Parties to Case No. U per Attachment 1 to the Proof of Service

Transcription

1 A CMS Energy Company June 19, 2018 Ms. Kavita Kale Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 West Saginaw Highway Post Office Box Lansing, MI General Offices: LEGAL DEPARTMENT One Energy Plaza Jackson, MI Tel: Fax: (517) (517) CATHERINE M REYNOLDS Senior Vice President and General Counsel *Washington Office: 1730 Rhode Island Ave. N.W. Tel: (202) MELISSA M GLEESPEN Suite 1007 Vice President, Corporate Washington, DC Fax: (202) Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer Writer s Direct Dial Number: (517) Writer s Address: robert.beach@cmsenergy.com SHAUN M JOHNSON Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Bret A Totoraitis Kelly M Hall Eric V Luoma Assistant General Counsel Ashley L Bancroft Robert W Beach Don A D Amato Robert A. Farr Gary A Gensch, Jr. Gary L Kelterborn Chantez P Knowles Mary Jo Lawrie Jason M Milstone Rhonda M Morris Deborah A Moss* Mirče Michael Nestor Michael C. Rampe James D W Roush Scott J Sinkwitts Adam C Smith Theresa A G Staley Janae M Thayer Anne M Uitvlugt Aaron L Vorce Attorney RE: Case No. U In the Matter of the Application of Consumers Energy Company for Approval of an Integrated Resource Plan under MCL 460.6t and for other relief. Dear Ms. Kale: It was discovered after Consumers Energy Company s filing on June 15, 2018, that the PDF version of Exhibits A-50 (NJK-10) and A-62 (PCE-3) were inadvertently not included in the filing. This was a clerical error due to not attaching the exhibits. Enclosed for electronic filing in the above-captioned case please find Exhibit A-50 (NJK-10) of Company witness Norman J. Kapala and A-62 (PCE-3) of Company witness Patrick C. Ennis. Sincerely, Robert W. Beach cc: Parties to Case No. U per Attachment 1 to the Proof of Service fl

2 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the application of ) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY ) for Approval of an Integrated Resource Plan ) Case No. U under MCL 460.6t and for other relief. ) ) EXHIBIT OF NORMAN J. KAPALA ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY June 2018

3 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No.: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit No.: A-50 (NJK-10) Generating Unit Random Outage Rates (ROR) Page: 1 of 2 January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2031 Witness: NJKapala (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) Line Actual ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR Projected ROR No. Plant Campbell % 10.0% 10.5% 11.0% 11.5% 12.0% 12.0% 12.5% 13.0% 13.5% 13.5% 14.0% 14.5% 15.0% 15.0% 2 Cambpell % 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 8.5% 9.0% 9.0% 9.5% 10.0% 10.5% 10.5% 11.0% 11.5% 12.0% 12.0% 3 Campbell % 6.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 8.0% 4 Karn % 15.0% 14.5% 15.0% 15.5% 16.0% 16.0% 16.5% 17.0% 17.5% 17.5% 18.0% 18.5% 19.0% 19.0% 5 Karn % 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 8.5% 9.0% 9.0% 9.5% 10.0% 10.5% 10.5% 11.0% 11.5% 12.0% 12.0%

4 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No.: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit No.: A-50 (NJK-10) Generating Unit Equivalent Forced Outage Rates (EFOR) Page: 2 of 2 January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017 Witness: NJKapala (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Line Actual EFOR Actual EFOR Actual EFOR Actual EFOR Actual EFOR No. Plant Campbell % 2.28% 1.46% 2.56% 0.62% 2 Cambpell % 1.59% 1.40% 0.39% 12.26% 3 Campbell % 1.64% 0.21% 0.17% 0.37% 4 Karn % 3.47% 5.12% 8.66% 1.61% 5 Karn % 3.96% 4.13% 2.89% 0.20% Note: EFOR= (Forced Outage Hours + Equivalent Forced Derate Hours) (Service Hours + Forced Outage Hours + Equivalent Forced Derate Hours During Reserve Shutdown)

5 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the application of ) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY ) for Approval of an Integrated Resource Plan ) Case No. U under MCL 460.6t and for other relief. ) ) EXHIBIT OF PATRICK C. ENNIS ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY June 2018

6 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Consumers Energy Company Case No.: U Page: 1 of Demand Response Annual Report Case No. U May 31, 2018

7 Page: 2 of 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Building a Virtual Power Plant 2 Residential Demand Response Peak Power Savers AC Peak Cycling 3 Peak Power Savers Dynamic Peak Pricing 5 Business Demand Response Economic/Emergency Programs 7 Appendix Demand Response Event Detail 9-10

8 Page: 3 of 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2016 energy law, Public Act 342, encourages the development and implementation of demand-side resources such as Demand Response (DR) to address current and future electric generation capacity needs in Michigan. On May 11, 2017, the Michigan Public Service Commission directed its Staff to convene a stakeholder workgroup in docket U to explore and recommend a regulatory framework for evaluating the efficiency of DR programs and cost recovery of utility investments in these programs. The Staff and other stakeholders discussed the merits of various regulatory approaches, the challenges of maintaining the status quo, and the reasonableness of having a financial incentive to encourage utility investments in DR. On September 15, 2017, the Commission approved the Staff s recommended three-phase approach for approval, cost recovery, and reconciliation of DR programs. The full deployment of the Company s residential and business DR programs in 2017 marked a milestone in its journey to provide reliable, safe, affordable, and sustainable clean electric offerings to customers. Some of the many successes in 2017 included: The full implementation and expansion of residential and business DR programs. 45,897 customers enrolled in the Peak Power Savers program (AC Peak Cycling and Dynamic Peak Pricing) in 2017 to deliver 42.9 MW of residential DR MW of business DR and 8 MW of residential DR registered with Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) to address emergency events. 11 residential and 9 business DR events called during the summer to test and explore customer acceptance and reaction. Along with these successes, this first year brought valuable insights and learnings, including: Motivating residential and business customers to shift or reduce load during peak events requires greater investment in customer education and engagement than originally understood. Changes in rate design have a profound affect on customer willingness to participate in DR programs. The value of comprehensive testing of DR systems prior to the start of event season. These learnings, along with continued feedback and insights from customers and stakeholders, will help ensure the company has a robust set of DR programs available to meet the future electric generation capacity needs of its customers. This report serves to inform our regulatory stakeholders; encourage transparency and collaboration; and provide a high-level view of residential and business DR accomplishments. This annual report describes Company DR activity for the 2017 calendar year which includes the MISO planning year that begins June 1, the DR event season (June 1- September 30) and all customer enrollment activity throughout the year. Demand Response Report 1

9 Page: 4 of 13 BUILDING A VIRTUAL POWER PLANT Although electric demand varies by season, the electric grid has traditionally been built to supply full capacity at the system peak. Often this means some electric supply-side resources are idle for much of the year. DR programs focus on shifting or reducing electric use during these peak hours, either by directly controlling the customer equipment such as AC Peak Cycling or by motivating and incentivizing customers to take action. Consumers Energy offers various DR programs to help its customers reduce their electric use during peak hours. These programs benefited all customers in 2017 by allowing the company to cost-effectively manage loads and stresses on the electric grid when it was most needed. In particular, these programs: Reward customers who use energy more efficiently during peak hours; Help manage costs for all customers through lower power supply costs; and Make use of otherwise idle, customer-owned backup generators. The company has developed DR programs that target both residential and business customer classes and reflect customer preferences for involvement in controlling their electric use (direct control or behavioral). While the company s DR programs are often offered for economic reasons (avoidance of high-priced energy during peak demand hours), direct control resources are also bid into MISO as capacity resources. The company intends to refine and expand its existing DR program offerings as it gains more experience in deploying these demand-side resources and to adjust its portfolio of DR program offerings based on residential and business customer feedback. Ultimately, the company believes DR has the potential to function as a reliable, robust virtual power plant that can be called upon to help satisfy Michigan s electric needs in a clean, sustainable way. Consumers Energy Residential DR Business DR Rates Peak Power Savers AC Peak Cycling Peak Power Savers Dynamic Peak Pricing Emergency DR Economic DR Energy Intensive (EIP) Interruptible Service Provision (GI) Demand Response Report 2

10 Page: 5 of 13 RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE PEAK POWER SAVERS AC PEAK CYCLING PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AC Peak Cycling is a residential direct load management program in which a two-way communicating load control switch is placed on the outside of a customer s central air conditioning unit. During Energy Savings Days, the company activates the switch to cycle the central air conditioning unit based on a 50 percent cycle strategy to reduce customer electric use for short periods of time. Once the event ends, the unit returns to its normal operation. The company may call up to 10 Energy Savings Day events June through September between 7 a.m. 8 p.m. A typical event is scheduled for four hours. Participants in the program received a $25 Visa gift card when they initially enrolled in the program and a bill credit of $7.84 per month during the peak event season of June through September. Based on multiple internal and external studies, the average customer load reduction assumption at the beginning of 2017 was 1.12 kw. The company performed analysis on the load savings data for each event and determined that the actual average load reduction was 0.58 kw per customer. This will be the planning assumption entering the 2018 planning year and the company will continue to perform annual post-event season analysis of the demand reduction per customer. INVESTMENTS ENERGY SAVINGS DAYS $ in millions 31 CapEx O&M $6.0 $2.5 Day of Month $1.2 $0.3 $0.4 $ ENROLLMENTS 6 1 June July August September Consumers Energy system peak July 19 Jan. 1 MISO Planning Year June 1 Sept. 30 Dec MW DR Season 31.9 MW 8,200 Enrollments 28,465 enrollments Demand Response Report 3

11 Page: 6 of CUSTOMER SATISFACTION The end-to-end customer experience from enrollment through event season is critical to overall satisfaction and customer retention. The program implemented many customer communications best practices - learned from the rollout of the AMI meter installation from 2010 through to keep satisfaction high. The program has continuous monitoring in place to gauge customer satisfaction in two critical areas: the enrollment process (customer care and field service) and the event season experiences. Enrollment Process Experience -- The program monitored customer satisfaction with enrollment activity in regards to customer care and field service through an electronic survey tool. Of the 16,295 surveys sent to customers, 4,943 completed surveys were received with an overall satisfaction rating of 9.1 for Customer Care and 9.3 for Field Service on a 10 point scale. Event Season Experience -- The company also assessed customer experience via a survey at the conclusion of the DR event season to obtain learnings and insights. A total of 2,091 electronic surveys were sent to customers and 580 completed surveys were received. The program achieved a satisfaction rating of 7.6, on a 10 point scale, for the overall event season experience KEY LEARNINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS The company had many learnings in 2017 as it called its first DR events and enrolled over 28,000 customers in the program. Two key learnings were: PREFERENCE FOR FLAT OR VARIABLE BILL CREDIT 47% of customers preferred a bill credit based on the amount of energy saved versus a flat monthly credit. The company will continue to monitor customer expectations and preferences and adjust the program accordingly. 40% of enrolled customers had central air conditioning units smaller than the 3 ton average originally projected. The 2018 marketing strategy will include components targeted at customers with larger AC units and high electric usage. Bill credits based on the actual amount of energy saved each month 47% No preference 32% Bill credits that are the same every month (a flat rate) 21% PROFILE OF AC UNITS BY TON 39% 51% 1% 8% 1% 0% AC Tonnage Demand Response Report 4

12 Page: 7 of 13 PEAK POWER SAVERS DYNAMIC PEAK PRICING PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Dynamic Peak Pricing program was designed to reduce electric use during summer peak hours through a combination of price signals and customer outreach. The company offered residential customers the following rate options under the program: Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) offers customers the lowest time-of-use rate during off-peak hours and the highest rate of 95 per kwh during summer peak events (Energy Saving Days). Peak Time Rewards (PTR) offers customers a low time-of-use rate during off-peak hours and credits them 95 per kwh for reducing on-peak energy use during Energy Saving Days. Customers participating in the program received alert notifications one day before each event, and postevent reports on how well their households did in reducing energy use on Energy Saving Days. The program allows up to 14 Energy Savings Day events June through September between the hours of 2 6 p.m. In 2017, the company called 11 Energy Saving Day events. INVESTMENTS ENROLLMENTS (CUMULATIVE) $ in millions CPP PTR 17,432 CapEx O&M $2.2 8,021 $0.0 $ , ENERGY SAVINGS DAY - CPP ENERGY SAVINGS DAY - PTR Day of Month Day of Month June July August September 1 June July August September Consumers Energy system peak July 19 Demand Response Report 5

13 Page: 8 of CUSTOMER SATISFACTION In survey responses, customers reported challenges related to the clarity of program information and communications about enrollment and program experience. The program also monitored customer satisfaction with respect to enrollment process (customer care) and event season experiences. Enrollment Process Experience -- 8,190 surveys were sent to customers and 4,943 completed surveys were received. The overall satisfaction rating was 9.0 for Customer Care on a 10 point scale. Event Season Experience -- 2,990 surveys were sent to customers and 1,120 completed surveys were received. The overall satisfaction rating was 6.7, on a 10 point scale. The low rating is primarily attributed to perceived lack of savings KEY LEARNINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS The company had many learnings in 2017 as it called its first DR events and enrolled over 17,000 customers in the program including: 62% of customers were not very familiar with time-of-use rates. Development of additional educational material will be critical in growing the program to full capacity. The largest factor of dissatisfaction (58%) was difficulty meeting money-savings expectations. 96% of participants said their household took action to conserve energy during events. 76% of participants said their household purposefully shifted use to the less expensive times. Under the current rate design of case U-17990, customers who used more than 800 kwh monthly benefit the most in bill savings. Customers who used less than 800 kwh monthly saw little to no savings by participation in the program. Familiarity with Time-of-Use rates Factors of Dissatisfaction 9% Difficulty meeting moneysavings expectations 18% 15% 58% Unclear information about program Events conflicted with customers' schedule Other Demand Response Report 6

14 Page: 9 of 13 BUSINESS DEMAND RESPONSE ECONOMIC/EMERGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION In 2017, the company launched business DR programs Economic and Emergency- in which customers agreed to reduce their electric use by a predetermined amount during specific event days. Customers could participate in one or both programs. Each customer determined the amount of capacity they could curtail and the company helped develop a demand reduction plan to implement during peak events. As with residential DR programs, available energy savings from the business Economic program were used in the dayahead market to reduce load on days with high prices and a high probability of coincident peak demand. The company enrolled 43 business customers in the Economic program, totaling 18.1 MW for the 2017 DR season. Participants were paid a capacity and energy incentive to reduce their electric use during peak events. In 2017, the company also enrolled 11.7 MW in the Economic program for the 2018 DR season. The company called nine Economic Energy Savings Days in 2017 and paid $0.1 million in customer incentives. The Emergency program provides grid reliability in the event peak energy demand exceeds available supply. Customers are compensated for their willingness and ability to support this grid reliability. The company enrolled 99 business customers (128 accounts) in the Emergency DR program resulting in 50.1 MW under contract and registered as a MISO capacity resource for the 2017 MISO Planning Year. Emergency program customers received $1.3 million in incentives to be available if MISO called an emergency event, though no emergency events were called in By the end of 2017, the company enrolled 74 MW in the Emergency program for the 2018 MISO Planning Year. INVESTMENTS $ in millions $3.8 ENERGY SAVINGS DAYS CapEx O&M O&M includes $1.4 million of customer payments $1.4 Day of Month ENROLLMENTS 1 June July August September Consumers Energy system peak July 19 Jan. 1 MISO Planning Year June 1 Sept. 30 Dec MW 50.1 MW DR Season 29.8* MW 74.1 MW Economic Emergency 43 Customers 99 Customers Demand Response Report 7 65 Customers 125 Customers *Includes 18.1MW enrolled for the 2017 DR season and 11.7MW enrolled for the 2018 DR season

15 Page: 10 of CUSTOMER SATISFACTION Overall satisfaction with the program is a 4.3 on a 5 point scale, with 88% being satisfied or very satisfied. Of the business DR participants, 88.6% indicated that they would be likely to recommend the program to others, while 75% were willing to be a reference. We had a very positive experience in 2017 and look forward to participating in This is a great program we will continue to participate. As a business owner, I feel there is an obligation to other businesses and the residential community in our area to help alleviate potential outages KEY LEARNINGS Customer Comments The business demand response programs had many learnings during its first year of implementation in The top two reasons customers signed up for the program were to receive an incentive (97.7%) and save money on their bill (83.7%). It has been a positive experience for our company. It was an opportunity to investigate load shedding and identify potential savings in demand charges. Saving energy is very wise for the future. I would also like support / help reducing energy in my facility. What can be done to make more energy improvements? A major learning in 2017 was that 91.7% of business customers who did not participate in the economic DR programs indicated that economic events are called too frequently and would be disruptive to their business. The incentive is not high enough to participate. I haven t seen the numbers for 2018 yet, but in 2017 the incentives were not high enough to stop production. Unfortunately, peak time is also our peak operations. Demand Response Report 8

16 Page: 11 of 13 APPENDIX 2017 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS DAY EVENTS AC PEAK CYCLING EVENT DATE HOURS AVG TEMP. AVG HUMIDITY CUSTOMERS TOTAL RESPONSE 1 June pm 84 F 50% 3, MW 2 July pm 78 F 66% 3, MW 3 July pm 78 F 73% 3, MW 4 July pm 76 F 70% 9, MW 5 August pm 77 F 61% 10, MW 6 August pm 78 F 67% 6, MW 7 September pm 81 F 66% 15, MW 8 September pm 80 F 66% 7, MW 9 September pm 79 F 63% 13, MW 10 September pm 78 F 59% 12, MW 2017 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS DAY EVENTS CRITICAL PEAK PRICING EVENT DATE HOURS AVG TEMP. AVG HUMIDITY CUSTOMERS TOTAL RESPONSE 1 June pm 79 F 63% 3, MW 2 June pm 76 F 59% 3, MW 3 July pm 78 F 74% 4, MW 4 July pm 78 F 66% 2, MW 5 July pm 78 F 73% 3, MW 6 July pm 76 F 70% 4, MW 7 August pm 76 F 70% 5, MW 8 August pm 77 F 61% 5, MW 9 September pm 78 F 67% 3, MW 10 September pm 81 F 66% 6, MW 11 September pm 79 F 63% 6, MW Demand Response Report 9

17 Page: 12 of RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS DAY EVENTS PEAK TIME REWARDS EVENT DATE HOURS AVG TEMP. AVG HUMIDITY CUSTOMERS TOTAL RESPONSE 1 June pm 80 F 59% 1, MW 2 June pm 79 F 63% 1, MW 3 July pm 78 F 74% 2, MW 4 July pm 78 F 66% 1, MW 5 July pm 78 F 73% 1, MW 6 July pm 76 F 70% 2, MW 7 August pm 76 F 70% 2, MW 8 August pm 77 F 61% 3, MW 9 September pm 78 F 67% 1, MW 10 September pm 81 F 66% 3, MW 11 September pm 79 F 63% 3, MW 2017 BUSINESS ENERGY SAVINGS DAY EVENTS ECONOMIC PROGRAM EVENT DATE HOURS AVG TEMP. AVG HUMIDITY CUSTOMERS TOTAL RESPONSE 1 June pm 82 F 55% MW 2 July pm 78 F 74% MW 3 July pm 78 F 66% MW 4 July pm 78 F 73% MW 5 August pm 77 F 61% MW 6 August pm 78 F 67% MW 7 September pm 81 F 66% MW 8 September pm 80 F 66% MW 9 September pm 78 F 59% MW Demand Response Report 10

18 Page: 13 of 13

19 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the application of ) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY ) Case No. U for approval of its integrated resource plan ) pursuant to MCL 460.6t and for other relief ) ) STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) SS COUNTY OF JACKSON ) PROOF OF SERVICE Samantha J. O Rourke, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is employed in the Legal Department of Consumers Energy Company; that on June 18, 2018, she served an electronic copy of Exhibit A-50 (NJK-10) of Company witness Norman J. Kapala and A-62 (PCE-3) of Company witness Patrick C. Ennis upon the persons listed in Attachment 1 hereto, at the addresses listed therein. Samantha J. O Rourke Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18 th day of June, Melissa K. Harris, Notary Public State of Michigan, County of Jackson My Commission Expires: 06/11/20 Acting in the County of Jackson ps

20 Counsel for the Michigan Public Service Commission Staff Spencer A. Sattler, Esq. Amit T. Singh, Esq. Monica M. Stephens, Esq. Assistant Attorneys General 7109 West Saginaw Highway Post Office Box Lansing, MI Michigan Public Service Commission Staff Mike Byrne Gary Kitts Bill Stosik Brian Ballinger Paul Proudfoot Bob Nichols Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 West Saginaw Highway Post Office Box Lansing, MI Counsel for Attorney General, Bill Schuette Joel B. King, Esq. Celeste Gill, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Michigan Dept. of Attorney General, Special Litigation Unit 6 th Floor Williams Building Post Office Box Lansing, MI kingj38@michigan.gov Gillc1@michigan.gov AG-ENRA-Spec-Lit@michigan.gov ATTACHMENT 1 TO CASE NO. U (Parties to Case No. U-18322) Counsel for the Michigan State Utility Workers Council, Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO John R. Canzano, Esq. Patrick J. Rorai, Esq. McKnight, Canzano, Smith, Radtke & Brault, P.C. 423 North Main Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI jcanzano@michworkerlaw.com prorai@michworkerlaw.com Counsel for the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association Michael S. Ashton, Esq. Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. 124 West Allegan Street, Suite 1000 Lansing, MI mashton@fraserlawfirm.com Counsel for the Michigan Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council Christopher M. Bzdok, Esq. Tracy Jane Andrews, Esq. Kimberly Flynn, Legal Assistant Karla Gerds, Legal Assistant Marcia Randazzo, Legal Assistant Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C. 420 East Front Street Traverse City, MI chris@envlaw.com tjandrews@envlaw.com kimberly@envlaw.com karla@envlaw.com marcia@envlaw.com sl Page 1 of 3

21 Counsel for the Sierra Club ATTACHMENT 1 TO CASE NO. U (Continued) Michael Soules, Esq. Shannon Fisk, Esq. Flora Champenois, Litigation Assistant Gabrielle Winick, Litigation Assistant 1625 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 702 Washington, DC msoules@earthjustice.org sfisk@earthjustice.org fchampenois@earthjustice.org gwinick@earthjustice.org Counsel for The Kroger Company Counsel for the Residential Customer Group Don L. Keskey, Esq. Brian W. Coyer, Esq. Public Law Resource Center PLLC 333 Albert Avenue, Suite 425 East Lansing, MI donkeskey@publiclawresourcecenter.com bwcoyer@ publiclawresourcecenter.com Counsel for Wal-Mart Stores East, LP and Sam s East, Inc. Kurt J. Boehm, Esq. Jody M. Kyler Cohn, Esq. Michael L. Kurtz, Esq. Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry 36 East Seventh Street, Suite 1510 Cincinnati, Ohio kboehm@bkllawfirm.com jkylercohn@bkllawfirm.com mkurtz@bkllawfirm.com Counsel for the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association David E. S. Marvin, Esq. Michael S. Ashton, Esq. Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. 124 West Allegan Street, Suite 1000 Lansing, MI dmarvin@fraserlawfirm.com mashton@fraserlawfirm.com Counsel for the Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity ( ABATE ) and Gerdau Macsteel, Inc. Bryan A. Brandenburg, Esq. Michael J. Pattwell, Esq. Clark Hill PLC 212 East Grand River Avenue Lansing, MI bbrandenburg@clarkhill.com mpattwell@clarkhill.com lmcpartlin@clarkhill.com Melissa M. Horne, Esq. Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, LLP 10 Dorrance Street, 4 th Floor Providence, RI mhorne@hcc-law.com Counsel for Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation and Constellation NewEnergy Inc. Jennifer Utter Heston, Esq. Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. 124 West Allegan, Suite 1000 Lansing, MI jheston@fraserlawfirm.com Counsel for Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership Richard J. Aaron, Esq. Jason T. Hanselman, Esq. Dykema Gossett PLLC 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 Lansing, MI raaron@dykema.com jhanselman@dykema.com Charles E. Dunn, Esq. Midland Cogeneration Venture, LP 100 Progress Place Midland, MI cedunn@midcogen.com sl Page 2 of 3

22 Counsel for Energy Michigan ATTACHMENT 1 TO CASE NO. U (Continued) Timothy J. Lundgren, Esq. Laura A. Chappelle, Esq. Varnum, LLP The Victor Center, Suite North Washington Square Lansing, MI tjlundgren@varnumlaw.com lachappelle@varnumlaw.com Toni L. Newell, Esq. Varnum, LLP 333 Bridge Street NW Grand Rapids, MI tlnewell@varnumlaw.com Counsel for Environmental Law & Policy Center Margrethe Kearney, Esq. Kristin Field, Legal Assistant Environmental Law & Policy Center 1514 Wealthy Street SE, Suite 256 Grand Rapids, MI mkearney@elpc.org kfield@elpc.org Bradley Klein, Esq. Environmental Law & Policy Center 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL bklein@elpc.org Counsel for Midwest Cogeneration Association John R. Liskey, Esq. John R. Liskey Attorney At Law PLLC 921 North Washington Avenue Lansing, MI john@liskeypllc.com Patricia Sharkey, Esq. Environmental Law Counsel, P.C. 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL psharkey@e-lawcounsel.com sl Page 3 of 3