{"order_id":"a0It000000ccU3BEAU","content":"S 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 of the application of \n) \nMICHIGAN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION  \n) \nCOMPANY, LLC, for a certificate of public\n) \nconvenience and necessity for the construction of a    )\nCase No. U-17041                         \ntransmission line in Almena Township, Van Buren\n)\n \n) \n \n \nCounty, and Oshtemo Township, Kalamazoo County. ) \n                                                                                         ) \n \n \n \nAt the July 29, 2013 meeting of the Michigan Public Service Commission in Lansing, \nMichigan. \n \nPRESENT: Hon. John D. Quackenbush, Chairman \nHon. Greg R. White, Commissioner \nHon. Sally A. Talberg, Commissioner \n \nORDER \n \n \nOn July 31, 2012, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, (METC) filed \nan application under the Electric Transmission Line Certification Act, 1995 PA 30 (Act 30), \nMCL 460.561 et seq., seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for the \nconstruction of an overhead transmission line, other than a major transmission line.  The proposed \nproject (Weeds Lake Project) consists of two double-circuit 138 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, \napproximately 7 miles long, on a 220-foot right-of-way running through Oshtemo Township, and \nan electrical transmission substation in Almena Township.  The estimated cost for the project is \n$45 million. \n \nA prehearing conference was held on September 12, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge \nSharon L. Feldman (ALJ).  The ALJ granted petitions to intervene filed by Oshtemo Charter \n\n\nPage 2 \nU-17041 \nTownship (Oshtemo), Consumers Energy Company, and HAR CO LLC, Ward Squires, Henrietta \nSquires, Ken Irish, Margaret Irish, Jack Kuipers, Jane Kuipers, individually and as trustee of the \nJane Kuipers Trust, JMK Holdings LLC, Doug Maxwell, individually and as trustee of \nDoug E. Maxwell 2000 Trust, and Micki Maxwell, individually and as trustee of \nMicki A. Maxwell Trust (collectively, the Landowners).1  The Commission Staff (Staff) also \nparticipated in the proceedings. \n \nAn evidentiary hearing was held on January 29, 2013.  The parties filed briefs and reply briefs \non February 22 and March 15, 2013, respectively.  On April 29, 2013, the ALJ issued her Proposal \nfor Decision (PFD).  METC, the Landowners, Oshtemo, and the Staff filed exceptions on May 20, \n2013, and replies to exceptions on June 3, 2013.  The record in this case consists of 365 pages of \ntranscript and 137 exhibits admitted into evidence. \n \nProposal for Decision \n \n \nThe ALJ provided a detailed review of the record on pages 3-22 of the PFD, which will not be \nrepeated here.  She summarized the parties’ positions as follows: \nMETC argues in its initial brief that the company has satisfied all of the procedural \nrequirements of Act 30 set forth in sections 6 and 7, and demonstrated on the record \nthat its proposed and alternate transmission line routes meet the requirements of \nsection 8(5) of Act 30.  It argues on this basis that the Commission must approve its \napplication, and should select the proposed route over the alternate route.  METC \nfurther argues that in granting a certificate under the Act, the Commission will \npreempt the Oshtemo Township ordinance requiring underground placement of the \nlines within the public right of way.   \n \nStaff’s brief also recommends approval of METC’s application, reviewing the \nprovisions of Act 30 and the record evidence in support of its recommendation.   \n \nOshtemo Township’s initial brief argues that the Commission should deny the \nrequested certificate of public convenience and necessity, or in the alternative, \n                                                 \n      1 Subsequently, 9th Street, LLC, and Terry E. and Jacqueline M. Schley’s late petition to \nintervene was granted to participate as part of the Landowners’ group.   \n\n\nPage 3 \nU-17041 \nrequire adherence to the Township’s ordinances.  The Township criticizes METC’s \nefforts to provide information to the Township during its route selection process, \ncontending that a lack of adequate notice of the public hearings and a lack of an \nopportunity for the public to be heard violated due process and the requirements of \nMCL 460.566.  The Township also argues that its ordinances are valid and should \nbe upheld.  The Township does not otherwise address the specific route selection in \nits brief. \n \nThe Landowners’ initial brief argues that METC has not established that its \nproposed or alternate route meets the requirements for a certificate of public \nconvenience and necessity, arguing that the quantifiable and nonquantifable [sic] \npublic benefits of the line do not justify its construction because alternatives exist \nthat are less expensive and less destructive, and that the proposed and alternate \nroutes are not reasonable because less intrusive alternative routes exist.  \nAdditionally, the Landowners also argue that Act 30 is unconstitutional as written \nand as METC asks that it be applied in this case, as a taking of private property \nwithout due process, and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.  The \nLandowners similarly argue that ignoring the Township’s zoning ordinances in \nreliance on section 10 of Act 30 also violates constitutionally required separation of \npowers and due process.  \n \nPFD, pp. 24-26. \n \n \nBased on the record and briefing, the ALJ found that the issues to be resolved were:   \n(1) whether METC complied with the public meeting requirements under MCL 460.566 before \nfiling its application; (2) whether METC demonstrated that the quantifiable and nonquantifiable \nbenefits of its proposed project justify the construction of the project, including whether a benefit \ncost analysis is required and whether less costly or disruptive alternatives to METC’s proposal \nshould be considered;  (3) whether METC’s proposed route is reasonable and feasible and the \nextent to which less intrusive alternative routes should be considered; (4) whether the Commission \nshould address Oshtemo’s ordinances; and (5) the degree to which constitutional issues raised by \nOshtemo can be addressed by the Commission. \n \nWith respect to the first issue, the ALJ found that METC complied with the meeting require-\nments of Section 6 of Act 30, noting that Oshtemo’s concerns stem from communications in 2011, \nrather than from the meetings held in 2012 in compliance with Act 30.  The ALJ found that, “No \n\n\nPage 4 \nU-17041 \nparty disputes that events titled ‘public meetings’ occurred on June 26 and 27, 2012, in Almena \nand Oshtemo Townships, or that those meetings were properly noticed” and that “No party \ndisputes that Township officials were invited to meet with METC representatives prior to the \npublic meetings.”  PFD, pp. 31-32.  Concerning the due process claims made by Oshtemo and the \nLandowners, the ALJ found that the required notice and opportunity to be heard were provided in \nthe contested case and that the purpose of the public meetings under Act 30 is to limit disputed \nissues in the proposed project.  As such, the ALJ found no due process violation. \n \nThe ALJ observed that there was no disagreement that the cost of the Weeds Lake Project is \n$45 million and that “[t]he seven-mile transmission line will require a 220-foot right of way, and \nfollowing the route proposed by METC, will require 6 to 6.5 miles of new transmission corridor \nand a total 162-170 acres of new line right of way, and will pass within 500 feet of 31 to 33 \nresidences.  It will cross 40 to 50 parcels of land, and result in the loss of 90 to 100 acres of \nwoodland and approximately 1.25 miles of cropland.”  PFD, p. 35.  The ALJ summarized the \nbenefits of the Weeds Lake Project identified by METC as: \n[M]eeting the [North American Electric Reliability Corporation] NERC Category B \nreliability requirement for the maintenance outage of one of the three transformers \ncurrently at Argenta, followed by the forced outage of a second transformer; \nreduction in loadings on the Argenta to Morrow and Argenta to Riverview 138 kV \ncircuits for certain contingencies; decreased system losses translating to increased \ntransmission efficiency; and adding a geographically distant source of power to \nsupply the Kalamazoo Battle Creek area. \n \nPFD, pp. 35-36. \n \n \nThe ALJ found that no party disputed that the Weeds Lake Project would mitigate reliability \nissues with transformer outages at the Argenta station, thus addressing the NERC Category B \nreliability requirement and demonstrating a benefit of the project. \n\n\nPage 5 \nU-17041 \n \nAs for the benefit provided by a reduction in loadings on certain circuits, the ALJ observed \nthat while the loadings on the Argenta to Morrow and Argenta to Riverview circuits would be \nreduced by 6.6% and 7.6% with the Weeds Lake Project, the project would also increase loading \non the Morrow to Battle Creek 138kV line by 8.6%, according to METC’s analysis in Exhibit A-1.  \nThe ALJ found persuasive the testimony of the Landowners’ witness2 that the short term benefits \nof the Weeds Lake Project with respect to the reduced loadings on the Argenta to Morrow and \nArgenta to Riverview circuits would depend on rebuilding the Morrow to Battle Creek circuit to \naddress the adverse effects of the project.  The ALJ therefore found that the record supported both \nMETC’s claim that a benefit of the project was the reduction in loadings on two of the Argenta \ncircuits, and the Landowners’ claim that work on the Morrow to Battle Creek line would be \nrequired to address additional loading resulting from the project. \n \nThe ALJ observed that there was no disagreement that the Weeds Lake Project would provide \na benefit in terms of increased efficiency.  METC calculated peak and off-peak energy savings \nbetween 2 and 3.5 megawatts (MW).  The Landowners calculated the economic benefit of this \nincreased efficiency to be $1.3 million per year.  Finally, the ALJ found that there was some \nbenefit to the addition of a geographically distant source of power in the event of the loss of the \n345 kV lines to the Argenta station. \n \nThe ALJ discussed the Landowners’ claims with respect to alternatives to the Weeds Lake \nProject, which they alleged were less costly and disruptive to homeowners and the environment.  \nAccording to Mr. Dauphinais, the reliability problems at the Argenta station could be solved by \nthe addition of a fourth transformer at a cost of $12 million.  Mr. Dauphinais admitted that this \noption would increase the loadings on the Argenta to Riverview and Argenta to Morrow lines by \n                                                 \n      2 James R. Dauphinais, a consultant and Principal with Brubaker & Associates, Inc., with a \nbackground in electrical engineering, and experience in transmission planning. \n\n\nPage 6 \nU-17041 \n1% to 2.5%, but this problem could be addressed through the use of power flow control reactors.  \nThe additional cost for the power flow control reactors would be $10 to $20 million.   \n \nAlternatively, Mr. Dauphinais recommended that METC implement the “B Avenue” \nalternative that METC identified (and rejected) in its analysis.  The B Avenue proposal involves \nthe construction of a 345 kV substation south of Argenta and looping the existing Argenta to \nRobinson Park line into the new station.  METC estimated the cost of the B Avenue proposal to be \n$27 million.  The ALJ noted that “Mr. Dauphinais quotes METC’s analysis in Exhibit A-1 to the \neffect that this alternative ‘is one of the working alternatives to address the Argenta problem \nwithout causing any major impact to the system’” and that “[t]he parties also seem to agree that \nthis alternative would meet the NERC reliability concern presented by the existing three Argenta \ntransformers.”  PFD, p. 43. \n \nIn response, METC argued that the addition of a fourth transformer at the Argenta station \nwould be tantamount to “putting all of Kalamazoo’s eggs in one basket” by eliminating the \ngeographically distinct source of power that would be provided by the Weeds Lake Project.  In \naddition, METC asserted that the proposed solution would be unconventional, and that the \ncompany is unaware of another substation in the Midwest Independent Transmission System \nOperator, Inc.’s (MISO)3 area with a similar configuration.  METC also contended that the \nB Avenue alternative, while addressing the transformer problem at the Argenta station, would also \nincrease the loading on various other circuits in the Kalamazoo area. \n \nAfter a review of prior Commission rulings on the need for cost justification for a new \ntransmission line, the ALJ found that METC had failed to show that the quantifiable and \nnonquantifiable benefits of the Weeds Lake Project justify its cost.  The ALJ specifically found \n                                                 \n      3 Now the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. \n\n\nPage 7 \nU-17041 \nthat METC “focused exclusively on the benefits of its project in comparison to alternatives, with \nno discussion whether the value of the additional benefits over and above what is necessary to \nmeet NERC reliability requirements justifies the additional expenditure.”  PFD, p. 45.   \n \nThe ALJ pointed out that METC’s analysis began with the need to find a solution to the \nNERC Category B contingency at the Argenta station.  However, METC “did not argue the \nproject is needed to accomplish the short-term benefits of reducing loading on the 138 kV circuits \nfrom Argenta to Morrow and Argenta to Riverview, to increase system efficiency, or to add a \nseparate ‘geographically distant’ source of power into Kalamazoo.”  Id.  The ALJ observed that \nMETC then evaluated various solutions, without considering their cost, to arrive at the solution \nthat provided the most additional benefits.  The ALJ quoted a discovery response in which METC \nstated that the Weeds Lake Project was approved by MISO as a Baseline Reliability Project and \n“Benefit cost studies are not performed for reliability-driven projects.”  PFD, p. 46, quoting \ndiscovery response ST-METC-027.  The ALJ found that although the Weeds Lake Project has \nbenefits that exceed simply addressing the transformer issue, “METC has not provided any \nanalysis, context, or frame of reference to show that the additional benefits are cost justified.”  Id.  \n \nThe ALJ found persuasive the Landowners’ analysis and recommendations for alternatives \nthat, although not providing all the benefits of the Weeds Lake Project, solve the NERC Category \nB contingency problem in a less costly and disruptive manner.  She noted that METC failed to \nquantify the additional benefits provided by the Weeds Lake Project, namely a geographically \ndistant source of power and improved system efficiency.  In addition, the ALJ found that METC \nfailed to include the costs of rebuilding the Morrow to Battle Creek line necessitated by the Weeds \nLake Project.  As such, the ALJ found that METC “overlooks a hidden cost of the project and \noverstates the benefits.”  PFD, p. 49. \n\n\nPage 8 \nU-17041 \n \nIn the event the Commission finds that the Weeds Lake Project is justified, the ALJ \nrecommended that the Commission find that METC identified reasonable and feasible routes for \nthe project, noting that in its analysis, the company appropriately rejected the I-94 corridor route, \nadvocated by the Landowners.  The ALJ further found that METC demonstrated that the proposed \nline does not present an unreasonable risk to health or safety.   \n \nWith respect to Oshtemo’s ordinance, which requires underground construction of a portion of \nthe transmission line, the ALJ discussed previous Commission findings that under Act 30, the \nCommission has the authority to determine how a transmission line should be constructed and has \nthe authority under Section 8(4) of the act to “condition its approval upon the applicant taking \nadditional action to assure the public convenience, health, and safety and reliability of the \nproposed major transmission line.”  The ALJ noted that in previous cases, the Commission has \nreviewed local ordinances as part of a discussion on whether conditions should be imposed on the \nconstruction of a transmission line.   \n \nThe ALJ found that METC’s response to Oshtemo’s ordinance was a general statement about \nthe higher cost of undergrounding and additional maintenance.  METC did not provide a specific \nestimate of the cost of underground construction of the 1500 feet that the ordinance requires, nor \ndid it consider whether the underground construction could be paid for by Oshtemo.  The ALJ \nobserved that in a previous order considering the same issue, the Commission determined: \nThe Commission is sensitive to the concerns of the Township relative to \naboveground power lines.  Further, the Commission recognizes the Township’s \nright to enact and enforce ordinances which are not in conflict with state or federal \nlaw.  The requirement that the lines be underground is not the offensive element of \nthe ordinance in this instance; the Township’s proposal for funding that \nrequirement cannot be enforced.  If the Township wishes to give effect to the \nundergrounding requirement of its Ordinance No. 59, it must provide the funding \nto cover the incremental expense.  On this record, it cannot establish a reasonable \nbasis for imposing that expense on ITC or expecting ITC to collect the difference \nthrough its rates. \n\n\nPage 9 \nU-17041 \n \nPFD, p. 60, quoting the January 29, 2009 order in Case No. U-14861, p. 7.  The ALJ noted there \nwas insufficient record evidence to determine whether there was a conflict between the proposed \nproject and the underground construction required by the ordinance.  She therefore recommended \nthat the Commission condition its approval of the CPCN on underground construction of part of \nthe line as required by the ordinance, “or require METC to make an additional showing that any \nlocal benefits of underground construction do not justify the burden on the ultimate ratepayers for \nthe project.  Should METC choose to make this additional showing, it should also address whether \nthe Township should be permitted to pay the additional cost of underground construction, if the \nCommission accepts the company’s analysis.”  PFD, p. 60. \n \nFinally, in addressing various constitutional claims raised by the Landowners, the ALJ \nobserved, as an overarching matter, that administrative agencies lack the authority to find statutes \nunconstitutional.  With respect to the Landowners’ apparent claim that Act 30 itself constitutes a \ntaking without due process, the ALJ agreed with METC that an Act 30 proceeding is not a \ncondemnation and that the grant of a CPCN still requires the company to comply with the Uniform \nCondemnation Procedures Act.  The ALJ also rejected the Landowners’ claim that a decision \nexempting METC from complying with Oshtemo’s zoning ordinances violates the substantive due \nprocess rights of the Landowners.  The ALJ found that the Michigan Supreme Court essentially \nrejected this argument in City of Taylor v Detroit Edison Co, 475 Mich 109; 715 NW2d 28 (2006), \nholding that municipalities cannot regulate in a manner that contravenes state law.  The ALJ \nconcluded that Section 10 of Act 30 gives the Commission the authority to approve a transmission \nline that conflicts with local ordinances that purport to regulate the location or construction of the \nproject. \n \n\n\nPage 10 \nU-17041 \nExceptions and Replies \n \n \nMETC contends that the ALJ erred in finding that the company failed to demonstrate that the \nquantifiable and nonquantifiable benefits of the project justify its construction.  METC argues that \nthe ALJ creates a new standard, not contained in Act 30, requiring the submission of a benefit/cost \nanalysis.  METC claims that the ALJ’s reliance on the February 22, 2008 order in Case No. \nU-14933 (Bismark-Troy Line) was misplaced because in that case several parties argued that the \ntransmission line was not even needed.  In the instant case, however, no party disputes that there is \na significant reliability concern that must be addressed.  According to METC, in the Bismark-Troy \nLine case, the Commission made clear that “an applicant must prove the project’s public \nbenefits—which is consistent with Act 30’s plain language—but there is no requirement that an \napplicant submit a cost-benefit analysis.”  METC’s exceptions, p. 7.  METC contends that the \nCommission merely stated that “evidence of the ‘significant public benefits’ must ‘rise above the \nlevel of conjecture[,]’ [and] METC undoubtedly satisfied this standard for the Proposed \nTransmission Line in this proceeding.”  METC’s exceptions, p. 8, quoting the February 22, 2008 \norder in Case No. U-14933, p. 18.   \n \nMETC reiterated that the Kalamazoo area is currently primarily served by power from plants \nlocated in the western part of the state from the north via the Argenta station and that NERC \nplanning criteria require that the company assess and develop solutions for potential reliability \nissues.  METC recognized the potential overloading problem with the transformers at the Argenta \nstation and proposed the Weeds Lake Project, along with eight other potential solutions to MISO \nfor evaluation through the MISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) process.  METC \npoints out that the MTEP process is open and transparent and, as the Staff noted, requires the \ndevelopment of cost-effective solutions.  METC considered the Weeds Lake Project, along with \n\n\nPage 11 \nU-17041 \nother alternatives, to determine the best long-term solution for reliability and mitigation of \ntransmission constraints in the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek area.  In December 2009, MISO approved \nthe Weeds Lake Project.  METC asserts that no party disputes that the project will result in a new \ntransmission source to the Kalamazoo area from the south, and that “[t]here is nothing conjectural \nabout providing a geographically distant source to the area—no one in this case disputes this \nbenefit, because they cannot[,]”  noting that the transmission line will not only meet NERC \nplanning criteria but it will help prevent blackouts and brownouts in the Kalamazoo area in the \nevent of a transformer failure or other contingency.  METC’s exceptions, pp. 13-14.  METC adds \nthat the line will also increase the load serving capacity of the system in the Kalamazoo area by at \nleast 500 MW while at the same time improving efficiency. \n \nIn reply, the Landowners argue that the Commission has determined that a benefit cost \nanalysis is reasonable and necessary under Act 30.  The Landowners add that, contrary to METC’s \ncontention, the Bismark-Troy case was similar because in that case ITC claimed comparable \nbenefits to those claimed in this case, and the Commission found that lower cost alternatives were \npreferable to a new transmission line. \n \nMETC also takes issue with the ALJ’s finding that the Landowners’ proposed alternatives are \nreasonable, despite providing much more limited benefits than the Weeds Lake Project.  METC \nargues that the PFD ignored the comprehensive and detailed planning process undertaken to arrive \nat the transmission line as the best solution to the reliability problem in the Kalamazoo area.  \nMETC adds that the ALJ unreasonably found Mr. Dauphinais credible while discounting the \ntestimony provided by METC and the Staff.  Specifically, METC asserts that the Landowners’ \nproposal to simply add an additional transformer to the Argenta station is imprudent and does not \ncomport with standard utility practice.  Moreover, the addition of a fourth transformer would \n\n\nPage 12 \nU-17041 \nincrease loading on other lines.  Although the ALJ agreed with the Landowners that this could be \naddressed with power flow control reactors, she failed to recognize that this could increase the cost \nof this option to $30 million or more, without providing the additional benefits of the Weeds Lake \nProject.   \n \nSimilarly, METC argues that the B Avenue alternative is not prudent and was considered and \nrejected in the MTEP process.  METC points out that the B Avenue alternative will also increase \nloading on other lines, which could not be fully mitigated by power flow control reactors.  In \naddition, METC contends that the B Avenue alternative, including power flow control reactors, \ncould actually cost more than the Weeds Lake Project and would still not provide a geographically \ndistinct source of power. \n \nThe Landowners reply that the alternatives they proposed were reasonable and that either the \naddition of another transformer or the B Avenue alternative would solve the NERC reliability \nissue that METC identified.  Moreover, according to the Landowners, the additional benefits that \nMETC claimed would only arise in extreme circumstances; the costs of the Weeds Lake Project \nfar exceed the increased savings from added efficiency; and METC failed to justify the need for \nincreased capacity.  The Landowners contend, “Considering METC’s identified reliability need \ncan be addressed by a $12,100,000 project, the additional public benefits cited by METC must be \nworth the $32,900,000 cost.  It is the Landowners’ position that the additional public benefits \nalleged by METC are not significant, do not rise above the level of conjecture and certainly are not \nworth the exorbitant expense.”  Landowners’ replies to exceptions, p. 14. \n \nMETC argues that the ALJ erred in finding that the company failed to address increased \nloadings on the Morrow to Battle Creek line resulting from the Weeds Lake Project, and in her \nconclusion that the rebuild of the Morrow to Battle Creek line is a hidden cost of the project that \n\n\nPage 13 \nU-17041 \nshould have been included as part of the project costs.  METC argues that the record is clear that \nloading on the Morrow to Battle Creek line was an existing concern in its system, and that in any \nevent, the Landowners’ alternatives likewise do not address this issue.  METC reiterates that the \nshort-term benefits of the Weeds Lake Project, (namely reduced loadings on the Argenta to \nMorrow and Argenta to Riverview circuits), will be realized without rebuilding the Morrow to \nBattle Creek line. \n \nThe Landowners reply that METC’s Exhibit A-1 shows that the Weeds Lake Project will \nincrease the loading on the Morrow to Battle Creek line from 95.4% to 103.6%.  The Landowners \nargue that while the Morrow to Battle Creek line may have been of concern previously, the MISO \nTransmission Expansion Plan does not indicate any firm plans to rebuild the line.  As such, the \nLandowners contend that the Weeds Lake Project necessitates the rebuild of the Morrow to Battle \nCreek line, and the costs of the rebuild are therefore properly considered project costs. \n \nMETC takes exception to the ALJ’s recommendation that the Commission condition the \nissuance of the CPCN on undergrounding a 1500 foot portion of the line in accordance with \nOshtemo’s ordinance or, in the alternative, make a showing that the local benefits of underground-\ning a portion of the line exceed the costs to be paid by ratepayers.  According to METC, these \nconclusions are erroneous because there is a clear conflict between Act 30 and the local ordinance, \nand because there is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that undergrounding would \nbe cost-prohibitive.   METC further contends that conditioning the CPCN on undergrounding a \nportion of the line in accordance with the ordinance violates the intent of Act 30.  METC points \nout that the purpose of Act 30 was to “avoid patchwork regulation by local governments attempt-\ning to prevent transmission infrastructure,” noting that “[i]n this instance, the Township literally \n\n\nPage 14 \nU-17041 \npassed an ordinance in direct response to METC’s proposal for the Line.” METC’s exceptions, \np. 35. \n \nOshtemo replies that the Commission lacks the authority to “dictate the route or construction \nof the proposed electric transmission line, except as the route or construction has a direct bearing \nupon the rates, fares, fees, charges, services, rules, conditions of service . . . or the formation, \noperation, or direction of public utilities.”  Oshtemo’s replies to exceptions, p. 4, quoting \nMCL 460.6 and citing Detroit Edison Co v City of Wixom, 382 Mich 673; 172 NW2d 382 (1969). \n \nThe Staff also takes exception to the ALJ’s finding that the quantifiable and nonquantifiable \nbenefits of the project do not justify its costs.  The Staff observes that while it did review the \ntestimony and exhibits provided by the Landowners’ witness Mr. Dauphinais, it found that the \nLandowners’ case did not discredit METC’s rationale for the project.  According to the Staff, \n“while Mr. Dauphinais’ testimony attempted to provide lower cost ‘alternatives,’ Mr. Dauphinais \ndid little to address the underlying reliability need which led METC to file its application in the \nfirst place.”  Staff’s exceptions, p. 4. \n \nThe Staff argues that although it does not dispute the ALJ’s finding that cost is an element of \njustification for a transmission line, it nevertheless disagrees that cost should be the sole factor in \nassessing the need for a project.  The Staff contends that the Bismark-Troy Line case, where a \nCPCN was denied on cost grounds, was a major transmission line that was twice as long with a \n$150 million cost.  As such, the Staff maintains that the ALJ erred in relying extensively on the \ncost discussion in that case and that the system reliability and other nonquantifiable benefits justify \nthe construction of the much less expensive Weeds Lake Project.  The Staff reiterates that it \nbelieves that METC demonstrated that the quantifiable and nonquantifiable benefits of the project \njustify its construction and that “METC has engaged in a holistic planning process that will result \n\n\nPage 15 \nU-17041 \nin a more robust system.”  Staff’s exceptions, p. 7.  The Staff points out that the Weeds Lake \nProject was scrutinized by various stakeholders in the MTEP process, arguing that “[t]he primary \npurpose of the MTEP process is to provide a transmission infrastructure that safeguards local and \nregional reliability and supports interconnection-wide reliability while providing an appropriate \ncost mechanism that ensures that the realization of benefits over time is commensurate with the \nallocation of costs.”  Id. (footnote omitted). \n \nThe Staff claims that although Mr. Dauphinais presented several alternatives to the Weeds \nLake Project, some of which were considered in the MTEP process, he failed to provide complete \ncost analyses and that overall, his recommended alternatives result in a loss of system efficiency \nthat will cost ratepayers over time.  The Staff adds that although METC did not present a \nquantitative benefit/cost analysis of the reliability improvements resulting from the Weeds Lake \nProject: \nIn the event that either the 345 kV sources into the Argenta station, the 138 kV \nfacilities that bring power down to the greater Kalamazoo area, or the connection \nbetween these two sets of facilities were severed, the result would come at a \ntremendous economic cost to residential, commercial, and industrial customers in \nthe greater Kalamazoo and Battle Creek areas. 3 TR 78-79.  The lead-time for the \nrepair of some failures can be estimated to be as much as 14 days.  See Exhibit S-7. \nTherefore, it is of great importance that the Weeds Lake project will help mitigate \nthe loss of power and resulting economic hardship to the greater Kalamazoo and \nBattle Creek areas. \n \nStaff’s exceptions, pp. 8-9. \n \nThe Staff also took exception to the ALJ’s finding concerning the Morrow to Battle Creek \nline.  According to the Staff, METC clearly addressed the Morrow to Battle Creek issue in its \nrebuttal testimony and reply brief and that the record shows that the rebuilding of the Morrow to \nBattle Creek line is unrelated to the proposed project.  The Staff contends that the short-term \n\n\nPage 16 \nU-17041 \nbenefits of the Weeds Lake Project will be realized whether or not the Morrow to Battle Creek line \nis rebuilt. \n \nThe Staff took exception to the ALJ’s recommendation with respect to the enforcement of the \nOshtemo ordinance.  According to the Staff, the purpose of Act 30 is to eliminate local \ngovernment interference with the Commission’s authority to grant a CPCN and regulate \ntransmission line construction.  The Staff argues that the purpose of the Oshtemo ordinance was to \nusurp Commission authority and create an obstacle to the construction of the project.  The Staff \nreiterates its opposition to enforcement of the ordinance and further disagrees with the ALJ’s \nrecommendation that the Commission condition the CPCN on a requirement that METC \nunderground a portion of its line as required by the ordinance. \n \nThe Staff argues that METC provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the costs of \ninstalling a portion of the line underground would be burdensome, noting that the five to seven \ntimes higher cost cited by METC was only for installation and did not include the higher ongoing \nmaintenance costs for underground lines.  The Staff adds that it appears that the 1500 feet of \nunderground construction suggested by the ALJ may in fact be much more extensive than \ncalculated.  The Staff points out that the ordinance is ambiguous regarding where undergrounding \nis required and that as such, the actual costs of undergrounding could escalate significantly. \n \nThe Staff also opposes the ALJ’s recommendations that METC be given an opportunity to \npresent more evidence on the costs of undergrounding and consider the possibility that Oshtemo \npay any additional costs associated with underground construction.  The Staff repeats its objection \nto conditioning the CPCN on compliance with the ordinance and adds that if the Commission \nelects to adopt the ALJ’s recommendations, METC should be permitted to provide additional \n\n\nPage 17 \nU-17041 \nevidence and Oshtemo should bear the burden of paying any additional costs associated with \nunderground construction. \n \nThe Landowners take exception to the ALJ’s finding that METC’s routes were reasonable and \npreferable to the I-94 corridor route.  Specifically, the Landowners disagree with the PFD’s \ncharacterization of the I-94 corridor as having a greater “impact” than the preferred and alternate \nroutes proposed by METC.  According to the Landowners, although the I-94 route places 10 to 13 \nmore residences within 150 to 500 feet of the center of the transmission line, this does not \nnecessarily lead to the conclusion that that route would have a higher impact.  The Landowners \npoint to METC’s route study and assigned z-scores, noting that the z-scores “provide an index of \nthe overall potential impacts associated with a particular route.”  Landowners’ exceptions, p. 4, \nquoting Exhibit A-11, p. 27.   The Landowners argue that based on the z-scores calculated for each \nof the potential routes, the I-94 corridor route had the lowest score and therefore the least impact. \n \nIn response, METC points out that Act 30 only requires the company to demonstrate that its \nproposed or alternate route is “reasonable and feasible.”  According to METC, requiring the \nidentification of the “best” or “most reasonable” route would essentially rewrite Section 8(5)b of \nthe statute.  METC further argues that the ALJ properly determined that the I-94 corridor route \nwas not reasonable or feasible and that calculating z-scores for the potential routes was only part \nof the analysis. \n \nIn a related exception, the Landowners contend that right-of-way limitations do not prohibit \nthe use of the I-94 corridor route.  They argue that because METC has identified the I-94 route as \nthe one with the lowest z-score, it would be prudent for METC to more carefully analyze the \nsegments of the route where right-of-way constraints allegedly exist.  According to the \nLandowners, once the I-94 corridor was identified as the route with the lowest overall impact, \n\n\nPage 18 \nU-17041 \n“METC should have acted reasonably by re-visiting the alleged 160 foot constraint for route \nsegments 26 and 37 to determine whether they could in fact be expanded, instead of the initial \ncursory identification of an unsubstantiated ‘constraint’ to provide capacity for two double-circuit \ntransmission lines.”  Landowners’ exceptions, p. 6.  In addition, the Landowners contend that \nMETC should have more carefully analyzed whether segments 26 and 37 actually require a 220 \nfoot right-of-way, or whether a narrower right-of-way might be reasonable. \n \nIn reply, METC points out that no party contradicted its evidence that a 220 foot right-of-way \nis required for the line and that there simply is not sufficient space along portions of the I-94 route \nto construct the line.  Thus, according to METC, any additional analysis would be fruitless.   \n \nThe Landowners argue that although the use of quad circuit structures on portions of the I-94 \ncorridor route would introduce NERC Category C.5 contingencies (i.e., the loss of two circuits on \na multiple circuit line), they contend that METC’s preferred route also introduces such \ncontingencies and that in any event, Category C.5 contingencies “are not the type of contingency \nthat must be avoided without exception.”  Landowners’ exceptions, p. 7.  The Landowners add \nthat Mr. Dauphinais conducted power flow analyses and concluded that the contingencies caused \nby the quad circuit structures they proposed would not result in a reliability problem for the METC \nsystem.  The Landowners further contend that while quad circuits are more difficult to maintain, \nthey are not inherently unsafe.  Therefore, the Landowners take exception to the ALJ’s finding that \nthere are safety and reliability concerns with the Landowners’ proposal to use quad circuits on a \nportion of the line. \n \nThe Landowners also proposed another solution to the reliability problem “that would require \nonly a single, double circuit transmission line which could be run on either of the single line routes \nwithin the 94 Corridor Route.  This so called ‘Tapping Variant’ solves the problem of the alleged \n\n\nPage 19 \nU-17041 \nright of way constraints on 94 Corridor Route segments 26 and 37, and results in a project that \nwould cost $10 million less than METC’s proposed project.”  Landowners’ exceptions, p. 8 \n(footnotes omitted).  The Landowners take exception to the ALJ’s finding that the Tapping Variant \nwould be difficult to adequately protect and her recommendation that this proposal be rejected.  \nAccording to the Landowners, METC moved away from its original argument (i.e. that the \nTapping Variant would require both a difficult-to-protect three terminal circuit and an impossible-\nto-protect four terminal circuit) and admitted that the proposal would not require a four terminal \ncircuit and that the three terminal circuit could be protected with more expensive redundant pilot \nrelays.  The Landowners further note that METC admitted that it uses three terminal circuits in its \ntransmission system and that the company did not perform a power flow analysis of the reliability \nof the Tapping Variant.  The Landowners therefore contend that METC’s claims concerning the \nfeasibility of the Tapping Variant are unsubstantiated. \n \nMETC replies that neither the use of quad circuit structures nor the Tapping Variant would be \nreasonable.  METC points out that the quad circuit configuration proposed by the Landowners \nwould introduce more reliability concerns to a project intended to address reliability.  Similarly, \nMETC argues that the Tapping Variant would create a three terminal circuit which is also less \nreliable than a two terminal circuit.  METC contends therefore that the ALJ properly rejected the \nLandowners’ alternative configurations to accommodate the I-94 route. \n \nThe Landowners also take issue with the ALJ’s finding that the I-94 corridor route could \nconflict with proposed highway expansion and improvement.  The Landowners argue that \npublished Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) plans do not include expansion or \nsound barriers along the proposed I-94 transmission corridor.   \n\n\nPage 20 \nU-17041 \n \nIn response, METC maintains that the Landowners’ cursory review of the MDOT website \n(then drawing the conclusion that I-94 is unlikely to be expanded in the area where the line might \nbe located) is much less reliable evidence than the in-person meetings that METC held with \nMDOT in the course of planning the project. \n \nWhile recognizing that the ALJ made no findings of fact or conclusions of law with respect to \nthe constitutionality of Act 30, the Landowners nevertheless assert, “To the extent that this PFD is \nconstrued to argue that the Certification Act is constitutional, the Landowners take exception to \nsuch findings[.]”  Landowners’ exceptions, p. 12. \n \nIn response, METC points out that the ALJ clearly did make a conclusion of law when she \nstated that under Section 10 of Act 30, the Commission has the authority to approve a transmission \nline project that conflicts with a local ordinance, and there is nothing inherently unconstitutional \nabout preemption of a local ordinance or regulation that would render Act 30 unconstitutional.  \nMETC argues that this exception should therefore be rejected.  The Staff likewise argues that \nthrough the enactment of Act 30 the Legislature intended to preclude local government regulatory \ninterference with the Commission’s decision to grant or deny a CPCN or the Commission’s \ndetermination of how a transmission line should be constructed. \n \nOshtemo took exception to the ALJ’s recommendation that the Commission could reopen the \nrecord to obtain more evidence regarding the local benefits of undergrounding a portion of the \nline, in accordance with Oshtemo’s ordinance, compared to the additional costs to ratepayers \nrelated to the underground construction.  Oshtemo argues reopening the proceeding and taking \nadditional evidence would violate 1999 AC, R 460.17325 and would not comport with due \nprocess. \n\n\nPage 21 \nU-17041 \n \nIn response, METC reiterates that it provided sufficient evidence to justify the construction of \nan overhead line.  Nevertheless, if the Commission adopts the ALJ’s recommendation to take more \nevidence, the Commission’s rules do not prohibit such action.  The Staff replies that Oshtemo’s \nexception should be rejected, noting that Oshtemo advocated undergrounding a portion of the \ntransmission line yet it failed to carry its burden to show that the construction and ongoing \nmaintenance costs are reasonable. \n \nDiscussion \n \n \nThere appears to be no dispute among the parties that METC’s application contained the \ninformation set forth under Section 7 of Act 30.  In addition, no party took exception to the ALJ’s \nfinding that METC complied with the public meeting obligations under Section 6.  The \nCommission therefore finds that these requirements were met by the applicant. \n \nSection 8(4) of Act 30 specifies that if an intervening party submits an alternative route for the \nproposed transmission line, the Commission may grant the applicant’s proposed route or an \nalternative route submitted by the applicant or another party.  This section also allows the \nCommission to condition its approval upon the applicant taking additional action to assure the \npublic convenience, health and safety, and reliability of the proposed transmission line. \n \nSection 8(5) of Act 30 requires the Commission to make the following findings before \ngranting a CPCN: \n(a) The quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits of the proposed major \ntransmission line justify its construction. \n(b) The proposed or alternative route is feasible and reasonable. \n(c) The proposed major transmission line does not present an unreasonable threat to \npublic health or safety.4 \n                                                 \n       4 There appears to be no dispute that the project does not pose an unreasonable risk to public \nhealth or safety. \n \n\n\nPage 22 \nU-17041 \n(d) The applicant has accepted the conditions contained in a conditional grant. \n \n \nThe most contentious issue in this case is whether METC sufficiently demonstrated that the \nquantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits of the project justify its construction.  METC first \nargues that it should not be required to submit a benefit/cost analysis of the project, essentially \nbecause the statute does not contain those precise words.  The Commission agrees that a formal \nbenefit/cost analysis of the project is not strictly required; however, it appears that the most \nstraightforward way to demonstrate that a project’s benefits justify its construction, as the \nCommission must find under Section 8(5)(a), is through the submission of at least some \nreasonable estimate of the value of benefits of the project.5  As the Commission explained in its \ndiscussion of the issue of cost-justification in the February 22, 2008 order in Case No. U-14933, \npp. 17-18: \nCost is clearly an element of justification. The Supreme Court has stated that “The \nrequirement of a certificate of convenience and necessity may enable the \ncommission to . . . keep[] the investment at the lowest figure consonant with \nsatisfactory service.”  Huron Portland Cement Co v Public Service Comm, 351 \nMich 255, 267; 88 NW2d 492, 499 (1958) (quotation omitted).  The Commission \nhas held that the issuance of a certificate requires “a showing that the line is cost \njustified.”  January 28, 1993 order in Case No. U-10059, U-10061, p. 50.  See, also, \nZaremba v Public Service Comm’n, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of \nAppeals, issued December 3, 1999 (Docket No. 210673), at 2 (“finding that a \nproposed project serve[s] the ‘convenience and necessities’ of the public before a \nCPCN can be issued . . . must include a determination of the economic feasibility of \nthe proposed project.”)  Small quantifiable and nonquantifiable public benefits may \njustify an inexpensive line.  An expensive line construction project that will \nultimately be funded by ratepayers requires more significant public benefits, that \nrise above the level of conjecture.   The Commission finds that ITC’s testimony \nregarding reliability and capacity issues was not ignored by the ALJ, but rather was \nappropriately evaluated in the context of the statutory requirements.  The ALJ \ncorrectly pointed out that a cost/benefit analysis can be helpful in demonstrating the \njustification for such a project. \n \n                                                 \n      5 MCL 460.567(e) requires the applicant to provide an estimate of the project’s cost as part of \nits application. \n \n\n\nPage 23 \nU-17041 \n  \nAs METC points out, no party disputes that there is a NERC Category B contingency issue on \nthis part of the system that METC must address.6  However, the Landowners claim (as was \nsimilarly argued in Case No. U-14933) there appear to be viable, less costly, and less disruptive \nalternatives to solving the NERC Category B problem that METC initially identified.   \n \nTurning to the alternatives proposed by the Landowners, the Commission finds persuasive \nMETC’s argument that “[t]he fourth transformer proposal looks at one problem (the loss of two \ntransformers at Argenta) and proposes a ‘solution’ without taking the remainder of the \ntransmission system into account,” and “the addition of a fourth transformer ‘will increase  \nloading on the Argenta to Morrow and Argenta to Riverview 138 kV circuits for certain \ncontingencies, while the Weeds Lake project will decrease flow on these circuits for the same \ncontingencies.’  Thus, the fourth transformer only attempts to resolve one issue, and in so doing, \nexacerbates current problems (all power from one source, increased loading on already heavily \nloaded circuits).”  METC’s reply brief, pp. 12-13 (citation omitted).  Moreover, the Commission \nagrees with METC that, although not prohibited, the apparently rarely used configuration required \nby the addition of a fourth transformer at the Argenta station would not be prudent utility practice.  \nThe Commission therefore finds that the addition of a fourth transformer at the Argenta station is \nnot a viable solution to solving the reliability concern. \n \nThe B Avenue alternative proposed by the Landowners also appears to be a reasonable \nsolution to the NERC Category B contingency and in fact was considered by METC.  According \nto the Landowners, the cost of this solution is $27 million; however, METC correctly points out \nthat the B Avenue alternative would require the use of power flow control reactors on two circuits \n                                                 \n      6 In addition, as the Staff points out, “NERC contingencies are of extreme importance in that \nthey are enforceable standards under Section § 824o of the Federal Power Act. 16 USC § 824o.”  \nStaff’s exceptions, p. 8 (footnotes omitted). \n\n\nPage 24 \nU-17041 \nat a cost of $10 to $20 million, thus making the B Avenue alternative a solution that could cost \nbetween $8 million less than the Weeds Lake Project and up to $2 million more.  \n \nOn this record, the Commission concludes that there are two realistic proposals for addressing \nthe NERC Category B issue in the Kalamazoo area:  1) the Weeds Lake Project proposed by \nMETC at a cost of $45 million;7 and 2) the B Avenue alternative suggested by the Landowners at a \ncost of $37-$47 million.  The Landowners presented evidence that the value of the benefit of \nincreased efficiency resulting from the Weeds Lake Project was $1.3 million per year, thus \noffsetting the difference in cost between the two proposals by that amount.  In addition, METC \nidentified, but did not quantify, the benefits of 500 MW of additional capacity and the establish-\nment of a geographically separate and distinct source of power for the Kalamazoo area, thus \nresulting in a more robust system and addressing a NERC Category D contingency.  As the Staff \npointed out, while a NERC Category D contingency is unlikely, the costs to businesses, industry, \nand residents in the event of the loss of the lines to the Argenta station are potentially catastrophic.   \nThe Commission notes that the costs to Kalamazoo and Battle Creek area customers, in the event \nof a loss of the lines to the Argenta station, are certainly higher than the minor cost difference \nbetween the Weeds Lake Project, which would provide a geographically distinct source of power, \nand the B Avenue alternative, which would not. \n \n \nThe Commission recognizes that transmission infrastructure can provide a host of benefits, \nboth in economic and reliability terms, some of which are more easily quantified than others.  The \nCommission also sees value in planning for the longer term and designing projects that provide \ncomprehensive system benefits, even if there are incremental costs for a more robust transmission \n                                                 \n      7 As METC pointed out, the Morrow to Battle Creek line was already near capacity, and was an \nongoing concern for the company.  Although the Weeds Lake Project makes the need to address \nthis loading more urgent, the Commission declines to attribute this as a direct cost of the project. \n\n\nPage 25 \nU-17041 \nsolution.  In this case, the proposed project is clearly needed and the alternatives proposed by \nLandowners, while potentially feasible, do not provide comparable benefits.  Moreover, the \nassociated cost savings are not entirely clear or less costly than the proposed project after \nincluding the ancillary upgrades.  Therefore, the Commission finds it is appropriate to approve the \nCPCN because the overall benefits justify construction and there is a clear need to proceed with \nconstruction to maintain reliability. \n \nNevertheless, METC should be mindful that the Commission has clearly addressed the issue \nof cost as it relates to “need” in the context of an Act 30 proceeding.  See, February 22, 2008 order \nin Case No. U-14933, pp. 15-19  And given the experience in this case, the Commission \nrecommends that METC make the effort to quantify the benefits of proposed transmission \nprojects, particularly those benefits that relate to system efficiency and economics.  If METC seeks \nto pursue future projects that go beyond addressing an immediate reliability issue, then it is \ndirected to present a complete analysis of the incremental quantifiable and nonquantifiable benefits \nto warrant the additional cost relative to alternative approaches. \n \nThe Commission agrees with METC’s analysis of Section 8(5)(b), which requires the \nCommission to find the proposed or alternative route to be reasonable and feasible, but does not \nrequire a finding of the “best” or “most reasonable” route.  As METC pointed out, the \nLandowners’ exception essentially asks the Commission to rewrite the statute.  Furthermore, the \nCommission finds that METC provided ample rebuttal evidence that the I-94 corridor route is not \na realistic alternative to the proposed route.  The Commission therefore agrees that the ALJ \nproperly rejected the use of the I-94 corridor route. \n \nWith respect to their claims regarding the constitutionality of Act 30, the Commission finds \nthat the Landowners should bring these arguments to the appropriate court.  As the ALJ pointed \n\n\nPage 26 \nU-17041 \nout, the Commission is not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of Legislative enactments.  \nDation v Ford Motor Co, 314 Mich 152; 22 NW2d 252 (1946). \n \nFinally, the Commission agrees with the Staff and METC that under the plain language of \nSections 3 and 10 of Act 30, the Commission’s grant of the CPCN preempts Oshtemo’s ordinance.  \nMoreover, the Commission agrees with the Staff that the burden of proof demonstrating the \npracticality and expense of undergrounding these portions of the line in accordance with the \nordinance, was Oshtemo’s, not METC’s.  And the Commission finds that Oshtemo failed to carry \nits burden; it merely offered a proposal and expected METC to undertake the required analysis.  \nThe Commission therefore rejects the recommendation in the PFD that the CPCN be conditioned \non METC’s compliance with the ordinance, and the alternative recommendation that the record be \nreopened. \n \nTHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: \nA. Pursuant to 1995 PA 30, MCL 460.561 et seq., the certificate of public convenience and \nnecessity requested by Michigan Electric Transmission Company for the construction of a    \ntransmission line in Almena Township, Van Buren County, and Oshtemo Township, Kalamazoo \nCounty, is granted. \nB. The preferred route proposed by Michigan Electric Transmission Company, as set forth in \nfigure 4-2 of Exhibit A-11, is approved. \nC. Michigan Electric Transmission Company is authorized to make minor adjustments to the \nroute approved by this order.   \nD. It is a condition of this order that Michigan Electric Transmission Company shall begin \nconstruction of the transmission line no later than July 29, 2018.   \n\n\nPage 27 \nU-17041 \nE. It is a condition of this order that Michigan Electric Transmission Company shall file in \nthis docket a project completion report within 60 days after completion of construction of the new \ntransmission line. At a minimum, the project completion report shall provide a description of all \nmajor phases of the project, the final total cost of the project, and verification that the project was \nbuilt as authorized. \nThe Commission reserves jurisdiction and may issue further orders as necessary. \nAny party desiring to appeal this order must do so in the appropriate court within 30 days \nafter issuance and notice of this order, under MCL 462.26. \nMICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION   \n                                                                          \n \n                                                                                      \n________________________________________                     \n \n   \n \n \n \n \n       John D. Quackenbush, Chairman    \n \n          \n \n ________________________________________                     \nBy its action of July 29, 2013. \n \n       Greg R. White, Commissioner \n  \n \n \n________________________________ \n      ________________________________________                      \nMary Jo Kunkle, Executive Secretary \n      Sally A. Talberg, Commissioner \n \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-17041 \n \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 \nJoanna Klein being duly sworn, deposes and says that on July 29, 2013 A.D. she served a \ncopy of the attached Commission order by first class mail, postage prepaid, or by inter-\ndepartmental mail, to the persons as shown on the attached service list. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n_______________________________________ \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nJoanna Klein \n \nSubscribed and sworn to before me \nThis 29th day of July 2013 \n \n \n \n \n_________________________________ \nGloria Pearl Jones \nNotary Public, Ingham County, MI \nMy Commission Expires June 5, 2016 \nActing in Eaton County \n \nGloria \nPearl Jones\nDigitally signed by Gloria Pearl \nJones \nDN: cn=Gloria Pearl Jones, o, ou, \nemail=jonesg1@michigan.gov, \nc=US \nDate: 2013.07.29 17:43:13 -04'00'\n\n\nService List U-17041 \n \nMichigan Dept. of Attorney General \nPublic Service Division \n6520 Mercantile Way, Suite 1 \nLansing MI 48911 \n \n \n \nConsumers Energy Company a/k/a CMS Energy \nCatherine M. Reynolds \nOne Energy Plaza \n  Jackson MI 49201 \n \nAckerman Ackerman & Dynkowski \n100 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 210 \nBloomfield Hills MI 48304 \n \n \n \nAckerman Ackerman & Dynkowski \n100 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 210 \nBloomfield Hills MI 48304 \n \n \nDLARA/MAHS - MPSC Hearings \nConstitution Hall - North Tower \n525 W. Allegan, 3rd Floor \nLansing MI 48913 \n \n \n \nMr. Shaun M. Johnson \nDykema Gossett PLLC \n201 Townsend Street \nSuite 900 \nLansing MI 48933 \n \n \nKitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook \n1 Woodward Aveneue, Suite 2400 \nDetroit MI 48226 \n \n \n \nConsumers Energy Company \n1 Energy Plaza Drive \nRoom EP11-441 \nJackson MI 49201 \n \n \nMichigan Electric Transmission Company d/b/a \nITCTransmission \nITC Holding Corp. \n27175 Energy Way \nNovi MI 48377 \n \n \n \nOshtemo Charter Township Attorney \n7275 West Main Street \nKalamazoo MI 49009 \n \n\n\nService List U-17041 \n \nMichigan Dept. of Attorney General \nPublic Service Division \n6520 Mercantile Way, Suite 1 \nLansing MI 48911 \n \n \n \nKitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook \n1 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400 \n  Detroit MI 48226 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n","page_count":30,"has_text":true,"extracted_at":"2026-04-29T21:38:10.450653Z"}