to generate plans at the outset, which may have helped to

remedy the absence of a diversity of renewable options in the modeling. Further, DTE did not

apply the planning principles evenhandedly, instead selecting Proposed Courses of Action

(“PCAs”) that disregarded its own stated factors.

For these reasons, the Commission should reject DTE’s IRP. The Company has not met

its burden to demonstrate it has complied with either the statutory requirements or those laid out

in the Commission Orders. After a brief factual background and review of the legal standards,


this brief will detail DTE’s failure to analyze available renewable energy resources fully and

appropriately, the Company’s neglect for meaningful public participation, and the

inconsistencies and omissions in the planning principles analysis.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [OUTLINE II. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS]

In 2011, DTE Energy repossessed more than 1,000 streetlights from Highland Park,

Michigan, a predominantly low-income and people-of-color city, after its municipal government

defaulted on its utility payments. Koeppel Direct Testimony at 2. A coalition of Highland Park

residents formed Soulardarity in 2012 to help alleviate the crisis by installing community-owned,

solar-powered streetlights in the city. Koeppel Direct Testimony at 3. Soulardarity’s mission has

subsequently broadened to include energy education, organizing for energy democracy,

advocacy for community solar, and promoting greater equity in Michigan’s energy generation

and delivery systems. Through activism and advocacy, Soulardarity seeks to emphasize the

particular needs, experiences, and perspectives of low-income communities and communities of

color.

It is critically important that the Commission consider these perspectives carefully during

this IRP proceeding as it makes decisions about Michigan’s energy future. The environmental

and public health costs of fossil-fuel generation sources have burdened and continue to burden

disproportionately low-income communities and communities of color. See Ex. SOU-10,

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Indigenous Environmental

Network & Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, Coal Blooded: Putting Profits

Before People (2016). In addition to bearing an inequitable share of the burdens of the energy

system, low-income communities within DTE’s service territory receive inferior service and thus


reap fewer benefits. For instance, DTE’s hardening program has been inadequate in Highland

Park and other low-income communities, failing to put powerlines underground and leaving the

communities with dangerously outdated power lines and transmission infrastructure. Koeppel

Direct Testimony at 12.

DTE’s ratepayers have repeatedly demanded increased renewable-energy generation

sources in the IRP, both at the open houses DTE held for the public as well as at the public

hearing on DTE’s IRP hosted by the MPSC. See Ex. SOU-35 at 11-17, Pfeuffer, WP SGP-2,

First Public Open House Documents (2018) (comment cards); Ex. SOU-36 at 5-11, Pfeuffer, WP

SGP-2, Second Public Open House Documents (2018) (comment cards); Ex. SOU-37 at 14-37,

Pfeuffer, WP SGP-2, Third Public Open House Documents (2018) (comment cards); In re the

Application of DTE Electric Company for Approval of Its Integrated Resource Plan Pursuant to

MCL 460.6t, and for Other Relief, MPSC Public Hearing, June 20, 2019 (public comments).

DTE’s customers have also expressed a desire for increased opportunities for the public to give

input on the IRP; however, DTE’s public open house workshops were largely inaccessible in

particular for low-income customers due to the lack of childcare, limited translation services, and

limited public transportation options to the open house venues. Koeppel Direct Testimony at 38-

39.

Soulardarity has intervened in this case in order to request that the Commission takes into

consideration the perspectives of low-income communities and communities of color when

reviewing DTE’s IRP. By participating in this proceeding, Soulardarity aims to ensure that

environmental burdens on low-income and people-of-color communities are lessened, that the

members of these communities receive the services to which they are entitled as customers of


DTE, and that they have equal access to the benefits of renewable energy and energy efficiency

programs.

III. LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK [OUTLINE IV. JURISDICTION AND

STANDARD OF REVIEW]

DTE bears the burden of showing that its IRP meets the requirements outlined in the

applicable statutes and regulations. In particular, DTE’s IRP must comport with the standards

articulated in MCL 460.6(t), the Integrated Resource Plan Filing Guidelines as outlined in Case

U-15896 (U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the Provisions of

Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Dec. 30, 2017, at Ex. A), and the Commission’s Michigan Integrated

Resource Planning Parameters as set forth in Case No. U-18418 (U-18418, In re On the

Commission’s Own Motion to Implement the Provisions of Section 6t(1) of 2016 PA 341, Nov.

21, 2017, at Ex. A). DTE must meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See

Dillion v. Lapeer State Home and Training School, 364 Mich. 1, 8 (1961) . If DTE fails to meet

this burden, the Commission must reject the IRP.

MCL 460.6(t) outlines the statutory requirements that a utility must meet in order for the

Commission to approve its IRP. Under the statute, DTE must prove that its plan “represents the

most reasonable and prudent means of meeting the electricity utility’s energy and capacity

needs.” MCL 460.6(t)(8)(a). In determining if DTE has met this burden, the Commission looks

to the factors outlined in the statute, which include, but are not limited to: resource adequacy,

compliance with applicable state and federal environmental regulations, reliability, and diversity

of generation supply. Id.


Section 3 of MCL 460.6(t) instructed the Commission to issue an order establishing filing

requirements for integrated resource plans, which it did in Case No. U-15896 in the Integrated

Resource Filing Guidelines. U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the

Provisions of Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Dec. 30, 2017, at Ex. A. A utility company must show,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that it complied with the filing guidelines. See Dillion v.

Lapeer State Home and Training School, 364 Mich. 1, 8 (1961).

The Commission Order in U-15896 directs utilities to include a “Stakeholder

Engagement and Public Outreach Process” in order to

1) educate potential participants on utility plans; 2) utilize a transparent decision-

making process for resource planning; 3) create opportunity to provide feedback to

the utility on its resource plan; 4) encourage robust and informed dialogue on

resource decisions; and 5) reduce regulatory risk by building understanding and

support for utility resource decision.

U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of

2016 PA 341, Dec. 30, 2017, Ex. A at 6. The Commission Order provides specific guidelines for

how the utility should conduct its public outreach meetings in order to ensure accessibility,

stating, “[th]e public meetings should be offered in the utility’s service territory in geographic

locations convenient to customers, with advanced notice provided to customers in the utility’s

service territory.” Id., Ex. A at 7. Additionally, in order to encourage attendance, the guidelines

state, “The utility is encouraged to consider holding public meetings after normal business

hours.” Id.

The Commission Order in U-15986 includes numerous guidelines with respect to

renewable energy resources. A utility must “[d]escribe how the electric provider will meet

existing renewable energy standards,” and in addition, “[i]f the level of renewable energy

purchased or produced is projected to drop over the planning periods, the utility must


demonstrate why the reduction is in the best interest of ratepayers.” Id. at 14-15. The

Commission Order also directs a utility to “describe the options for customer-initiated renewable

energy that will be offered by the electric provider” and also to “describe how the electric

provider will meet the demand for customer initiated renewable energy.” Id.at 15. The filing

guidelines also require that DTE provides specific information—including operating,

maintenance, and capital costs—for distributed generation programs. Id. at 8.

In order to satisfy the requirements of the filing guidelines as specified in the

Commission Order, DTE must describe the process it used to select its Proposed Course of

Action, “including the planning principles used by the utility to judge the appropriate tradeoffs

between competing planning objectives….” Id. at 20-21. DTE must also include its justification

for how its Proposed Course of Action “[s]trikes an appropriate balance between the various

planning objectives specified.” Id. at 21.

DTE must also prove that its IRP is compliant with the Michigan Integrated Resource

Planning Parameters as set forth in Case No. U-18418. U-18418, In re On the Commission’s

Own Motion to Implement the Provisions of Section 6t(1) of 2016 PA 341, Nov. 21, 2017, at Ex.

A. To be in compliance with the parameters, DTE must include a minimum analysis period of

twenty years in its IRP, with reporting at years five, ten, and fifteen years. Id., Ex. A. at 6.

Additionally, the planning parameters mandate that utilities consider the environmental impact of

the Proposed Course of Action, stating, “Environmental benefits and risk must be considered in

the IRP analysis.” Id., Ex. A at 26.

DTE bears the burden of showing that its IRP meets the requirements of MCL 460.6(t),

Integrated Resource Plan Filing Guidelines, and Michigan Integrated Resource Planning

Parameters by a preponderance of the evidence. This standard means that DTE must prove the


facts it asserts in its IRP; other parties do not bear the burden of proving the opposite facts. See

Dillion v. Lapeer State Home and Training School, 364 Mich. 1, 8 (1961). Additionally, the

Commission has quoted the Michigan Supreme Court stating that, under the preponderance of

the evidence standard, “[n]o essential issue may be left to surmise, guess, or conjecture, for an

administrative body cannot base an award or decision upon conjecture or speculation.” U-18224,

In re of the Application of Upper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation Approval of a

Certificate of Necessity, Oct. 25, 2017, at 14 (quoting Dillon v. Lapeer State Home & Training

School, 364 Mich. 1, 8 (1961)). As such, DTE’s IRP may not rely on unfounded assumptions,

but rather DTE must prove the facts underlying its justification for its IRP as well as proving that

it met the statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. RENEWABLES ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELING [OUTLINE VII.C.2. WIND AND

SOLAR INPUTS, OUTLINE VII.C.7 DECENTRALIZED POWER OR DISTRIBUTED

GENERATION (DG), AND OUTLINE D. MODELING RESULTS]: DTE’s Renewable

Analysis Was Not Reasonable or Prudent.

Generally speaking, there are at least four ways in which renewable energy is supplied to

DTE’s customers. First, customers can provide power to themselves and sell excess power back

to the grid through customer-owned renewable-energy resources, e.g., distributed-generation

systems and community solar systems. Second, 2016 PA 342 requires DTE to meet a renewable

portfolio standard of 15% by 2021 and thereafter. 2016 PA 342 §28(c). Third, DTE has

committed to additional clean energy and carbon reduction goals, which include energy waste

reduction as well. See, e.g., Schroeder Direct Testimony Ex. A-18, at 1-2. And fourth, the

company manages a VGP program gives DTE customers the option to increase “the percentage


of their energy usage that is attributed to specific renewable projects” in exchange for paying an

increased rate. Mikulan Direct Testimony Ex. A-3, at 86.

Unfortunately, and illegally, DTE has a limited and short-sighted view of renewable

energy in its IRP, leading to an analysis that is neither “the most reasonable [or] prudent means

of meeting the electric utility’s energy and capacity needs.” MCL 460.6t(8)(a). First, DTE failed

to model fully and fairly renewable energy generally and distributed generation—including

PURPA qualifying facilities, household solar, and community solar—more specifically. Second,

the Plan relies too heavily on a flawed VGP program that is expensive, inadequate and exclusive.

As a result, the Company has failed to analyze “all reasonable options available to meet

projected energy and capacity needs.” MCL 460.6t(5)(k). Soulardarity fears that these self-

induced failings will lead the Company down the path towards construction of a new natural gas

facility, which will lock in a significant source of pollution for decades to come and a stranded

asset whose costs ratepayers will be saddled with.

DTE’s approach to renewable energy restricts access and creates burdens to entry,

particularly for low-income and people-of-color communities. DTE has proposed an IRP that

answers the question of how to meet customer demand with an answer quite similar to business

as usual. DTE’s approaches to a shifting energy landscape, with impacts on its infrastructure,

should not ignore the data in favor of the status quo. Rather, the Company should embrace the

opportunities and the challenges and make renewables available to its customers on a wider scale

and more equitably. DTE has addressed equity issues related to renewable energy by restricting

access instead of following its own modeling and broadening access to renewable energy to all

ratepayers. The company has a history of funding community opposition to renewable energy on

the basis that renewable energy increases costs for low-income communities. See Ex. SOU-4,


Matt Kasper, Utility Front Group ‘Michigan Energy Promise’ Emerges to Rally DTE Energy

Foundation Recipients to Target Solar, Energy and Policy Institute (Mar. 5, 2019). Rather than

fund misinformation campaigns, the company should focus on reducing barriers to entry for

renewable energy.

A. DTE did not perform a fair or full assessment of customer-owned renewable-energy

resources, skewing the IRP analysis and shifting it away from a more robust set of

renewable resources.

MCL 460.6t(8)(a) requires DTE’s proposed IRP to be “the most reasonable and prudent

means of meeting the electric utility’s energy and capacity needs” before the Commission

approves the proposed IRP. To determine if the IRP represents the most reasonable and prudent

means, the Commission must consider, among other variables, diversity of generation supply.

MCL 460.6t(8)(a)(vi). Additionally, the IRP must include “[a]n analysis of the cost, capacity

factor, and viability of all reasonable options available to meet projected energy and capacity

needs.” MCL 460.6t(5)(k). Despite these requirements, DTE’s IRP over emphasizes fossil-fuel

resources, preferences utility-scale renewable resources over smaller-scale renewable resources,

and neglects to give adequate consideration to customer-owned renewable-energy resources.

Therefore the IRP fails to meet the requirements set forth in MCL 460.6t.

1. DTE Wrongly Emphasizes Fossil-Fuel and Utility-Scale Renewable Resources.

DTE discounted the renewable energy modeling scenarios mandated by the Commission

in Case No. U-18418. In that case, the Commission required all electric utilities located in the

Michigan portion of MISO Zone 2 and MISO Zone 7 to utilize scenarios to “help evaluate a


combination of supply-side and demand-side resources under different scenarios and

assumptions related to load growth, fuel prices, emissions, and other variables.” In re On the

Commission’s Own Motion to Implement the Provisions of Section 6t(1) of 2016 PA 341 Nov.

21, 2017 at 1. The three modeling scenarios that the Commission required DTE to employ were

“business as usual,” “emerging technology,” and “environmental policy.” Id. at 15. Each of these

scenarios required DTE to make specific assumptions that would impact the most reasonable and

prudent supply side resources in which the Company may invest.

While DTE noted that the “required scenarios tended to favor non-fossil fueled

resources,” it summarily dismissed these results as being “inconsistent with DTE’s experience

and projections.” Mikulan Direct Testimony at 35. By discounting the outcome of these

scenarios, and relying heavily on its own internal projections, DTE created a self-fulfilling

prophecy in which developing more renewable energy becomes infeasible for DTE due to the

Company’s reliance on fossil-fuel based generation sources—such as the Blue Water Energy

Center—which, in turn, is based on the projection that developing more renewable energy is

infeasible. Witness Pfeuffer’s direct testimony identified an expectation that DTE would add 525

MW of non-VGP solar between 2025 and 2030. Pfeuffer Direct Testimony at 18. However,

DTE’s potential additions of renewable energy are dwarfed by its decision to construct the Blue

Water Energy Center (“BWEC”), a fossil-fueled, 1,150 MW natural gas combined cycle plant.

See Pfeuffer Direct Testimony at 31.

Simply put, DTE fails to justify its belief that “the Company does not believe it is

realistic to assume that these [renewable] technologies will all experience immediate, significant,

and sustained cost reductions.” Mikulan Direct Testimony at 35. The Company inadequately

explains what experience guides its choice, or why it believes that renewable energy will not


sustain significant cost reduction through technology change or policy shifts. The likely result is

a significant expansion of fossil-fueled resources.

With regard to the modeling of renewable-energy resources, DTE modeled utility-scale

solar exclusively when creating the IRP. Mikulan Direct Testimony at 50. DTE did not analyze

directly cost differences between utility-owned and small-scale, third-party owned sources. See

Schroeder Cross Examination at 5 TR 1445. Witness Mikulan justified the Company’s choice

based on “economics.” Mikulan Direct Testimony at 50. However, in deciding to exclusively

model utility scale solar, DTE failed to include locally-owned distributed generation resources,

such as household solar and community solar, in its IRP, and which offer significant benefits to

individual ratepayers and communities as a whole, even if module prices are higher for such

individuals when compared to module prices for utility-scale solar developers.

Additionally, DTE has stated that it did not consider contracting with any third parties

through power purchase agreements or PURPA qualifying facility purchases to meet any of its

renewable resource requirement. Lucas Cross Examination at 7 TR 126. In short, DTE did not

consider any renewable resources being developed and owned by any person other than DTE.

This is true despite DTE’s admission that DTE has not provided any analysis to show that DTE

ownership of renewable energy resources is demonstrably better or less expensive than power

purchase agreements for its customers. See Lucas Cross Examination at 7 TR 127.

DTE’s unjustified preference for utility-owned renewable resources is illustrated by a

comparison between the recent certificate of need (CON) proceedings in front of this body, and

the assumptions in its IRP. In the prior CON proceedings, DTE demonstrated a capacity need

based on the assumption that all power purchase agreements (PPAs) would not be renewed upon

expiration. U-18419, In re the Application of DTE Electric Company for Approval of Certificates


of Necessity Pursuant to MCL 460.6s, 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, Apr. 27, 2018, at 39. However, here DTE operates under the

assumption that all PPAs will be renewed upon expiration. Pfeuffer Direct Testimony at 11.

Thus, DTE used the assumption in the CON proceeding that demonstrated a capacity need, and it

makes the assumption that reduces capacity need. In each proceeding, DTE operated under the

assumption that was most beneficial to its view about renewable resources.

Despite it potentially being more beneficial for renewable energy resources to be owned

by a variety of non-utility stakeholders, including customers and qualifying facilities, DTE failed

to even consider such possibilities in its IRP. As such, DTE’s proposed courses of action, which

rely on DTE owning all additional renewable energy resources, is not reasonable and prudent.

2. DTE Wrongly Failed to Assess Distributed Generation and Community Solar

Fully and Fairly.

DTE failed to assess customer-owned renewable-energy resources sufficiently in this

IRP. DTE did not consider different levels of deployment of distributed generation in any of the

plans evaluated as part of the IRP process. Ex. SOU-60 at 3, SDE-1.13c. In addition, the IRP

“does not specify the timing, quantity or location of distributed energy resources.” Zhou Direct

Testimony at 18. DTE’s failure to plan adequately for DG resources makes it impossible to

evaluate the impacts of DG resources on the distribution grid. See id. While the Company can

point to customer-owned distributed generation resources being outside of its control, see

Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 729, DTE fails to take responsibility for its own role in the


growth of customer owned DG. DTE’s policies and practices will dictate the efficacy and

adoption rates of distributed generation.

DG resources offer several benefits. They afford system owners and local communities

economic benefits, such as reducing payments to utilities, generating revenue through the sale of

excess power, and creating local jobs. Koeppel Direct Testimony at 20. They are more beneficial

to the local economy than utility scale resources, and they empower local communities. See

generally Ex. SOU-12, John Farrell, Advantage Local – Why Local Energy Ownership Matters,

Institute for Local Self-Reliance (Sept. 2014). They improve reliability and reduce distribution

system and transmission line losses. See Ex. SOU-8, Emily Prehoda, Joshua M. Pearce, &

Chelsea Shelly, Policies to Overcome Barriers for Renewable Energy Distributed Generation: A

Case Study of Utility Structure and Regulatory Regimes in Michigan (2019) at 12.

Moreover, the revenues that low-income and people-of-color communities pay for energy

leave their communities. If DTE migrates towards a more equitable model that provides better

access to distributed generation and community energy, it will enable low-income and people-of-

color communities to keep those revenues and economic opportunities in their communities and

to share in the benefits of the energy system. DTE’s IRP must recognize the benefits of localized

energy production.

DTE ignored or minimized the benefits of DG in its proposed IRP. According to Witness

Mikulan, the DTE economic analysis of distributed generation did not consider reduced

transmission line losses due to distributed generation, lower transmission construction costs due

to distributed generation, or an increase in reliable performance by siting generation resources

closer to ratepayers. See Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 726-27; contra Ex. SOU-14,

Gideon Weissman, Emma Searson & Rob Sargent, The True Value of Solar: Measuring the


Benefits of Rooftop Solar, Environment America (July 2019) at 6-7. DTE made a categorical

assumption that utility-scale solar is always more cost-effective and desirable than DG.

However, for many Michigan residents and businesses, who have the potential to be both energy

producers and consumers, the incentives to develop small and mid-scale solar projects may be

strong. And, in considering its “Reliability” planning principle, DTE failed to consider the

reliability benefits of DG resources. Ex. SOU-58, SDE-1.11c at 3. This aligns with DTE’s

history of trying to discourage the development of DG resources in what appears to be DTE’s

goal of total control of energy generation.

By assuming that utility-scale solar is the only economically feasible option, DTE

essentially excluded distributed generation and other types of solar that may be owned by its

customers from its IRP, despite these other sources being potentially more cost-effective and

beneficial to DTE’s customers. Despite it potentially being more beneficial for renewable energy

resources to be owned by a variety of non-utility stakeholders, including customers and

qualifying facilities, DTE failed to consider such possibilities in its IRP. As such, DTE’s

proposed courses of action, which rely on DTE owning all additional renewable energy

resources, is not reasonable and prudent. Without meaningful analysis of distributed generation

and community solar, the IRP fails to provide for a diversity of generation supply and does not

provide enough evidence for the Commission to assess whether this IRP represents the most

reasonable and prudent means of meeting DTE’s needs.

An incomplete and flawed assessment of DG is one way in which DTE’s IRP has failed

to assess renewable energy reasonably and prudently. Minimizing the value of distributed

generation helps to support the Company’s plans for natural gas facilities in two of the pathways.

A more reasonable and prudent IRP would have accounted for DTE’s role in the growth in


distributed generation and community solar, including a true accounting of both the costs and

benefits of those types of generation resources.

B. DTE’s VGP program is based on poor assumptions and excludes low-income and

people-of-color communities, and DTE may wrongly use problems with the

program to justify investments in natural gas resources.

DTE relies on its VGP program to meet some of its Proposed Courses of Action. In

Pathways A and B, VGP program renewables would account for 925 MW. Schroeder Direct

Testimony Ex. A-18, at 1-2. However, the reliance on the VGP program rests on uncertain

enrollment projections, and the program as currently constructed inhibits low-income

communities from taking part due to additional costs.

Soulardarity’s fundamental concern is that if the flawed VGP program fails to meet

DTE’s stated goals for it, the Company will use that shortcoming to justify building a natural gas

plant rather than proceeding down the more reasonable and prudent path of investing in other

renewable resources on its own or supporting investments by others in distributed generation and

community solar.

DTE’s own reports demonstrate that its VGP program disregards low-income and people-

of-color communities. In a report delivered pursuant to case U-18352, DTE noted that the VGP

program is highly concentrated in affluent communities and among individuals with high levels

of education and income. Ex. SOU-68 at 2. DTE identifies location, education, and household

income as being “key attributes of green customers.” Id. at 5. Moreover, DTE’s VGP program

marketing plan targets customers that are “Caucasian, Higher income, College graduate[s].” Ex.

SOU-58 at 28. DTE’s targeted marketing of the VGP program is ironic in light of the work of the


lobbying group Michigan Energy First, to which DTE has close ties, which promotes the

message that solar energy raises costs for low-income and people-of-color communities. See Ex.

SOU-4.

In determining enrollment projections for its VGP programs, DTE relied on propensity

modeling to predict that between 60,000 and 75,000 households will join the residential VGP

program at some point in the future. Schroeder Direct Testimony at 15. The residential customers

that DTE predicts will join the VGP program in the future are predominantly affluent, well-

educated homeowners who have resided in their homes for a significant length of time. Id. at 5.

DTE predicts a VGP program disenrollment rate of 6%. This figure is comprised of 3.5%

attributed to customers leaving DTE’s service area and 2.5% of customers remaining in the

service area but ending participation in the program. SOU Ex. 69, SDE-1.4b. This figure is based

on past performance. Schroeder Cross Examination at 5 TR 1397.

DTE failed to assess how its VGP program enrollment projections would fluctuate

because of economic factors. Schroeder Cross Examination at 5 TR 1397. More specifically

DTE did not consider fluctuations in unemployment, interest rates, or its tax base in its analysis.

Id.

By not considering economic factors, the accuracy of DTE’s aforementioned projected

disenrollment figures become highly questionable. The inadequacy of DTE’s analysis raises

concern because a rate of customers ending participation higher than the predicted 2.5% could

negatively affect DTE’s estimates for the VGP program.

These negative effects would be amplified by any disenrollment from the large customer

VGP program. While DTE plans to add 465 MW of renewable energy to support the VGP

program between 2021 and 2024, this energy will be added for commercial and industrial


customers rather than residential customers. Mikulan Direct Testimony Ex. A-3, at 87; Schroeder

Direct Testimony at 17; Ex. SOU-65 at 1. Rather than simply developing more renewable energy

for all of its customers, DTE has decided to develop renewable energy primarily for those

commercial and industrial customers willing to pay higher rates for renewable energy.

DTE missing its enrollment goals for its VGP program is not a justification to build a

natural gas facility. Rather than continue to invest in fossil-fuel generation, DTE should commit

to a more robust build out of non-VGP renewable energy. DTE’s decision to proceed down

Pathways A and B, which involve significant development of renewables, will depend on how

many customers are willing to pay the higher rates demanded by the VGP program. See Mikulan

Direct Testimony at 118. But if people elect not to pay a premium, the Company should not

reduce the amount of renewable energy it delivers in the future. The answer to lower than

anticipated demand for the VGP program should be an increase in DTE-owned renewable

projects and a promotion of customer-owned renewable resources. Rather than continuing to rely

significantly on fossil-fuel generation—and on its customers to pay a premium for renewable

energy through the VGP program—DTE should invest more in non-VGP renewables resources

that are accessible to all of its customers and encourage and facilitate development of renewable

resources by others, including distributed generation and community solar.

In conclusion, the IRP has a failed approach to renewables. First, the Company fails to

model customer-owned renewable generation fully or fairly. Second, without sufficient

justification or analysis, the Company relies on company-owned utility-scale renewable

resources to the exclusion of other forms of renewable resources. Third, two of its pathways rely

on a flawed VGP program that could well fall short of its goals. Rather than building a new


natural gas plant to address failings of the VGP program, the company should instead build more

renewable resources and support the construction of renewable resources by others.

V. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS [OUTLINE

VII.E. IRP PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (OPEN HOUSES AND

TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS)]: DTE Did Not Engage the Public Meaningfully in Its IRP

Process, Particularly Low-Income and People-of-Color Customers.

A. DTE Did Not Provide the General Public with Useful Information and Did Not Act

on the Input It Received.

Before issuing its IRP, DTE held three meeting for the general public, an additional

meeting regarding the Blue Water Energy Center, and two technical stakeholder workshops. See

Pfeuffer Direct Testimony at 37. The Commission Order in U-15896 directs utilities to include a

“Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach Process” in order to

1) educate potential participants on utility plans; 2) utilize a transparent decision-

making process for resource planning; 3) create opportunity to provide feedback to

the utility on its resource plan; 4) encourage robust and informed dialogue on

resource decisions; and 5) reduce regulatory risk by building understanding and

support for utility resource decision

U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of

2016 PA 341, Dec. 30, 2017, Ex. A at 6. However, DTE’s three general sessions for the public

failed to meet those requirements.

The information distributed at those hearings was inadequate for educating the public

properly. None of the information which DTE provided discussed the 2019 IRP directly. None of

it included information about the assumptions that DTE was making in the IRP or the potential

plans or Proposed Courses of Action that the utility was reviewing. See Pfeuffer Cross


Examination at 2 TR 218-224. The information amounted to little more than advertising about

existing programs and general educational information. See each of Exs. SOU-28 through and

including SOU-53 (DTE-provided materials at the public open houses). For instance, the only two

documents DTE distributed with respect to energy waste reduction or energy efficiency did not

mention the IRP, the IRP planning principles, or any information about DTE’s data assumptions

or modeling scenarios, according DTE’s own admission. See Pfeuffer Cross Examination at 2 TR

220; Ex. SOU-30, Pfeuffer, U-20471-SDE-1.23a-21-EWR C&I, July 5, 2019; Ex. SOU-31,

Pfeuffer, U-20471-SDE-1.23a-24-EWR Ambassador, July 5, 2019. With respect to renewable

energy, DTE distributed a document called “Why Wind Works for Michigan.” This document

describes how wind power works at a high-level but does not include any information about the

amount of wind energy DTE plans to include in the IRP or the assumptions it made for wind in

the IRP. See Ex. SOU-33, Pfeuffer, U-20471-SDE-1.23a-19-Why Wind Works, July 5, 2019.

Similarly, the only document DTE distributed about solar energy gives information about DTE’s

current solar installations and explains at a basic level how solar panels work. See Ex. SOU-34,

Pfeuffer, U-20471-SDE-1.23a-16-Solar, July 5, 2019. By DTE’s own admission, the document

does not include information about the amount of solar energy DTE is proposing in its PCA’s.

Pfeuffer Cross Examination at 2 TR 224. DTE thus failed to “educate potential participants on

utility plans,” to “create opportunity to provide feedback to the utility on its resource plan or to

“encourage robust and informed dialogue on resource decisions.” U-15896, In re on the

Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Dec. 30,

2017, Ex. A at 6.

Although DTE was required to solicit comment at its public hearings, Soulardarity is

concerned that the Company did not incorporate that input into its IRP. The largest number of


comments from DTE customers were requests for a greater focus on renewable sources of energy,

reduction in carbon emissions, and a serious consideration of climate change. See Ex. SOU-35 at

11-17 (comment cards from the first public open house); Ex. SOU-36 at 5-11 (comment cards

from the second public open house); Ex. SOU-37 at 14-37 (comment cards from the third public

open house).

However, it appears that DTE did not take input from its ratepayers seriously. During cross-

examination, Witness Pfeuffer could not point to specific aspects of the Plan that DTE changed as

a result of ratepayer feedback. She could not point to specific assumptions that DTE modified or

different scenarios that DTE ran. Pfeuffer Cross Examination at 2 TR 229-232. This is problematic

because DTE made a number of assumptions about ratepayer preferences without gathering and

analyzing data to support those assumptions. For instance, DTE assumed a growth rate of 5% to

7% for distributed generation in all of its modeling scenarios, Mikulan Direct Testimony, Ex. A-

3, at 123, without assessing whether that this figure was consistent with the preferences and plans

of ratepayers in its territory.

Instead of incorporating public input into its analysis meaningfully, DTE folded concerns

expressed by the public into vagaries like the Community Impact and Clean planning principles.

Thus, DTE failed to “utilize a transparent decision-making process for resource planning” or to

“encourage robust and informed dialogue on resource decisions.” U-15896, In re on the

Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Dec. 30,

2017, Ex. A at 6.


B. DTE’s Public Open House Were Inaccessible to Many Customers, Including

Low-Income and People-of-Color Customers.

DTE failed to make all of its meetings accessible to all individuals. There was no childcare

provided at the meetings, and translation services were non-existent at two meetings and

insufficient at the third. See Pfeuffer Cross Examination at 2 TR 231-232. For example, although

DTE provided Spanish translation services at one public open house, the meeting was only

advertised in English, which made it unlikely that a non-English speaker would attend the meeting

and utilize the translation service. See Koeppel Direct Testimony at 38-39; Pfeuffer Cross

Examination at 2 TR 232.

Furthermore, although DTE claims that it offered its hearings in geographically diverse

areas (Ex. SOU-56, L. M. Dunlap, S. G. Pfeuffer, U-20471, SDE-1.23d, July 5, 2019), Soulardarity

disagrees. DTE operates in twelve different counties, but the three hearings were held in Livonia,

Taylor, and Detroit, all of which are in Wayne County. While we commend DTE for holding the

hearings outside of working hours, DTE should have held the hearings in a wider range of

locations. Thus, DTE failed to meaningfully “create opportunit[ies] to provide feedback to the

utility on its resource plan.” U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the

Provisions of Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Dec. 30, 2017, Ex. A at 6.

C. The Commission Should Require DTE to Provide Meaningful Opportunities for

Public Engagement, Particularly with Low-Income and People-of-Color Ratepayers,

and to Take Public Input Seriously.

Soluardarity seeks a more rigorous process that ensures that the voices of low-income and

people-of-color citizens are heard. Low-income and people-of-color communities have not been


represented in the utility’s decision-making process, and the Commission has this opportunity to

require that DTE consider its most historically disadvantaged customers in this IRP and in future

plans.

The Commission should require that, in developing its IRP, DTE hold both public meetings

and meetings with members of and leaders from diverse communities, working to solicit and

consider customer needs, preferences, and concerns. The public meetings should be led not by

DTE officials who only represent DTE’s interests, but by community leaders who understand the

dynamics of communities and their members.

At the public meetings, DTE should also provide education to stakeholders to understand

how the IRP process works and as well as information about the IRP in a non-technical manner

that is understandable by the average customer. This information should include the assumptions

DTE is incorporating into its models, a straightforward explanation of its PCA(s), and the planning

principles DTE is using to choose between different plans.

DTE should make a targeted effort to engage the communities most impacted by the

decisions it makes in the IRP. DTE should design public meetings that have a specific focus on

demographics most vulnerable to energy decisions, including low-income and people-of-color

communities; rural communities harmed by resource extraction and energy poverty; and

communities that have relied on fossil-fuel for jobs and are transitioning into new employment.

All public meetings should prioritize accessibility. In order to reach working people, single

parents, and others with high demands on their time and capacity, DTE should provide multiple

venues, times, and formats for engagement. Locations should be easily accessible by public

transportation and be accessible for people with disabilities. Childcare and translation services for

multiple languages should be provided.


The Commission should require that DTE incorporate public input in a more transparent

and meaningful way. DTE should explain to the public how the information collected from

comment cards and email submissions will be used to inform the IRP planning process. Rather

than providing the Commission with a vague explanation of how DTE considered public input

such as public demands for increased renewable energy, DTE should articulate exactly how the

input impacted the IRP through changes in model assumptions, sensitivities and scenarios.

VI. PLANNING PRINCIPLES [OUTLINE VII. G. RISK ANALYSIS (INCLUDING PLANNING

PRINCIPLES)]: DTE Provided Incomplete and Inadequate Definitions of the Planning

Principles, Did Not Use Them in the Generation of Potential Pathways, and Did Not

Justify the Proposed Flexible Pathways with the Planning Principles Sufficiently.

In order to satisfy the requirements of the filing guidelines as specified in the

Commission Order in U-15986, DTE must describe the process it used to select its Proposed

Courses of Action, “including the planning principles used by the utility to judge the appropriate

tradeoffs between competing planning objectives….” U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own

Motion, to Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Ex. A at 20-21. DTE must

also include its justification for how its PCAs “[s]trikes an appropriate balance between the

various planning objectives specified.” Id. at 21.

DTE states that its planning principles provide the framework around which the IRP was

built and modeled. Mikulan Direct Testimony Ex. A-3, at 32. DTE claims that it insures the IRP

is “appropriately balanced” by considering seven planning principles: Community Impact, Clean,

Reliability, Flexible and Balanced, Affordability, Compliance, and Reasonable Risk. Id. DTE

asserts the planning principles provide the qualitative basis that guided the selection of the four

flexible pathways it has submitted for review to the Commission. Id. at 34. In DTE’s estimation,


the four Proposed Courses of Action maximize the benefits of the five planning principles the

Company used to rank plans, namely Community Impact, Clean, Reliability, Flexible and

Balanced, and Reasonable Risk. Id. at 40.

However, the planning principle definitions DTE deployed are lacking some critical

components. For example, the definitions do not capture critical aspects of reliable performance

and the health impacts of the Company’s choices. Moreover, taking Community Impact seriously

would have helped to strengthen the components of the other planning principles. Instead,

getting Community Impact wrong has undermined the definitions and applications of the other

planning principles as well.

DTE seemingly failed to incorporate the planning principles in its generation of the kind

of plans or factors for the IRP process to analyze. This results in an analysis where distributed

generation and community solar are noticeably absent in the planning-principle process despite

their favorable rating under many of the planning principles.

In addition, DTE did not provide a coherent explanation for why it gave each plan the

rank it did for a particular planning principle. While DTE did provide some general rationale for

why it may have ranked certain kinds of plans over other plans on a particular principle, it did

not explain its decision in detail. Moreover, no quantitative analysis supported these rankings.

Instead of precise measures, DTE gestured towards factors under consideration without a clear

method for selecting one plan over another. The vague assignment of attributes of the planning

principles to various aspects of plans undermines the planning-principle process. The planning-

principle process remains opaque and does not provide the detail necessary to justify the PCAs.

DTE’s poor set of planning principle definitions, confusing application of those

principles in the risk analysis, and lack of robust public participation create an IRP process that


was not accessible for ratepayers at large. For example, DTE failed to consider health concerns

in its Community Impact formulation and consumer reliability concerns in its Reliability

planning principle. This can only come from a failure to listen to its ratepayers as to what affects

them. DTE failed to use the planning principles to provide its ratepayers an easy to understand

metric for evaluating its chosen plans, which would have helped the utility comply with other

requirements of the MPSC Order U-15896 related to stakeholder engagement which provide that

the utility “educate potential participants on the utility plans; [and] utilize a transparent decision-

making process for resource planning.” U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to

Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Ex. A at 6.

Thus, DTE has failed to comply with the requirements of MPSC Order in U-15896 which

dictates that the utility shall “describe how its preferred resource plan…strike[s] an appropriate

balance between the various planning objectives specified.” Id. at 21. As a result, between

flawed definitions and a process that seemingly used the planning principles merely to endorse

DTE’s prior selection, DTE’s IRP does not represent “the most reasonable and prudent means of

meeting the electric utility’s energy and capacity needs.” MCL 460.6t(8)(a).

This section will describe the failure of DTE’s IRP regarding the planning principles. The

first subsection will discuss the flaws related to the definitions deployed in each of the planning

principles and DTE’s failure to consider its own planning principles in the generation of the

plans to be analyzed. The second subsection will discuss the problematic use of the planning

principles in selecting the four chosen pathways.


A. DTE defined its planning principles inadequately and did not use the planning

principles in the generation of plans for consideration.

DTE’s IRP did not define or apply the planning principles rigorously or critically. DTE’s

planning principles are basic, incomplete, and lacking the level of specificity necessary for the

requisite analysis of potential plans. DTE’s definitions for the planning principles fail to

incorporate many concerns that low-income and community-of-color ratepayers have with

DTE’s performance and outlook for the future, most evidently in the definition of the

Community Impact planning principle but also throughout the other principles as well.

An IRP process that took care to contemplate the planning principles would have used the

principles to help generate plans for the IRP modeling to assess. Instead, many of the values the

planning principles represent are underrepresented in the plans analyzed. A stronger commitment

by DTE to using the planning principles to generate potential pathways should have led to a

more diverse, stronger set of plans that are more representative of ratepayers’ desires.

A more robust stakeholder engagement process could have led DTE to develop better

definitions, to use those definitions to generate potential plans to be analyzed, and to rank those

plans more effectively. If the Company had engaged with its stakeholders in a more transparent

fashion, the plans analyzed would have reflected far more of those concerns.

This section will review each planning principle, the definition DTE gave it, ways DTE

could have improved each definition, and the Company’s failure to consider the planning

principles when generating plans to be analyzed in its modeling. These oversights, and failure to

define the planning principles comprehensibly, demonstrates further that DTE’s IRP is not

reasonable and prudent.


i. Community Impact

DTE defined the Community Impact planning principle to include “increased low income

customer programs, job creation, clean energy offerings and tax base.” Mikulan Direct

Testimony Ex. A-4, Appendix T, at 147. During cross-examination, DTE Witness Mikulan

confirmed these were the only factors DTE considered within the Community Impact planning

principle. Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 696.

While Soulardarity supports the inclusion of Community Impact among the planning

principles, DTE’s definition is missing critical components of what its communities’ value and

what impacts them. The omissions in Community Impact call into question the other principles

and the IRP more generally.

DTE claims to have taken Community Impact into consideration while developing the

IRP, such as “increased options for customers to choose cleaner renewable energy.” Mikulan

Direct Testimony at 16. However, by “focus[ing] on all customers as a whole,” DTE ignores

how Community Impact may differ between affluent and white communities and low-income

and people-of-color communities. Ex. SOU-57 at 10, SDE-1.10j. As such, “increased options for

customers to choose cleaner renewable energy” may be infeasible or inaccessible options to

many customers, especially those who are low income. Mikulan Direct Testimony at 16.

DTE’s definition of Community Impact does not consider health impacts. Mikulan Cross

Examination at 3 TR 696. While health considerations impact all communities, low-income and

people-of-color communities are particularly affected by the impacts of traditional fossil-fuel

generation on the health of their communities. Fossil-fuel plants have been historically located

near low-income and people-of-color communities, which bear the brunt of the plant’s

environmental impacts through a myriad of health problems. A study performed by the NAACP


found that approximately two million Americans live within three miles of one of the 12 worst

polluting power plants in the nation. The average per capita income of these nearby residents is

$14,626 (compared with the U.S. average of $21,587). Approximately seventy-six percent of

these nearby residents are people of color. Ex. SOU-10 at 29-30, National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People, Indigenous Environmental Network & Little Village

Environmental Justice Organization, Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People (2016). In

fact, DTE operates the seventh worst among these offenders, the River Rouge Plant, which

received an F grade from the NAACP in its study. The Trenton Channel and Monroe facilities

also received a similar F score, and the Company overall received an F on the NAACP’s

Corporate Environmental Justice Performance Score. Ex. SOU-10 at 64-67, 86-93. While the

River Rouge plant and the Trenton Channel plant are set to close in 2022, DTE plans to operate

the Monroe facility through 2030.

Omitting health consideration from the Community Impact planning principle disfavors

DTE ratepayers who suffer the consequences of fossil-fuel generation. Increased rates of asthma,

respiratory illnesses and cancer correlate to the proximity to these fossil fuel generation facilities,

and as mentioned above, low-income households are more likely to live closer to these facilities.

Ex. SOU-10 at 14-16. As part of its IRP, DTE must weigh the harms of its choices on

communities.

A nod to health impacts of various pollutants in the Clean planning principle is

insufficient to address the issue, because community health is but one of the many facets of

“environmental impacts” of the plan. See Mikulan Direct Testimony Ex. A-4, Appendix T, at

144. Moreover, DTE favored consideration of greenhouse gas emissions over localized

pollutants in its assessment of the Clean planning principle. See Mikulan Cross Examination at 3


TR 699. While greenhouse gases and their effects could and should be considered, the impacts of

localized pollutants should not be downplayed.

By not assessing fully and fairly the growth of distributed and community renewable

energy, DTE has failed to assess the full extent of possible positive community impacts.

Community energy provides construction and maintenance jobs and has positive economic

impacts, especially in communities that are low-income and comprised predominantly of people

of color. In one study, community energy projects provided more jobs, in more locations, than

did utility projects. Ex. SOU-7, Dow Sustainability Masters Fellows at the University of

Michigan and Soulardarity, “Get Free: Understanding the Potential for Community Solar Power

in Highland Park,” (December 2017) at 16. Community energy projects can also sell energy

back to the grid, generating wealth for community members who own them and providing

reliability services. Community energy projects also increase engagement and ownership within

the communities they serve. See Ex. SOU-12. Another study stated that the economic benefit

from local ownership of renewable energy increased three to four times over utility owned

projects. Id. at 2. A third study that focused on the viability of solar in Highland Park, Michigan,

specifically found that 68% of rooftops are viable for solar and could produce 96% of the

community’s commercial and residential energy demands. When the possible production from

vacant lots is included, Highland Park could produce ten times its own energy demand in solar

power. Ex. SOU-7 at 7-9.

Low-income communities are seven times more likely to have their services shut off, and

an antidote to this problem would be the proliferation of distributed generation projects that bring

the source of energy production closer to the communities served. At the same time, distributed

generation saves money for all communities through reducing peak demand load. See Ex. SOU-


27, Advanced Energy Economy Institute, Economic Potential for Peak Demand Reduction in

Michigan, (February 2017).

When DTE analyzed job creation for the Community Impact principle, it had already

wrongly excluded community-energy resources from its Plan. The Company assumed that large

generation builds were a positive for job creation. Mikulan Direct Testimony Ex. A-4, Appendix

T, at 147. While large generation builds may very well be positive for job creation, so too could

multiple smaller generation builds. But DTE did not consider them as part of its Plan. The lack

of analysis of community energy projects meant that DTE did not weigh the boost to jobs and the

local economy from distributed generation or community renewables, which would impact low-

income and person of color communities across the state and might do so more than large

generation builds. Ex. SOU-12 at 2. Low-income and people-of-color communities assume the

costs of their energy use without receiving any of the benefits. If energy production is localized,

even if it is slightly more expensive, low-income and people-of-color communities will receive

benefits in addition to the costs of energy consumption.

The Company’s analysis of job creation was simplistic. DTE did not consider the level of

income of the jobs created. Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 696. Witness Mikluan claimed

that the Company considered long term versus short term employment of the various pathways

but only did so qualitatively. Mikluan Cross Examination at 3 TR 697. Such a qualitative

assessment pales in comparison to the quantification in the rest of the IRP.

A proper, fuller definition of the Community Impact principle would have led to a better

IRP. A more thoughtful and inclusive definition of Community Impact would have considered

the full costs of fossil-fuel generation, particularly on the health of ratepayers, as well as the

multitude of benefits of community energy. Instead, DTE’s lack of understanding as to the issues


that affect its communities and ratepayers has led to an IRP and its four pathways that do not

reflect DTE’s ratepayers’ priorities. Had DTE followed through genuinely with a commitment to

hear from its constituents, DTE could have avoided some of the problems that plague the

Community Impact principle of the IRP.

ii. Reliability

The Commission shall approve the proposed IRP only if the IRP is the most reasonable

and prudent means of meeting electricity and capacity needs. MCL 460.6t(8). Among the

considerations the Commission must weigh is whether the utility has “appropriately balanced” a

range of concerns including “reliability.” MCL 460.6t(8)(a)(iv).

DTE assessed the planning principle of Reliability “based on which plans could best

satisfy load requirements, looking at areas such as potential loss of load and the ability to

dispatch resources when needed.” Mikulan Direct Testimony Ex. A-4, Appendix T, at 143. DTE

Witness Mikulan stated these were the only factors DTE considered in the reliability planning

principle. Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 701.

While these concerns are valid, had DTE viewed Reliability through the lens of

Community Impact, it would have considered other reliability factors important to its ratepayers,

particularly low-income and people-of-color communities.

BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL SECTION

END CONFIDENTIAL SECTION

While DTE argues the IRP addresses issues of supply rather than of distribution,

reliability is ultimately determined by whether customers get power. Reliability as a planning


principle must include how reliable the power is to those persons and entities who will ultimately

use it.

DTE is deploying a band-aid solution to Reliability in low-income and people-of-color

communities. The Company is neglecting to bring economically distressed areas like Highland

Park up to acceptable standards in its hardening program, leaving such communities with

dangerously outdated power lines and transmission infrastructure. Koppel Direct Testimony at

12. This leads to injuries and fatalities in vulnerable, underserved communities. For example,

during a five-year period from 2013 to 2018, Detroit suffered an equal number of downed wires

to the entirety of DTE’s territory outside of Detroit, despite Detroit hosting merely about 14% of

DTE’s mileage of wire. These downed wire incidents led to eight fatalities in Detroit. See Ex.

SOU-2, MPSC Staff Report, Case U-20169 (August 10, 2018).

DTE’s IRP would have benefitted from considering ratepayer reliability concerns in the

generation of its plans to be analyzed. Soulardarity does not believe that believe that DTE has

reasonably or prudently addressed reliability concerns in its IRP. The Company has failed to

address its customer’s dissatisfaction with an aging infrastructure and lack of responsiveness in

its Reliability planning principle. Soulardarity does not see these concerns reflected elsewhere in

the IRP. Instead, many concerns related to reliability are noticeably absent from the IRP

altogether. Soulardarity sees Reliability as a critical planning principle for all utility activity. Had

DTE taken constructive input from its affected ratepayers, the definition and metrics that the

Reliability principle were based on would incorporate additional factors that reflect ratepayers’

concerns.


iii. Clean

DTE’s defines its planning principle of Clean as the “environmental impact of each plan,

with emphasis on low carbon emissions.” Mikluan Direct Testimony, Ex. A-4, Appendix T, page

144. DTE stated these were the only factors considered within the Clean planning principle.

Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 697. In reviewing an IRP, among the considerations the

Commission must weigh is whether the utility has “appropriately balanced” a range of concerns

including “[c]ompliance with applicable state and federal environmental regulations.” MCL

460.6t(8)(a)(ii).

The Clean planning principle is another example of DTE’s failure to use the Community

Impact principle as a lens to inform its decision-making and subsequent selection of pathways.

While DTE stated that it considered health impacts in the Clean section, it did so in a qualitative

process, which lacked transparency. In the planning process, DTE did not consider the quantified

amounts of the pollutants under each plan. Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 699. Further, as

Witness Marietta stated in his cross examination, the Company did not quantify its emissions in

dollars, a step that would have captured the impacts of DTE’s emissions. Marietta Cross

Examination at 5 TR 948-9.

Based on the information provided by Witness Marietta, the plans DTE analyzed do not

emit similar amounts of pollutants. Marietta Cross Examination at 5 TR 962-63. While natural

gas facilities may emit less carbon than a coal fired plant, they emit significantly more than a

renewable generation facility. So while DTE chose to incorporate health into the Clean planning

principle, it still managed to select two plans that include natural gas facilities, which are far

from “clean.”


Had DTE used the Clean planning principle to guide its choice of plans, it is much less

likely that two of the resulting pathways would have included natural gas facilities. As is evident,

throughout the planning principles, DTE used broad, basic considerations in the planning

principles, in contrast to the rest of the IRP process which incorporated a variety of detailed

analysis and modeling. DTE failed to consider quantified amounts of emissions as part of the

planning principle assessment despite the availability of the data, raising doubts about DTE’s

application of the planning principles to the pathways. The Clean planning principle is just

another example of DTE creating an incomplete definition and then failing to use that definition

to analyze plans properly.

iv. Flexible and Balanced

The Commission shall approve the proposed IRP only if the IRP is the most reasonable

and prudent means of meeting the electricity and capacity needs. MCL 460.6t(8). Among the

considerations the Commission weighs is whether the utility has “appropriately balanced” a

range of concerns including the “diversity of generation supply.” MCL 460.6t(8)(a)(vi).

DTE defines the Flexible and Balanced planning principle as “how quickly can the

company change direction when unforeseen changes occur and the diversity of generation

portfolio.” Mikulan Direct Testimony, Ex. A-4, Appendix T, at145. DTE Witness Mikulan stated

that no other factors were considered in the Flexible and Balanced planning principle. Mikulan

Cross Examination at 3 TR 712.

The Flexible and Balanced planning principle should have led to consideration of

community-based energy projects, which DTE did not do. Community-based renewable projects

are more flexible and balanced than their large-scale counterparts. First of all, a geographically-


dispersed portfolio of renewable projects ameliorates concerns about inconsistency of either

solar or wind inputs at a single location. While DTE has previously expressed concerns that the

sun and wind are not constant, see Ex. SOU-9, DTE Energy website,

https://empoweringmichigan.com/renewable-energy-improving-grid-reliability/, a good way to

mitigate that risk would be to pursue smaller-scale renewable generation projects throughout

DTE’s territory. Second, community-energy projects bring generation closer to customers, which

reduces the need for high voltage transmission and reduces the risk of outages. Third, community

based renewable projects spread the job creation benefits of DTE’s renewable program

throughout the service territory rather than concentrating them in one place.

Further, the Flexible and Balanced planning principle includes the “diversity of

generation portfolio” as components. Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 713. However, DTE

limited its consideration of diversity to those resources that it would add under the plans, not

how diverse its generation portfolio is in total. Id. In other words, it appears that DTE looked at

marginal changes rather than considering its fleet holistically. This logic favors DTE’s current

reliance on fossil-fuel generation and ensures that this imbalance will persist in the future.

Critically, two of DTE’s Proposed Courses of Action include construction of a new

natural gas facility that has significant likelihood of becoming a stranded asset. This seems to

contradict directly the Flexible and Balanced planning principle which factors in “how quickly

the company can change direction when unforeseen changes occur.” Mikulan Direct Testimony,

Ex. A-4 Appendix T, at 145. DTE’s significant investment in a natural gas facility proposed in

2030 as the Monroe Plant goes offline could likely become a stranded asset. This could occur

either because of increased regulation on fossil-fuel emissions or continued dramatic decreases in

the costs of renewable technology. Once the facility is built, it is hard to see how DTE could


quickly change direction. Moreover, building a single facility concentrates risk in a single

location. This inconsistency between planning principle and selected pathway raises questions

about DTE’s commitment to its own planning principles.

Soulardarity does not believe that believe that DTE has reasonably or prudently

addressed the diversity of generation supply concerns in its IRP. DTE’s lack of assessment of

smaller-scale renewables or community-energy projects, its approach to the diversity of

generation metric, and its emphasis on a single natural gas plant make it appear that DTE is

inappropriately favoring fossil generation. As mentioned above, DTE could have taken an

approach that at least assessed small scale renewable generation and sought diversity across the

entire DTE fleet, which would have been a more reasonable and prudent path to achieve

diversity of generation supply.

v. Reasonable Risk

The statute governing the IRP requires that DTE consider all reasonable and prudent

means for meeting energy and capacity needs, while appropriate balancing factors including

commodity price risks. MCL 460.6(t)(8)(a)(v). Further, the statute also requires the utility “meet

all applicable state and federal reliability and environmental regulations over the ensuing term of

the plan.” MCL 460.3.

While DTE defines the Reasonable Risk planning principle “based on execution,

customer behavior, regulatory and commodity price risk.” Mikulan Direct Testimony, Ex. A-4,

Appendix T at 146, DTE unreasonably omitted certain risks when assessing and selecting its

pathways. While DTE considered the possibility of carbon price and other government


regulations of fossil fuels, Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 716, DTE did not consider

potential subsidies or incentives for renewable energy that would decrease its long-term costs. Id.

DTE selected two plans that included construction of a new natural gas facility that

would be in serious jeopardy of becoming a stranded asset in the event certain “regulatory and

commodity price risk” events occurred in the future. This demonstrates a lack of “appropriate

balance” for “commodity price risks.” MCL 460.6(t)(8)(a)(v). The Company has failed to

evaluate the possibility of subsidies for renewable energy that could disrupt the natural gas

market.

As a result, DTE did not reasonably or prudently assess Reasonable Risk. Instead, the

Company has proposed at least two plans that pose substantial risk in the future. It leads

Soulardarity to question whether ratepayers will have to bear the burden of a stranded DTE

natural gas plant in the future. DTE could have avoided this concern by applying faithfully its

own planning principles to the pathways. As mentioned above, this raises serious questions about

DTE commitment to its own definitions for the planning principles and its failure to use those

planning principles in the consideration of its pathways.

B. DTE’s application of the planning principles across the plans is unclear at best and

illogical at worst and appears to validate the Company’s prior choices, thereby

undermining the credibility of the assessment.

An examination of the planning principles and their respective rankings does not

illuminate how DTE selected which four plans would serve as the Company’s flexible pathways.

One possibility could be that the best plans should have the best scores, which would mean that

the best plan has the lowest sum of scores if the scores across the planning principles were


summed. In other words, a plan that has all 1st rankings would have a total score of 5; a plan that

has all 2nd ranks would have a total score of 10 and would not be as good as a plan with a score

less than 10.

DTE did not choose the four best plans, meaning the four plans with the lowest sum of

rankings. In fact, it passed over a plan that ranked first in both Community Impact and Clean

planning principles (Plan 5) for an equally ranked plan (Plan 10, or PCA D). Also DTE passed

over a plan with a lower cumulative score (Plan 11) in favor of a higher scoring plan (Plan 10, or

PCA D).

DTE partially explains its ranking in its testimony, but its two justifications are not

sufficient. Its first justification for its ranking was that both plans 7 and 8 scored a seven or better

across all planning principles. Mikulan Direct Testimony at 133. This justification ignores Plan

11 which also scores 7 or better in all categories.

Second, the Company noted how many top three scores its chosen plans had received.

Plans 8 and 9 each received three top three scores, while plans 7 and 10 each received one.

Mikulan Direct Testimony at 133. While these facts may be true, DTE omits the fact that that

Plan 1 and Plan 5 both received two top-three scores also and that these two plans rank higher in

the Community Impact and Clean planning principles than any of DTE’s chosen pathways.

Moreover, Plan 5 scores equally to Plan 10 (PCA D), in terms of the sum of its rankings.

Any construction of the rankings and the principles leave more questions than answers. If

the plans were scored cumulatively, DTE did not pick the four lowest. If the plans were valued

for consistently being ranked seven or better, another plan was passed over. If the plans were

favored for their number of scores in the top three, DTE downplayed the two plans that scored


highest for Clean and Community Impact. Without further explanation from DTE, it is hard to

decipher how it chose these pathways and for what reasons.

Figure 1

Plan # /

PCA Reliability Clean

Flexible

and

Balanced

Reasonable

Risk

Community

Impact Total

1 12 3 12 12 2 41

2 6 8 9 9 5 37

3 5 11 7 3 11 37

4 4 12 7 6 12 41

5 11 1 11 11 1 35

6 7 4 10 10 4 35

7 , A 7 5 6 3 7 28

8 , B 2 7 1 1 3 14

9 , C 3 10 2 2 9 26

10, D 10 5 2 8 10 35

11 7 1 5 7 6 26

12 1 9 4 5 8 27

Moreover, DTE provided no quantified measurements supporting the way that it ranked

the plans. Rather, DTE explained that it had conducted its evaluation of each of the factors listed

under the principle by way of assumptions made on the positivity or negativity of particular

plans’ effects on those factors. Mikulan Direct Testimony Ex. A-4. Appendix T, at 147; Ex.

SOU-57 at 2-7.

The risk analysis provided by the planning principles should be the most accessible point

of entry for a typical ratepayer to evaluate the IRP. But DTE’s approach is overly simplistic and

does not give ratepayers enough insight to understand the Company’s rankings or to challenge

the Company’s results.

Moreover, as opposed to having an open process in which the public could participate in

the ranking process, only three DTE employees participated in the discussion that determined the


individual rankings. Ex. SOU-63 at 1, 2. “Specific records were not maintained regarding which

planning principle was discussed at each particular meeting.” Id. at 7. This fits in with DTE’s

failure to engage its stakeholders in the IRP process. Just as the public participation opportunities

were either too technical or too simplistic, the planning principle rankings, which could be

readily accessible, are opaque and closed to public participation and scrutiny.

Perhaps this confusion arises because DTE ranked its plans after it had already chosen the

four flexible pathways it selected for IRP consideration, raising significant doubts about the

objectivity of the planning-principle process. DTE seemingly used the planning principles to

anoint its preferred plans after all consideration was complete. When Witness Mikulan was asked

about the considerations for the rankings, she responded that DTE “performed this risk

assessment after the pathways were chosen.” Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 718.

Soulardarity fails to understand the purpose of ranking the principles at all after deliberation was

complete and laments the fact that the planning principles did not play a more central role in the

process, even with their flawed definitions.

When it came to sacrificing one of its planning principles in favor of others, Community

Impact was the first to go. The final plans chosen by DTE represented the 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 10th

highest rated Community Impact plans out of twelve. Mikulan Direct Testimony, Figure 8 at

132. These rankings demonstrate DTE’s view of the importance of Community Impact in the

selection of its plan. The ranking of Community Impact across the four pathways chosen

averages out at 7.25, the lowest of any of the five planning principles. The other four ranked

principles in descending order from worst rank to best were: Clean at 6.75, Reliability at 5.5,

Reasonable Risk at 3.5, and Flexible and Balanced at 2.5. In other words, DTE prioritized the

Flexible and Balanced planning principle and Reasonable Risk planning principle over the other


planning principles. In the end, the two principles which could be used to constrain DTE’s

choices based on its ratepayer’s health were the least valued in DTE’s final consideration.

Figure 2

Plan #,

PCA Reliability Clean

Flexible

and

Balanced

Reasonable

Risk

Community

Impact

7, A 7 5 6 3 7

8, B 2 7 1 1 3

9, C 3 10 2 2 9

10, D 10 5 2 8 10

Average

Score 5.5 6.75 2.75 3.5 7.25

If DTE effectively collected public input, or reached outside its organization to create a

more complete definition of Community Impact, it is likely the rest of the principles would have

fallen into place. Instead, DTE proceeded with an inadequate definition of Community Impact,

then elected not to consider it effectively in choosing a plan.

DTE used a poor set of definitions after deliberation on the plans in a way that misleads

ratepayers. The ranking of planning principles is the most accessible to the public of DTE’s

analyses related to the IRP, and they are presented in a way that indicates they contribute to the

final outcome. Instead, DTE confirmed that all deliberation was complete by the time the plans

were ranked. Mikulan Cross Examination at 3 TR 718. DTE could have alleviated this confusion

by striving for transparency and clarity in its selection of its pathways on the basis of the

planning principles. The Commission Order in U-15896 requires DTE to “utilize a transparent

decision-making process for resource planning.” In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to

Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Ex. A at 6. DTE bears the burden of

proving its process was transparent, and the formulation of the planning principle risk analysis


was not transparent. In fact, the Company had chosen its pathways prior to the risk analysis,

essentially relegating the planning principle risk analysis to a formality.

Thus it appears that the planning principles are mere window dressing. DTE has not

fulfilled its statutory obligations to conduct “appropriately balancing” through the planning

principles. In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the Provisions of Section 6s of

2016 PA 341, Ex. A at 20-21. The pathways chosen are not the most reasonable and prudent

options to meet DTE’s demand.

VII. CONCLUSION AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

DTE’s IRP unreasonably excludes viable means of meeting capacity needs by insisting

on utility-owned and utility-scale renewable generation sources. DTE’s IRP rejects renewable

resources owned by others—including PURPA qualifying facilities, household solar, and

community solar—without a sufficient basis for doing so. Additionally, the IRP relies too

heavily on a Voluntary Green Pricing program that is expensive, inadequate and exclusive.

Soulardarity is concerned that if the flawed VGP program fails to meet DTE’s stated goals for it,

the Company will use that shortcoming to justify building a natural gas plant rather than

proceeding down the more reasonable and prudent path of investing in other renewable resources

on its own or supporting investments by others in distributed generation and community solar.

Rather than expanding access to renewable energy for communities that have historically been

left behind by the energy system, DTE restricts access and creates barriers to entry.

DTE failed to meet its statutory obligations with respect to its stakeholder engagement

and public outreach process. The information it distributed at the public open house meetings

was devoid of content related to the 2019 IRP, thus failing to “educate potential participants on


utility plans.” U-15896, In re on the Commission’s Own Motion, to Implement the Provisions of

Section 6s of 2016 PA 341, Dec. 30, 2017, Ex. A at 6. As such, DTE’s public outreach process

did not “encourage robust and informed dialogue on resource decisions.” Id. Though DTE did

receive public comments and states that it incorporated public input into its IRP, it did not do so

in a transparent nor meaningful manner, failing to “utilize a transparent decision-making process

for resource planning.” Id. Because DTE’s stakeholder engagement process was fundamentally

inadequate, its IRP is not a carefully considered reflection of the public’s needs or demands for

energy generation. DTE did not “reduce regulatory risk by building understanding and support

for utility resource decisions,” and instead supplanted community input with its own assumptions

and interests. Id.

Moreover, the definitions DTE used for its planning principles are woefully inadequate.

For example, its definition of Community Impact should include all forms of pollution and the

negative impacts on the health of ratepayers, particularly low-income and people-of-color

communities. The Community Impact planning principle should also include the many benefits

of community energy.

DTE’s other definition similarly failed to reflect the concerns of DTE’s ratepayers. For

example, DTE’s definition for Reliability did not address customer’s dissatisfaction with an

aging infrastructure and lack of responsiveness in its reliability planning principle. Although

DTE included Clean as a planning principle, it failed to incorporate quantified amounts of

emissions as part of the planning principle assessment despite the availability of the data, raising

doubts about DTE’s application of the Clean planning principle to the pathways.

In addition to relying on inadequate definitions for its planning principles, it used the

principles in an inconsistent and unclear way. Instead of incorporating data on its planning


principles in a quantitative manner, DTE conducted a subjective qualitative ranking process.

Moreover, this ranking process yielded results which cannot be squared with DTE’s own

espoused methodology. Because DTE’s risk analysis was lacking in transparency or consistency,

it is impossible to determine if DTE’s plan represents the most reasonable and prudent means of

meeting energy needs, and as stated above, there is significant evidence that it is not.

In sum, DTE did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its IRP is the “most

reasonable and prudent means of meeting the electricity utility’s energy and capacity needs.”

MCL 460.6(t). Nor did DTE meet its obligations under the Integrated Resource Plan Filing

Guidelines or the Michigan Integrated Resource Planning Parameters. Accordingly,

Soulardarity requests that the Commission reject DTE’s IRP.

Alternatively, Soulardarity asks that the Commission require

1) DTE to amend its IRP to include a more thorough analysis of potential methods of

meeting generation capacity, including distributed generation;

2) DTE to include in its amended IRP more robust definitions for DTE’s planning

principles and apply those principles in a more robust, logical, and transparent

manner.

3) DTE to conduct a more meaningful and transparent public outreach process in

accordance with Soulardarity’s recommendations in Section V.C. above.

4) All utilities to conduct more accessible and rigorous public outreach processes in

future IRP proceedings.


Soulardarity reserves the right to request additional and/or different relief in reply to the

positions expressed in the briefs of other parties

Date: October 29, 2019

/s/Mark N. Templeton

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL

ABRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC

Mark N. Templeton (pro hac vice)

Robert A. Weinstock (pro hac vice)

Rebecca J. Boyd (pro hac vice)

Daniel Abrams (law student)

Megan Delurey (law student)

Emma Sperry (law student)

University of Chicago Law School

Abrams Environmental Law Clinic

6020 S. University Avenue

Chicago, IL 60637

Phone: (773) 702-9611

Email: [email protected];

[email protected];

[email protected]

GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

Nicholas Leonard

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

4444 2nd Avenue

Detroit, MI 48201

Phone: 313-782-3372






ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC

UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT MERCY

SCHOOL OF LAW

Nicholas J. Schroek

University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

George J. Asher Law Clinic Center

651 East Jefferson Avenue

Detroit, MI 48226-4386

Phone: 313-596-0200


1

STATE OF MICHIGAN


In the matter of the Application of DTE

ELECTRIC COMPANY for approval of its

Integrated Resource Plan pursuant to MCL

460.6t, and for other relief.

Case No. U-20471


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mark Templeton, certify that an electronic copy of INITIAL BRIEF OF

SOULARDARITY IN U-20471, excluding confidential paragraphs, was served electronically

on the following on October 29, 2019:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Hon. Sally L. Wallace

Michigan Public Service Commission

7109 West Saginaw Highway

Lansing, MI 48917

[email protected]

ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES

ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY Bryan A. Brandenburg

Michael J. Pattwell

Clark Hill PLC

212 East César E. Chávez Avenue

Lansing, MI 48906

[email protected]

[email protected]

CONVERGEN ENERGY, LLC Laura Chappelle

Tim Lundgren

The Victor Center, Suite 910

201 N. Washington Square

Lansing, MI 48933

[email protected]

[email protected]

CYPRESS CREEK RENEWABLES,

LLC Jennifer Utter Heston

Angie Babbitt

Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C.

124 W. Allegan, Ste. 1000

Lansing, MI 48933

[email protected]

[email protected]

DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY Estella R. Branson

Lauren D. Donofrio

Martin L. Heiser

Kevin L. O’Neill

One Energy Plaza, 1635 WCB

Detroit Michigan, MI 48226-1279

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]













2

ENERGY MICHIGAN Laura Chappelle

Justin K. Ooms

Timothy J. Lundgren

Varnum LLP

201 N. Washington Square, Suite 910

Lansing, MI 48933

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY

CENTER, THE ECOLOGY CENTER,

THE SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES

ASSOCIATION, THE UNION OF

CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, VOTE

SOLAR Margrethe Kearney 1514 Wealthy Street, SE, Suite 256

Grand Rapids, MI 49506

[email protected]

[email protected]


CENTER Adrienne Dunham

Jean-Luc Kreitner

35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL

60601

[email protected]

[email protected]

CITY OF ANN ARBOR; GERONIMO

ENERGY Laura Chappelle

Timothy J. Lundgren

Justin K. Ooms

Varnum LP

201 N. Washington Square, Suite 910

Lansing, I 48933

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Missy Stults

[email protected]

GREAT LAKES RENEWABLE

ENERGY ASSOCIATION Don L. Keskey

Brian W. Coyer

University Office Place

333 Albert Avenue, Suite 425

East Lansing, MI 48823

[email protected]

[email protected]

HEELSTONE DEVELOPMENT, LLC;

MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE, LP

Jason T. Hanselman

John Janiszewski

Dykema Gossett PLLC

201 Townsend St. Suite 900

Lansing, Michigan 48933

[email protected]

[email protected]

Charles E. Dunn

Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and

Corporate Secretary

Midland Cogeneration Venture LP

100 East Progress Place

Midland, Michigan 48640

[email protected]

















3

INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSION

COMPANY D/B/A ITC

TRANSMISSION Richard J. Aaron

Courtney F. Kissel

Dykema Gossett PLLC

201 Townsend St., Suite 900


[email protected]

[email protected]

MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL

Joel King Assistant Attorney General

ENRA Division

525 W. Ottawa Street, 6th Floor

P.O. Box 30755


[email protected]

[email protected]

Michael Deupree

[email protected]

MICHIGAN ENERGY INNOVATION

BUSINESS COUNCIL AND THE

INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY

INNOVATION Laura A. Chappelle

The Victor Center

201 N. Washington Square, Ste. 910

Lansing, MI 48933

[email protected]

MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL

COUNCIL; NATURAL RESOURCES

DEFENSE COUNCIL; SIERRA CLUB Christopher M. Bzdok

Tracy Jane Andrews

Kimberly Flynn, Legal Assistant

Karla Gerds, Legal Assistant

Breanna Thomas, Legal Assistant

Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C.

420 East Front Street

Traverse City, MI 49686

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

MICHIGAN PUBLIC POWER

AGENCY Peter H. Ellsworth

Nolan J. Moody

215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200

Lansing, MI 48933

[email protected]

[email protected]

Toni L. Newell

333 Bridge St. NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504

[email protected]
















4

MPSC STAFF

Heather M.S. Durian

Benjamin J. Holwerda

Amit T. Singh

Daniel E. Sonneveldt

Sarah Mullkoff

7109 West Saginaw Hwy, 3rd Floor

Lansing, I 48917

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

October 29, 2019

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW

SCHOOL, ABRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL

LAW CLINIC

Counsel for Soulardarity

By: /s/ Mark N. Templeton


6020 S. University Ave.

Chicago, IL 60637

Phone: (773) 702-9611








1

STATE OF MICHIGAN


In the matter of the Application of DTE

ELECTRIC COMPANY for approval of its

Integrated Resource Plan pursuant to MCL

460.6t, and for other relief.

Case No. U-20471


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mark Templeton, certify that an electronic copy of INITIAL BRIEF OF

SOULARDARITY IN U-20471, including confidential paragraphs, was served electronically

on the following on October 29, 2019:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Hon. Sally L. Wallace

Michigan Public Service Commission 7109

West Saginaw Highway Lansing, MI 48917

[email protected]

ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES

ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY Bryan A. Brandenburg

Michael J. Pattwell

Clark Hill PLC

212 East César E. Chávez Avenue Lansing,

MI 48906

[email protected]

[email protected]

DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY

Lauren D. Donofrio

Martin L. Heiser One Energy Plaza, 1635 WCB

Detroit Michigan, MI 48226-1279

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


CENTER, THE ECOLOGY CENTER,

THE SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES

ASSOCIATION, THE UNION OF

CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, VOTE

SOLAR Margrethe Kearney 1514 Wealthy Street, SE, Suite 256

Grand Rapids, MI 49506

[email protected]


CENTER

Jean-Luc Kreitner

35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago,

IL 60601

[email protected]

ENERGY ASSOCIATION

Don L. Keskey

University Office Place

333 Albert Avenue, Suite 425

East Lansing, MI 48823

[email protected]









2

MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL

Joel King Assistant Attorney General ENRA

Division

525 W. Ottawa Street, 6th Floor

P.O. Box 30755


[email protected]

[email protected]

MICHIGAN PUBLIC POWER

AGENCY Peter H. Ellsworth

Nolan J. Moody

215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200

Lansing, MI 48933

[email protected]

[email protected]

MPSC STAFF

Heather M.S. Durian

Benjamin J. Holwerda

Amit T. Singh

Daniel E. Sonneveldt

7109 West Saginaw Hwy, 3rd Floor

Lansing, MI 48917

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

October 29, 2019

MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL

COUNCIL;

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL; SIERRA CLUB

Christopher M. Bzdok

Tracy Jane Andrews

Kimberly Flynn, Legal Assistant

Karla Gerds, Legal Assistant Olson,

Bzdok & Howard, P.C.

420 East Front Street

Traverse City, MI 49686

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW

SCHOOL, ABRAMS

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC

Counsel for Soulardarity

By: /s/ Mark N. Templeton


6020 S. University Ave.

Chicago, IL 60637

Phone: (773) 702-9611
















Date post:	02-Apr-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times