10 Dorrance Street, Suite 400, Providence, RI 02903 • 401-272-3500 • Fax: 401-273-8780 470 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 400, Boston, MA 02210 • 617.273.8230 • Fax: 617.273.8001

100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor, Suite 1456, Hartford, CT 06103 • 800-274-5299 www.hcc-law.com

JAMES A. RUGGIERI* PAUL S. CALLAGHAN* PETER E. GARVEY** STEPHEN P. COONEY* KRISTINA I. HULTMAN* SARAH E. WHEELER** KURT A. ROCHA ** BRIAN W. HAYNES* ADRIANNA HUGHES* TYLER J. PARE* MEAGAN M. BELLAMY* *Also Admitted in MA **Also Admitted in CT & MA ***Also Admitted in MA & MI OF COUNSEL GERALD C. DEMARIA* CHARLES A. HAMBLY, JR. STEPHEN B. LANG MELISSA M. HORNE***

JAMES H. HIGGINS, JR. 1952-1975

JOSEPH V. CAVANAGH

1952-1985

JOHN P. COONEY, JR. 1960-1981

August 20, 2021

Ms. Lisa Felice Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 W. Saginaw Highway P.O. Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: MPSC Case No. U-20963 Dear Ms. Felice: Attached for paperless electronic filing in the above-captioned matter, please find the Initial Brief of Walmart, Inc., and Proof of Service. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

Very truly yours, Melissa M. Horne MMH/taa Attachments cc: Service List, Case No. U-20963

STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In the matter of the application of ) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY ) for authority to increase its rates for ) Case No. U-20963 the generation and distribution of ) (Paperless e-file) electricity and for other relief. ) ALJ Hon. Sharon Feldman )

INITIAL BRIEF OF WALMART, INC.

August 20, 2020

2

I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THE CUSTOMER IMPACT OF THE

COMPANY’S REQUESTED REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND ROE TO ENSURE THAT ANY INCREASE IN THE COMPANY’S RATES REFLECTS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND RELIABLE SERVICE, WHILE ALSO PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS CAPITAL AND EARN A REASONABLE RETURN.

Electricity constitutes a significant portion of a retailer’s operating costs. When electric

rates increase, the impact of increased costs to retailers such as Walmart1 can adversely affect

consumer prices. As a result, the Commission should thoroughly and carefully consider the

impact on customers when examining the Company’s requested revenue requirement and return

on equity (“ROE”), as well as all other facets of this case, to ensure that any increase in rates is

the minimum amount necessary to compensate the Company for providing adequate and reliable

service, while also providing an opportunity to earn a reasonable return for shareholders. (Perry,

6 TR 3850-51).

A. The Company’s rate case filing demonstrates that the proposed ROE is excessive.

Based on a forecast test year ending December 31, 2022, the Company is proposing an

increase in its revenue requirement of approximately $225 million. (Perry, 6 TR 3853). See also

Application at page 12. The Company proposes an ROE of 10.5 percent, based on a range of

10.0 percent to 11.0 percent. (Wehner, 5 TR 2249). The Commission approved an ROE of 9.90

percent in the Company’s last rate case, so the Company’s proposed ROE represents an increase

of 60 basis points from the current authorized ROE. See Order, Case No. U-20697, December

17, 2020, page 165. The proposed ROE at the Company’s proposed capital structure results in

1 Walmart operates approximately 55 retail stores and related facilities that take electric service from Consumers Energy Company (the “Company”). These facilities are served primarily on the Company’s Primary Demand (“Rate GPD”) schedule. (Perry, 6 TR 3849).

3

an overall rate of return of 5.95 percent on an after-tax basis and a pre-tax rate of return equal to

7.48 percent. (Bleckman, 5 TR 1265). See also, Exhibit No. A-14 (MRB-1), Schedule D-1, p. 1.

Alternatively, the Company proposes an ROE equal to the ROE of 9.90 percent approved in the

Company’s last rate case, provided the Company’s equity ratio is adjusted from the 52.0 percent

recommended by Company Witness Marc Bleckman to an equity ratio of 53.1 percent.

(Wehner, 5 TR 2250).

Both of the ROEs proposed by the Company are excessive, especially when viewed in

light of the customer impact of the resulting revenue requirement increase; the reduced risk

inherent in Michigan’s regulatory framework, including the use of a projected test year; the use

of risk reducing ratemaking structures such as recovering DR-related costs through a surcharge

as requested in the Company’s Application; and recent rate case ROEs approved by this

Commission and others nationwide. (Perry, 6 TR 3854-55).

1. The Commission should consider the adverse customer impact of the Company’s proposed ROE.

The Company’s requested ROE will increase the Company’s annual revenue requirement

by approximately $44.5 million. This constitutes almost twenty percent of the total increase

requested by the Company. (Perry, 6 TR 3855). See also Exhibit WAL-2 (LVP-2). The

Company’s proposed alternative ROE would increase the revenue deficiency by about $5.4

million, or approximately 2.4 percent of the total revenue requirement increase. (Perry, 6 TR

3855-56). See also Exhibit WAL-3 (LVP-3).

Other states have recognized the importance of considering ratepayer impacts in the ROE

evaluation process. See, e.g., State ex rel Utils. Comm’n v. Cooper, 366 N.C. 484, 739 S.E.2d

541, 547 (2013) (“customer interests cannot be measured only indirectly or treated as mere

4

afterthoughts”). The Commission should follow the lead of those other states by considering

impacts on ratepayers when determining the proper ROE for a public utility.

2. The Commission should take a conservative approach when setting the Company’s ROE because Michigan’s regulatory framework contains risk-reducing mechanisms which reduce the risk borne by utilities.

The Commission has previously recognized that it must take a conservative approach

when awarding a specific ROE because Michigan’s regulatory framework contains several

mechanisms which significantly reduce the risk borne by utilities. See Order, Case Nos. U-

16472 and U-16489, October 20, 2011, page 39 (citing Proposal for Decision, Case Nos. U-

16742 and U-16489, August 12, 2011, page 49). In addition to the risk-reducing mechanisms

outlined in its Order in Case Nos. U-16472 and U-16489, the Commission should also consider

other risk-reducing methods, such as collecting DR related costs through a surcharge instead of

through base rates, when evaluating the Company’s proposed ROE. (Perry, 6 TR 3656).

Because the Commission has acknowledged that risk-reducing mechanisms necessitate a

conservative approach when awarding a specific ROE, the Commission should follow that

precedent and take a conservative approach in authorizing an ROE in this case.

3. The proposed ROE of 10.5 percent is significantly higher than the average ROE awarded by this and other utility regulatory commissions.

The Company’s proposed ROE in this case is higher than any of the ROEs approved in

nine dockets considered by the Commission during the last three years. During that time, the

highest ROE approved by the Commission was 10.0 percent, with the average approved ROE

being just 9.94 percent. (Perry, 6 TR 3857-58). See also Exhibit WAL-4 (LVP-4). The 10.5

percent ROE requested by the Company is 50 basis points higher than the highest ROE

5

authorized in these decisions, and contrary to recent Commission decisions on ROE. (Perry, 6

TR 3858).

The Company’s requested ROE of 10.5 percent is also significantly higher than the

average ROEs approved by other utility regulatory commissions. S&P Global Market

Intelligence (“S&P Global”), a financial news and reporting company, reports that the average of

the 119 reported electric utility rate case ROEs authorized by state regulatory commissions to

investor-owned electric utilities since 2018 is 9.52 percent.2 The range of reported authorized

ROEs for the same period is 8.20 percent to 10.50 percent, with the median authorized ROE at

9.50 percent. (Perry, 6 TR 3860). See also Exhibit WAL-4 (LVP-4). Thus, the ROE of 10.5

percent proposed by the Company not only significantly exceeds the average ROE authorized by

this Commission over the last three years, but it is counter to broader electric industry trends.

(Perry, 6 TR 3860).

The discrepancy between the ROE requested by the Company and industry norms is

even more striking when vertically integrated utilities are considered. In the group reported by

S&P Global, the average ROE authorized for vertically integrated utilities since 2018 is (i) 9.68

percent for 2018; (ii) 9.73 percent for 2019, (iii) 9.55 percent for 2020; and (iv) 9.57 percent so

far in 2021. (Perry, 6 TR 3860-61). As such, the Company’s proposed 10.5 percent ROE is

counter to broader trends within the vertically integrated utility industry. In fact, if the

Company’s proposed ROE is approved by the Commission, it will be tied for the highest

approved ROE for a vertically integrated utility from 2018 to present (out of eighty-four

approved ROEs). (Perry, 6 TR 3860-61).

2 The Company characterizes the S&P Global data as incomplete in an effort to discredit it. (Wehner, 5 TR 2278). The Company’s characterization is not valid, however, as explained by Walmart witness Lisa Perry. (Perry, 6 TR 3859).

6

The difference between the revenue requirement associated with the Company’s

proposed 10.5 percent ROE and the average 9.64 percent ROE for vertically integrated utilities is

significant. Assuming the Company’s proposed cost of debt, preferred stock, and equity ratio,

authorizing an ROE of 9.64 percent instead of the proposed 10.5 percent would result in a

reduction in the requested revenue requirement of approximately $63.8 million, or about 28.38%

of the Company’s requested revenue requirement increase. (Perry, 6 TR 3861-62).

While decisions of other state regulatory commissions are not binding on the

Commission, the disparity between the Company’s proposed ROE and the average ROEs

awarded by this and other utility regulatory commissions over the past several years should

motivate the Commission to carefully examine the Company’s proposed revenue requirement

increase and the associated ROE and consider the impact of the authorized ROE on existing and

prospective customers relative to other jurisdictions. (Perry, 6 TR 3862-63). In addition, the

Commission should consider the reduced risk associated with Michigan’s regulatory framework

and the Company’s utilization of risk reducing ratemaking structures when evaluating the

Company’s proposed ROE. (Perry, 6 TR 3862-63).

II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD AUTHORIZE THE COMPANY’S CONTINUED USE OF THE PRODUCTION COST ALLOCATOR SET FORTH IN ITS COSS.

The Company’s COSS utilizes a “4CP 75/0/25” production cost allocator, which

allocates production capacity costs based on a blended allocation methodology that weights

demand by 75 percent (based on the highest four coincident peaks) and energy by 25 percent.

(Perry, 6 TR 3872). The Company has used this production cost allocation method since June of

2015, when the Commission determined that the 4CP 75/0/25 cost allocation method “better

recognizes the value of capacity in Consumer’s system” and “better ensures rates are equal to

7

cost of service” when compared to the then-statutorily authorized allocation method of 4CP

50/25/25. See In the matter on the Commission’s own motion to commence a proceeding to

implement the provisions of Public Act 169 of 2014; MCL 460.11(3) et seq., with regard to

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Case No. U-17688, Order (issued June 30, 2015), p. 17

(“2015 Order”). The State Legislature subsequently passed a law requiring the use of this

allocation method unless the Commission “determines that this method of cost allocation does

not ensure that rates are equal to the cost of service.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 460.11(1) (2021).3

Contrary to the 2015 Order and statutory prescription, the Attorney General is

recommending that the Commission authorize a 4CP 50-0-50 production cost allocation method,

which equally weights production costs between capacity and energy. (Dismukes, 6 TR 3017).

Walmart objects to the AG’s recommendation and urges the Commission to authorize the

Company to continue using the 4CP 75/0/25 production cost allocator.

The Commission has recognized that production cost allocation must reflect both demand

and energy to some degree and adopted the 4CP 75-0-25 methodology proposed by the

Commission Staff in Case No. U-17688. See 2015 Order at p. 14. While generation capacity

costs are fixed and do not change with the amount of electricity generated, under the current

methodology, those fixed costs are weighted at 75 percent with energy weighted at 25 percent. If,

as suggested by the Attorney General, the assignment of fixed costs to the demand allocator are

adjusted to represent only 50 percent of production costs, then the allocation of production

capacity will move further away from the fixed basis of those costs, which will ultimately result

in rates that do not reflect cost of service. (Perry, 6 TR 3874).

3 Act 341, Eff. April 20, 2017.

8

Allocating fixed costs based on usage as opposed to a Company’s system peak demand

can introduce shifts in cost responsibility from lower load factor classes to higher load factor

classes. This results in a misallocation of cost responsibility as higher load factor classes overpay

for the demand related costs incurred by the Company to serve them. In other words, higher load

factor classes would be required to subsidize a portion of the demand related costs that are

incurred to serve lower load factor classes simply because of the manner in which the Company

allocates those costs in its COSS. (Perry, 6 TR 3874).

The Commission should reject the Attorney General’s proposed 4CP 50-0-50 production

cost allocation method in order to avoid the negative impacts of that methodology and, instead,

authorize the Company to continue using the current 4CP 75-0-25 production cost allocator set

forth in its COSS.

III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REQUIRE THE COMPANY TO ADDRESS COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER DATA ACCESS IN ITS NEXT AMI BUSINESS CASE.

The Company has approximately 1.8 million electric smart meters, virtually all of which

provide automated monthly data to the Company for use in its customer billing. (Warriner, 5 TR

1126-28). In addition to these smart meters, the Company installed infrastructure and system

platforms that, among other capabilities, allow the Company to remotely connect and disconnect

service, provide the Company with on-demand remote reads, and give customers access to a web

portal application. (Warriner, 5 TR 1130-34)

Residential customers currently have access to a web-based portal through which the

Company provides access to historical energy use and costs on a near-real-time basis, graphs that

allow customers to see usage patterns over time, and the option to receive high bill notification

alerts. (Warriner, 5 TR 1144). While commercial customers have access to a similar web portal,

9

the portal for commercial customers does not currently provide interval data for Walmart’s stores

and associated facilities located within the Company’s service territory. (Teague, 6 TR 3841).

Although the Company’s website advertises plans for a new Energy Use Dashboard with

features that include “easy to understand data,” it is unclear what form this data will take and

whether it will include interval data, which is instrumental for informed decision making and

planning. See https://www.consumersenergy.com/business/energy-efficiency/new-energy-use-

dashboard. (Teague, 6 TR 3841). The AMI business case filed in this proceeding does not

address the information to be provided through the portal to commercial or industrial customers.

(Teague, 6 TR p. 3840).

For large energy users with multiple sites, like Walmart, it is important that data access is

automated, accessible by a third party, and provided in a standardized format. (Teague, 6 TR

3841). Easy and transparent access to interval data allows a customer to measure its energy

usage and make data-driven adjustments to its energy consumption. In addition, interval data

allows customers to better target facilities for certain kinds of energy reduction projects. Interval

data also facilitates measurement and verification of energy savings. (Teague, 6 TR 3842)

Walmart would like interval data for all its locations within the Company’s service

territory to be accessible by Walmart or a third-party vendor through a single downloadable file.

(Teague, 6 TR 3842-43). Without this capability, data retrieval becomes an inefficient, time-

consuming process that requires Walmart to download data usage information on a store-by-store

basis. (Teague, 6 TR 3843). In Walmart’s experience, these needs are best met through a

customer portal that is “Green Button” compatible. (Teague, 6 TR 3841).

The Green Button initiative was developed by the federal government to challenge

utilities to provide energy usage information to customers in a simple, standard and

10

downloadable format. www.greenbuttonalliance.org/about#what. (Teague, 6 TR 3842). Green

Button is a data standard for enabling utility customers or third-parties access to energy usage

information in a "consumer-friendly and computer-friendly format." www.greenbuttondata.org.

A Green Button-enabled utility allows interval data to be accessed by simply clicking a "Green

Button" located on the utility's website. (Teague, 6 TR 3842). Third-party vendors can obtain

that data directly from the customer portal via a specific functionality within the Green Button

suite called Connect My Data (“CMD”). (Teague, 6 TR 3842-43)

Walmart currently engages a third-party vendor to ingest interval energy usage data for

its stores, distribution centers, and other facilities from a variety of applications maintained by

different utilities across the United States. Green Button CMD functionality will allow that third-

party vendor to automatically "connect" and obtain Walmart's usage data directly from the

Company without the extra steps of having Walmart obtain that information and then pass it on

to the third-party vendor. (Teague, 6 TR 3842)

The Company is seeking rate relief to provide “enhanced technology to […] increase

customer satisfaction” and “support long-term investments.” See Application, p. 2-3. For

commercial and industrial customers who consume large amounts of electricity across multiple

accounts, access to their energy usage data on an interval basis and through one online access

point, combined with the ability to download this data automatically, is necessary for continued

operational improvement and customer satisfaction. AMI, which is among the Company’s stated

long-term investments, has the capability of providing the interval data that business customers

need, but which the Company does not currently provide except for special requests and through

the demand response program. Until AMI is fully optimized for the Company’s business

customers by providing necessary data in a manageable and meaningful way, customers who are

11

positioned to use this data to improve operations and increase energy efficiency will not have full

access to this important investment. (Teague, 6 TR 3844).

As a result, Walmart requests that the Commission require the Company to address non-

residential customer interval data access in its next AMI business case. The current business

case makes the case for the value of residential data access but ignores the value of commercial,

industrial, and other non-residential customer data access. By enabling these customers to

leverage their interval data, they also will be able to realize the full benefits of data access as

described by Company witness Warriner in his testimony. (Teague, 6 TR 3843).

CONCLUSION

The Commission should carefully evaluate the Company’s proposed revenue requirement

and the associated ROE, giving special consideration to the risk-reducing mechanisms inherent

in the regulatory framework and the adverse customer impact that will result from the excessive

ROE proposed by the Company. Such considerations are necessary to ensure that any increase

in rates is the minimum amount necessary to provide adequate and reliable service while also

providing adequate access to capital and an opportunity to earn a reasonable return for its

shareholders.

In addition, the Commission should reject the Attorney General’s proposed 4CP 50/0/50

production cost allocation method, and instead, authorize the Company to continue using the

current 4CP 75/0/25 production cost allocator as set forth in its COSS.

Finally, The Commission should require the Company to address non-residential

customer data access in its next AMI business case. The Commission should direct the

Company to provide customers the ability to retrieve and download energy usage interval data

12

for multiple accounts, up to and including all accounts, in a single file, through the Green Button

CMD Suite.

Respectfully submitted,

Melissa M. Horne, Esq. (P41840) HIGGINS, CAVANAGH & COONEY, LLP 10 Dorrance Street, Suite 400 Providence, RI 02903 Tel: (401) 272-3500 Fax: (401) 273-8780 E-mail: mhorne@hcc-law.com ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR, WAL-MART, INC.

Dated: August 20, 2021

STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In the matter of the application of CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY for authority to increase its rates for the generation and distribution of electricity and for other relief

) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. U-20963

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COUNTY OF PROVIDENCE

Melissa M. Horne, being first duly sworn, deposes and affirms that on the 20th day of August, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served via electronic mail upon the Parties of Record shown in the attached service list.

Melissa M. Horne, Esq. (#P41840)

HIGGINS, CAVANAGH & COONEY, LLP 10 Dorrance Street, Suite 400 Providence, RI 02903 Tel: (401) 272-3500 Fax: (401) 273-8780 E-mail: mhorne@hcc-law.com ATTORNEYS FOR WALMART, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Sharon L. Feldman Administrative Law Judge 7109 West Saginaw Highway Post Office Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 feldmans@michigan.gov

Hon. Kandra K. Robbins RobbinsKl @michigan.gov

Counsel for the Michigan Public Service Commission Staff

Benjamin J. Holwerda, Esq. Spencer A. Sattler, Esq. Amit T. Singh, Esq. Nicholas Q. Taylor, Esq. Assistant Attorneys General Public Service Division 7109 West Saginaw Highway Post Office Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 holwerdab@michigan.gov sattlers@michigan.gov singha9@michigan.gov taylornl O@michigan.gov

Michigan Public Service Commission Staff

Mike Byrne Gary Kitts Bill Stosik Patricia Poli Paul Proudfoot Bob Nichols LoriMayabb Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 West Saginaw Highway Post Office Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 byrnem@michigan.gov kittsg@michigan.gov stosikb@michigan.gov proudfootp@michigan.gov nicholsb l@michigan.gov polip@michigan.gov mayabbl@michigan.gov

Counsel for Attorney General, Dana Nessel

Celeste R. Gill, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Division

6th Floor Williams Building 525 West Ottawa Street Post Office Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 gillc l@michigan.gov AG-ENRA-Spec-Lit@michigan.gov

Page 1 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Consultants for Attorney General, Dana Nessel

Michael Deupree, Research Associate Taylor Deshotels, Research Analyst Emily Mouch, Research Assistant Acadian Consulting Group, LLC 5800 One Perkins Place Drive, Suite 5-F Baton Rouge, LA 70808 michaeldeupree(�acadianconsulting.com Tay lorDeshotels@:acadianconsulting.com emilvmouch(t4acadianconsulting.com

Sebastian Coppola President Corporate Analytics, Inc. 5928 Southgate Road Rochester, MI 48306 sebcoppola@corpolytics.com

Counsel for Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation ("HSC")

Jennifer Utter Heston, Esq. Angela R. Babbitt Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. 124 West Allegan, Suite 1000 Lansing, MI 48933 jheston@fraserlawfirm.com ababbitt@fraserlawfirm.com

Counsel for Energy Michigan, Inc. ("Energy Michigan"), Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council ("EIBC"), and Institute for Energy Innovation ("IEI")

Timothy J. Lundgren, Esq. Laura A. Chappelle, Esq. Vamum,LLP The Victor Center, Suite 910 201 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 tjlundgren@vamumlaw.com lachappelle@varnumJ.aw .com

Justin K. Ooms, Esq. Varnum, LLP 333 Bridge Street NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 jkooms@vamumlaw.com

Counsel for ChargePoint, Inc.

Timothy J. Lundgren, Esq. Vamum,LLP The Victor Center, Suite 910 201 North Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 tjlundgren@vamumlaw.com

Justin K. Ooms, Esq. Vamum,LLP 333 Bridge Street NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 jkooms@vamumlaw.com

Counsel for the Michigan Environmental Council ("MEC"), the Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC"), the Sierra Club, and Citizens Utility Board of Michigan ("CUB")

Christopher M. Bzdok, Esq. Tracy Jane Andrews, Esq. Lydia Barbash-Riley, Esq. Kimberly Flynn, Legal Assistant Karla Gerds, Legal Assistant Breanna Thomas, Legal Assistant Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C. 420 East Front Street Traverse City, MI 49686 chris@envlaw.com tjandrews@envlaw.com lydia@envlaw.com kimberly@envlaw.com karla@envlaw.com breanna@envlaw.com cub.legal@cubofmichigan.org

Page 2 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Counsel for Sierra Club

Michael C. Soules 1625 Massacusetts A venue, NW, Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036 msoules@earthjustice.org

Counsel for Consumers Energy

Robert W. Beach Michael C. Rampe Ian F. Burgess Bret A. Totoraitis Anne M. Uitvlugt Gary A. Gensch, Jr Robert.beach@cmsenergy.com Mpsc.filings@cmsenergy.com Michael.rampe@cmsenergy.com Ian.burgess@cmsenergy.com Bret. totoraitis@cmsenergy.com Anne.uitvlugt@cmsenergy.com Gary .genschjr@cmsenergy.com mpsc.filings@cmsenergy.com

Counsel for the Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity ("ABATE")

Michael Pattwell, Esq. Clark Hill PLC 212 East Cesar E. Chavez A venue Lansing, MI 48906 mpattwell@clarkhill.com

Stephen A. Campbell, Esq. Clark Hill PLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 scampbell@clarkhill.com

Consultant to ABATE

Jim Dauphinais BAI (Brubaker & Associates, Inc.) PO Box 412000 St. Louis, MO 63141-2000 j dauphinais@consultbai.com

Counsel for the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association ("MCTA") Michael S. Ashton, Esq. Shaina R. Reed Angela R. Babbitt Haley Rueske Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. 124 West Allegan Street, Suite 1000 Lansing, MI 48933 mashton@fraserlawfirm.com sreed@fraserlawfirm.com ababbitt@fraserlawfirm.com hrueske@,fraserlawfirm.com

Counsel for Residential Customer Group ("RCG") and Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association ("GLREA")

Don L. Keskey, Esq. Brian W. Coyer, Esq. Public Law Resource Center PLLC 333 Albert Avenue, Suite 425 East Lansing, MI 48823 donkeskey@publiclawresourcecenter.com bwcoyer@publiclawresourcecenter.com

Counsel for The Kroger Co.

Kurt J. Boehm, Esq. Jody Kyler Cohn, Esq. Michael L. Kurtz, Esq.Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry36 East Seventh St., Suite 1510 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202KBoehm@BKLlawfirm.com JKylerCohn@BKLlawfirm.com mkurtz@BKLlawfirm.com

Page 3 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Counsel for Environmental Law & Policy Center("ELPC"), Vote Solar, and

The Ecology Center

Margrethe Kearney, Esq. Robert Kelter, Esq. Nikhil Vijaykar, Esq. Rebecca Lazer, Legal Assistant Ariel Salmon, Legal Assistant Environmental Law & Policy Center 116 Somerset Dr. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503 rnkearney@elpc.org rkelter@elpc.org nvijaykar@elpc.org rlazer@elpc.org asalmon@elpc.org mpscdocket@elpc.org

Will Kenworthy Regulatory Director, Midwest 332 S. Michigan Avenue, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 will (i:i)voteso lar. org

Charles Griffith Director, Climate & Energy Program Ecology Center 399 E. Liberty Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 charlesg@ecocenter.org

Counsel for Midland Cogeneration

Venture Limited Partnership ("MCV")

Richard J. Aaron, Esq. Jason T. Hanselman, Esq. John A. Janiszewski, Esq. Dykema Gossett PLLC 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 raaron@dykema.com jhanselman@dykema.com jjaniszewski@dykema.com

Counsel for the Michigan State Utility

Workers Council, Utility Workers Union

of America, AFL-CIO

Benjamin L. King, Esq. John R. Canzano, Esq. McKnight, Canzano, Smith, Radtke &

Brault, P.C. 423 North Main Street, Suite 200 RoyalOak,MI 48067 bking@michworkerlaw.com jcanzano@michworkerlaw.com

Counsel for Michigan Municipal Association for Utility Issues ("Ml­MAUI")

Valerie J.M. Brader Rivenoak Law Group, P.C. 3331 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 109 Birmingham, MI 48084 valerie@rivenoaklaw.com ecf@rivenoaklaw.com

Rick Bunch Executive Director and Chairman Michigan Municipal Association for Utility Businesses 4989 Earhart Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105-9710 rick(a)mi-maui.org

Page 4 of 4