{"order_id":"a0Ics00000sX28nEAC","content":" \n \nS T A T E   O F   M I C H I G A N \n \nBEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION \n \n* * * * * \n \nIn the matter, on the Commission’s own motion, to \n) \ncommence a proceeding to implement filing    \n) \nguidelines for applications under Public Act 30 \n)\nCase No. U-21930 \nof 1995, as amended.  \n) \n                                                                                         ) \n \n \n \nAt the January 29, 2026 meeting of the Michigan Public Service Commission in Lansing, \nMichigan. \n \nPRESENT: Hon. Daniel C. Scripps, Chair \n \n \n \n \n     Hon. Katherine L. Peretick, Commissioner \n \nHon. Shaquila Myers, Commissioner \nORDER \nHistory of Proceedings  \n \nPublic Act 30 of 1995 (Act 30), MCL 460.561 et seq., regulates the location and construction \nof certain electric transmission lines and grants authority to the Commission to issue certificates of \npublic convenience and necessity for the siting of these transmission lines.  Under Act 30, \napplicants are required to, among other things, apply to the Commission for a certificate of public \nconvenience and necessity prior to constructing a major transmission line.  MCL 460.567(1). \n \nIn its July 10, 2025 order in this docket (July 10 order), the Commission directed the \nCommission Staff (Staff) to “work with appropriate electric utilities, affiliated transmission \ncompanies, independent transmission companies, and other interested persons to develop \nvoluntary application filing guidelines for future applications submitted under Act 30.”  July 10 \norder, pp. 2-3.  The Commission further stated in the order that: \n\n\nPage 2 \nU-21930 \n[t]he voluntary application filing guidelines developed must, at a minimum, address \nthe following:  (1) the amount of overlap that is considered reasonable between an \nalternate route and a proposed route; (2) the degree to which private benefits need \nto be estimated in advance of a project; (3) the form and quality of information \nsubmitted as part of the summary of comments received at each public meeting and \nthe applicant’s response to those comments; (4) the methodology and qualitative \nfactors that should be used in route studies to form the basis for the applicant’s \nselection of the proposed and alternate routes, including the standardization of data \npresented to enable the Staff to efficiently analyze the routes explored without the \nneed for extensive discovery; (5) requirements for documenting all landowner \nrequests for minor modifications to a proposed or alternate route, what action was \ntaken by the applicant in response to the request, and the reasoning why the \napplicant accommodated or failed to accommodate the request; and (6) any other \nissues the Staff and/or interested persons believe are necessary to improve the \napplication process under Act 30.  \n \nThe Commission also strongly encourages the Staff to consider developing \napplication filing guidelines that recommend that an applicant identify and evaluate \nmore than one alternate route in an Act 30 application, including evidence that \nlandowners along all alternate routes have received direct notice of the application \nand a meaningful opportunity to participate in the associated contested case \nproceeding.  The Commission finds that the presentation of numerous alternate \nroutes by an Act 30 applicant will assist the Commission in assessing the \nreasonableness of proposed routes, which the Commission finds will be of benefit \nto future Act 30 applicants and the public.  Finally, the Commission notes that the \nAct 30 application filing guidelines developed by the Staff are voluntary and will \nnot supplant the statutory requirements outlined in Act 30.  The Commission \nintends to initiate rulemaking pursuant to MCL 460.567 and MCL 460.574 to \ncodify the information to be included in future Act 30 applications.   \n \nId., pp. 3-4.  Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Staff to file draft Act 30 application filing \nguidelines in this docket by September 12, 2025.  Additionally, the Commission stated that \ninterested persons could file comments regarding the Staff’s draft application guidelines in this \ndocket by October 13, 2025, with reply comments due by November 3, 2025.  Id., pp. 4-5.   \n \nOn September 12, 2025, the Staff filed Draft Voluntary Filing Guidelines for Applications for \nCertificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (Staff Draft).  See, Case No. U-21930, filing \n#U-21930-0003.   \n\n\nPage 3 \nU-21930 \n \nOn October 13, 2025, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC (METC) and \nInternational Transmission Company (together with METC, ITC); Consumers Energy Company \n(Consumers); the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council (MEIBC), Advanced Energy \nUnited (United), and Clean Grid Alliance (CGA) (collectively, MEIBC/United/CGA); and United \nand CGA (jointly) filed initial comments on the Staff Draft.  See, Case No. U-21930, filings \n#U-21930-0004, -0005, -0006, and -0007.  On November 3, 2025, DTE Electric Company (DTE \nElectric) submitted reply comments.  See, Case No. U-21930, filing #U-21930-0008.  \nAdditionally, Erik Birchman; American Transmission Company and ATC Management Inc. \n(collectively, ATC); Valerie Wohlscheid-Brennan; and Robert Halpin submitted public comments \nin the Case Comments section of this docket.  See, Case No. U-21930, filings #U-21930-0001-CC \nthrough U-21930-0005-CC.   \n \nThe Commission appreciates the interested persons who provided extensive feedback and \nperspectives in this case, as demonstrated by the informative and voluminous record of public \ncomments and case filings.  This order provides a brief summary of comments received in this \ndocket (by major topic) that pertain to the Staff Draft, followed by further guidance regarding the \nadoption of final Voluntary Filing Guidelines for Applications for Certificates of Public \nConvenience and Necessity (Final Voluntary Filing Guidelines), attached to this order as \nAttachment A.   \nDiscussion  \nA. Construction Plans  \n \nSection 4(1) of Act 30 requires electric utilities, affiliated transmission companies, and \nindependent transmission companies to submit a construction plan to the Commission for major \ntransmission lines that an electric utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent \n\n\nPage 4 \nU-21930 \ntransmission company plans to construct within the next five years.  MCL 460.564(1).  \nConstruction plans must contain the following information:  (a) the general location and size of all \nmajor transmission lines to be constructed in the five years after planning commences; (b) copies \nof relevant bulk power transmission information filed with any state or federal agency, national \nelectric reliability coalition, or regional electric reliability coalition; and (c) any additional \ninformation required by Commission order or rule that directly relates to the construction plan.  \nMCL 460.564(1).   \n1. Proposed Guideline 1.1  \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 1.1 identifies additional information that must be \nincluded in a construction plan, which includes:    \na. Identification of the proposed Study Area1 for all major transmission lines to \nbe constructed.  A Study Area is normally a regular polygon shape, however \nif there is an internal portion that an applicant has removed in its initial \nevaluation due to insurmountable engineering, environmental or social \nimpacts please explain why it was reasonable to remove this subregion from \nthe final Study Area; \nb. The estimated construction year and quarter of all proposed major \ntransmission lines;  \nc. The estimated length of all proposed major transmission lines;  \nd. A statement of the need for all proposed major transmission lines to be \nconstructed;  \ne. A list of all municipalities and landowners, including their addresses, within \nthe proposed Study Area; \nf.   The name, address, telephone number, and email address for a dedicated \ncontact person or persons who have knowledge of the development of the \nproposed major transmission line and are authorized to communicate on \nbehalf of the electric utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent \ntransmission company; and \n \n      1 The Staff Draft defines “Study Area” to mean “[t]he geographic area in which the applicant \nplans to study for the development of a transmission project that includes the geographic area \nwhere both the proposed and alternate route(s) are likely to be, however the exact location of the \nproposed and alternate route(s) is not yet known.”  Staff Draft, p. 4.  The Staff Draft further \nspecifies that the Study Area “should, at a minimum, include the area in which municipalities and \nlandowners are required to be noticed as outlined in Guideline 2.1.”  Id.   \n\n\nPage 5 \nU-21930 \ng. Detail of the applicant’s process for soliciting and obtaining information \nfrom landowners and municipalities regarding the property or community \ncharacteristics in the Study Area that will be used to develop the applicants \nproposed route and alternate route(s) submitted as part of the applicant’s \napplication with the Commission. \n \nStaff Draft, p. 5.2   \n \nITC expresses concerns that the additional information required by proposed Guideline 1.1 \ndoes not directly relate to a construction plan and therefore goes beyond the statutory requirements \nof Act 30.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 10 (citing MCL 460.564).  Thus, while the company states \nthat it is open to identifying a Study Area in the construction plan, it opposes any requirement to \njustify the extent of the Study Area or any changes the company makes to the Study Area.  ITC’s \ninitial comments, p. 10.  Similarly, ITC opposes any requirement to demonstrate and justify the \nneed for a proposed transmission line in the construction plan.  Id., pp. 10-11.  Finally, ITC \nexpresses concern regarding the proposed guideline’s requirement to include a list of landowners \nwithin the Study Area, arguing that such a requirement would be burdensome and costly given the \nsize and location of some projects.  As such, ITC opposes this requirement but supports providing \nawareness and guidance in the construction plan for how landowners can provide feedback about a \nproject.  Id., pp. 11-12.   \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA recommend that proposed Guideline 1.1(b) be clarified to require the \nconstruction start and completion dates of a proposed transmission line, as well as the specific \ndates, locations, and details for staging and pre-construction activities.  MEIBC/United/CGA’s \ninitial comments, pp. 3-4.    \n \n      2 The Staff Draft is not paginated.  As such, this order refers to pages in the Staff Draft in their \nnatural order.   \n\n\nPage 6 \nU-21930 \n \nThe Commission finds that Act 30 expressly authorizes the Commission, by order or by rule, \nto require electric utilities and transmission companies to include additional information in a \nconstruction plan if that information directly relates to the construction plan.  MCL 460.564(1)(c).  \nFurther, the Commission finds that the identification of a Study Area, including the identification \nof any areas excluded from a Study Area, is a necessary step for determining any potential routes \nfor a proposed major transmission line and is, therefore, directly related to the general location and \nsize of the proposed transmission line.  Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Staff Draft’s \nproposed Guideline 1.1 is permissible under the plain language of Act 30 and further that it is \nreasonable for an applicant to include this information in the construction plan.  The Commission, \nhowever, agrees with ITC that an applicant need not justify the need for a proposed major \ntransmission line in the construction plan, and that a statement explaining why the proposed major \ntransmission line is being constructed is sufficient.  Additionally, the Commission agrees with ITC \nthat the identification of all landowners within a proposed Study Area could be burdensome for \nsome larger projects.  As such, the Commission finds that an applicant’s identification of all \nmunicipalities and a list of the zip codes that are located within the proposed Study Area is \nsufficient.  Finally, the Commission agrees with MEIBC/United/CGA that the estimated \nconstruction start and end year and quarter for the proposed major transmission line is a reasonable \ninclusion in the information required to be included in the construction plan.    \nB. Public Meetings  \n \nSection 6(1) of Act 30 requires electric utilities, affiliated transmission companies, and \nindependent transmission companies, before applying to the Commission for a certificate, to \nschedule and hold a public meeting in each municipality through which a proposed major \ntransmission line for which a construction plan has been submitted will pass.  Under Act 30, a \n\n\nPage 7 \nU-21930 \npublic meeting held in a township satisfies the requirement that a public meeting be held in each \naffected village located within that township.  MCL 460.566(1).  Additionally, Section 6(2) of \nAct 30 requires electric utilities, affiliated transmission companies, and independent transmission \ncompanies to offer in writing to meet with the chief elected official of each affected municipality \nin the 60 days before a public meeting is held to discuss the utility’s or company’s desire to build \nthe proposed major transmission line and to explore the routes to be considered for the \ntransmission line.  MCL 460.566(2).      \n1. Proposed Guideline 2.1 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.1 outlines notice requirements for the public meeting \nrequired by Act 30 and provides that applicants should provide notice to all municipalities and \naffected landowners through which a portion of the proposed major transmission line will pass, \nincluding all landowners with property located along any of the applicant’s initially-identified \nproposed and alternate routes for the proposed major transmission line.  Staff Draft, pp. 5-6.  \nAdditionally, proposed Guideline 2.1 states that applicants should notice all municipalities and \nlandowners located within one mile of the centerline of the proposed right-of-way (ROW) for all \ninitially identified proposed and alternate routes, as well as any municipalities and landowners \nlocated within the geographic area between any proposed and alternate routes for the proposed \nmajor transmission line.  Staff Draft, pp. 5-6.   \n \nITC states that it supports the goal of expanding public awareness for public meetings under \nAct 30 but suggests a revised approach to proposed Guideline 2.1 to address two of its concerns.  \nFirst, ITC takes issue with the Staff Draft’s use of the term “notice” when referring to \npublicization of public meetings.  According to ITC, requiring “notice” for the public meetings \ninadvertently suggests due process rights for recipients that may otherwise not by provided under \n\n\nPage 8 \nU-21930 \nAct 30.  Consequently, ITC proposes referring to an “invitation” to the public meetings, as \nopposed to a “notice.”  ITC initial comments, p. 14.  Next, ITC asserts that proposed \nGuideline 2.1’s broad notice requirements are impractical given the large number of landowners \nwho would potentially be required to be notified but who would otherwise not be directly \nimpacted by the proposed major transmission line.  By way of example, ITC contends that \nproviding notice to the set of landowners outlined in the proposed guideline for two upcoming \nproposed transmission lines that are part of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s \nLong Range Transmission Planning Tranche 2.1 “would amount to hundreds of thousands of \ninvitees, only a small fraction of whom would have relevant information.”  Id., p. 15.  In turn, ITC \nargues that processing and verifying information from these landowners would increase costs \nsignificantly and delay the filing of applications under Act 30.  For this reason, ITC instead \nrecommends that proposed Guideline 2.1 be limited to requiring applicants to provide invitations \nto affected municipalities and landowners located within 500 feet of the centerline of any route \nidentified in an applicant’s construction plan.  Id., pp. 15-16.   \n \nLike ITC, MEIBC/United/CGA also express concern about the notice requirements outlined in \nproposed Guideline 2.1, arguing that the extensive notice requirements are burdensome and will \nunnecessarily raise concerns among unaffected landowners.  MEIBC/United/CGA contend that the \nproposed guideline’s notice requirements will include many landowners that will never be \nimpacted by a proposed major transmission line and that the notice requirements significantly \nexceed notice standards used in other jurisdictions.  Consequently, MEIBC/United/CGA advocate \nfor the Commission to limit notice for public meetings to landowners who are located within 300 \nfeet of the centerline of the proposed major transmission line, which MEIBC/United/CGA state is \n\n\nPage 9 \nU-21930 \nakin to notice requirements used in Wisconsin, Missouri, and Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act.  \nMEIBC/United/CGA’s initial comments, pp. 4-5.     \n \nDTE Electric states that it recognizes the importance of providing the public with an \nopportunity to share information and perspectives on a proposed major transmission line but \nexpresses its concern with the proposed guideline’s requirement to provide notice to municipalities \nand landowners located within one mile of the centerline of the ROW as well as the geographic \narea between an applicant’s proposed and alternate routes.  DTE Electric asserts that such a \nrequirement may invite input from unaffected persons, which “could unintentionally shift focus \naway from those most directly impacted.  Additionally, since customers ultimately inherit the cost \nburden, DTE Electric is also concerned about the cost to provide notice to stakeholders that are \nunaffected or have little interest.”  DTE Electric’s reply comments, p. 3.  Accordingly, DTE \nElectric encourages the Commission to consider a notice requirement that prioritizes input from \nimpacted municipalities and landowners.  Id.   \n \nThe Commission finds that increasing public awareness and participation early in the Act 30 \nprocess provides significant benefits for both the applicant and the public.  Specifically, early and \nmeaningful public engagement in a project promotes transparency and builds trust by ensuring that \nmunicipalities and individuals potentially impacted by a proposed major transmission line \nunderstand the project’s purpose, scope, and potential effects.  Moreover, inclusive public \nparticipation allows the public to share local knowledge, identify concerns, and suggest practical \nsolutions that may improve the siting of a proposed major transmission line and aid the \nCommission’s decision-making ability.  Accordingly, the Commission finds the Staff Draft’s \nproposed Guideline 2.1 to be appropriate and, therefore, adopts it with the following \nmodifications. \n\n\nPage 10 \nU-21930 \n \nWhile the Commission appreciates various commenters’ proposals for alternative notice \nstandards, the Commission declines to adopt these proposed standards, finding that the Staff’s \nproposed Guideline 2.1’s requirements are more appropriate.  Importantly, the Commission finds \nthat providing notice to municipalities and landowners that have property located along an \napplicant’s initially-identified proposed and alternate routes, who are located within one mile of \nthe edge of the ROW of any initially-identified proposed and alternate routes, and who are located \nwithin the areas between any initially-identified proposed and alternate routes is reasonable and \nstrikes the correct balance between the costs of providing direct invitational notice of a public \nmeeting to a greater number of individuals and the benefits of expanding early public awareness \nand participation in a project.   \n \nThe Commission is cognizant of commenters’ concerns that expanding public notice for \npublic meetings will increase costs and unintentionally capture individuals who may never be \nimpacted by a proposed major transmission line.  However, the Commission finds that it is \nappropriate for the Final Voluntary Filing Guidelines to permit an applicant to refrain from \nsending notice for public meetings to municipalities and landowners that are located in any \ngeographic areas that have been excluded from the project’s Study Area, as outlined in \nGuideline 1.1(a).  The Commission finds that permitting such exclusions will decrease the \nlikelihood that individuals with a very low likelihood of will be unnecessarily notified of a project \nand will allow an applicant to avoid incurring the costs of providing notice to individuals that will \nnever be impacted by the proposed major transmission line.  Finally, the Commission agrees with \nITC that the proposed guideline’s reference to a “notice,” may cause confusion; as such, the \nCommission agrees to adopt the ITC’s recommendation that the proposed guideline be revised to \nrefer to a public meeting “invitation.” \n\n\nPage 11 \nU-21930 \n2. Proposed Guideline 2.2 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.2 outlines the form and substance of the notice an \napplicant should send to municipalities and landowners for public meetings and states:   \nThe notice required in Guideline 2.1 should be in the form of a letter with \nverification of delivery to the taxpayer of record of the affected property and should \ninclude the following: \n \na. The date, time, and location of all public meetings scheduled for the proposed \nmajor transmission line; \nb. The case number of the docket established for the proposed major transmission \nline, including instruction on how the person can sign up though the \nCommission's website to receive notifications about the docket; \nc. A Highlighted map of any initial proposed and alternate route(s); \nd. If the line is more than five miles in length, a highlighted map of the \ngeographic area within a one-mile radius of any proposed or alternate routes, as \nwell as the land between those routes;  \ne. The name, address, telephone number, and email address for a dedicated \ncontract person or persons who have knowledge of the development of the \nproposed major transmission line and are authorized to communicate on behalf \nof the electric utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent \ntransmission company;  \nf. \nDetails regarding the specific type of information the applicant is seeking from \nthe noticed landowners and municipalities, such as:  \ni. \nParticular characteristics about the landowner’s property;  \nii. Land use; and  \niii. Features of historical or environmental significance.  \ng.  Rights the applicant is potentially seeking from the noticed landowner.  \n \nStaff Draft, p. 6.   \n \nITC again asserts that Act 30 does not require public notice for public meetings and further \nthat requiring verification of delivery for notices would be unduly burdensome and costly, with \ncosts for some projects likely exceeding $2 million to $3 million with minimal benefit.  As such, \nITC recommends the removal of proposed Guideline 2.2.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 16.  In the \nalternative, the company recommends revising the proposed guideline to reference an “invitation,” \nas opposed to a “notice,” and to contain only:  (a) the date, time, and location of all public \nmeetings for the proposed major transmission line; (b) the case number assigned to the proceeding \n\n\nPage 12 \nU-21930 \nand a statement regarding the location of case information on the Commission’s website; (c) a link \nor QR code to the applicant’s project website; and (d) the name and contact information for a \nrepresentatives of the applicant knowledgeable about the proposed transmission line and \nauthorized to speak on behalf of applicant.  Id., pp. 16-17.   \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA propose revisions to subsections (d) and (f) of proposed Guideline 2.2.  \nSpecifically, they state that if their proposed revision to Guideline 2.1, which includes limiting \nnotice to municipalities and landowners located within 300 feet of a proposed transmission line, is \nadopted, that the highlighted map required by subsection (d) of the proposed guideline should be \nsimilarly changed.  Additionally, for subsection (f), MEIBC/United/CGA state that if the applicant \nis not seeking information from noticed municipalities or landowners, then the applicant should \nclearly state this in the letter sent to municipalities and landowners.  MEIBC/United/CGA’s initial \ncomments, p. 5.   \n \n \nIn comments in this docket, Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennen advocates for the Commission to \nrequire applicants to provide a timeline for Act 30 filings and to direct landowners to the \nCommission’s public Act 30 website, arguing that transparency about the Act 30 process is \nimportant at the beginning of the process so that landowners have an adequate opportunity to find \nlegal representation.  Further, Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan urges the Commission to require \napplicants to include a copy of an ROW easement for landowners to review prior to any public \nmeetings, which she contends serves as an opportunity for the applicant to demonstrate good faith \nand to seek voluntary easements that will benefit the public meeting process.  Case No. U-21930, \nfiling #U-21930-0003-CC, p. 2. \n\n\nPage 13 \nU-21930 \n \nATC, in its comments to the docket, recommend that the verification of delivery in the \nproposed guideline be amended to only require standard mail, with attestation by the applicant of \nthe mailing.  Case No. U-21930, filing #U-21930-0002-CC, p. 3.   \n \nThe Commission finds the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.2 to be reasonable and, \ntherefore, adopts the proposed guideline with the following modifications.  The Commission finds \nthat including links to the Commission’s public Act 30 website, as well as an applicant’s project \nwebsite, is a reasonable requirement for the invitation to a public meeting.  Additionally, the \nCommission agrees with ITC that an invitation to a public meeting, as opposed to formal public \nnotice, is sufficient and further agrees with ITC and ATC that such invitation should be sent in the \nform of a letter sent via standard mail to the taxpayers of record of any affected properties.  To \nensure that recipients understand and identify the invitations to public meetings, the Commission \nfinds it appropriate to require an applicant to clearly identify the applicant’s name and the name of \nthe proposed project on the invitation and to make the invitation available for the Staff’s review \nten business days prior to when the mailing is sent.  Finally, the Commission finds that it is \nunnecessary for invitations for public meetings to contain a form easement for the ROW proposed \nfor a major transmission line, as the acquisition of property rights is parcel and project specific and \ncannot be easily reduced to a standard form easement.    \n3. Proposed Guideline 2.3  \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.3 encourages applicants to identify and review \nmultiple alternate routes with municipalities and landowners to further engage the public during \nthe public meeting process under Act 30.  Staff Draft, p. 6.   \n \nITC states that it agrees that engaging the public during the public meeting process is \nimportant and thus proposes no revisions to Guideline 2.3.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 17.   \n\n\nPage 14 \nU-21930 \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA recommend that the Commission clarify proposed Guideline 2.3 and \nnote that it would be helpful for the Commission to provide further details and examples of what is \nexpected of applicants to ensure compliance.  MEIBC/United/CGA’s initial comments, pp. 5-6.  \n \nThe Commission finds that the evaluation and consideration of multiple alternate routes for a \nproposed major transmission line benefits the public, decreases the likelihood that an approved \nroute will cause social and environmental impacts, and improves the Commission’s decision-\nmaking ability.  Accordingly, the Commission adopts the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.3.     \n4. Proposed Guideline 2.4 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.4 requires applicants to make public meeting materials \navailable for the Staff’s review ten business days prior to the public meeting taking place.  Staff’s \nDraft, p. 6.   \n \nITC states that it has no objection to sharing proposed public meeting materials with the Staff \nprior to public meetings but recommends altering the language of proposed Guideline 2.4 to only \nrequire the sharing of materials “in substantially final form” with the Staff given that public \nmeeting materials are often being finalized until the public meetings begin.  ITC’s initial \ncomments, p. 17.   \n \nThe Commission finds that public meeting materials may need to be amended and finalized \nwithin ten days of a public meeting.  Accordingly, the Commission adopts proposed Guideline 2.4, \nas amended by ITC’s proposed revision.   \n5. Proposed Guideline 2.5 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.5 relates to the input of landowner comments, \ninformation, and revisions through the use of a geographic information system (GIS) and provides:  \nAn applicant should make available a way for landowners attending a public \nmeeting to identify geographic features of their parcel or add comments, \n\n\nPage 15 \nU-21930 \ninformation regarding features of parcels or potential minor route adjustments, and \nany other pertinent information regarding the location of the proposed major \ntransmission line.  This information should be translated into a [GIS] to be used by \nthe applicant.  This could be done by having GIS systems available at the public \nmeetings.  A similar map-based interface should be hosted by the applicant on a \nwebsite available to the public so that information and alternate routes may be \nsubmitted by those that were unable to attend a public meeting in person.  This \nwebsite should be available until 30 days prior to the Act 30 application being filed \nwith the Commission.   \n \nStaff Draft, p. 7.   \n \nITC states that it has no objection to providing a GIS at public meetings and online and \ncontends that use of a GIS is a critical component of effectively engaging the public.  ITC’s initial \ncomments, pp. 17-18.  However, the company expresses concern with linking GIS availability to \nthe application filing date, arguing that such a method would create a moving target that would not \nprovide sufficient time for an applicant to properly evaluate comments submitted by the public.  \nBy way of example, ITC asserts that evaluating public comments in Case No. U-21471 involved \nmore than 40 internal and external personnel and hundreds of hours of analysis.  As a result, ITC \nrecommends linking GIS availability to public meeting dates and specifically proposes making \nGIS available to the public for 14 days following the final public meeting for a project, which the \ncompany argues would allow applicants sufficient time to review and evaluate the public \ncomments.  Id., p. 18.   \n \nLike ITC, MEIBC/United/CGA also contend that it would be impractical to provide a GIS \nplatform to the public until 30 days prior to the filing of an application because it will likely take \nlonger than 30 days to review and incorporate comments in that timeframe.  \nMEIBC/United/CGA’s initial comments, p. 6.  Consequently, MEIBC/United/CGA urge the \nCommission to incorporate flexibility into the timeframe for GIS availability or to tie the \n\n\nPage 16 \nU-21930 \ntimeframe to the public notice or public meeting dates, for example, requiring applicants to \nmaintain GIS availability for at least 120 days after a public meeting.  Id.   \n \nThe Commission agrees with the Staff and ITC and finds that the incorporation of a GIS \nplatform in the public meeting process is critical for effectively engaging the public and obtaining \nparcel-specific information related to a proposed major transmission line.  The Commission agrees \nthat sufficient time is needed for an applicant to properly evaluate and incorporate public \ncomments into the proposed and alternate routes submitted as part of the application for the \nproposed major transmission line.  Additionally, the Commission finds that, to be effective, the \npublic must have a meaningful opportunity to provide information, comments, and proposed \nrevisions to a proposed transmission line, which necessarily entails access to the GIS platform for \na reasonable duration.  The Commission, therefore, finds that an applicant should hold any public \nmeetings for a proposed project at least six months prior to the filing of its application with the \nCommission and further finds that an applicant should provide the public with access to a GIS \nplatform for the submittal of comments for at least 90 days following the last public meeting for \nthe proposed major transmission line.      \n6. Proposed Guideline 2.6  \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.6 provides that applicants “should solicit route \nmodifications, alternate segments, and alternate routes for the proposed major transmission line \nduring the public meetings and from the map-based interface website specified in Guideline 2.5.”  \nStaff Draft, p. 7.   \n \nITC first asserts that Act 30 does not authorize the Commission to dictate the type of \ninformation that an applicant must solicit at public meetings.  More fundamentally, the company \nargues that encouraging applicants to solicit landowner-proposed routes risks mischaracterizing \n\n\nPage 17 \nU-21930 \nboth the purpose of the public meeting and the role of landowners in the routing process.  ITC \ncontends that landowner input is generally limited to property-specific concerns, whereas routing \ndecisions rely on specialists that use comprehensive data to balance broader public interest \nconsiderations.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 19.  Additionally, the company asserts that requiring \napplicants to solicit route modifications would be impractical and would give the false impression \nthat every suggested route modification must be fully developed and analyzed, which ITC \ncontends is inconsistent with Act 30.  As a result, although ITC supports meaningful landowner \nfeedback, and claims that it has refined routes in Case No. U-21471 in response to landowner \ncomments, the company urges that such input must be integrated in a manner consistent with \nAct 30 and the realities of transmission planning.  Accordingly, ITC proposes revised language for \nGuideline 2.6.  See, id., p. 20.   \n \nThe Commission agrees with ITC that Act 30 does not expressly require an applicant to solicit \nroute modifications from the public at public meetings.  However, as previously explained, the \nCommission finds that robust public participation promotes transparency and enables interested \npersons to identify concerns and suggest practical solutions that may improve a proposed major \ntransmission line and the Commission’s decision-making ability.  As such, the Commission finds \nthat it is appropriate to adopt a modified guideline that states that an applicant should consider, as \npart of its route development, all reasonable refinements, alterations, changes, or shifts suggested \nby the public during the public meeting process.     \n7. Proposed Guideline 2.7 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.7 relates to an applicant’s disclosure of route \nevaluation factor data and provides that “[t]he evaluation factor data by route segment for route \nsegments studied in the routing study that derived the construction plan should be made available \n\n\nPage 18 \nU-21930 \nduring public meetings, as well as on the online map-based interface, specified in Guideline 2.5.”  \nStaff Draft, p. 7.   \n \nIn comments, ITC requests that the Commission remove Guideline 2.7.  While ITC agrees that \nexplaining routing factors may be informative, it argues that sharing raw data at a public meeting \nwould be inappropriate and premature because an applicant may still be collecting or validating \ndata.  Further, ITC asserts that evaluation factor data is complex and that explaining this data \nwithout context would be both impractical and unproductive.  ITC’s initial comments, pp. 20-21.   \n \nThe Commission agrees with ITC that evaluation factor data can be complex; however, the \nCommission finds that its decision-making ability is greatly aided by the evaluation of all routes \nthat are proposed for a major transmission line.  The Commission further finds that such \nevaluation necessarily entails the presentation and analysis of evaluation factor data used by the \napplicant as part of its routing process.  Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is reasonable to \nrequest that an applicant provide a map and an online map-based interface that is accessible to the \npublic that depicts all preliminary route segments for a proposed major transmission line that the \napplicant has considered as part of its routing study.  Further, the Commission finds that it is \nreasonable to request that an applicant make available the evaluation factor data it relied on as part \nof its routing study to interested persons who request the data.    \n8. Proposed Guideline 2.8 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.8 provides that interested persons “should be able to \nsubmit comments and feedback via a website available to the public prior to the filing of the \napplication with the Commission.  If the commenter leaves an email address, the applicant should \nprovide a response to that email address.”  Staff Draft, p. 7.   \n\n\nPage 19 \nU-21930 \n \nITC comments that it agrees that accepting comments through a public website can enhance \npublic engagement but respectfully disagrees with the online comment period being tied to the \napplication filing date, as opposed to the public meeting date.  Accordingly, ITC recommends \nrevisions to proposed Guideline 2.8 making the public website available from a period starting on \nthe date of the applicant’s first public meeting until 14 days after the applicant’s final public \nmeeting for a project.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 21.  Additionally, ITC states that it \nacknowledges that, in some cases, a follow-up response to a public comment might be beneficial.  \nAs such, the company proposes adding the following language to proposed Guideline 2.8:   \nAn applicant should consider directly responding to and/or following-up with \npublic meeting attendees and comments received via a website (described in this \nGuideline) to the extent such response is requested and practical and if the attendee \nor commenter provides the applicant with either a phone number, mailing address, \nor email address when making the public comment. \n \nId., pp. 21-22.   \n \nConsumers requests that the Commission reconsider proposed Guideline 2.8’s requirement to \nrespond individually to all commenters with an email address, arguing that such an approach may \nunintentionally reduce participation in public meetings.  Consumers’ initial comments, p. 3.  \nAccording to Consumers, responding privately to individual commenters does not support a \ncollective experience or ensure that all participants obtain the same information for a project.  As \nsuch, the company argues that any feedback submitted through the public website should be \naddressed at public meetings where responses can be transparently shared with all participants.  Id.   \n \nThe Commission agrees with the Staff Draft’s recommendation to permit the public to submit \ncomments regarding a proposed major transmission line through a public website.  As previously \nexplained, the Commission finds that the public must have a meaningful opportunity to provide \ninformation, comments, and proposed revisions to a proposed major transmission line and for the \n\n\nPage 20 \nU-21930 \napplicant to reasonably consider such comments prior to the submission of its application to the \nCommission.  The Commission, therefore, finds that an applicant should allow the public to \nsubmit comments through a public website made available beginning on the date of the applicant’s \nfirst public meeting for a proposed major transmission line and ending 90 days after the \napplicant’s final public meeting for the project.  Additionally, the Commission agrees with ITC’s \nproposal to directly respond to comments submitted to the website and finds that an applicant \nshould directly respond to comments submitted to the website that involve specific concerns \nregarding a landowner’s property or public lands.  Any response made by an applicant should be \nincluded in the summary of comments and responses that are submitted in the application for the \nproposed major transmission line.   \n9. Proposed Guidelines 2.9 and 2.10 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.9 requests that an applicant thoroughly document all \nlandowner comments and proposed route adjustments received, as well as an applicant’s response \nto those comments and requests.  Staff Draft, p. 7.  Additionally, the Staff Draft’s proposed \nGuideline 2.10 provides that any substantive landowner request that is not granted by an applicant \ninclude a description of how the applicant considered the proposed request and why that request \ncould not be reasonably accommodated.   \nITC states that to comply with MCL 460.567(2)(j), an applicant should keep records of public \nmeeting comments and responses for the purpose of summarizing those comments and responses.  \nAccordingly, ITC comments that it does not object to proposed Guideline 2.9 to the extent it is \nintended to reflect the requirements of Act 30.  ITC, however, states that if proposed Guideline 2.9 \nimposes additional requirements, that the Commission then clarify the proposed guideline as any \nadditional requirements would exceed the scope of Act 30.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 22.  \n\n\nPage 21 \nU-21930 \nAdditionally, ITC states that Act 30 only requires an applicant to provide a summary of \ncomments received and a summary of the applicant’s response to comments.  As such, ITC \ncontends that requiring applicants to indicate whether a specific comment was “granted” or \n“denied” is inconsistent with Act 30 and the routing process, which ITC asserts remains ongoing at \nthe public meeting stage.  As a result, ITC requests that the Commission remove proposed \nGuideline 2.10.  Id., pp. 22-23.   \nThe Commission finds that requiring an applicant to thoroughly document all public \ncomments and proposed route adjustments is necessary to comply with Act 30’s requirement to \ninclude a summary of comments and responses in an application filed with the Commission.  See, \nMCL 460.567(2)(j).  Additionally, the Commission finds that documenting an applicant’s \nconsideration and potential rejection of route adjustments proposed by the public increases \ntransparency and improves the routing process for a proposed major transmission line by requiring \nan applicant to seriously consider and approve route refinements that minimize the potential \nimpacts of a proposed major transmission line.  As such, the Commission finds that it is reasonable \nto adopt the Staff Draft’s proposed Guidelines 2.9 and 2.10, and to combine these guidelines into a \nsingle guideline included in the Final Voluntary Filing Guidelines.     \n10. Proposed Guideline 2.11  \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 2.11 requests that an applicant provide the following \ninformation during all public meetings: \na. Transmission line detail as relates to public health, including any post-\nconstruction testing or evaluation (EMF [electric and magnetic fields], stray \nvoltage, etc.) presented by a subject matter expert who is available to discuss EMF \nregulations and how the project is designed to meet or exceed those regulations;  \nb. The need for the line;  \nc. An estimated tax revenue by township due to the project;  \nd. The construction process and safety measures for the proposed major \ntransmission line;  \n\n\nPage 22 \nU-21930 \ne. Environmental impact mitigation;  \nf. Rights the applicant is seeking from landowners, for example sharing a sample \neasement;  \ng. A high-level overview of the landowner compensation process;  \nh. Post construction property restoration procedures and requirements; and  \ni. The case number of the docket established for the proposed major transmission \nline, including instructions on how the person can sign up though the Commission’s \nwebsite to receive notifications about the docket. \n \nStaff Draft, pp. 7-8. \n \nITC states that it generally agrees with proposed Guideline 2.11 but that it has concerns with \nsubsections (b), (f), and (g) of the proposed guideline.  For subsection (b), ITC again expresses its \nconcern with a requirement to demonstrate need, which the company asserts is not required under \nAct 30.  Additionally, the company states that land acquisition is not a part of the certification \nprocess under Act 30 and therefore falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.  Accordingly, \nITC proposes that the following information be included in proposed Guideline 2.11:   \na. Information related to the status of research on electric and magnetic fields \n(EMF) as reviewed by national and international health and scientific organizations, \nand explain how the project meets public health guidelines (i.e., ICNIRP \n[International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection], 2010; IEEE \n[Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]/ICES [Institute of Civil \nEngineers Society], 2019).  Information on the electrical effects such as audible \nnoise also should be available; \nb. General information supporting the need for the proposed major transmission; \nc. An estimated tax revenue by township due to the project; \nd. The construction process and safety measures for the proposed major \ntransmission line; \ne. Environmental impact mitigation; \nf. General information about land acquisition post-certificate; \ng. General information about post construction property restoration procedures and \nrequirements; and \nh. The case number of the docket established for the proposed major transmission \nline, including instructions on how the person can sign up though the Commission’s \nwebsite to receive notifications about the docket. \n \nITC’s initial comments, pp. 23-24.  \n\n\nPage 23 \nU-21930 \n \nThe Commission finds ITC’s proposed revisions to proposed Guideline 2.11 to be reasonable \nand, therefore, adopts them.  The Commission, however, finds that it is reasonable and appropriate \nto include a high-level overview of the landowner compensation process, as well as general \ninformation pertaining to the property rights an applicant may be seeking in the information \npresented at public meetings.  The Commission finds that the presentation of this information will \nincrease transparency and public participation in proposed projects, which the Commission finds \nwill improve the Act 30 process.      \nC. Application Public Notice  \n \nSection 8(1) of Act 30 provides that, upon applying for a certificate with the Commission, \nelectric utilities, affiliated transmission companies, and independent transmission companies must \ngive public notice in the manner and form prescribed by the Commission of an opportunity to \ncomment on the application.  MCL 460.568(1).  The section further provides that notice must be \npublished in a newspaper of general circulation in the area to be affected by the proposed \ntransmission line and that notice must be sent to each affected municipality and each affected \nlandowner on whose property a portion of the proposed transmission line will be constructed.  Id.    \n1. Proposed Guideline 3.1  \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 3.1 notes that the Commission may prescribe the manner \nin which public notice of an opportunity to comment on an application must be provided and \nrequires that an applicant provide public notice to each of the following:  (1) all municipalities and \nlandowners with property located along all proposed and alternate routes identified for a proposed \nmajor transmission line, (2) all municipalities and landowners with property located within one \nmile of the centerline of the ROW of all proposed and alternate routes identified for the proposed \nmajor transmission line, and (3) all municipalities and landowners with property located in the \n\n\nPage 24 \nU-21930 \ngeographic area between all proposed and alternate routes identified for the proposed major \ntransmission line.  Staff Draft, p. 8.       \n \nAdditionally, proposed Guideline 3.1(b) outlines the form of the public notice of an \nopportunity to comment on an application and states:   \nPublic notice should be in the form of a certified letter to the taxpayer of record of \nthe affected property and should include the following: \ni. \nThe case number of the docket established for the proposed major \ntransmission line, including instructions on how the person can sign up \nthrough the Commission’s website to receive notifications about the \ndocket;  \nii. A highlighted map of the initial proposed and alternate route(s) identified \nin the application; \niii. If the line is more than five miles in length, a highlighted map of the \ngeographic area within a one-mile radius of the proposed and alternate \nroutes, as well as the land between them;  \niv. The name, address, telephone number and email address for a dedicated \ncontact person or persons who have knowledge of the development of the \nproposed major transmission line and are authorized to communicate on \nbehalf of the applicant; \nv. Detail regarding the type of information the applicant is seeking from the \nnoticed landowner, such as: \n1. Particular characteristics about the landowner’s property; \n2. Land use; and  \n3. Features of historical or environmental significance. \nvi. Rights the applicant is potentially seeking from the noticed landowner. \n \nId., pp. 8-9.   \n \nITC states that it disagrees with the Staff that Act 30 permits the Commission to expand the \ncategory of persons that must receive public notice for an application.  According to ITC, while \nAct 30 permits the Commission to determine the manner and form of the public notice of an \nopportunity to comment on an application, the statute limits who must receive such notice—\nnamely only to “each affected municipality and each affected landowner on whose property a \nportion of the proposed transmission line will be constructed.”  ITC’s initial comments, p. 25 \n\n\nPage 25 \nU-21930 \n(quoting MCL 460.568(1)) (internal quotations omitted).  As a result, ITC asserts that proposed \nGuideline 3.1 goes beyond Act 30’s requirements. \n \nITC also argues that the expanded notice requirements under proposed Guideline 3.1 would be \nunworkable and would require applicants to send public notice to potentially hundreds of \nthousands of individuals, which the company asserts would be time-consuming and cost \nprohibitive.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 25.  Additionally, ITC contends that expanding public \nnotice would result in unintended consequences and the notification of tens of thousands of \nindividuals that will likely never be impacted by a proposed major transmission line, creating \nconfusion and unnecessary opposition to projects.  By way of example, ITC states that notice \nrequirements under the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 3.1 would encompass nearly a quarter of \na million people for a proposed project that spans the Lansing metropolitan area and would \nencompass nearly a third of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula for the company’s anticipated Ludington \nto Copperton project.  Id., p. 26.  Accordingly, ITC contends that “the confusion, fear, and \ninefficiencies created by such an expansive approach would outweigh [the] benefits and would not \nbe consistent with the statute or streamlining the application and discovery process for such \ncases.”  Id.  ITC, however, states that it recognizes the potential benefits of providing public notice \nto a greater number of individuals and, therefore, proposes to revise proposed Guideline 3.1 to \nrecommend that an applicant be required to provide public notice to affected landowners along the \nproposed and alternate routes inclusive of any proposed ROW, as well as any areas sought for \nminor modification approval, which ITC explains would likely include up to 500 feet on either \nside of the centerline for these routes.  Id., pp. 26-27.  This approach, according to ITC, “would \nalign with the approach taken in Case No. U-21471, where METC was directed to notice \nlandowners along both the proposed and alternate route.”  Id.   \n\n\nPage 26 \nU-21930 \n \nFinally, ITC proposes eliminating proposed Guideline 3.1(b)(v), arguing that this requirement \nis unnecessary because an applicant is no longer soliciting information regarding the application’s \nproposed and alternate routes for the proposed transmission line once the application is filed.  ITC \ncontends that at that point, the routing process is complete and that Act 30 instead contemplates \nthat any proposed deviations to those routes come in the form of an alternative route proposed by a \nparty to the contested case.  Id., pp. 28-29.    \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA recommend that proposed Guideline 3.1 be modified to be consistent \nwith their proposed revisions to Guideline 2.1, which suggested notice to landowners and \nmunicipalities located within 300 feet of the centerline of the proposed and alternate routes.  \nMEIBC/United/CGA initial comments, p. 6.   \n \nConsumers expresses concern with proposed Guideline 3.1’s requirement to provide public \nnotice to municipalities and landowners located within one mile of the centerline of the ROW for \nproposed and alternate routes, as well as municipalities and landowners located within the \ngeographic area between these routes.  Consumers acknowledges that broad public notice can be \nbeneficial but recommends a more targeted approach.  The company notes that the proposed and \nalternate routes in Case No. U-21471 were separated by more than four miles in certain areas and \nthat proposed Guideline 3.1 would have required an applicant to provide public notice to all \nlandowners located in this area, who Consumers contends would not have been impacted by the \nproposed transmission line.  Accordingly, Consumers advocates for proposed Guideline 3.1 to \ninclude the requirement for a cost-benefit analysis to be performed to assess the financial and time \nburdens associated with broader public notice requirements.  Consumers’ initial comments, \npp. 3-4.   \n\n\nPage 27 \nU-21930 \n \nIn comments made in the docket, ATC states that it disagrees with the requirement in the \nproposed guideline to notice landowners and municipalities located between the proposed and \nalternate routes.  It asserts that notification of landowners and municipalities located within one \nmile of the centerline of a proposed route, as well as the notice requirement already stated in \nMCL 460.568 provides ample notice to interested persons.  Additionally, ATC recommends that \nstandard mail be required, as opposed to certified mail for the notice required by the proposed \nguideline.  Case No. U-21930, filing #U-21930-0002-CC, p. 4.   \n \nThe Commission finds the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 3.1 to be reasonable, and \ntherefore adopts the proposed guideline, as amended by this order.  The Commission finds, as \nacknowledged by the commenters, that expanding public notice of an opportunity to comment on \nan application creates significant benefits for the public, the applicant, and the Commission.  As \npreviously detailed, the Commission again finds that an expanded public notice increases \ntransparency and allows affected individuals to share specific knowledge, concerns, and solutions \nto a proposed major transmission line’s potential route, which the Commission finds will \npositively contribute to its decision-making ability.  As a result, the Commission finds that it is \nappropriate and reasonable to include a guideline that requests that an applicant send public notice \nwith verified delivery to an expanded set of municipalities and affected landowners.  \n \nWhile the Commission finds that expanding public notice will improve the Act 30 process, the \nCommission recognizes the concerns raised by some commenters regarding the potential increase \nin costs and challenges associated with an expanded public notice requirement.  Accordingly, the \nCommission finds that a measured approach to an expanded public notice requirement is \nwarranted.  Specifically, the Commission finds that as the number of alternate routes for a \nproposed major transmission line is increased, the Commission’s ability to select a route that \n\n\nPage 28 \nU-21930 \nminimizes environmental, social, and engineering impacts is also increased.  Consequently, as \nmore alternate routes are made available for the Commission’s consideration, fewer municipalities \nand landowners need to be directly notified of a project in order to identify and ultimately reduce a \nproposed transmission line’s impacts.   \n \nAccordingly, the Commission finds that if an applicant proposes a single alternate route that is \nmaterially distinct from the proposed route, that applicant should send direct public notice to all \nmunicipalities and affected landowners located within one mile of the edge of the ROW of the \nproposed and alternate routes for the proposed major transmission line.  If an applicant proposes \ntwo materially distinct alternate routes, that applicant should send direct public notice to all \nmunicipalities and affected landowners located within one-quarter mile of the edge of the ROW of \nthe proposed and alternate routes presented for the proposed major transmission line.  If an \napplicant proposes three or more materially distinct alternate routes, that applicant should send \ndirect public notice to all municipalities and affected landowners located within 500-feet of the \nedge of the ROW of all proposed and alternate routes presented for the proposed major \ntransmission line.  Finally, given the potential for significant cost increases associated with an \nexpanded public notice, the Commission declines to adopt the Staff Draft’s proposal to require an \napplicant to send direct public notice of an opportunity to comment on an application to \nmunicipalities and individuals located in the geographic areas located between an applicant’s \nproposed and alternate routes.   \n2. Proposed Guideline 3.2  \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 3.2 notes that Section 8(4) of Act 30 permits parties to a \ncontested case to submit alternative routes for a proposed major transmission line.  Staff Draft, \np. 9.  The guideline further provides that:   \n\n\nPage 29 \nU-21930 \n[a]ny alternative route or route segment proposed by a party to the contested case \nproceeding should be confined to the notice area from those noticed in \nGuideline 3.1 and should be proposed before cross examination occurs in the \ncontested case proceeding.  Upon receipt of a proposed alternative route or route \nsegment, the applicant should provide notice to all landowners with property \nlocated on the newly proposed alternative route or route segment.  The letter should \ninclude notice that the landowner is now located on a proposed alternative route \nand should include information on how the affected landowner can seek \nintervention in the contested case proceeding. \n \nId.   \n \nITC supports the Staff’s proposal to define the area in which parties can propose alternative \nroutes for a proposed major transmission line.  According to ITC, defining this area will provide \nclarity and establish reasonable expectations for parties regarding routing options that may be \nrealistically approved.  ITC, therefore, proposes defining the area where an alternative route may \nbe proposed to coincide with the areas that would be noticed under its proposed revisions to \nGuideline 3.1 (i.e., property located within 500 feet of the centerline of any proposed or alternate \nroutes included in an application).  ITC’s initial comments, p. 30.   \n \nITC, however, disagrees with proposed Guideline 3.2’s requirement for applicants to provide \nnotice to landowners with property located on a newly proposed alternative route.  The company \ncontends that Act 30 does not authorize the Commission to require applicants to provide such \nnotice and that this requirement would be prejudicial to applicants, “effectively positioning \napplicants against their own due process interests.”  Id., p. 30.  ITC further argues that requiring \nnotice for alternative routes defeats the purpose of providing public notice at the onset of a case \nand would create confusion and substantial delays to a proceeding.  Consequently, ITC advocates \nfor the removal of this requirement in Guideline 3.2.  Id.   \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA recommend that the Commission clarify how alternative routes will be \ntreated for notification purposes.  They state that notifying landowners may cause confusion if a \n\n\nPage 30 \nU-21930 \nlandowner has previously received notification regarding the application for the proposed major \ntransmission line.  They therefore propose certain revisions to the proposed guideline specifying \nthat only newly added landowners should receive notice and that the notice should include \ninformation on how the affected landowner can intervene in the contested case proceeding.  \nMEIBC/United/CGA’s initial comments, pp. 6-7.    \n \nThe Commission finds that Act 30 expressly permits a party to a contested case proceeding to \nsubmit an alternative route for a proposed major transmission line and further that Act 30 \nauthorizes the Commission to select an alternative route as the approved route for a proposed \nmajor transmission line.  See, MCL 460.568(4).  However, to provide the Commission with a \nmeaningful opportunity to select a viable alternative route, the Commission finds that landowners \nlocated on an alternative route need to receive notice and be permitted a reasonable opportunity to \nparticipate in the contested case hearing.  Accordingly, the Commission adopts proposed \nGuideline 3.2’s recommendation to limit alternative routes to the invitation area outlined in \nGuideline 2.1, which includes the geographic areas located within one mile of the edge of the \nROW for any proposed or alternate routes, as well as the geographic areas located between any \nproposed and alternate routes to the extent those areas are included in an applicant’s identified \nStudy Area.  Additionally, the Commission adopts the proposed guideline’s recommendation to \nrequire an applicant to provide notice to all previously unnoticed landowners with property located \non the newly proposed alternative route, which should include information on how the affected \nlandowner can seek intervention in the contested case proceeding.  The Commission further finds, \nto avoid significant delays in the contested case proceeding, that it is reasonable to require parties \nto the contested case proceeding to propose any alternative route for the proposed major \n\n\nPage 31 \nU-21930 \ntransmission line within 45 days after the completion of the prehearing conference in the contested \ncase proceeding.    \nD. Application Materials  \n \nSection 7(2) of Act 30 describes the information that must be included in an application \nsubmitted to the Commission, which includes: \n(a) The planned date for beginning construction.  \n(b) A detailed description of the proposed major transmission line, its route, and its \nexpected configuration and use. \n(c) A description and evaluation of 1 or more alternate major transmission line \nroutes and a statement of why the proposed route was selected. \n(d) If a zoning ordinance prohibits or regulates the location or development of any \nportion of a proposed route, a description of the location and manner in which \nthat zoning ordinance prohibits or regulates the location or construction of the \nproposed route. \n(e) The estimated overall cost of the proposed major transmission line. \n(f) Information supporting the need for the proposed major transmission line, \nincluding identification of known future wholesale users of the proposed major \ntransmission line. \n(g) Estimated quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits of the proposed \nmajor transmission line. \n(h) Estimated private benefits of the proposed major transmission line to the \napplicant or any legal entity that is affiliated with the applicant. \n(i) Information addressing potential effects of the proposed major transmission line \non public health and safety. \n(j) A summary of all comments received at each public meeting and the applicant's \nresponse to those comments. \n(k) Information indicating that the proposed major transmission line will comply \nwith all applicable state and federal environmental standards, laws, and rules. \n(l) Other information reasonably required by the commission pursuant to rule. \n \nMCL 460.567(2).  \n \n1. Proposed Guideline 4.1 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.1 provides that an applicant, prior to the submission of \nits application to the Commission, should provide the Staff with a SharePoint drive that contains:  \n(1) all landowner comments received by the applicant at any public meeting and the applicant’s \n\n\nPage 32 \nU-21930 \nresponse to those comments, and (2) all route adjustments submitted by affected landowners and \nthe applicant’s response to each request.  Staff Draft, p. 10.   \n \nITC contends that Act 30 only requires an applicant to provide a summary of public comments \nat public meetings and the applicant’s response to those comments.  As such, ITC argues that \nproposed Guideline 4.1, which requires that every public comment and response be submitted to \nthe Commission, goes beyond statutory requirements and conflicts with the specific language used \nin Act 30.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 31.  Accordingly, the company advocates for the removal of \nproposed Guideline 4.1 and for the Commission to maintain the requirement that only a summary \nof comments and responses is required to be included in an application.  However, as an \nalternative, ITC proposes that the Commission revise the proposed guideline to merely “encourage \napplicants to make available all comments received at public meetings or through the GIS system \nto Staff simultaneously with its application, which serve as the basis for the public comment \nsummary.”  Id., p. 32.  ITC, in turn, proposes alternative language for the proposed guideline that \nrequests that an applicant’s summary of comments and responses contain certain information.  Id.    \n \nIn comments made in the docket, ATC states that presenting information to the Staff solely \nthrough SharePoint may be too limiting and therefore recommended flexibility.  It also voiced \nconcerns that requiring the submittal of all route adjustments submitted by affected landowners, as \nwell as the applicant’s response to those submissions, would be overly burdensome and ripe for \nabuse by opponents to a project that could potentially use the requirement to inundate an applicant \nwith untenable routing options.  Case No. U-21930, filing #U-21930-0002-CC, p. 5.   \n \nThe Commission acknowledges that Act 30 requires applications to include a summary of \ncomments received at each public meeting but not copies of each individual public comment \nreceived by an applicant.  See, MCL 460.567(2)(j).  However, the Commission notes that, in Case \n\n\nPage 33 \nU-21930 \nNo. U-21471, the quality of the comment summaries received from the applicant was lacking and \nthat the applicant merely provided generic responses to commenters’ parcel-specific concerns.  As \nthe Commission noted in that case, such limited summaries were unhelpful.  As a result, the \nCommission cautioned future Act 30 applicants to include more detailed summaries of public \ncomments made at public meetings and the applicant’s responses to those comments, as well as \ntaking increased action to notify and inform affected landowners of route refinements that were \nmade by the applicant in response to landowners’ comments.  See, July 10 order, pp. 54-57.   \n \nAccordingly, the Commission finds it reasonable to revise proposed Guideline 4.1 to require \nan applicant’s public comment summary to clearly identify the main topics or concerns raised at \neach public meeting, to include a statement concerning the frequency in which a specific topic or \nconcern was raised, and to include a summary of the applicant’s proportionate response to each \ntopic or concern and how the applicant considered or addressed that particular topic or concern.  \nFurther, the Commission finds it appropriate to require an applicant to highlight any route \nmodifications proposed through the public meeting process that the applicant incorporated into the \nproposed and alternate routes included in the application.  Finally, as proposed by ITC, the \nCommission finds that it is appropriate to require an applicant to provide copies of all public \ncomments received by an applicant to the Staff simultaneously with the filing of the application.   \nSee, ITC’s initial comments, p. 32.     \n2. Proposed Guideline 4.2 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.2 provides that, “[a]s part of its application for the \nproposed major transmission line, the applicant should provide detail about how the applicant \ncomplied with all requirements outlined in Act 30 and in these guidelines for the construction plan, \n\n\nPage 34 \nU-21930 \npublic meeting notice, public meetings, application public notice, and application materials.”  Staff \nDraft, p. 10.   \n \nITC first requests that proposed Guideline 4.2 refer to a public meeting “invitation,” as \nopposed to a “notice,” consistent with the company’s prior comments on proposed Guideline 2.1.  \nIt next requests that the term “application public notice” be removed from the proposed guideline.  \nITC asserts that public notice for the application is provided at the direction of the Commission’s \nExecutive Secretary after an application has been filed and that applicants do not mail public \nnotice materials prior to filing the application.  As such, ITC argues that proposed Guideline 4.2 \nshould not deviate from the practice already used by the Commission for public notice.  ITC’s \ninitial comments, p. 33. \n \nThe Commission agrees, consistent with its prior determination regarding the invitation for \npublic meetings in Guideline 2.1, that the language of proposed Guideline 4.2 should be modified \nto refer to the public meeting invitation, and not the public meeting notice.  Further, the \nCommission acknowledges ITC’s comment regarding the existing process for providing public \nnotice for an application and finds that it is reasonable to modify the proposed guideline to require \nan applicant to include the public notice materials that will be used for the public notice in the \napplication filing materials.     \n3. Proposed Guideline 4.3 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.3 requests an applicant to include a discussion of how \nthe applicant determined the Study Area used for a project.  Additionally, the proposed guideline \nrecommends that an applicant discuss the methodology employed to exclude any areas from the \nStudy Area that the applicant considered unreasonable or infeasible.  Staff Draft, p. 10.   \n\n\nPage 35 \nU-21930 \n \nITC maintains that proposed Guideline 4.3 appears to be intended to capture any changes to \nthe Study Area between the construction plan and the application, as well as to discourage \napplicants from narrowing the Study Area to avoid expanded notice requirements outlined in \nearlier proposed guidelines in the Staff Draft.  ITC, however, comments that it disagrees with this \napproach considering the company’s objections to the expanded notice requirements outlined in \nother proposed guidelines.  Therefore, ITC advocates for removal of proposed Guideline 4.3, or at \na minimum, that the proposed guideline be revised to merely require an applicant to include a \ndiscussion of how the applicant selected the Study Area.  ITC’s initial comments, pp. 33-34.    \n \nThe Commission finds that the establishment of a Study Area is a necessary step for \nidentifying and ultimately selecting a proposed major transmission line’s approved route.  \nImportantly, the Commission finds that the location of a proposed major transmission line remains \na pivotal consideration throughout Act 30, beginning with the filing of the construction plan and \nconcluding with the Commission’s express identification of the approved route.  See, \nMCL 460.564(1)(a), MCL 460.566(2), MCL 460.567(2)(b)-(c), and MCL 460.568(7).  As such, \nthe Commission finds that it is appropriate to request an applicant to include as part of its \napplication a discussion of how the applicant determined the Study Area and, if applicable, why \nthe applicant excluded any areas from consideration.  The Commission, therefore, adopts the Staff \nDraft’s proposed Guideline 4.3.       \n \nThe Commission further notes that commercial software (e.g., Pivvot or Optioneer) exists that \ncan be utilized to optimize and evaluate potential routes within a Study Area.  The Commission \nfinds that the optimization and evaluation of potential routes in a Study Area is an important \ncomponent for determining whether a major transmission line’s proposed or alternative route is \nfeasible and reasonable.  See, MCL 460.568(5)(b).  Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is \n\n\nPage 36 \nU-21930 \nreasonable and appropriate to adopt a separate guideline that encourages an applicant to utilize \nsuch commercially available software, if beneficial.   \n4. Proposed Guideline 4.4  \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.4 encourages applicants, “in addition to the proposed \nroute, to identify and assess more than one utility alternate route for the proposed major \ntransmission line in the application submitted to the Commission.”  Staff Draft, p. 10.  \nAdditionally, the proposed guideline recommends that applicants include all landowner-provided \nalternate routes or route segments as one of the alternate routes identified in the application, \ncomplete with an applicant’s assessment of those alternate routes using the applicant’s chosen \nevaluation factors.  Id., pp. 10-11.   \n \nITC comments that the meaning of “utility alternate route” in proposed Guideline 4.4 is \nunclear but states that it interprets the term as encouraging applicants to present more than one \nalternate route in an application, which the company states it does not object to.  ITC further \ncomments that the second sentence of the proposed guideline regarding the inclusion of \nlandowner-provided alternate routes is duplicative of language used in Guideline 4.5 and therefore \nshould be removed.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 34.     \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA urge the Commission to clarify a reasonable number of alternate routes \nthat an applicant should include in its application but convey their belief that an applicant’s \nproposed route and one alternate route is sufficient.  MEIBC/United/CGA’s initial comments, p. 8.       \n \nThe Commission finds that Act 30 states that an application must include a “description and \nevaluation of 1 or more alternate major transmission line routes and a statement of why the \nproposed route was selected.”  MCL 460.567(2)(c).  However, the Commission finds that the \nevaluation and consideration of multiple alternate routes for a proposed major transmission line \n\n\nPage 37 \nU-21930 \nbenefits the public, may decrease the extent to which an approved route causes social and \nenvironmental impacts, and improves the Commission’s decision-making ability.  As such, the \nCommission finds that it is appropriate to encourage an applicant to identify and evaluate more \nthan one alternate route in its application.  However, the Commission declines to recommend a \npreferred number of alternate routes to be included in an application, as the number of reasonable \nalternate routes included in an application is dependent on the circumstances of the given project.  \nThe Commission further agrees with ITC that the proposed guideline’s language concerning the \ninclusion of landowner and public-proposed routes as an alternate route in the application is \nduplicative of proposed Guideline 4.5.  The Commission, therefore, declines to adopt this \nprovision in the proposed guideline and instead addresses this issue below.    \n5. Proposed Guideline 4.5   \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.5 states that an “application should include all \nalternate routes and alternate route segments proposed by any landowner as one of the alternate \nroutes for the proposed major transmission line, complete with the applicant’s assessment of those \nalternate routes and route segments using the applicant’s identified evaluation factors.”  Staff \nDraft, p. 11.   \n \nITC argues that proposed Guideline 4.5 would expand Act 30’s requirement for an applicant \nto include a description of one or more alternate routes by treating any landowner-suggested route \nor route segment as an alternate route that would need to be assessed by the applicant.  The \ncompany asserts that this expansion would require an applicant to conduct detailed analyses of \npotentially hundreds of landowner-provided routes, which ITC claims is unreasonable.  According \nto ITC, although Act 30 contemplates that an applicant may consider more than one alternate \n\n\nPage 38 \nU-21930 \nroute, it does not provide authority to the Commission to dictate the precise routes that an \napplicant must consider as part of its application.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 35. \n \nAdditionally, ITC contends that proposed Guideline 4.5 will undermine an applicant’s \nprofessional judgement, negating the extensive process utilized by applicants to eliminate less \nfavorable routes from consideration.  Id., p. 36.  As such, and to address concerns raised by the \nStaff in Case No. U-21471, ITC instead proposes that the Commission adopt the following \nlanguage for proposed Guideline 4.5:   \nAn application should identify all route refinements, adjustments, changes, or shifts \nmade to a route between a construction plan and the alignment of the proposed \nroute as presented in the application, if applicable.  For each refinement, the \napplicant should identify the data, factors, and considerations that explain the \nalignment of the proposed route as presented in the application, including whether \nthe refinement, adjustment, change, or shift was influenced by stakeholder or public \ninput. \n \nId., p. 37.   \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA comment that proposed Guideline 4.5 appears to be a repetition of \nproposed Guideline 4.4 and therefore advocate for the Commission to consolidate or clearly \ndistinguish the intent of both guidelines.  MEIBC/United/CGA’s initial comments, p. 8.     \n \nThe Commission agrees with ITC that the express language of Act 30 does not mandate that \nan applicant include specified alternate routes as part of its application.  However, as previously \nexplained, the Commission finds value in the consideration of numerous alternate routes for a \nproposed major transmission line, including any routes that have been submitted by members of \nthe public through the public meeting process.  Accordingly, although the Commission recognizes \nthat it may be imprudent to require an applicant to present every route submitted by the public as \nan alternate route, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to request that an applicant detail all \nroutes submitted by the public and landowners through the public engagement process and to \n\n\nPage 39 \nU-21930 \ninclude, as applicable, the applicant’s assessment of those routes using identified evaluation \nfactors.  The Commission finds that the presentation of this information, although not a formally \npresented alternate route, will still assist the Commission in identifying and selecting a route that \ncomplies with statutory requirements.   \n \nThe Commission further finds that ITC’s alternative language for proposed Guideline 4.5 \naddresses concerns raised in Case No. U-21471.  Specifically, the Commission finds that the \nalternative language promotes transparency and understanding for how public comments influence \nan applicant’s route refinement process.  Accordingly, the Commission adopts this alternative \nlanguage as a separate guideline for inclusion in the Final Voluntary Filing Guidelines.   \n6. Proposed Guideline 4.6 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.6 provides that an applicant should include maps of all \nproposed and alternate routes in a Google Earth format for use by the parties in the contested case.  \nThe proposed guideline further provides that the maps should include the following information:  \na. Parcels crossed as well as any existing electrical utility easements on the \nparcel; \nb. Geological composition and soil type within the area of notice described in \nGuideline 3.1;  \nc. Labeling of route segments;  \nd. Any known endangered wildlife habitat or wildlife refuge;  \ne. Any known dwelling within the [ROW]; and  \nf. \nAny obstacle that was deliberately avoided through development of the \nproposed and alternate route(s). \n \nStaff Draft, p. 11.   \n \nITC comments that, generally, it does not take issue with providing electronic maps of the \nproposed and alternate routes; however, the company seeks clarification regarding several \nsubsections in the proposed guideline, including what geological composition and soil type the \nCommission is seeking (subsection (b)) and what endangered wildlife habitats or refuges must be \n\n\nPage 40 \nU-21930 \nidentified (subsection (d)).  ITC’s initial comments, pp. 37-38.  Additionally, ITC states that it can \nidentify easements in its possession, but that applicants may not know or be able to reasonably \nidentify existing utility easements owned by other companies.  Further, the company states that \nalthough the identification of dwellings within a transmission line’s ROW may be helpful, Google \nEarth will already show this information.  As such, ITC instead proposes to highlight the ROW or \ninclude the centerline of the transmission line in maps provided for the proposed and alternate \nroutes.  Finally, ITC claims that the identification of “any obstacle that was deliberately avoided” \n(subsection (f)) is vague and further that these resources, if clarified, would already be included in \nthe applicant’s discussion of the route study.  Therefore, ITC proposes removing subsection (f) of \nthe proposed guideline because it is duplicative.  Id., p. 38.    \n \nIn her comments in the docket, Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennen recommends that applicants be \nrequired to include proposed pole structures and parcels within the Study Area that are owned in \nfee by other utilities.  Additionally, she states that the electronic maps provided by an applicant \nshould include the same information required in proposed Guideline 4.9.  Case No. U-21930, \nfiling #U-21930-0003-CC, p. 4.   \n \nThe Commission finds that the inclusion of electronic maps depicting all proposed and \nalternate routes will improve transparency and benefit the Commission’s decision-making ability \nunder Act 30; the Commission, therefore, adopts the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.6.  The \nCommission finds that it is both reasonable and appropriate for an applicant to identify electrical \nutility easements in maps included in the application, even if the applicant does not possess the \nrights to that easement.  Additionally, the Commission agrees with ITC that a depiction of the \nproposed ROW is sufficient to identify structures within the proposed ROW and agrees with \nMs. Wohlscheid-Brennan that maps should include preliminary pole placements.  The \n\n\nPage 41 \nU-21930 \nCommission further clarifies that the maps should depict any known endangered wildlife habitats \nor wildlife refuges as commonly evaluated in environmental assessments for like-projects and \nfurther clarifies that the maps should depict any man-made structures or environmental hazards \nthat an applicant has deliberately avoided in the routing process.  Finally, the Commission finds \nthat the map required by the proposed guideline should be in a format that is readily available and \neasy to use for the Staff and other intervenors and that the map should also identify any areas that \nhave been excluded from the Study Area, as described in Guideline 1.1(a).       \n7. Proposed Guideline 4.7 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.7 provides that an application should include pertinent \nengineering information regarding transmission equipment and requests that an application include \nthe following information:  \na. Discussion of reasons that the equipment is above ground or below ground;  \nb. Designed voltage rating;  \nc. Operation voltage rating;  \nd. If the transmission equipment is above ground:  \ni. \nConductor size and type of structures; \nii. Height of typical structures; \niii. Explanation of why these structures were selected; and  \niv. Dimensional drawing of typical structures to be used in the project. \ne. If the transmission equipment is below ground or underwater:  \ni. \nBurial depth;  \nii. Type of cable and a description of any required supporting equipment, \nsuch as insulation medium pressurizing or forced cooling;  \niii. Cathodic protection scheme; and \niv. Type of dielectric fluid and safeguards used to limit potential spills in \nwaterways. \n \nStaff Draft, p. 11.   \n \nITC states that it does not oppose proposed Guideline 4.7 but suggests several revisions to the \nguideline’s proposed language to provide clarity and consistency with industry and technical \n\n\nPage 42 \nU-21930 \nstandards, including the removal of the requirement to provide information regarding cathodic \nprotection.  See, ITC’s initial comments, pp. 39-40.     \n \nUnited and CGA advocate for the Commission to include an additional subsection in proposed \nGuideline 4.7 that requires an applicant to consider the use of Advanced Transmission \nTechnologies (ATT) and Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GET).  Specifically, they urge the \nCommission to adopt the following language:  \nThe application should provide a detailed description of any and all [ATT] or \n[GET] that are planned to be utilized by the applicant for construction of the \ntransmission infrastructure.  If the applicant does not plan on utilizing [ATT] or \n[GET], then the applicant should describe what considerations were made regarding \nthe use of these technologies during the planning process and a detailed description \nof why the applicant does not plan on utilizing these technologies. \n \nUnited and CGA’s initial comments, p. 4.   \n \nRelatedly, United and CGA advocate for the Commission to adopt the following definitions \nfor ATT and GET in the “Definitions” section of the final guidelines adopted by the Commission:  \nAdvanced Transmission Technologies:  Advanced Transmission Technologies \n(“ATT”) means a technology such as hardware or software solutions that increase \nthe capacity, efficiency, or reliability of an existing or new transmission facility.  \n \nGrid-Enhancing Technologies:  Grid-Enhancing Technologies (“GET”) means a \ntechnology that maximizes the electricity transmission across the existing system \nthrough a suite of technologies that include but are not limited to sensors, power \nflow control devices, and analytical tools. \n \nId., p. 3.   \n \nThe Commission finds the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.7 to be reasonable and therefore \nadopts it.  The Commission further finds that the clarifying revisions proposed by ITC are \nreasonable, with the exception of the removal of information pertaining to cathodic protection \nscheme.  Additionally, the Commission agrees with United and CGA and adopts the inclusion of \ninformation related to ATT and GET, including the definitions proposed for those terms.   \n\n\nPage 43 \nU-21930 \n8. Proposed Guideline 4.8 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.8 states that an application should include route and \nsegment scoring data and requests that an application include the following information:  \na. Raw evaluation factors and any quantitative data used to evaluate potential \nroutes from a routing study or similar development of candidate routes \npresented in an excel format with any equations intact.  Raw evaluation factors \nshould be presented on a route basis as well as per routing section basis to \nassist with evaluation of intervenor-suggested alternatives;  \nb. Any quantitative analysis done on evaluation factors or quantitative data used \nto evaluate potential routes that resulted in narrowing of potential routes \nconsidered.  This includes selection of the proposed and alternate routes;  \nc. Any formal or informal weighting factors that the applicant used in the scoring \nof the potential routes, if used, and how these weighting factors affected the \nselection of proposed and alternate routes;  \nd. Evaluation factor data from the proposed and alternate routes as filed after \nrefinement and increased data granularity is available from environmental \nimpact study, LiDAR scans, etc., presented in excel format with any equations \nintact; and  \ne. Data sources for final evaluation factors.  If the applicant utilized multiple \nsources for a single evaluation factor in finalized data, explain how these were \nincorporated with one another. \n \nStaff Draft, p. 12.   \n \nITC comments that it does not oppose sharing routing data in an application but asserts that \nseveral revisions are required to clarify the proposed guideline.  First, with respect to \nsubsection (a) of the proposed guideline, ITC takes issue with the phrase “to assist with evaluation \nof intervenor-suggested alternatives” because, as the company claims, that phrase creates a \nmisleading impression that an applicant’s route study must anticipate or be amended to address \nintervenor proposals, which ITC contends is not the applicant’s burden.  ITC’s initial comments, \np. 41.  Next, with respect to subsection (b) of the proposed guideline, ITC contends that the term \n“quantitative analysis” is unclear.  As such, ITC requests that the Commission clarify the proposed \nguideline to make it clear that no specific type of analysis is required, which the company \ncontends should remain at the discretion of the applicant’s professional expertise and experience.  \n\n\nPage 44 \nU-21930 \nId.  Additionally, with respect to subsection (c), ITC argues that the proposed guideline should not \nrequire applicants to assign weights to evaluation factors.  Accordingly, ITC advocates for the \nremoval of this subsection.  Finally, ITC proposes removing subsection (d) of the proposed \nguideline on the basis that it is unclear what data the Staff is requesting that would not be \notherwise provided in subsection (a) of the proposed guideline.  Id., p. 42.     \n \nIn her comments in this docket, Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan encourages the Commission to \nrequire applicants to prioritize the use of existing ROWs and infrastructure.  According to \nMs. Wohlscheid-Brennan, prioritization of existing ROWs and infrastructure will reduce the need \nfor greenfield ROWs, lower costs, and improve construction timelines.  She further avers that such \nprioritization aligns with policies and practices from federal agencies and other states.  Case \nNo. U-21930, filing #U-21930-0003-CC, pp. 4-5.     \n \nThe Commission agrees that the inclusion of proposed Guideline 4.8’s reference to intervenor-\nsuggested alternatives could cause confusion; the Commission therefore finds that removal of this \nphrase is warranted.  However, the Commission disagrees with ITC that any information regarding \nan applicant’s weighting of evaluation factors should be removed.  The Commission further agrees \nwith Ms. Wohlscheid-Brennan’s suggestion that the Commission require an applicant to prioritize \nexisting ROWs and infrastructure, while acknowledging that there may be circumstances when the \nuse of such existing features is not appropriate or where other considerations outweigh the benefits \nof using an existing ROW.  Finding the remainder of the proposed guideline reasonable, the \nCommission adopts the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.8 as modified.     \n9. Proposed Guideline 4.9 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.9 outlines the following information to be included in \nan application’s route and segment scoring data: \n\n\nPage 45 \nU-21930 \na. Engineering data \ni. \nLength \nii. Number of angles greater than 30 degrees \niii. Road/railroad crossings \niv. Transmission line crossings \nv. Length replacing existing transmission line \nvi. Paralleling to existing linear features, including but not limited to: \n1. Existing transmission line  \n2. Public road or highway  \n3. Recreational trails  \n4. Existing pipelines  \n5. Property or section lines  \n6. Existing railroad or railroad rights of way  \nvii. Land use  \n1. Greenfield \n2. Extraction  \n3. Military installation \n4. Animal feeding operations \n5. Farmland \n6. Center pivot irrigation in ROW  \n7. Solar Farms within 500 feet  \n8. Wind Turbines within 500 feet  \nb. Environmental data  \n1. Wetland within ROW \n2. Hydric soil within ROW  \n3. Rivers/streams/waterways crossed  \n4. Woodland within ROW  \n5. Grassland/Pasture within ROW  \n6. Threatened and Endangered Species Critical Habitat  \n7. National wildlife refuges  \nc. Social data  \ni. \nHistoric sites within 500 [feet] \nii. Schools within 500 [feet]  \niii. Places of worship within 500 [feet] \niv. Hospitals and nursing homes within 500 [feet]  \nv. Memorial parks/cemeteries within 500 [feet] \nvi. National Landmarks/monuments within 500 [feet] \nvii. Airport obstacle free zones  \nviii. VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) sites  \nix. Archeological sites within ROW  \nx. Total area of new ROW required  \nxi. Number of parcels within ROW  \nxii. Residences  \n1. Within 100 [feet] of centerline \n2. Within 101-300 [feet] of centerline \n3. Within 301-500 [feet] of centerline \n\n\nPage 46 \nU-21930 \nxiii. Buildings \n1. Within 100 [feet] of centerline \n2. Within 101-300 [feet] of centerline  \n3. Within 301-500 [feet] of centerline  \nxiv. Public facilities \n1. Within 100 [feet] of centerline \n2. Within 101-300 [feet] of centerline \n3. Within 301-500 [feet] of centerline  \nxv. Municipal boundaries  \nxvi. Public lands \nxvii. Visibility score \n \nStaff Draft, pp. 12-14.   \n \nITC comments that it does not object to the inclusion of uniform routing factors in \napplications if the Commission recognizes that not all factors may be applicable to all projects.  \nThe company, however, contends that several factors are unclear or need further definition, \nincluding the length of line replacing existing transmission line, military installations, and \nmunicipal boundaries.  Additionally, for social factors (i) through (vi), ITC recommends that the \nCommission clarify that these factors refer to being within 500 feet of a transmission line’s \nproposed centerline.  ITC also opposes the inclusion of a visibility score as a routing factor \nbecause these scores are subjective and are difficult to consistently quantify, potentially creating \nbiases towards specific routes regardless of overall impacts.  Finally, ITC proposes the addition of \na qualifier to proposed Guideline 4.9 stating that an applicant’s routing experts should be \npermitted to exercise professional judgment to modify or remove certain evaluation factors so long \nas a brief explanation is included in testimony or exhibits.  ITC’s initial comments, pp. 43-44.     \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA recommend inclusion of additional scoring data, namely:  (1) the width, \nlength, and total acreage of the ROW for the project; (2) the total number of circuits encompassing \nthe project; (3) the number of circuits per structure; (4) conductor configuration and size of \nconductor; (5) the number of total structures encompassing the project as well as the structure and \n\n\nPage 47 \nU-21930 \ndimensions of the structure; (6) the nominal length and span between structures; and (7) access \nroads for construction and maintenance that are existing or that will be constructed.  \nMEIBC/United/CGA’s initial comments, pp. 8-9.    \n \nIn comments made in this docket, ATC requests additional clarity on certain evaluation \nfactors, including the proposed guideline’s inclusion of visibility scores.  Case No. U-21930, filing \n#U-21930-0002-CC, p. 6.   \n \nThe Commission finds the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.9 to be reasonable and therefore \nadopts it with some modifications.  The Commission further finds that the modifications and \nclarifications requested by commenters are appropriate and therefore adopts them.  The \nCommission agrees with ITC that an applicant’s routing experts should be permitted to exercise \ntheir professional judgment to modify or remove certain evaluation factors so long as a brief \nexplanation is included in testimony or exhibits; the Commission, therefore, adopts the proposed \nguideline with this qualifying language.   \n10. Proposed Guideline 4.10 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.10 provides that, if the proposed route and an alternate \nroute include segments that overlap, an applicant should justify the overlap by providing the \nengineering, environmental, or social rationale for the overlap, as well as any other rationale about \nwhy the overlap is the only practically feasible route in the geographic area.  Staff Draft, p. 14.   \n \nITC opposes proposed Guideline 4.10 and notes that the Commission has found that “good \nreasons exist for not requiring an alternate route and a proposed route to be entirely separated,” \nand that Act 30 “is completely devoid of any limitation on the amount of overlap the routes may \npossess.”  ITC’s initial comments, p. 46 (quoting the July 10, 2025 order in Case No. U-21471, \np. 52) (internal quotations omitted).  In turn, ITC argues that restricting overlaps between a \n\n\nPage 48 \nU-21930 \nproposed route and an alternate route could reduce the viability of alternatives and increase project \nimpacts.  Further, ITC contends that, if adopted, proposed Guideline 4.10 would likely be the first \nof its kind by placing an upper limit on the amount of overlap that may be permitted between the \nproposed route and an alternate route.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 46.        \n \nThe Commission disagrees with ITC’s contention that proposed Guideline 4.10 places an \nupper limit on the amount of overlap that an applicant can create between the proposed route and \nany alternate routes identified for a proposed major transmission line.  On the contrary, the \nCommission finds that the proposed guideline merely requires an applicant to provide the rationale \nfor why any overlaps exist between these routes.  The Commission finds it reasonable to require \nan applicant to provide such rationale to promote transparency and to better enable the \nCommission to make informed decisions regarding the reasonableness and feasibility of the routes \nproposed by an applicant.  Accordingly, the Commission adopts the Staff Draft’s proposed \nGuideline 4.10.   \n11. Proposed Guideline 4.11 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.11 provides that if an application includes new \nsubstations, an applicant should provide:  (1) the existing lines that will be tied into the new \nsubstation, (2) a line diagram of how the substation will be connected to the existing system, and \n(3) an explanation of how the applicant plans on rerouting existing lines into the new substation.  \nStaff Draft, p. 14.   \n \nITC contends that existing transmission lines and plans for the rerouting of existing lines to a \nnew substation are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction under Act 30 unless an applicant \nincludes these requests in its application.  The company argues that the information sought in \nproposed Guideline 4.11 is not tied to any information required to be in an application or any of \n\n\nPage 49 \nU-21930 \nthe factors outlined in Act 30 and that the engineering related to a new substation and existing \ntransmission lines is not relevant to Act 30 cases.  Accordingly, ITC proposes revisions to the \nproposed guideline to only require a general explanation of how the existing transmission system \nwill be integrated into a new substation.  Further, ITC proposes revisions to limit the inclusion of a \nline diagram in an application to circumstances when an applicant has included a request to \nconnect a new substation to an existing system in its application.  ITC’s initial comments, \npp. 46-47.    \n \nThe Commission disagrees with ITC’s contention that the consideration of new substations is \noutside of the Commission’s authority under Act 30.  The Commission finds that Act 30 expressly \nprohibits electric utilities, affiliated transmission companies, and independent transmission \ncompanies from beginning construction of a major transmission line until the Commission has \nissued a certificate for that transmission line.  Importantly, Act 30 defines a “transmission line” to \ninclude all structures, equipment, and real property necessary to transfer electricity at system bulk \nvoltage of 100 kilovolts or more.  See, MCL 460.562(k).  The Commission finds that substations \nare a key part of effectively transmitting electricity and, therefore, that the construction of \nsubstations in conjunction with the construction of a major transmission line fall under the \nCommission’s purview under Act 30.  Accordingly, the Commission finds including information \nin an application relating to the construction of substations to be appropriate.  The Commission, \ntherefore, adopts the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.11.    \n12. Proposed Guideline 4.12 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.12 provides that an application should present the \nestimated private benefits of the proposed major transmission line and requests the following \ninformation be included in an application:  \n\n\nPage 50 \nU-21930 \na. A complete calculation estimating the private benefits the applicant or any \nlegal entity affiliated with the applicant will receive from the construction and \nmanagement of the project.  This should be included in the application as an \nexhibit with a native excel file with equations intact provided as a workpaper \nfiled concurrently with the application; and  \nb. A discussion of any benefits the applicant or any legal entity affiliated with the \napplicant will receive that are not quantifiable. \n \nStaff Draft, p. 14.  \n \nITC states that the Commission has determined that an estimate of profits that an applicant is \nexpected to earn based on information available at the time and provided in discovery was an \nadequate presentation of the estimated private benefits for a proposed major transmission line.  \nITC’s initial comments, p. 47 (citing July 10, 2025 order in Case No. U-21471, p. 54).  \nAccordingly, ITC states that it interprets proposed Guideline 4.12 to reflect the Commission’s \ndetermination in Case No. U-21471 and that the company, therefore, does not propose any \nrevisions to the Staff Draft’s proposed guideline.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 47.   \n \nThe Commission finds the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.12 to be reasonable and, \ntherefore, adopts the proposed guideline.  The Commission further finds that it is appropriate to \nrequest that an applicant present the estimated overall cost of a proposed transmission line, which \nshould include both the capital cost and the annual operating cost of the project.  Accordingly, the \nCommission adopts a separate guideline requesting that such information be included in an \napplication filed with the Commission.    \n13. Proposed Guideline 4.13 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.13 requests that an applicant include projected tax \nrevenue by township associated with the construction and maintenance of a proposed major \ntransmission line as part of the public benefits information that is required to be included in an \napplication.  Staff Draft, p. 14.   \n\n\nPage 51 \nU-21930 \n \nITC asserts that the information requested in proposed Guideline 4.13 is unclear and further \ncomments that there is generally not a specific tax revenue for townships associated with the \nconstruction of a proposed transmission line and that applicants likely will not pay property taxes.  \nITC, however, agrees that information regarding public benefits is relevant to the Commission’s \nreview of a project and therefore proposes revisions to Guideline 4.13 to require, to the extent \napplicable, “estimates regarding the local economic investment, job creation, and potential local \ntax revenue due to the construction and maintenance of the project.”  ITC’s initial comments, \np. 48.   \n \nThe Commission finds the inclusion of the public benefits associated with a proposed major \ntransmission line to be reasonable and, therefore, adopts the Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.13.  \nThe Commission further finds ITC’s proposed revisions to be appropriate and amends the \nproposed guideline accordingly.      \n14. Proposed Guideline 4.14 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.14 relates to a major transmission line’s proposed \nROW and requires an applicant to provide “[j]ustification for the proposed width of the [ROW], \nincluding a quantitative analysis that is based on North American Electric Reliability Corporation \n(NERC) requirements where the end result of the quantitative analysis is width of ROW” and \n“[c]onsideration taken for proximity to dwellings.”  Staff Draft, p. 14.   \n \nITC states that it generally does not object to including information related to the need for a \nROW but asserts that the information required by the proposed guideline is not a practical way to \nexplain how an appropriate ROW is determined.  The company contends that NERC establishes \nperformance standards but does not set forth quantitative standards or requirements for ROW \nwidths.  ITC, therefore, proposes revisions to proposed Guideline 4.14 to remove consideration for \n\n\nPage 52 \nU-21930 \nproximity to dwellings and to require only an “[e]xplanation that the proposed width of the [ROW] \naligns with [NERC], National Electrical Safety Code Standards (NESC), or other relevant industry \nstandards, as applicable, and related documentation or analysis.”  Id., pp. 48-49.    \n \nIn comments made in this docket, ATC state that the ROW width is not entirely driven by \nNERC requirements and requests that an applicant provide justification for a proposed width for a \nROW with reference to any applicable internal or external standards or any quantitative analyses.  \nCase No. U-21930, filing #U-21930-0002-CC, p. 7.   \n \nThe Commission finds that although NERC does not set forth quantitative standards or \nrequirements for ROW widths, that an applicant can use these standards to quantitatively justify \nthe proposed ROW for a major transmission line.  As such, the Commission finds the Staff Draft’s \nproposed Guideline 4.14 to be reasonable and, therefore, adopts the proposed guideline as \namended.  The Commission, however, agrees with ITC and adopts its recommendation to remove \nconsideration for proximity to dwellings in the proposed guideline.   \n15. Guideline 4.15 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.15 involves EMF, stray voltage, and public health and \nrequires an applicant to provide the following as part of its application:   \na. Provide detail about how the applicant has minimized any potential health \nimpacts of the project including EMF, audible noise along with the audible \nnoise what [sic] threshold that the transmission line is being built to, and fire \nrisk should be presented with the application;  \nb. Calculate magnetic and electrical fields at the edge of the ROW and in the \ncenter of the ROW in accordance with IEEE Standard 644-2019 or most \nupdated IEEE standard for normal and emergency conditions;  \nc. Compare EMF of the proposed transmission line to current acceptable EMF \nexposure standards for electric transmission frequency.  Describe and justify \nthe standard used; and  \nd. For residences within 250 [feet] of the edge of the [ROW] of either the \nProposed Route or the alternate route(s) there should be calculations of EMF \n\n\nPage 53 \nU-21930 \nlevels outside of the residences compared with common household appliances \nand applicable standard. \n \nStaff Draft, p. 15.   \n \nITC takes issue with proposed Guideline 4.15’s use of the phrase “any public health impacts \nof the project including EMF” because, as the company asserts, the phrase inaccurately suggests \nthat EMFs are a public health concern.  ITC, however, agrees that calculating EMFs and \ndemonstrating compliance with industry standards is relevant to Act 30 and therefore proposes the \nfollowing language for the proposed guideline:   \nThe applicant should provide detail about potential public health and safety topics \nrelated to a proposed transmission line, including the following:  \na. Calculate resultant power-system frequency magnetic and electrical fields \n(EMF) at the edge of the ROW and at the centerline at 1 meter above grade,  at \nnormal (typical or average) and peak-loading conditions; \nb. Compare EMF of the proposed transmission line to current EMF exposure \nstandards under IEEE C95.1TM 2019 for electric transmission frequency; \nc. Calculate EMF out to 500 feet from the centerline. Provide examples of \nmagnetic field levels from other common sources in everyday environments; \nd. The audible noise at the edge of the ROW in normal and foul weather using \nLAF50 (60 minutes) metrics; \ne. Identify the wildfire hazard potential for the proposed transmission line in the \nimmediately surrounding area; and \nf. \nProvide a brief description of stray voltage and potential impacts for the \nproposed transmission line. \n \nITC’s initial comments, pp. 49-50.   \n \nMEIBC/United/CGA contend that it appears that subsections (c) and (d) of the proposed \nguideline are overlapping requirements.  They further propose that the Commission clarify what \nthe “EMF of the proposed transmission line” is relative to a distance or location and that if this \nrefers to residences within 250 feet of the ROW, then subsection (c) is unnecessary.  \nMEIBC/United/CGA’s initial comments, p. 9.   \n \nIn comments made in this docket, ATC points out that the phrase “potential health impacts” \nimplies a health risk from transmission infrastructure, which may not necessarily be true.  \n\n\nPage 54 \nU-21930 \nAdditionally, it recommends separating EMF, noise, and fire risk for clarity.  Case No. U-21930, \nfiling #U-21930-0002-CC, p. 7.   \n \nThe Commission finds that providing details regarding the potential public health and safety \nimpacts of a proposed transmission line, including quantitative calculations and comparisons, is of \nparamount importance to the Act 30 permitting process.  The Commission, therefore, adopts the \nStaff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.15, but agrees with commenters that certain subsections of the \nproposed guideline can be modified to provide clarity regarding the health impacts of EMFs as \nwell as to eliminate the duplication of information required.     \n16. Guideline 4.16 \n \nThe Staff Draft’s proposed Guideline 4.16 requests an applicant to provide “a detailed plan for \nproperty restoration post construction of transmission infrastructure.  This should include details \non soil restoration and compaction for agricultural fields.  The filing utility is encouraged to \nconsult with an agricultural and soil conservation specialist during and after construction.”  Staff \nDraft, p. 15.   \n \nITC comments that it does not take issue with an applicant including information regarding \nproperty restoration, including aspects related to soil restoration and compaction.  However, ITC \ncontends that Act 30 does not grant the Commission authority to regulate construction activities, \nincluding the recommendation that an applicant consult with an agricultural and soil conservation \nspecialist during and after construction.  Accordingly, ITC proposes removal of this portion of the \nproposed guideline.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 50.  \n \nThe Commission finds that providing landowners and the public with information regarding \nplanned property restoration activities following the construction of a proposed transmission line is \nappropriate and provides clarity and transparency.  The Commission, therefore, adopts the Staff \n\n\nPage 55 \nU-21930 \nDraft’s proposed Guideline 4.16 as amended.  The Commission agrees, however, that it is \nunnecessary to expressly encourage how an applicant goes about performing such restoration \nactivities.  As such, the Commission agrees with ITC that removal of the final sentence of the \nproposed guideline, which involves encouraging applicants to consult with agricultural and soil \nconservation scientists, is reasonable.   \nE. Other Issues  \n1. Applicability   \n \nITC recommends that the final guidelines adopted by the Commission specify that they either \ndo not apply to non-major transmission lines or, alternatively, that applicants should meet with the \nStaff in advance to determine how the final guidelines apply to those transmission lines.  ITC’s \ninitial comments, p. 51.  \n \nThe Commission finds that the Final Voluntary Filing Guidelines adopted by this order should \napply to proposed major transmission lines.  The Commission further finds that it is appropriate \nfor an applicant to meet with the Staff prior to filing an application for a non-major transmission \nline to determine whether and to what extent the Final Voluntary Filing Guidelines apply.  The \nCommission, therefore, adopts a provision in the Final Voluntary Filing Guidelines regarding the \napplicability of the guidelines to major and non-major transmission lines.    \n2. Effective Date  \n \nITC requests that, although voluntary, the Commission should clarify that the final filing \nguidelines will be considered in the review of applications filed at least 90 days after the date of \nthe order adopting the final guidelines.  ITC’s initial comments, p. 51.   \n \nThe Commission finds ITC’s request to be reasonable and, therefore, determines that the Final \nVoluntary Filing Guidelines should be used to review applications submitted to the Commission \n\n\nPage 56 \nU-21930 \npursuant to Act 30 beginning on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, which is 90 days after the date of this \norder. \n \nTHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: \n \nA.  The Commission adopts the final Voluntary Filing Guidelines for Applications for \nCertificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, attached as Attachment A to this order, which \nshall become effective on Wednesday, April 29, 2026.   \n \nB.  This order applies to electric utilities, affiliated transmission companies, and independent \ntransmission companies that file an application with the Commission for a certificate of public \nconvenience and necessity, pursuant to Public Act 30 of 1995.   \n \nThe Commission reserves jurisdiction and may issue further orders as necessary. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\nPage 57 \nU-21930 \n \nAny party desiring to appeal this order must do so in the appropriate court within 30 days after \nissuance and notice of this order, pursuant to MCL 462.26.  To comply with the Michigan Rules of \nCourt’s requirement to notify the Commission of an appeal, appellants shall send required notices \nto both the Commission’s Executive Secretary and to the Commission’s Legal Counsel.  \nElectronic notifications should be sent to the Executive Secretary at LARA-MPSC-\nEdockets@michigan.gov and to the Michigan Department of Attorney General - Public Service \nDivision at sheac1@michigan.gov.  In lieu of electronic submissions, paper copies of such \nnotifications may be sent to the Executive Secretary and the Attorney General - Public Service \nDivision at 7109 W. Saginaw Hwy., Lansing, MI 48917. \n \nMICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION   \n                                                                          \n \n                                                                                      \n________________________________________                     \n \n   \n \n \n \n \n       Daniel C. Scripps, Chair    \n \n          \n \n ________________________________________                     \n \n   \n \n \n \n \n       Katherine L. Peretick, Commissioner  \n \n \n \n________________________________________                     \n \n   \n \n \n \n \n       Shaquila Myers, Commissioner    \n   \n \nBy its action of January 29, 2026. \n \n \n \n________________________________                                                                 \nLisa Felice, Executive Secretary \n \n  \n \n \n\n\nVoluntary Filing Guidelines for Applications \nfor Certificates of Public Convenience and \nNecessity \nPursuant to Public Act 30 of 1995 \nCase No. U-21930 \nEffective April 29, 2026\nATTACHMENT A\n\n\n1 \n \nVoluntary Filing Guidelines for Applications \nfor Certificates of Public Convenience and \nNecessity under Public Act 30 of 1995 \nBackground \nPublic Act 30 of 1995 (Act 30), MCL 460.561 et seq., regulates the location and \nconstruction of certain electric transmission lines and grants authority to the Commission \nto issue certificates of public convenience and necessity for the siting of these \ntransmission lines. Under Act 30, applicants are required to, among other things, apply to \nthe Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity prior to constructing \na major transmission line. MCL 460.567(1). \nIn its July 10, 2025, order in Case No. U-21930 (July 10 order), the Commission directed the \nCommission Staff (Staff) to work with appropriate electric utilities, affiliated transmission \ncompanies, independent transmission companies, and other interested persons to \ndevelop voluntary application filing guidelines to be used for future applications submitted \nto the Commission under Act 30. The July 10 order further directed that the voluntary \napplication filing guidelines developed must, at a minimum, address the following issues: \n(1) the amount of overlap that is considered reasonable between an alternate route and \na proposed route; \n(2) the degree to which private benefits need to be estimated in advance of a project; \n(3) the form and quality of information submitted as part of the summary of comments \nreceived at each public meeting and the applicant’s response to those comments; \n(4) the methodology and qualitative factors that should be used in route studies to form \nthe basis for the applicant’s selection of the proposed and alternate routes, \nincluding the standardization of data presented to enable the Staff to efficiently \nanalyze the routes explored without the need for extensive discovery; \n(5) requirements for documenting all landowner requests for minor modifications to a \nproposed or alternate route, what action was taken by the applicant in response to \nthe request, and the reasoning why the applicant accommodated or failed to \naccommodate the request; and \nany other issues the Staff and/or interested persons believe are necessary to \nimprove the application process under Act 30. \nAdditionally, the Commission strongly encouraged the Staff to consider developing \napplication filing guidelines that recommended that an applicant identify and evaluate \nmore than one alternate route in an Act 30 application, including evidence that landowners \n\n\n2 \n \nalong all alternate routes have received direct notice of the application and a meaningful \nopportunity to participate in the associated contested case proceeding.  In conformance \nwith the Commission’s directives in the July 10 order, the following Voluntary Filing \nGuidelines for Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity under \nPublic Act 30 of 1995 are established. \nDefinitions: \nAdvanced Transmission Technologies: Advanced Transmission Technologies (“ATT”) \nmeans a technology such as hardware or software solutions that increase the capacity, \nefficiency, or reliability of an existing or new transmission facility. \nAffiliated transmission company: A person, partnership, corporation, association, or \nother legal entity, or its successors or assigns, which has fully satisfied the requirements to \njoin a regional transmission organization as determined by the federal energy regulatory \ncommission, is engaged in this state in the transmission of electricity using facilities it \nowns that were transferred to the entity by an electric utility that was engaged in the \ngeneration, transmission, and distribution of electricity in this state on December 31, 2000, \nand is not independent of an electric utility or an affiliate of the utility, generating or \ndistributing electricity to retail customers in this state. \nAlternate route(s): The route(s) that an applicant identifies in the applicant’s statement of \nwhy the applicant’s proposed route for the major transmission line was selected, as \nrequired by MCL 460.567(2)(c), to be included in an application with the Commission. \nAlternative route(s): Any route(s) that are submitted by a party to the contested case to the \nCommission that deviate from the proposed route identified by the applicant with its filing. \nApplicant: The electric utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent \ntransmission company that ultimately files an application with the Commission for a \ncertificate of public convenience and necessary under Act 30. \nElectric utility: A person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity whose \ntransmission or distribution of electricity the commission regulates under 1909 PA 106, \nMCL 460.551 to 460.559, or 1939 PA 3, MCL 460.1 to 460.10cc.  Electric utility does not \ninclude a municipal utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent transmission \ncompany. \nGrid-Enhancing Technology: Grid-Enhancing Technology (“GET”) means a technology that \nmaximizes the electricity transmitted across the existing system through a suite of \n\n\n3 \n \ntechnologies that include but are not limited to sensors, power flow control devices, and \nanalytical tools. \nIndependent transmission company: A person, partnership, corporation, association, or \nother legal entity, or its successors or assigns, engaged in this state in the transmission of \nelectricity using facilities it owns that have been divested to the entity by an electric utility \nthat was engaged in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in this state \non December 31, 2000, and is independent of an electric utility or an affiliate of the utility, \ngenerating or distributing electricity to retail customers in this state. \nMajor transmission line: A transmission line of five miles or more in length wholly or \npartially owned by an electric utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent \ntransmission company through which electricity is transferred at system bulk supply \nvoltage of 345 kilovolts or more. \nProposed route: The route that an applicant identifies as the proposed route for the major \ntransmission line, as required by MCL 460.567(2)(b). \nStudy Area: The general location that the applicant plans to study for the development of a \ntransmission project that includes the geographic area where both a proposed and \nalternate route(s) are likely to be, however the exact location of the proposed and alternate \nroute(s) is not yet known.  The Study Area should, at a minimum, include the area in which \nmunicipalities and landowners that are required to receive an invitation to public meetings \nas outlined in Guideline 2.1 are located. \nObjective: \nThis guidance document will be used by the Commission to ensure that proper notification \nand sufficient data is provided in cases such that the Commission can make an informed \nand appropriate determination. \nApplicability: \nThese voluntary filing guidelines should be used by all applicants seeking to obtain a \ncertificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission for the construction \nof a major transmission line.  If the applicant is seeking to obtain a certificate of public \nconvenience and necessity from the Commission for the construction of a transmission \nline that is not a major transmission line, the applicant should meet with the Staff well in \nadvance of the applicant’s engagement with the public to determine how these guidelines \nshould apply.    \n\n\n4 \n \nGuidelines: \n1. Construction Plans  \nSection 4(1) of Act 30, MCL 460.564(1), requires an electric utility, affiliated transmission \ncompany, and independent transmission company to submit a construction plan to the \nCommission for major transmission lines that the electric utility, affiliated transmission \ncompany, or independent transmission company plans to construct within the next five \nyears. Act 30 requires construction plans to contain all the following: \na. the general location and size of all major transmission lines to be constructed in the \nfive years after planning commences; \nb. Copies of relevant bulk power transmission information filed by the electric utility, \naffiliated transmission company, or independent transmission company with any \nstate or federal agency, national electric reliability coalition, or regional electric \nreliability coalition; and \nc. Additional information required by Commission rule or order that directly relates to \nthe construction plan. \nGuideline 1.1: As part of the additional information required by the Commission, the \napplicant must include the following information in its construction plan: \na. Identification of the proposed Study Area for all major transmission lines to be \nconstructed.  A Study Area is normally a regular polygon shape; however, if there is a \nportion of the Study Area that an applicant has removed in its initial evaluation due \nto insurmountable engineering, environmental, or social impacts, the applicant \nmust explain why it was reasonable to remove the portion from the final Study Area; \nb. The estimated construction start and end year and quarter for all proposed major \ntransmission lines; \nc. The estimated length of all proposed major transmission lines; \nd. A statement explaining why the proposed major transmission line is being \nconstructed within the general location identified in the construction plan;  \ne. A list of all municipalities and zip codes located within the proposed Study Area; \nf. The name, address, telephone number, and email address for a dedicated contact \nperson or persons who have knowledge of the development of the proposed major \ntransmission line and are authorized to communicate on behalf of the applicant.  \nThe applicant must make the dedicated contact person or persons available to the \npublic through the construction of the proposed major transmission line and must \nensure that the dedicated person or persons provide meaningful responses to \npublic inquiries in a reasonably timely manner; and \n\n\n5 \n \ng. Detail of the applicant’s plan and process for soliciting and obtaining information \nfrom the public and municipalities regarding the property or community \ncharacteristics in the Study Area that will be used to develop the applicants \nproposed route and alternate route(s) submitted as part of the applicant’s \napplication with the Commission. \n \n2. Public Meetings \nSection 6(1) of Act 30, MCL 460.566(1), requires an electric utility, affiliated transmission \ncompany, and independent transmission company to schedule and hold a public meeting \nin each municipality through which a proposed major transmission line for which a \nconstruction plan that has been submitted under Act 30 would pass.  A public meeting \nheld in a township satisfies the requirement of holding a public meeting in each affected \nvillage located within that township. \nGuideline 2.1: As part of the public meetings required to by Section 6(1) of Act 30, \nMCL 460.566(1), an applicant should provide an invitation to all affected landowners and \nmunicipalities through which the proposed major transmission line will pass, including all \nlandowners with property located along all initially identified proposed and alternate \nroute(s).  Additionally, an applicant should provide an invitation to all landowners and \nmunicipalities with property located within one mile from the edge of the proposed right-of-\nway (ROW) for all initially identified proposed and alternate route(s) for the proposed major \ntransmission line.  The applicant should also provide an invitation to all landowners and \nmunicipalities with property located within the geographic area between all initially \nidentified proposed and alternate route(s) for the proposed major transmission line with \nthe exception of any municipalities or landowners with property located in any geographic \nareas that were excluded from the applicant’s Study Area, as identified in Guideline 1.1(a). \nGuideline 2.2: The invitation required in Guideline 2.1 should be in the form of a letter sent \nvia standard mail to the taxpayer of record of the affected property and should include the \nfollowing: \na. In a conspicuous location, the name of the applicant and the name of the proposed \nproject.  \nb. The date, time, and location of all public meetings scheduled for the proposed \nmajor transmission line; \nc. The case number of the docket established for the proposed major transmission \nline, including instruction on how the person can sign up through the Commission's \nwebsite to receive notifications about the docket and a link to the Commission’s Act \n\n\n6 \n \n30 webpage,1 which includes an estimated case timeline and information on case \nintervention; \nd.  A highlighted map of any initially identified proposed and alternate route(s).  If the \nline is more than five miles in length, the highlighted map should also include the \ngeographic area within a one-mile radius of the edge of the proposed ROW for any \nproposed or alternate routes, denoted as the area of public notice for the \napplication that will be filed with the Commission; \ne. The name, address, telephone number, and email address for a dedicated contact \nperson or persons who have knowledge of the development of the proposed major \ntransmission line and are authorized to communicate on behalf of the applicant.  \nThe applicant must make the dedicated contact person or persons available to the \npublic through the construction of the proposed major transmission line and must \nensure that the dedicated person or persons provide meaningful responses to \npublic inquiries in a reasonably timely manner; \nf. Details regarding the specific type of information the applicant is seeking from the \nnoticed landowners and municipalities, such as: \ni. \nParticular characteristics about the landowner’s property; \nii. \nLand use; and \niii. \nFeatures of historical or environmental significance. \ng. \nA link or QR code to the applicant’s project website created for the purpose of \nmeeting Guideline 2.5, below. \n \nAn applicant should make a copy of the invitations to any public meetings available for the \nStaff’s review at least ten business days prior to mailing.   \n \nGuideline 2.3: To further engage the public during the public meeting process and prior to \nfiling, an applicant is encouraged to identify and review multiple alternate routes with \nlandowners and municipalities, developing a full understanding of land considerations and \nlandowner comments when refining the final proposed and alternate routes that will be \nincluded as part of the application submitted to the Commission. \nGuideline 2.4: An applicant should make public meeting materials (in substantially final \nform) available for the Staff’s review at least ten business days prior to the applicant \nholding the public meetings. \n \n1 The Commission’s Act 30 webpage is available at https://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/regulatory/facility-\nsiting/act-30 (last accessed January 10, 2026).   \n\n\n7 \n \nGuideline 2.5: An applicant should make available a way for landowners attending a public \nmeeting to identify geographic features on their parcels or to add comments, information \nregarding features of parcels or potential minor route adjustments, and any other pertinent \ninformation regarding the location of the proposed major transmission line.  This \ninformation should be translated into a geographic information system (GIS) to be used by \nthe applicant.  This could be done by having GIS systems available at the public meetings. \nA similar map-based interface should be hosted by the applicant on a website available to \nthe public so that parcel-specific information and public-proposed routes may be \nsubmitted by those that were unable to attend a public meeting in person.  To ensure that \nthe public has an adequate opportunity to submit comments and to provide applicants \nwith sufficient time to review and analyze these public comments, an applicant should \nschedule and hold all public meetings at least six months before the filing of an application \nand should make this website available to the public for at least 90 days after the last \npublic meeting for any proposed major transmission lines. \nGuideline 2.6: The applicant should consider, as part of its route development for the \nproposed or alternate route(s) for the proposed major transmission line, all reasonable \nrefinements, alterations, changes, or shifts suggested by the public to the proposed or \nalternate route(s) during the public meetings and from the map-based interface website \nspecified in Guideline 2.5. \nGuideline 2.7: As part of the public meeting, the applicant should provide a map on an \nonline map-based interface, as specified in Guideline 2.5, that includes all preliminary \nroute segments that the applicant has considered as part of its routing study for the \nproposed major transmission line.  The evaluation factor data from the routing study \nshould be made available upon request.  \nGuideline 2.8: The applicant should allow the public to submit comments regarding a \nproposed transmission line via a public website made available for a period starting the day \nof the applicant's first public meeting until 90 days after the applicant’s final public \nmeeting.  An applicant should directly respond to all comments submitted to the website \nfrom landowners or the public that involve specific concerns regarding a landowner’s \nproperty or any public lands, to the extent that such a response is requested and practical \nand if the commenter provides the applicant with either a phone number, mailing address, \nor email address when making the public comment.  Responses to such comments \nreceived should be included in the summary of comments required to be included in an \napplication as if the comments were received at a public meeting.   \n\n\n8 \n \nGuideline 2.9: All public comments, route adjustment requests, etc. received by the \napplicant and all applicant responses to those comments, requests, etc. should be \nthoroughly documented by the applicant.  Any substantive landowner request that is not \naccommodated should include a description of how the modification was considered and \nwhy it was not able to be reasonably accommodated. \nGuideline 2.10: During all public meetings, the applicant should provide the following \ninformation: \na. Information related to the status of research on electric and magnetic fields (EMF) \nas reviewed by national and international health and scientific organizations, and an \nexplanation of how the project meets public health guidelines (i.e., International \nCommission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, 2020; Institute of Electrical and \nElectronics Engineers (IEEE)/ Institute of Civil Engineers Society (ICES), 2019).  \nInformation on electrical effects such as audible noise should also be available; \nb. General information supporting the need for the proposed line; \nc. An estimated tax revenue by township due to the project; \nd. The construction process and safety measures for the proposed major transmission \nline; \ne. Environmental impact mitigation; \nf. General information about land acquisition post-certificate, including general \ninformation about property rights the applicant will be seeking and how they may \nimpact landowner’s use, for example sharing a sample easement; \ng. A high-level overview of the landowner compensation process; \nh. General information about post-construction property restoration procedures and \nrequirements; and \ni. The case number of the docket established for the proposed major transmission \nline, including instructions on how the person can sign up though the Commission's \nwebsite to receive notifications about the docket. \n \n3. Application Public Notice  \nSection 8(1) of Act 30, MCL 460.568(1), requires an applicant, upon applying for a \ncertificate of public convenience and necessity, to give public notice in the manner and \nform prescribed by the Commission of an opportunity to comment on the application. Act \n30 further requires an applicant to publish notice in a newspaper of general circulation in \nthe area to be affected and to send notice to each affected municipality and landowners on \nwhose property a portion of the proposed major transmission line will be constructed. \n\n\n9 \n \nGuideline 3.1: The Commission may prescribe the manner in which the public notice of an \nopportunity to comment on the application is provided.  Accordingly, all the following \napply: \na. An applicant should provide public notice to each municipality and landowner with \nproperty located along the proposed and alternate route(s) identified in the \napplication for the proposed major transmission line.  Additionally, an applicant \nshould provide public notice in the following manner: \ni. \nIf the applicant identifies and evaluates one distinct alternate route in its \napplication (which is materially different from the proposed route), the \napplicant should provide public notice to each municipality and landowner \nwith property located within one mile of the edge of the proposed ROW for the \nproposed and alternate routes identified for the proposed major transmission \nline.   \nii. \nIf the applicant identifies and evaluates two distinct alternate routes in its \napplication (each materially different from the proposed route and from one \nanother), the applicant should provide public notice to each municipality and \nlandowner with property located within one-quarter mile of the edge of the \nproposed ROW for all proposed and alternate routes identified for the \nproposed major transmission line.  If the applicant has excluded a portion of \nthe Study Area pursuant to Guideline 1.1a, then the applicant may also \nexclude those areas for the purpose of the public notice required in this \nguideline.  \niii. \nIf the applicant identifies and evaluates three or more distinct alternate routes \nin the application (each materially different from the proposed route and from \none another), the applicant should provide public notice to each municipality \nand landowner with property located within 500-feet from the edge of the \nproposed ROW for all proposed and alternate routes identified for the \nproposed major transmission line.  If the applicant has excluded a portion of \nthe Study Area pursuant to Guideline 1.1a, then the applicant may also \nexclude those areas for the purpose of the public notice required in this \nguideline.   \nb. Public notice should be in the form of a letter with delivery tracking information to \nthe taxpayer of record of the affected property and should include the following: \ni. \nThe case number of the docket established for the proposed major \ntransmission line, including instructions on how the person can sign up \nthrough the Commission's website to receive notifications about the docket, \n\n\n10 \n \nas well as a link to the Commission’s Act 30 webpage, which includes an \nestimated case timeline and information on case intervention; \nii. \nA highlighted map of the initial proposed and alternate route(s) identified in \nthe application, including a highlighted map of the geographic area within a \none-mile radius of the edge of the proposed ROW for the proposed and \nalternate routes; \niii. \nThe name, address, telephone number and email address for a dedicated \ncontact person or persons who have knowledge of the development of the \nproposed major transmission line and are authorized to communicate on \nbehalf of the applicant; \niv. \nDetail regarding information relevant to the case the applicant is seeking \nfrom the noticed landowner, such as: \n1. Particular characteristics about the landowner’s property; \n2. Land use; and \n3. Features of historical or environmental significance. \nv. \nInformation about when routes or route segments proposed by the \nlandowner must be given to the applicant to ensure thorough consideration \nand the method by which those proposals should be provided to the \napplicant. \nvi. \nInformation about how to submit a comment to the docket and provide an \nawareness that a comment submitted through the docket is not record \nevidence in the case.  \nvii. \nRights the applicant is potentially seeking from the noticed landowner. \nGuideline 3.2: Section 8(4) of Act 30, MCL 460.568(4) permits a party to a contested case \nproceeding established for the proposed major transmission line to submit alternative \nroutes or route segments.  After the applicant files its application, any alternative route or \nroute segment proposed by a party to the contested case proceeding should be confined to \nthe invitation area from Guideline 2.1 and should be proposed within 45 days after the \ncompletion of the prehearing conference held in the contested case proceeding.  Upon \nreceipt of a proposed alternative route or route segment, the applicant should provide \nnotice to all unnoticed landowners with property located on the newly proposed alternative \nroute segment.  The letter should include notice that the landowner is now located on a \nproposed alternative route and should include information on how the affected landowner \ncan seek intervention in the contested case proceeding. \n \n\n\n11 \n \n4. Application Materials \nSection 7(2) of Act 30, MCL 460.567(2), describes the information that must be included in \nan application submitted to the Commission. The required information includes: \na. The planned date for beginning construction; \nb. A detailed description of the proposed major transmission line, its route, and its \nexpected configuration and use; \nc. A description and evaluation of 1 or more alternate major transmission line routes \nand a statement of why the proposed route was selected; \nd. If a zoning ordinance prohibits or regulates the location or development of any \nportion of a proposed route, a description of the location and manner in which that \nzoning ordinance prohibits or regulates the location or construction of the proposed \nroute; \ne. The estimated overall cost of the proposed major transmission line; \nf. Information supporting the need for the proposed major transmission line, including \nidentification of known future wholesale users of the proposed major transmission \nline; \ng. Estimated quantifiable and non-quantifiable public benefits of the proposed major \ntransmission line; \nh. Estimated private benefits of the proposed major transmission line to the applicant \nor any legal entity that is affiliated with the applicant; \ni. Information addressing potential effects of the proposed major transmission line on \npublic health and safety; \nj. A summary of all comments received at each public meeting and the applicant's \nresponse to those comments; \nk. Information indicating that the proposed major transmission line will comply with all \napplicable state and federal environmental standards, laws, and rules; and \nl. Other information reasonably required by the commission pursuant to rule. \nGuideline 4.1: An applicant’s public comment summary should clearly identify the main \ntopics or concerns raised at each public meeting in each municipality.  A summary shall \ninclude a statement related to the frequency in which the topic or concern was raised.  \nExample comments may be helpful in explaining the topic or concern.  The public \ncomment summary should include detailed, proportionate responses to each topic and \nconcern summarized, including acknowledgment of the comments and a concise \nexplanation of how the applicant considered, evaluated, or addressed the topic or \nconcern.  The applicant should highlight all suggested route modifications made by the \npublic that were incorporated into the route.   \n\n\n12 \n \nCopies of all public comments received by an applicant from a public meeting or from the \nGIS system as outlined in Guideline 2.5 should be made available to Staff electronically \nsimultaneous with the application filing. \nGuideline 4.2: As part of its application for the proposed major transmission line, the \napplicant should provide detail about how the applicant complied with all requirements \noutlined in Act 30 and in these guidelines for the construction plan, public meeting \ninvitation, public meetings, application public notice materials, and application materials. \nGuideline 4.3: The applicant should include a discussion of how the applicant determined \nthe Study Area.  Any areas that are not considered because they were not reasonable \nand/or feasible should be discussed along with the methodology that determined them to \nbe unreasonable and/or unfeasible. \nGuideline 4.4: The applicant is encouraged to use a commercially available transmission \nroute optimization and evaluation software (examples include Pivvot or Optioneer) in order \nto automate the generation and evaluation of possible routes, both developed by the \napplicant and those suggested by the public.  \nGuideline 4.5: The applicant is encouraged, in addition to the proposed route, to identify \nand assess more than one alternate route for the proposed major transmission line in the \napplication submitted to the Commission.  \nGuideline 4.6: As part of the information included in the application, the applicant should \ndetail all routes submitted by the public and landowners through the public engagement \nprocess, including, as applicable, the applicant’s assessment of those routes using the \napplicant’s identified evaluation factors.   \nGuideline 4.7: An application should identify all route refinements, adjustments changes, \nor shifts made to a route between the construction plan and the alignment of the proposed \nroute as presented in the application, if applicable.  For each refinement, the applicant \nshould identify the data factors and the considerations that explain the alignments of the \nproposed route as presented in the application, including whether the refinement, \nadjustment, change, or shift was influenced by an interested person or public input. \nGuideline 4.8: The application should include electronic maps of all proposed and \nalternate routes in KML or KMZ format for easy use by the Staff and intervenors. These \nmaps should include the following: \na. Parcels crossed as well as any existing electrical utility easements on the parcel; \nb. Geological composition and soil type within the area of public notice described in \nGuideline 3.1; \n\n\n13 \n \nc. Labeling of route segments; \nd. Any known endangered wildlife habitat or wildlife refuge; \ne. Depiction of the requested ROW;  \nf. Preliminary pole placement on proposed and alternate route(s); \ng. Any manmade structure or environmental hazard or consideration that was \ndeliberately avoided through development of the proposed and alternate route(s); \nand \nh. Any area excluded from the Study Area, as described in Guideline 1.1(a). \nGuideline 4.9: The application should include pertinent engineering information regarding \nthe transmission equipment, including but not limited to: \na. Discussion of reasons that the equipment is above ground or below ground; \nb. Designed voltage rating; \nc. Operation voltage rating; \nd. If the transmission equipment is above ground: \ni. Type of structures, conductor size, and minimum midspan clearance above \nground at peak loading; \nii. Height of typical structures; \niii. Explanation of why these structures were selected; \niv. Dimensional drawing of typical structures to be used in the project; and \nv. Expected number of structures encompassing the transmission project by type \ne. If the transmission equipment is below ground or underwater: \ni. Burial depth; \nii. Type of cable and a description of any required supporting equipment, such as \ninsulation medium pressurizing or forced cooling; \niii. Cathodic protection scheme;  \niv. Type of dielectric fluid, if applicable, and safeguards used to limit potential \nspills in waterways; \nv. Horizontal and vertical clearances from adjacent ROWs;  \nvi. Dimensional drawings of typical structures to be used in the project such as \ncable vaults; and \nvii. Required maintenance easements. \nf. The application should provide a detailed description of all ATT or GET that are \nplanned to be utilized by the applicant for construction of the transmission \ninfrastructure.  If the application does not plan on utilizing ATT or GET, the applicant \nshould describe what considerations were made regarding the use of these \ntechnologies during the planning process and a detailed description of why the \napplicant does not plan on utilizing these technologies.  \n\n\n14 \n \nGuideline 4.10: The application should include route and segment scoring data. This \nincludes the following: \na. Raw evaluation factors and any quantitative data used to evaluate potential routes \nfrom a routing study or similar development of candidate routes presented in an \nexcel format with any equations intact.  Raw evaluation factors should be presented \non a route basis as well as per routing segment basis;  \nb. Any quantitative analysis done on evaluation factors or quantitative data used to \nevaluate potential routes that resulted in narrowing of potential routes considered. \nThis includes selection of the proposed and alternate routes; \nc. Any weighting factors that the applicant used in the scoring of the potential routes, if \nused, and how these weighting factors affected the selection of proposed and \nalternate routes.  An applicant should prioritize the use of existing ROWs when \nweighting factors and scoring potential routes; \nd. Evaluation factor data from the proposed and alternate routes as filed after \nrefinement and increased data granularity is available from environmental impact \nstudy, LiDAR scans, etc., presented in excel format with any equations intact; and \ne. Data sources for final evaluation factors. If the applicant utilized multiple sources \nfor a single evaluation factor in finalized data, explain how these were incorporated \nwith one another. \nGuideline 4.11: An applicant should address each of the factors listed below, to the extent \nrelevant and practical, for the specific project.  In instances where a factor is not \napplicable or cannot reasonably be evaluated, the applicant’s routing experts may exercise \nprofessional judgment to modify, with a brief explanation provided in testimony or exhibits.  \nRoute and segment scoring data should include at least the following: \na. Engineering data \ni. Length \nii. Number of angles greater than 30 degrees \niii. Road/railroad crossings \niv. Number of transmission line crossings \nv. Length replacing existing transmission line \nvi. Length paralleling to existing linear features, including but not limited to: \n1. Existing transmission line \n2. Public road or highway \n3. Recreational trails \n4. Existing pipelines \n5. Property or section lines \n\n\n15 \n \n6. Existing railroad or railroad rights of way \nvii. Land use \n1. Acres of greenfield in ROW \n2. Acres of extraction in ROW \n3. Military installations within 500 feet of proposed centerline \n4. Animal feeding operations within 500 feet of proposed centerline \n5. Farmland in ROW \n6. Center pivot irrigation in ROW \n7. Solar Farms within 500 feet of the proposed centerline \n8. Wind Turbines within 500 feet of the proposed centerline \n9. Acres of floodplain in ROW \nb. Environmental data \ni. Wetland within ROW \nii. Hydric soil within ROW \niii. Rivers/streams/waterways crossed \niv. Woodland within ROW \nv. Grassland/Pasture within ROW \nvi. Threatened and Endangered Species Critical Habitat \nvii. National wildlife refuges \nc. Social data \ni. Historic sites within 500 feet of the proposed centerline \nii. Schools within 500 feet of the proposed centerline \niii. Places of worship within 500 feet of the proposed centerline \niv. Hospitals and nursing homes within 500 feet of the proposed centerline \nv. Memorial parks/cemeteries within 500 feet of the proposed centerline \nvi. National Landmarks/monuments within 500 feet of the proposed centerline \nvii. Airport obstacle free zones \nviii. VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) sites \nix. Archeological sites within the proposed ROW \nx. Total area of the proposed new ROW required  \nxi. Number of parcels within the proposed ROW \nxii. Residences \n1. Within 100 feet of the proposed centerline \n2. Within 101-300 feet of the proposed centerline \n3. Within 301-500 feet of the proposed centerline \nxiii. Buildings \n1. Within 100 feet of the proposed centerline \n2. Within 101-300 feet of the proposed centerline \n\n\n16 \n \n3. Within 301-500 feet of the proposed centerline \nxiv. Public facilities \n1. Within 100 feet of the proposed centerline \n2. Within 101-300 feet of the proposed centerline \n3. Within 301-500 feet of the proposed centerline \nxv. Number of municipal boundaries crossed \nxvi. Public lands \nGuideline 4.12: If the proposed route or alternate route(s) include segments in common or \noverlap, provide justification that includes: \na. Engineering, environmental or social rationale for the overlap; and \nb. Any other rationale about why the overlap is the only practically feasible route in \nthat geographic area. \nGuideline 4.13: If the application includes new substations, the following information \nshould be provided: \na. Existing lines that will be tied into the new substation; \nb. A line diagram of how the substation will be connected to the existing system; and \nc. Explanation of how the filing entity plans on rerouting existing lines into new \nsubstation. \nGuideline 4.14: The applicant should present the estimated overall cost of the \ntransmission line, including both the capital cost and annual operating cost of the project. \nGuideline 4.15: The application should present the estimated private benefits of the \nproposed major transmission line to the applicant or any legal entity that is affiliated with \nthe applicant. This should include the following: \na. A complete calculation estimating the private benefits the applicant or any legal \nentity affiliated with the applicant will receive from the construction and \nmanagement of the project. This should be included in the application as an exhibit \nwith a native excel file with equations intact provided as a workpaper filed \nconcurrently with the application; and \nb. A discussion of any benefits the applicant or any legal entity affiliated with the \napplicant will receive that are not quantifiable. \nGuideline 4.16: Under public benefits, the applicant should, to the extent applicable to the \nproposed major transmission line, include estimates regarding the local economic \ninvestment, job creation and potential local tax revenue due to the construction and \nmaintenance of the project. \n\n\n17 \n \nGuideline 4.17: The applicant should provide justification for the proposed width of the \nROW, including a quantitative analysis that is based on North American Electric Reliability \nCorporation (NERC) requirements, where the end result of the quantitative analysis is width \nof ROW. \nGuideline 4.18: The applicant should provide detail about the potential public health and \nsafety topics related to a proposed transmission line, including the following: \na. Calculate resultant power-system frequency EMF at the edge of the ROW and at the \ncenterline at 1 meter above grade, at normal (typical or average) and peak-loading \nconditions;2 \nb. Compare EMF of the proposed transmission line to current EMF exposure standards \nunder IEEE C95.1 2019 or a similar standard for electric transmission frequency; \nand \nc. Calculate EMF at 250 feet and out to 500 feet from the centerline.  Provide examples \nof EMF levels from the other common sources in the everyday environment; \n \nGuideline 4.19: The application should provide a detailed plan for property restoration, to \nthe extent that property conditions are known by the applicant, post-construction of \ntransmission infrastructure.  This should include details on soil restoration and compaction \nfor agricultural fields.  \n \n2 IEEE Standard Procedures for Measurement of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields from AC \nPower Lines, https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/644/6732/, Accessed 8/29/2015 \n\n\n \nP R O O F   O F   S E R V I C E  \n \n \n   STATE OF MICHIGAN ) \n \n \n    \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCase No. U-21930 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n      County of Ingham  \n) \n \n \n \nBrianna Brown being duly sworn, deposes and says that on January 29, 2026 A.D. she \nelectronically notified the attached list of this Commission Order via e-mail transmission, \nto the persons as shown on the attached service list (Listserv Distribution List). \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n_______________________________________ \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nBrianna Brown  \n \n  Subscribed and sworn to before me  \n  this 29th day of January 2026.  \n \n \n \n \n    _____________________________________ \nAngela P. Sanderson \nNotary Public, Shiawassee County, Michigan \nAs acting in Eaton County \nMy Commission Expires: May 21, 2030 \n\n\nGEMOTION DISTRIBUTION SERVICE LIST \n \n \n \nkabraham@mpower.org \nAbraham,Katie - MMEA \nmkuchera@AEPENERGY.COM \nAEP Energy \nmfurmanski@algerdelta.com \nAlger Delta Cooperative \nakellen@wppienergy.org  \nAlger Delta Cooperative \nkd@alpenapower.com \nAlpena Power \ndgreen@alpenapower.com  \nAlpena Power \n VSTRetailReg@VistraCorp.com  \nAmbit Midwest, LLC \nkerdmann@atcllc.com \nAmerican Transmission Company \nacotter@atcllc.com \nAmerican Transmission Company \njohn.calhoun@ardentnaturalgas.com  \nArdent Natural Gas, LLC \nawebster@baycitymi.gov \nBay City Electric Light & Power \nsara.anderson@bayfieldelectric.com  \nBayfield Electric \nrbishop@BISHOPENERGY.COM \nBishop Energy \nbraukerL@MICHIGAN.GOV \nBrauker, Linda \ncherie.fuller@bp.com \nBP Energy Retail Company, LLC \nchristine.hughey@bp.com  \nBP Energy Retail Company LLC \ngreg.bass@calpinesolutions.com \nCalpine Energy Solutions \nlachappelle@varnumlaw.com \nChappelle, Laura \nmanderson@wpsci.com  \nCherryland Electric \nmengels@wpsci.com  \nCherryland Electric \ncdrys@wpsci.com  \nCherryland Electric \nljohnson@wpsci.com  \nCherryland Electric \nrjohnson@cherrylandelectric.coop \nCherryland Electric Cooperative \nfrucheyb@DTEENERGY.COM \nCitizens Gas Fuel Company \ncrystalfallsmgr@HOTMAIL.COM \nCity of Crystal Falls \ngpirkola@escanaba.org \nCity of Escanaba \njolson@gladstonemi.gov \nCity of Gladstone \nkmaynard@cityofmarshall.com \nCity of Marshall \ntdavlin@portland-michigan.org \nCity of Portland \ncwilson@cloverland.com \nCloverland Electric \nmheise@cloverland.com \nCloverland Electric \ntodd.mortimer@CMSENERGY.COM \nCMS Energy \nKenneth.Johnston@cmsenergy.com  \nConsumers Energy \nYong.Keyes@cmsenergy.com  \nConsumers Energy \nchibuzo.obikwelu@cmsenergy.com  \nConsumers Energy \nsarah.jorgensen@cmsenergy.com \nConsumers Energy Company \nMichael.torrey@cmsenergy.com \nConsumers Energy Company \nCANDACE.GONZALES@cmsenergy.com \nConsumers Energy Company \nmpsc.filings@CMSENERGY.COM \nConsumers Energy Company \nmpsc.filings@CMSENERGY.COM \nConsumers Energy Company \ndavid.fein@CONSTELLATION.COM \nConstellation Energy \nkate.stanley@CONSTELLATION.COM \nConstellation Energy \nkate.fleche@CONSTELLATION.COM \nConstellation New Energy \n\n\nGEMOTION DISTRIBUTION SERVICE LIST \n \nchoicecompliance@constellation.com  \nConstellation New Energy Inc \nlpage@dickinsonwright.com \nDickinson Wright \nshaundillon@dillonenergy.com  \nDillon Energy Services \ninfo@dillonpower.com \nDillon Power, LLC \nNeal.fitch@nrg.com \nDirect Energy \nKara.briggs@nrg.com \nDirect Energy \nRyan.harwell@nrg.com \nDirect Energy \nbryce.mckenney@nrg.com  \nDirect Energy \nstephen.lindeman@dteenergy.com  \nDTE Energy \nkarl.lievense@dteenergy.com  \nDTE Energy \nkonstantin.korolyov@dteenergy.com  \nDTE Energy \nmpscfilings@DTEENERGY.COM \nDTE Energy \njoyce.leslie@dteenergy.com \nDTE Energy \nkaren.vucinaj@dteenergy.com \nDTE Energy \ncustomerservice@eligoenergy.com \nEligo Energy MI, LLC \nregulatory@eligoenergy.com  \nEligo Energy MI, LLC \nfrank.travaglione@vistracorp.com \nEnergy Harbor \nrfawaz@energyintl.com \nEnergy International Power Marketing d/b/a PowerOne \nsejackinchuk@varnumlaw.com \nEnergy Michigan \nmichael.reiss@engie.com  \nEngie Gas & Power LLC \ncustomercare@plymouthenergy.com \nENGIE Gas & Power f/k/a Plymouth Energy \nVSTRetailReg@VistraCorp.com  \nEveryday Energy, LLC d/b/a Energy Rewards \nfelicel@MICHIGAN.GOV \nFelice, Lisa \nbgorman@FIRSTENERGYCORP.COM \nFirst Energy \nphil@allendaleheating.com \nForner, Phil \ndburks@glenergy.com \nGreat Lakes Energy \nmanderson@wpsci.com  \nGreat Lakes Energy \nmengels@wpsci.com  \nGreat Lakes Energy \ncdrys@wpsci.com  \nGreat Lakes Energy \nljohnson@wpsci.com  \nGreat Lakes Energy \nslamp@glenergy.com \nGreat Lakes Energy Cooperative \nsculver@glenergy.com \nGreat Lakes Energy Cooperative \njohnm@gogreenlightenergy.com  \nGreenlight Energy Inc. \nlrgustafson@CMSENERGY.COM \nGustafson, Lisa \njhammel@hillsdalebpu.com \nHillsdale Board of Public Utilities \nconeill@homeworks.org \nHomeWorks Tri-County Electric Cooperative \npsimmer@HOMEWORKS.ORG \nHomeWorks Tri-County Electric Cooperative \nbmcbride@aep.com  \nIndiana Michigan Power \nmgobrien@aep.com \nIndiana Michigan Power Company \ndan@megautilities.org \nIntegrys Group \ndaustin@IGSENERGY.COM \nInterstate Gas Supply Inc \nmichael.nugent@igs.com  \nInterstate Gas Supply d/b/a IGS Energy \ngeneral@itctransco.com \nITC Holdings \ncmarshall@itctransco.com \nITC Holdings \napascaris@itctransco.com \nITC Holdings \n\n\nGEMOTION DISTRIBUTION SERVICE LIST \n \nvanesetti@justenergy.com \nJust Energy of Michigan Corporation  \nigoodman@commerceenergy.com \nJust Energy Solutions \nkrichel@DLIB.INFO \nKrichel, Thomas \ndbodine@LIBERTYPOWERCORP.COM \nLiberty Power \nham557@GMAIL.COM \nLowell S. \ntjlundgren@varnumlaw.com \nLundgren, Timothy \ntcarpenter@mblp.org \nMarquette Board of Light & Power \nregulatory@medianenergy.com  \nMedian Energy Corporation \nsuzy@megautilities.org \nMEGA \ndan@megautilities.org \nMEGA \nmmann@USGANDE.COM \nMichigan Gas & Electric \nVSTRetailReg@VistraCorp.com  \nMichigan Gas & Electric (US Gas & Electric) \nshannon.burzycki@wecenergygroup.com \nMichigan Gas Utilities Corporation \nmrzwiers@INTEGRYSGROUP.COM \nMichigan Gas Utilities/Upper Penn Power/Wisconsin \nkabraham@mpower.org \nMichigan Public Power Agency \ninfo@michigannaturalgasllc.com  \nMichigan Natural Gas, LLC \nJHDillavou@midamericanenergyservices.com \nMidAmerican Energy Services, LLC \nJCAltmayer@midamericanenergyservices.com \nMidAmerican Energy Services, LLC \nLMLann@midamericanenergyservices.com \nMidAmerican Energy Services, LLC \nmanderson@wpsci.com  \nMidwest Energy \nmengels@wpsci.com  \nMidwest Energy \ncdrys@wpsci.com  \nMidwest Energy \nljohnson@wpsci.com  \nMidwest Energy \ndave.allen@TEAMMIDWEST.COM \nMidwest Energy Cooperative \nterry.rubenthaler@teammidwest.com \nMidwest Energy Cooperative \nkerri.wade@teammidwest.com \nMidwest Energy Cooperative \nMarie-Rose.Gatete@teammidwest.com \nMidwest Energy Cooperative \nmeghan.tarver@teammidwest.com \nMidwest Energy Cooperative \nd.motley@COMCAST.NET \nMotley, Doug \nrarchiba@FOSTEROIL.COM \nMy Choice Energy \ncustomerservice@nordicenergy-us.com \nNordic Energy Services, LLC \nregulatory@nordicenergy-us.com  \nNordic Energy Services, LLC \nkarl.j.hoesly@xcelenergy.com \nNorthern States Power \nsarah.m.frazee@xcelenergy.com  \nNorthern States Xcel \nkbeattie@ntherm.com  \nnTherm, LLC \ndaho@ontorea.com  \nOntonagon County Rural \nesoumis@ontorea.com \nOntonagon County Rural Electric \nregulatory@indraenergy.com  \nPALMco Energy MI, LLC d/b/a Indra Energy \nmpauley@GRANGERNET.COM \nPauley, Marc \nmmpeck@fischerfranklin.com \nPeck, Matthew \nbschlansker@PREMIERENERGYLLC.COM \nPremier Energy Marketing LLC \nmanderson@wpsci.com  \nPresque Isle \n\n\nGEMOTION DISTRIBUTION SERVICE LIST \n \nmengels@wpsci.com  \nPresque Isle \ncdrys@wpsci.com  \nPresque Isle \nljohnson@wpsci.com  \nPresque Isle \nMVanschoten@pieg.com \nPresque Isle Electric & Gas Cooperative, INC \naberg@pieg.com \nPresque Isle Electric & Gas Cooperative, INC \nyesterdae@getprovision.com  \nProvision Power & Gas, LLC \njohnbistranin@realgy.com \nRealgy Corp. \nBusinessOffice@REALGY.COM \nRealgy Energy Services \nakeilson@genieretail.com  \nResidents Energy LLC \nbtrombino@rpaenergy.com  \nRPA Energy d/b/a Green Choice Energy \nmvorabouth@ses4energy.com \nSantana Energy \nrabaey@SES4ENERGY.COM \nSantana Energy \nttynes@ses4energy.com  \nSantanna Natural Gas Corporation  \ntrish.mcfadin@southstarenergy.com  \nSouthStar d/b/a Grand Rapids Energy \nkejoseph@sparkenergy.com  \nSpark Energy Gas, LP  \ncborr@WPSCI.COM \nSpartan Renewable Energy, Inc. (Wolverine Power Marketing \nCorp) \njbelec@stephenson-mi.org \nStephenson Utilities Department \nkay8643990@YAHOO.COM \nSuperior Energy Company \nlegal@symmetryenergy.com  \nSymmetry Energy Solutions, LLC \nregulatory@texasretailenergy.com \nTexas Retail Energy, LLC \nagilbert@cleanskyenergy.com  \nTital Gas, LLC d/b/a CleanSkyEnergy \nbessenmacher@tecmi.coop \nThumb Electric Cooperative \npresident@tomorrowenergy.com  \nTomorrow Energy Corporation \nmanderson@wpsci.com  \nTri-County Electric \nmengels@wpsci.com  \nTri-County Electric \ncdrys@wpsci.com  \nTri-County Electric \nljohnson@wpsci.com  \nTri-County Electric \nmlindsay@uetllc.com  \nUnited Energy Trading d/b/a Kratos Gas & Power \ncolleen.sipiorski@wecenergygroup.com  \nUpper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation \ndjmier@integrysgroup.com  \nUpper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation \nJames.Beyer@wecenergygroup.com \nUpper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation \nRichard.Stasik@wecenergygroup.com \nUpper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation \nnbell@uppco.com  \njformol@uppco.com  \nUpper Peninsula Power Company \nUpper Peninsula Power Company \n ghaehnel@uppco.com \nUpper Peninsula Power Company \nestocking@uppco.com \nUpper Peninsula Power Company \nmanager@villageofbaraga.org \nVillage of Baraga \nVillagemanager@villageofclinton.org \nVillage of Clinton \nVSTRetailReg@VistraCorp.com  \nViridian Energy PA, LLC \njeinstein@volunteerenergy.com \nVolunteer Energy Services \nleew@WVPA.COM \nWabash Valley Power \nmelissa.schauer@wecenergygroup.com  \nWe Energies \nandrew.miller1@wecenergygroup.com  \nWe Energies \nmelissa.schauer@wecenergygroup.com  \nWisconsin Public Service \n\n\nGEMOTION DISTRIBUTION SERVICE LIST \n \nandrew.miller1@wecenergygroup.com  \nWisconsin Public Service \ntking@WPSCI.COM \nWolverine Power \njbaumann@wpsci.com  \nWolverine Power \ncborr@wpsci.com  \nWolverine Power \nddecouer@wpsci.com  \nWolverine Power \nbvalice@wpsci.com  \nWolverine Power \nAmanda@misostates.org \nWood, Amanda \nDeborah.e.erwin@xcelenergy.com \nXcel Energy \nMichelle.Schlosser@xcelenergy.com \nXcel Energy \nbryce.mckenney@nrg.com  \nXoom Energy Michigan, LLC d/b/a Xoom Energy \n \n","page_count":81,"has_text":true,"extracted_at":"2026-02-07T14:52:49.027054Z"}