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 DTE Gas ) Company for authority to increase its ) Case No. U-17701 Main Replacement Program spending ) and increase the IRM surcharge )

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

The attached Proposal for Decision is being issued and served on all parties

of record in the above matter on August 17, 2015.

Exceptions, if any, must be filed with the Michigan Public Service

Commission, 7109 West Saginaw, Lansing, Michigan 48917, and served on all other

parties of record on or before September 3, 2015, or within such further period as

may be authorized for filing exceptions. If exceptions are filed, replies thereto may

be filed on or before September 17, 2015. The Commission has selected this

case for participation in its Paperless Electronic Filings Program. No paper

documents will be required to be filed in this case.

At the expiration of the period for filing exceptions, an Order of the

Commission will be issued in conformity with the attached Proposal for Decision and

will become effective unless exceptions are filed seasonably or unless the Proposal

for Decision is reviewed by action of the Commission. To be seasonably filed,

exceptions must reach the Commission on or before the date they are due.

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM For the Michigan Public Service Commission _____________________________________ Sharon L. Feldman Administrative Law Judge

August 17, 2015 Lansing, Michigan

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM FOR THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter of the application of DTE Gas ) Company for authority to increase its ) Case No. U-17701 Main Replacement Program spending ) and increase the IRM surcharge )

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 12, 2014, DTE Gas Company filed an application seeking

permission to increase the size of its Main Replacement Program (MRP) originally

approved in Case No. U-16407 and expanded in Case No. U-16996. DTE Gas’s

application proposes to increase spending under the program by $46.9 million per year

in 2016 and 2017, and to increase the Infrastructure Recovery Mechanism (IRM)

surcharge correspondingly. DTE Gas’s application was accompanied by the testimony

of three witnesses, along with supporting exhibits.

DTE Gas, Staff, the Attorney General, and the Association of Businesses

Advocating Tariff Equity attended the January 13, 2015 prehearing conference; at the

prehearing, the petitions to intervene were granted and a consensus schedule was

established. Following the established schedule, on April 10, 2015, Staff filed the

U-17701 Page 2

testimony and exhibits of two witnesses; on May 8, 2015, DTE Gas filed the rebuttal

testimony of each of its three witnesses.

At the June 3, 2015 evidentiary hearing, the testimony of all witnesses was

bound into the record by agreement of the parties, without the need for the witnesses to

appear, and all proffered exhibits were admitted into evidence. DTE Gas, Staff, and

ABATE filed briefs on June 22, 2015; DTE Gas and Staff filed reply briefs on

July 8, 2015.1

II.

OVERVIEW OF THE RECORD

The evidentiary record is contained in 93 transcript pages and 20 exhibits.2 This

section reviews the evidentiary record, beginning with the direct presentations of DTE

Gas and Staff, then turning to the rebuttal testimony.

A. DTE Gas

Joi M. Harris is Vice President, Gas Operations for DTE Gas. Her educational

background includes an undergraduate degree in industrial engineering as well as an

M.B.A. She testified to explain the company’s proposed additional $46.9 million annual

expenditure.3 Her Exhibit A-1 details the 2013-2015 approved spending and 2016-2017

proposed spending for all infrastructure programs covered by the IRM, including the

MRP as well as the meter relocation and pipeline integrity programs. Ms. Harris

reviewed the origins of the program in the Commission’s June 3, 2010 order in

1 By agreement of the parties, the briefing deadlines were extended by one week from those set at the prehearing conference. 2 Transcript references to the testimony contained in this PFD are to volume 2 unless otherwise specified. 3 Ms. Harris’s testimony, including her rebuttal testimony, is transcribed at Tr 18-47.

U-17701 Page 3

Case No. U-15985, further explaining that the initial focus of the MRP first approved in

Case No. U-16407 was on southeast Michigan, where the majority of DTE Gas’s cast

iron and unprotected steel mains are located.

Her Exhibit A-2 shows actual MRP spending over the 2011-2013 timeframe. Ms.

Harris testified that at the pace originally approved, DTE Gas would retire all its cast iron

and unprotected steel main in approximately 133 years, while at the expenditure level

approved in Case No. U-16999, DTE Gas could increase the pace of replacement to

approximately 60 years. Ms. Harris testified that DTE Gas is proposing a further

expansion of the program because: 1) it has gained substantial operational experience;

2) the work to date has reduced leaks compared to historical levels; 3) an increased

pace of replacement will reduce the risk of a major leak; 4) currently-low gas prices help

mitigate the costs to ratepayers of the program expansion; and 5) the proposed

replacement plan will put DTE Gas on a 25-30 year replacement pace, allowing the

company to better keep up with its industry peers.4 Ms. Harris also testified that the

unreplaced main is deteriorating at a faster pace than initially projected.5 Due to this

deterioration, she testified that she does not expect the increased expenditures will

reduce the projected leak levels until after 2017.6

Ms. Harris testified regarding the additional resources that will be required to

complete the additional work, including additional company and contractor employees

as shown in her Exhibit A-3. Ms. Harris testified that the company’s proposed additional

spending should allow 57 additional miles of main replacement annually in 2016 and

2017, for an annual total of 123 miles, as shown in Exhibit A-4. Ms. Harris also testified

4 See Tr 26-27. 5 See Tr 28. 6 See Tr 32.

U-17701 Page 4

that in increasing the size of the program as proposed, DTE Gas expects to achieve

cost savings of 5-7% by using the Modified Grid Approach discussed in Ms. Sandberg’s

testimony; she testified that she reflected these savings in her Exhibit A-4. Ms. Harris

summarized four benefits from DTE Gas’s plan as follows:

The benefits remain the same as put forth in Case No. U-16407 which approved the original MRP. Specifically, the proposed MRP provides: 1) A systematic, accelerated replacement and retirement of the poorest performing, unprotected mains within DTE Gas’s distribution system that will more quickly stabilize distribution system deterioration, thus reducing the threat of a major failure; 2) An improvement in the overall safety and reliability of DTE Gas’s distribution system at a level that is affordable to our customer base and the Company; 3) A stabilization of DTE Gas’s leak rate allowing existing resources to better manage the leak inventory, minimizing the number of leaks that remain unrepaired in the distribution system; and 4) A reduction in the number of customer reported leaks which should increase customer satisfaction with DTE Gas’s natural gas service.7

And Ms. Harris testified that under the company’s proposal, the surcharge will continue

to be calculated in the same manner, and DTE Gas will have the same spending

flexibility as approved in Case No. U-16999, noting that DTE Gas will be able to

increase or decrease expenses by $2.5 million per year, subject to a $124.3 million cap

for 2016 and 2017. She also testified that the reporting requirements adopted in Case

No. U-16999 will continue to be followed.

Alida D. Sandberg is Director of Engineering Services for DTE Gas. Her

educational background includes an undergraduate degree in bioengineering as well as

7 See Tr 32-33.

U-17701 Page 5

an M.B.A.8 Ms. Sandberg testified that DTE Gas currently has 4088 miles of

unprotected main and identified the criteria DTE Gas uses to determine when this main

needs to be replaced. She testified that DTE Gas has a Main Replacement

Prioritization computer program that predicts leak rates for each pipe segment, and a

Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) risk model program to assess the

potential impact of a leak, and this information is combined into an overall risk score

used to identify segment and grid system renewal candidates.9 She contrasted

“segment main renewals” with “grid system main renewals”, explaining that segment

main renewals replace short segments of main identified as the poorest performing

based on risk scoring, while grid system main renewals focus on an area of poorer

performing pipe to take advantage of efficiencies, address specific operating issues,

and consider the potential for using a higher operating pressure.10 She also explained

the Modified Grid Approach (MGA) DTE Gas proposes to use for main renewals with

the increased funding sought in this case:

Rather than choosing a variety of different, smaller grids for replacement of cast iron and other unprotected mains and connecting them into piping that will require future replacement, the MGA takes a more comprehensive total system approach that focuses on the replacement of the low pressure distribution system and all the poorer performing, unprotected mains within the system. The MGA focuses on replacing the entire lower pressure distribution systems with a new 60 psig plastic system starting in one area and working into the next adjacent area that predominately consists of cast iron and unprotected steel mains. This method allows for smaller diameter pipe to be installed, minimizes connections to the existing system, reduces the number of complex connections, and eliminates returning to the same areas when the risk ranking of mains in the immediate area increase to the point they must be renewed. The MGA also addresses the larger diameter unprotected mains that transfer gas to numerous district regulators supplying these systems. A strategic

8 Ms. Sandberg’s testimony, including her rebuttal testimony, is transcribed at Tr 48-60. 9 See Tr 52. 10 See Tr 52-53.

U-17701 Page 6

replacement strategy for the large diameter transfer mains is important because the current grid system renewals merely replace mains with protected mains that are similar to those in the existing system. The MGA considers a comprehensive total system approach to economically and efficiently address the corresponding larger transfer mains in the same construction process. The capital cost savings from MGA translate into more main renewal mileage each year for the same level of investment.11

She identified additional benefits from improved system reliability, improved operating

flexibility, and greater flexibility for system growth. And she explained that DTE Gas has

spent significant time evaluating what areas of its system would be the best candidates

for the MGA method, and has determined to concentrate its efforts in southeastern

Michigan, while using the current grid approach in central Michigan.12

In support of DTE Gas’s proposed expansion, she also testified that DTE Gas’s

progress in removing unprotected main from its system has not yet stabilized the

number of annual new leaks on the system, further testifying that the quicker the entire

cast iron and unprotected steel system is replaced, the sooner the level of main leaks

can be stabilized and then reduced.13

Margaret A. Suchta is Principal Financial Analysis in the Revenue Requirement

Department of the Regulatory Affairs Organization of DTE Energy Corporate Services.

Her educational background includes an undergraduate degree in business

administration as well as an M.B.A. The purpose of her testimony was to provide the

calculations of the incremental revenue requirement associated with the $46.9 million

annual expansion, and the corresponding increases in the monthly IRM surcharges.14

Her Exhibit A-5 presents the incremental revenue requirement calculation, including

11 See Tr 54-55. 12 See Tr 56. 13 See Tr 53. 14 Ms. Suchta’s testimony, including her rebuttal testimony, is transcribed at Tr 61-70.

U-17701 Page 7

return on ratebase, depreciation and property taxes to determine a total cost of service

requirement. She testified that she used the depreciation rate approved in

Case No. U-16769 and a pre-tax rate of return of 11.79% based on the Commission’s

order in Case No. U-16999. Her Exhibit A-6 presents the IRM surcharge calculation

separately for July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 and July 1, 2017 through June 30,

2018. She testified that she followed the same method of calculation used in

Case No. U-16999. Her Exhibit A-7 is the proposed tariff sheet containing the revised

surcharges.

B. Staff

Cynthia L. Creisher is a Public Utility Engineer in the Gas Operations Section of

the Operations and Wholesale Markets Division of the MPSC. Her educational

background includes an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering. After

describing the MRP approved in Case No. U-16407 and expanded per

Case No. U-16999, Ms. Creisher testified regarding the safety requirements applicable

to DTE Gas’s system, including federal rules incorporated by reference in the Michigan

Gas Safety Standards. She testified that although the rules do not require replacement

of all higher-risk pipe within any specific time frame, Staff supports the replacement of

such pipe through accelerated programs such as the one in place for DTE Gas.15 She

testified that the United States Department of Transportation and its Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also recommend such programs.

Ms. Creisher presented Exhibit S-1 to support the continuing need for an

accelerated program for DTE Gas, testifying that at the end of 2014, DTE Gas’s system

15 Ms. Creisher’s testimony is transcribed at Tr 73-86.

U-17701 Page 8

was second in the nation for its high volume of cast or wrought iron main. She also

reviewed the expenditures and activities undertaken by DTE Gas since 2011, citing

Exhibit A-2 and DTE Gas’s annual performance report for 2014, Exhibit S-2. Ms.

Creisher testified that DTE Gas did not meet its targets in 2011, the first year of the

program, due to the timing of Commission approval and alignment of the resources to

do the work. In each of the following years, however, DTE Gas exceeded its target

miles.

Reviewing the company’s plans as presented by Ms. Sandberg and as shown in

Exhibit A-4, Ms. Creisher testified that Staff generally supports the expansion of the

MRP and the proposed Modified Grid Approach, provided the selection of project areas

is based on a risk ranking. She testified that Staff has concerns that DTE Gas cannot

realistically double the size of the program and ensure the quality and safety of the

work. She also testified that Staff recommends that a doubling of the size of the

program be reserved for consideration a general rate case. Ms. Creisher testified that

Staff recommends a stepwise approach, proposing that capital expenses be increased

from $46.9 million to $58.625 million in 2016; contingent on successful completion of the

2016 target expenditures and renewal mileage, 2017 spending levels would be

increased to $70.350 million, with a corresponding increase in the target miles. If 2016

targets are not met, Staff would leave spending levels for 2016 at the $58.625 million

level. She explained Staff’s concerns:

Staff recognizes that the MRP has increased in size and scope significantly since it was implemented in 2011 and that the Company has generally been able to meet the targets set for the program each year; however, DTE’s proposed doubling of the size of its main replacement program in a single year raises Staff’s concern that the Company will not be able to have adequate resources, particularly construction workforce

U-17701 Page 9

employees or contractors, in place to complete the additional main replacement projects as proposed by the Company in this proceeding. Staff is also concerned that an attempt to drastically increase the size of the program in a short period will cause additional strain on the Company’s resources already in place to complete work such as the Meter Move Out program or new customer attachments. Staff is aware of the effort and resources required to increase and maintain the replacement programs by other natural gas utilities, such as Consumers Energy, SEMCO Energy Gas Company, and Michigan Gas Utilities; there is a strain on the availability of qualified personnel to perform this type of work as a result of the recent focus on pipeline replacement and other infrastructure programs both inside and outside of Michigan. Staff’s position is that the Company has not demonstrated its ability to acquire, train, and maintain the required resources to complete the work as proposed.16 In formulating mileage targets for the increased spending, Staff recommends a

2016 target of 81 miles (below 2014 actuals) and a 2017 target of 95 miles if 2016

targets are achieved, as shown in Exhibit S-5. Based on Staff’s cost review, Ms.

Creisher also testified that DTE Gas’s unit cost estimates for the Modified Grid

Approach do not reflect a reduction over historical unit cost levels for the MRP program.

She presented Exhibit S-4 to support this analysis. Finally, Ms. Creisher testified to

Staff’s recommended reporting and reconciliation requirements:

Staff recommends that DTE include in the MRP annual performance reports as filed by March 31 of each year: the risk ranking for all projects completed; the amount of cathodically unprotected pipe replaced; the justification for any planned projects based on risk ranking that were not completed; the number of staff resources dedicated to the MRP; the estimated annual Operations and Maintenance savings for leak survey on mains and services, the leak repair on mains and services, cathodic protection, and lost and unaccounted for gas. Additionally, the performance report should include a summary of the miles replaced delineated by pipe type, data available on service lines broken down by material type consistent with Distribution Integrity Management Program ranking, and a summary of the MRP program total pipe replaced. Staff recommends that DTE include in the MRP annual planning report, as filed by October 31 of each year, the risk ranking for all projects planned and the amount of cathodically unprotected pipe to be replaced. For both the

16 See Tr 83-84.

U-17701 Page 10

planned and performance reports submitted, the risk ranked projects, risk ranked grid projects, and MGA projects should be reported separately.17

And she recommended continuation of the annual reconciliation process for 2016 and

2017 expenditures.

Nicholas M. Revere is the Manager of the Rates and Tariffs Section of the

Regulated Energy Division of the MPSC. His educational background includes

undergraduate degrees in political science and economics. He presented Staff’s

revised calculation of the increased revenue requirement and surcharges based on Ms.

Creisher’s recommendations.18 His calculations are presented in the alternative for

2017, with Exhibits S-6 and S-7 based on the assumption that DTE Gas meets Staff’s

proposed capital spending and mileage targets and Exhibits S-8 and S-9 based on the

assumption that DTE Gas does not meet those targets.

Mr. Revere testified that his exhibits also retain the depreciation rate approved in

Case No. U-15699, rather than the depreciation rates approved in Case No. U-16769,

quoting the Commission’s order May 15, 2013 order in Case No. U-16769 to the effect

that depreciation rates approved in that later case would not take effect until a final

order in DTE Gas’s next rate case.

C. Rebuttal

Ms. Harris presented rebuttal testimony to address Staff’s concerns regarding the

company’s ability to significantly expand the size of the MRP beginning in 2016,

disputing that the spending or mileage targets proposed by DTE Gas should be

reduced. She testified that DTE Gas has key steps and measures designed to ensure

17 See Tr 85-86. 18 Mr. Revere’s testimony is transcribed at Tr 85-91.

U-17701 Page 11

that quality and safety are maintained, further testifying that the Modified Grid Approach

provides inherent safety and quality improvements. She testified that DTE Gas will use

four incremental contract inspectors and one additional construction supervisor

beginning in 2015, with responsibilities for quality control activities including field audits

and documentation. She also testified that DTE Gas will perform leak detection surveys

after new main is installed. Ms. Harrison also noted that DTE Gas is not proposing an

expansion of as many as 60-80 miles, as stated in Staff’s testimony, but only 57 miles.19

She testified that DTE Gas’s 400% expansion of the program from 2011 to 2012 shows

the company’s capability, and additionally testified:

The Company has three more years of experience in successfully managing a large capital project that has grown in size each year. During these three years, the Company has utilized its Continuous Improvement capabilities to implement several improvements including increasing the lead time for planning and design forward from 7 months in 2012 to a full 18 months ahead for the 2016 MRP. In addition, DTE Gas has awarded new three-year term contracts to two design firms to retain the necessary resources to complete the incremental pull ahead designs for 2016 and 2017 work. There have also been improvements made within the design process. Improvements include all designs and drawings being reviewed and approved by Engineering and Construction, lessening the possibility of field changes, saving valuable time and increasing productivity during construction.20

Ms. Harris cited reports filed with the Commission since 2011, showing an increase

from 28 to 103 internal employees dedicated to the gas renewal program activities. Ms.

Harris reviewed the project management and scheduling improvements implemented

since 2012, including weekly check-in meetings between DTE Gas and construction

contractor personnel, and she reviewed DTE Gas’s plans to hire and train an additional

19 See Tr 37. 20 See Tr 38.

U-17701 Page 12

24 full-time employees by October 2015. She also described the plans in place to

recruit and train the new employees.

Ms. Harris testified that DTE Gas has implemented a robust contracting strategy

to ensure it will have adequate contractor resources in place, describing the company’s

2014 RFP, and elements of its subsequent negotiations with potential contractors

regarding those contractors’ other potential commitments and available resources over

the pertinent time frame. She testified that by awarding three-year contracts, the

company’s strategy provides more stability than its historical one-year contract

approach. She presented Exhibit A-8 to show DTE Gas’s contractor resource allocation

by region for both routine distribution and MRP work. She testified that DTE Gas’s

proposed expansion will not place a strain on its other construction activities including

its meter relocation and new customer attachment programs.21

Ms. Harris also testified that she opposes basing the project scope for a given

level of expenditure on the average unit cost for main renewal over 2011-2014,

contending that the variability in unit cost experienced historically makes cost-based

projections unreliable. She testified that DTE Gas has experienced actual unit costs

ranging from $137,523 per mile to $3,374,041 per mile over that time period. Further,

she testified that DTE Gas would use any surplus funds from the spending targets to

complete additional miles of main renewal work.22

Ms. Harris also outlined the reporting DTE Gas would be willing to provide,

agreeing to all Staff’s requests except Staff’s request that DTE Gas report lost and

unaccounted for gas savings in each performance report. She cited testimony from

21 See Tr 43. 22 See Tr 44-45.

U-17701 Page 13

Case No. U-16999 to show that lost gas savings were not expected from the MRP since

DTE Gas uses a five-year historical average to estimate lost and unaccounted for gas in

keeping with traditional practice.23

Ms. Sandberg’s rebuttal testimony addressed Staff’s testimony recommending

the use of risk rankings to select grid or Modified Grid Approach projects. She reviewed

her direct testimony that grid system renewals are targeted at poorer performing pipe

while the Modified Grid Approach replaces the entire lower pressure distribution system

with 60 psig plastic. She testified that risk ranking alone would not provide an adequate

basis to select grid or MGA projects. She testified that grid system projects are based

on risk ranking as well as consideration of operational issues such as water in the

system, the availability of high-pressure mains, and area construction projects.24

Modified Grid Approach projects are planned to begin with Grosse Pointe and Dearborn

based on the availability of high pressure mains, higher leaks, denser population, and a

greater concentration of unprotected main. She testified that DTE Gas still plans to

renew 15 miles of the highest-risk main annually.25

Ms. Suchta’s rebuttal testimony addressed Mr. Revere’s testimony regarding the

appropriate depreciation rate to use for transmission main in the incremental revenue

requirement and surcharge calculations. She testified that she agreed with Mr.

Revere’s recommendations to use the depreciation rate from Case No. U-15699, and

she accordingly revised her calculations of the incremental revenue requirement and

23 See Tr 46-47. 24 See Tr 58-59. 25 See Tr 59-60.

U-17701 Page 14

monthly surcharge, as well as the proposed tariff sheet, as shown in Exhibits A-9, A-10

and A-11.26

III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

In its initial brief, DTE Gas argues that the Commission has the legal authority to

approve its revised MRP. DTE Gas traces the history of its MRP and IRM to the

Commission’s June 3, 2010 order in Case No. U-15985 directing DTE Gas to file a plan

to renew its natural gas system and reduce the amount of cast iron, and to file a plan to

move its meters to outside locations. DTE Gas then reviews subsequent Commission

decisions in Case Nos. U-16407, U-16451, and U-16999.27 DTE Gas also cites the

Michigan Court of Appeals opinion affirming the Commission’s order establishing the

IRM in Case No. U-16999.28

DTE Gas next argues that its proposed increase of $46.9 million annually in 2016

and 2017 capital expenditures is reasonable and prudent. DTE Gas argues that it

reasonably estimates this additional expenditure will allow it to renew an additional 57

miles each year, for a program total renewal and retirement of 123 miles each year. In

support of its cost estimates, DTE Gas cites Exhibit A-4, and argues that the unit and

cost estimates are consistent with the cost assumptions presented in

Case No. U-16407. Tracking Ms. Harris’s testimony, DTE Gas identifies the following

factors as supporting its request: the experience it has gained in two and a half years

26 See Tr 70. 27 See DTE Gas brief, pages 2-4. 28 See In re Application of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company to Increase Rates, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 11, 2014 (Docket No. 316141).

U-17701 Page 15

operating the program; sizeable leaks still experienced on its distribution main and

service lines; a modest impact on customer bills; and DTE Gas’s significantly older

infrastructure in comparison to its natural gas industry peers. DTE Gas argues that

despite the successful implementation of the current MRP program, DTE Gas has not

yet stabilized the number of new leaks on its system, due to cast iron and unprotected

steel distribution main deteriorating a pace greater than originally forecast.

DTE Gas addresses Staff’s proposal, arguing that Staff is proposing to limit MRP

expenditures to the average unit cost for 2013-14 main renewal, and further arguing that

this position is not well founded because it does not consider the variability of unit costs

over that time frame. DTE Gas argues that this cost variability requires it to maintain a

large 30% contingency. Arguing that its Modified Grid Approach is more systematic and

cost effective than previous methods approved by the Commission and used by the

company, based on Ms. Sandberg’s testimony, DTE Gas reviews the MGA parameters,

and argues that capital cost savings from this program will translate into more main

renewal mileage each year. DTE Gas also emphasizes that it will continue to use the

Main Replacement Prioritization Program and DIMP risk model approved in prior

cases.29

DTE Gas addresses Staff’s stated concern with the company’s ability to increase

the size of the program as proposed while maintaining safety and work quality, citing

Ms. Harris’s testimony explaining DTE Gas’s capabilities and resources, including its

contracting strategies.30 DTE Gas’s brief also indicates that it agrees reporting

requirements under the program should include the elements requested by Staff, with

29 See DTE Gas brief, pages 10-12. 30 See DTE Gas brief, pages 12-15.

U-17701 Page 16

the exception of lost and unaccounted for gas, and it agrees otherwise to follow the

same program mechanics, including spending caps and Commission review, as

approved in Case No. U-16999.

In its initial brief, Staff reviews the record evidence including Staff’s

recommendations as presented by Ms. Creisher. Staff emphasizes its concern with the

proposed significant increase in the size of the MRP and associated spending, and

argues that DTE Gas has not demonstrated its ability to acquire, train, and maintain the

resources necessary to complete the work as proposed in its application. Staff argues

in favor of its “stepped approach” as explained by Ms. Creisher.31 Staff also argues

DTE Gas should revise its spending and miles targets, taking issue with the company’s

claimed cost savings as presented in Exhibit A-4. Staff also recommends that the same

reconciliation process that was adopted in Case No. U-16999 be adopted for

expenditures approved in this case, and identifies the information it believes should be

included in DTE Gas’s annual performance reports.32 Finally, Staff’s brief reviews the

surcharge calculations it recommends the Commission adopt, based on Mr. Revere’s

testimony, as set forth in Exhibits S-6 and S-7 if 2016 targets are met, and in

Exhibits S-8 and S-9 if these targets are not met.

In its initial brief, ABATE does not take issue with the propriety of DTE Gas’s

proposed increase in MRP expenditures, but argues that DTE Gas’s proposal to

implement an IRM through at least 2018 is illegal. Noting that DTE Gas’s

November 12, 2014 application in this cases was filed less than 6 months after the

Commission’s June 6, 2014 order in Case No. U-16999 approved DTE Gas’s current

31 See Staff brief, page 3. 32 See Staff brief, pages 4-5.

U-17701 Page 17

IRM surcharges, ABATE argues that it has appealed the Commission’s approval of the

surcharges approved in that order, and the appeal is currently pending before the

Michigan Supreme Court.

Focusing on Exhibit A-11, ABATE argues that DTE Gas’s proposal sets different

rates for each year, through the period labeled “2017-beyond”, based on expenditures

planned far outside of a single 12-month future test period. ABATE characterizes DTE

Gas’s proposal as based on “a 48-month consecutive test period to capture investments

alleged to be made in future years.”33 ABATE argues that the IRM would act as an

automatic adjustment clause in violation of MCL 460.6a(2), and would violate the

12-month future test year limit in MCL 460.6a(1). Regarding MCL 460.6a(2), ABATE

argues that the procedures adopted in Case No. U-16999 do not meet the “full and

complete hearing” requirement of that statutory section. Regarding MCL 460.6a(1),

ABATE argues that the statutory amendment adopted in 2008 PA 286 reflects a change

to the “used and useful” approach to ratemaking by allowing the Commission to reflect

projected capital costs in rates, but limited to the statutorily-stated 12-month period.34

Under ABATE’s argument, the reconciliation provided for in Case No. U-16999 also

demonstrates that the underlying rate increase is not permissible because there is no

statutory authority for the reconciliation:

Ordering a reconciliation without statutory authority should be giant red flat that the Commission is actually being asked to permit a rate increase which it ought not be allowing – since the rate increase logically and fairly needs to be reconciled. Reconciliations are needed in the exceptional circumstances where a rate increase is authorized that cannot be precisely calculated initially and may result in an over-collection or under-collection. The Commission is generally NOT authorized to approve rates that have to be reconciled, and retroactive ratemaking is unlawful!

33 See ABATE brief, page 2. 34 See ABATE brief, pages 3-6.

U-17701 Page 18

Michigan Bell Telephone Co v PSC, 315 Mich 533; 24 NW2d 200 (1946). However, the Legislature knows how to authorize the Commission to approve expenses and then implement a reconciliation. See, for example, the statute authorizing a gas cost recovery plan and reconciliation. MCL 460.6h(12), et seq. There is no similar statutory grant of power to authorize an IRM in the first place, and a reconciliation of the IRM under the case law as cited above.35 In its reply brief, DTE Gas addresses ABATE’s arguments by citing the Michigan

Court of Appeals opinion affirming the Commission’s April 16, 2013 order in

Case No. U-16999.36 DTE Gas notes that ABATE’s arguments are strictly legal, and

argues that ABATE has raised no new arguments that were not addressed and rejected

by the Court of Appeals.37

Responding to Staff’s arguments, DTE Gas argues that Staff’s concerns are

inaccurate, unfounded, or are adequately addressed by the MRP process already in

place or planned for implementation in conjunction with the proposed expansion. DTE

Gas cites Ms. Harris’s testimony at Tr 29 in emphasizing that its proposal is to renew an

additional 57 miles of pipeline in 2016 and 2017, not 60-80 miles, characterizing Ms.

Creisher’s testimony using the higher figures as erroneous.38 DTE Gas further relies on

Ms. Harris’s rebuttal testimony to establish that DTE Gas is capable of increasing the

number of miles as it has proposed.39 DTE Gas also disputes that the additional

resources proposed for the MRP would detract from its customer attachment and meter

moveout programs, citing a robust contract strategy and dedicated internal company

resources.

35 See ABATE brief, page 6. 36 See In re Application of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company to Increase Rates, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 11, 2014 (Docket No. 316141). 37 See DTE Gas reply brief, pages 1-4. 38 See DTE Gas reply brief, page 5. 39 See DTE Gas reply brief, pages 5-7.

U-17701 Page 19

Contending that Staff is also proposing to adjust target main renewal miles under

the MRP based on DTE Gas’s historical main renewal costs, DTE Gas argues that its

data fully supports the target miles it has proposed in this case and no adjustments are

warranted. DTE Gas cites data from 2011 to 2014 to show the variability of costs, and

testimony from Case No. U-16407 presenting a 30% contingency allowance in the cost

projections to account for that variability. Also citing Exhibit A-1 from

Case No. U-16407, DTE Gas argues that it is clear that the Commission also permitted

DTE Gas to use any unspent portion of the 30% contingency allowance to complete

additional miles of main renewal work.40

In its reply brief, Staff emphasizes its concern that DTE Gas’s Modified Grid

Approach proposal does not target the highest-risk main segments. Staff cites the

30 miles of remediation included in the MRP approved in Case No. U-16407, with

15 miles of highest-risk pipeline to be replaced and another 15 miles retired. Staff

responds to DTE Gas’s claim that it has gained two-and-a-half years’ experience since

the initial approval of the MRP by arguing that DTE Gas has only operated the MRP

program at the $46.9 million level for one year, with 2015 to become the second year,

characterizing this as limited experience at the level of capital investment that DTE Gas

is now seeking to double. Referencing Exhibit A-6, Staff also argues that surcharges

that appear modest at current gas price levels have not been shown to be affordable if

gas prices increase. Regarding DTE Gas’s argument that the MRP program has not yet

stabilized the number of leaks on its system, Staff argues that DTE Gas has not shown

that it has a handle on the causes of the new leaks or an explanation for why they are

occurring at a higher rate than anticipated. Staff posits, for example, that colder-than- 40 See DTE Gas reply brief, page 8.

U-17701 Page 20

normal weather could have contributed to increases in the number of leaks, and notes

that DTE Gas has not considered this.41 Staff acknowledges Ms. Harris’s rebuttal

testimony at 2 Tr 40-44 explaining DTE Gas’s expansion and plans for further

expansion of the program, but argues that Staff’s stepped approach will allow the

Commission to review the effectiveness of the remedial program.42 Further, Staff

characterizes DTE Gas’s planned Modified Grid Approach as a significant change in the

existing methodology, appropriate for a “trial” followed by meaningful Commission

review.43

Staff’s reply brief also takes issue with the characterization of Staff’s proposal in

DTE Gas’s initial brief. Staff disputes that it is recommending the use of 2013-2014

historical average unit cost as a limit on MRP expenditures. Staff instead clarifies that

its recommendation is that DTE Gas reassess its targeted miles based on the

performance statistics showing that it has performed better than initially assumed, citing

Exhibit S-4 and Ms. Creisher’s testimony at 2 Tr 84.44

Addressing ABATE’s arguments, Staff responds that the Commission has

already determined it has the authority to approve an IRM, and this decision has been

affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which remains the law pending any review by the

Michigan Supreme Court.

41 See Staff reply brief, pages 2-3. 42 See Staff brief, pages 3-4. 43 See Staff reply brief, pages 4-5. 44 See Staff reply brief, pages 5-6.

U-17701 Page 21

IV.

DISCUSSION

The parties agree that the genesis of DTE Gas’s Main Replacement Program

(MRP) was the Commission’s June 3, 2010 order in then-Michigan Consolidated Gas

Company’s rate case, Case No. U-15985. In that case, the Commission directed the

company to “file in a new docket an application for a detailed plan for main renewal,

including a long-term plan to significantly reduce the amount of cast iron main in its

system.”45 DTE Gas made the required filing in Case No. U-16407. In reviewing the

company’s 10-year plan to remediate approximately 300 miles of unprotected main at a

proposed annual expenditure of $17.1 million, the Commission found that the plan

satisfied its directives and should begin immediately, and the Commission established

reporting requirements. The Commission also indicated that surcharges to fund the

program needed to be evaluated in the context of a general rate case.46

In its next rate case, Case No. U-16999, DTE Gas requested a surcharge (the

Infrastructure Recovery Mechanism or IRM) to fund the MRP, as well as the company’s

meter relocation and pipeline integrity programs. DTE Gas also requested an

expansion of the MRP mileage and spending plan, proposing to spend a total of $46.9

million per year for the remaining plan period, beginning in 2013, and to remediate

approximately 66 miles annually. In its April 16, 2013 order in that rate case, the

Commission approved DTE Gas’s MRP proposal, and approved an IRM with

surcharges that increase annually through 2017. The Commission provided for annual

reconciliation proceedings following the company’s annual performance reports, with

45 See June 3, 2010 order, Case No. U-25985, page 104. 46 See September 13, 2011 order, Case No. U-16407, page 8.

U-17701 Page 22

the proceedings limited to a review of the work performed, including an assessment of

the appropriateness of the costs assigned to the component programs, and

consideration of a downward adjustment to the surcharge in the event of underspending

on those component programs.

Against this background, the parties raise essentially two different issues for

resolution. ABATE’s legal argument that the Commission lacks authority to grant DTE

Gas’s application is discussed in section A. The dispute between DTE Gas and Staff

regarding the appropriate scope of the MRP expansion is discussed in section B.

A. Commission Authority

Turning first to ABATE’s argument that the Commission lacks the authority to

approve the IRM and thus to approve any increase to the IRM, the Commission’s April

16, 2013 order discussed its authority extensively in response to the same arguments

raised by ABATE and the Attorney General. The Commission expressly found that it

had authority to adopt the program, including the IRM.47 As the parties all recognize,

the Commission’s order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In its December 11,

2014 opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed the same arguments ABATE now raises,

explaining the Court’s holding affirming the Commission as follows:

On appeal, appellants ABATE and the Attorney General argue that the PSC has only that authority granted to it by the Legislature, and that the implementation of an IRM is not authorized by any statute. Appellants assert that the PSC must use the traditional ratemaking process, including the consecutive 12-month test year required by MCL 460.6a(1), to permit Mich Con to recover capital expenditures for the MMO, the MRP, and the PI programs. The PSC did not do so; therefore, its order is unlawful. We disagree.

47 See April 16, 2013 order, pages 22-24.

U-17701 Page 23

MCL 460.6a(1) provides in pertinent part:

A gas or electric utility shall not increase its rates and charges or alter, change, or amend any rate or rate schedules, the effect of which will be to increase the cost of services to its customers, without first receiving commission approval as provided in this section. The utility shall place in evidence facts relied upon to support the utility’s petition or application to increase its rates and charges, or to alter, change, or amend any rate or rate schedules. The commission shall require notice to be given to all interested parties within the service area to be affected, and all interested parties shall have a reasonable opportunity for a full and complete hearing. A utility may use projected costs and revenues for a future consecutive 12-month period in developing its requested rates and charges.

This statute gives the PSC broad authority to regulate rates for public utilities. This authority does not include the power to make management decisions for a public utility. Consumers Power Co v Pub Serv Comm, 460 Mich 148, 157-158; 596 NW2d 126 (1999); Union Carbide Corp v Pub Serv Comm, 431 Mich 135, 148-150; 428 NW2d 322 (1988). These cases do not stand for the proposition that the PSC lacks discretion to approve a cost recovery mechanism absent statutory authority for the creation of that specific mechanism. See, e.g.,Great Wolf Lodge v Pub Serv Comm, 489 Mich 27, 42-43; 799 NW2d 155 (2011) (authority to award interest not authorized by statute, but lawful under MCL 460.6(1)). The PSC is not required to use any particular formula when setting rates. Residential Ratepayer Consortium v Pub Serv Comm, 239 Mich App 1, 6; 607 NW2d 391 (1999). We have repeatedly approved the use of a tracker mechanism, i.e., a mechanism that adjusts future rates in light of actual past costs. See In re Applications of Detroit Edison Co, 296 Mich App 101, 112-114; 817 NW2d 630 (2012) (and cases cited therein). The IRM is such a tracker mechanism. The IRM is designed to allow Mich Con to recover capital expenditures made for the MMO, the MRP, and the PI programs. We hold that the PSC did not err by approving the IRM, and that the PSC’s order is not unlawful or unreasonable in this regard. Next, ABATE argues that the IRM violates MCL 460.6a(2) and constitutes an unlawful adjustment clause because it does not provide for a full and complete hearing prior to an adjustment in the rates. We disagree. MCL 460.6a(2) provides in pertinent part:

U-17701 Page 24

(2) The commission shall adopt rules and procedures for the filing, investigation, and hearing of petitions or applications to increase or decrease utility rates and charges as the commission finds necessary or appropriate to enable it to reach a final decision with respect to petitions or applications within a period of 12 months from the filing of the complete petitions or applications. The commission shall not authorize or approve adjustment clauses that operate without notice and an opportunity for a full and complete hearing, and all such clauses shall be abolished. . . . As used in this section:

(a) “Full and complete hearing” means a hearing that provides interested parties a reasonable opportunity to present and cross-examine evidence and present arguments relevant to the specific element or elements of the request that are the subject of the hearing.

The PSC acknowledged that if rate adjustments occurred outside the context of a general rate case, caution was required so that MCL 460.6a(2) was not violated. The PSC found that there was no statutory requirement that a hearing under MCL 460.6a(2) must be held if a rate could only be adjusted downward. Nevertheless, the PSC ordered that an annual hearing be held to examine Mich Con’s report on its work during the previous year. The amount of the IRM surcharge for the 2013 test year and beyond was established during the contested case hearing. These surcharges cannot increase, but the surcharges can decrease if Mich Con spends less than the sum anticipated on the MMO, the MRP, and the PI programs. ABATE contends that the “full and complete hearing” required by MCL 460.6a(2) is essentially a contested case hearing like that defined in MCL 24.203(3). ABATE asserts that the type of proceeding ordered by the PSC does not allow parties to cross-examine the evidence or present argument “relevant to the specific element or elements of the request that is the subject of the hearing, all in violation of MCL 460.6a(2).” However, the annual hearing ordered by the PSC must include notice and the filing of a report by Mich Con. The hearing as described by the PSC would be “limited to reviewing the work performed, including an assessment of the appropriateness of the costs assigned to the various IRM programs, and recommending any downward adjustment to the surcharge in the event the company underspends on the various gas safety programs.” This description of the hearing required by the PSC order affords the parties the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence, i.e., Mich Con’s report detailing the work performed in the various programs, to argue whether Mich Con’s spending on that work was appropriate, and to argue for or

U-17701 Page 25

against a downward adjustment to the IRM surcharge. Thus the hearing process set out by the PSC meets the definition of a “full and complete hearing” in MCL 460.6a(2)(a).48 While at the time ABATE filed its brief in this case its application for leave to

appeal was pending before the Michigan Supreme Court, on July 28, 2015, the

Michigan Supreme Court denied ABATE’s application for leave to appeal.49 On this

basis, this PFD recognizes that the Commission’s order in Case No. U-16999 has been

affirmed on appeal, and the Commission thus has clear authority to implement an IRM,

and correspondingly the authority to revise the IRM following due notice and a

contested case hearing. Due notice was provided and all parties were given the

opportunity to present evidence regarding the reasonableness and prudence of DTE

Gas’s proposal. As ABATE’s brief acknowledges, it does not take a position on the

reasonableness and prudence of DTE Gas’s proposed MRP spending.50

B. MRP funding

The remaining dispute requiring resolution is the difference in the scope of

program as advocated by DTE Gas and by Staff.

DTE Gas seeks to double the MRP expenditures from their currently approved

level. Staff instead recommends that the Commission approve only a 25% increase

over the currently approved level beginning in 2016, and a 50% increase over the

currently approved level beginning in 2017 if DTE Gas meets the target spending and

48 See In re Application of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company to Increase Rates, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 11, 2014 (Docket No. 316141), pages 5-7 (footnotes omitted). 49 See In re Application of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company to Increase Rates, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 11, 2014 (Docket No. 316141), lv den __ Mich __ (2015). 50 See ABATE brief, page 1 (“ABATE will not at this time, in this Initial Brief, comment on the propriety of the revisions to the MRP nor the increase in expenditures, and will leave such comments, if any, to ABATE’s Reply Brief in this proceeding.”)

U-17701 Page 26

miles for 2016. The 2016 review and contested case hearing would determine whether

the targets were met. As described by Ms. Creisher and in Staff’s briefs, Staff’s

concerns include whether DTE Gas can realistically increase its spending to the level it

has proposed, whether DTE Gas has reasonably assessed the amount of remediation it

can accomplish for the proposed level of expenditure, the extent to which its Modified

Grid Approach method will remediate high-risk pipeline, and whether such level of

expansion should be considered in a general rate case. These concerns, Staff argues,

support its stepped approach.

DTE Gas views Staff’s concerns as unfounded. As described above, DTE Gas’s

witness Ms. Harris, on rebuttal, provided substantial detail to explain how DTE Gas can

meet its proposed mileage targets without other programs suffering. She reviewed in

substantial detail DTE Gas’s planned contracting and worker training. Although this

rebuttal testimony is persuasive that DTE Gas has the ability to ramp up its program

significantly, other issues raised by Staff support Staff’s stepped approach.

First, DTE Gas’s program goals are presented in terms of both dollars of

spending and miles of renewal or retirement. Staff’s analysis shows that program costs

on average over all years and in every program year have been below the cost

estimates presented in Exhibit A-4. Staff’s analysis in Exhibit S-4 shows a significant

gap between DTE Gas’s unit cost estimates, which use the 2011 estimates presented in

Case No. U-16407 minus an adjustment for expected savings from the Modified Grid

Approach, and DTE Gas’s actual unit costs over the 2011 to 2014 time period.

Citing the variability in per-mile remediation costs, Ms. Harris testified that DTE

Gas’s cost estimates as presented in Case No. U-16407 in 2011 include a 30%

U-17701 Page 27

contingency to address uncertainty. Although DTE Gas takes issue with Staff’s

characterization of the company’s proposed program expansion as funding an

additional 60-80 miles of main remediation rather than only 57 miles,51 using the

average historical unit cost of remediation of $665,394 per mile as shown in Exhibit S-4,

page 5, DTE Gas’s proposed expenditure of $46.9 million would remediate

approximately 70 miles.52 Presumably in recognition of DTE Gas’s commitment to

increasing the mileage remediated if necessary to meet the spending target,53 Staff has

not actually recommended any change to the method of estimating the target miles from

that proposed by DTE Gas in this case.54 Instead, Staff reasonably argues that the

uncertainty in the unit cost estimates is a basis for adopting its more gradual stepped

increase in program expenditures, so that target miles for a given expenditure level can

be reevaluated.

Second, DTE Gas’s unit cost estimate for the Modified Grid Approach method

including projected savings is $848,010 per mile as shown in Exhibit A-4. As Staff has

pointed out, this is significantly above the unit average remediation cost actually

experienced in the MRP program in total, $665,304 as shown in Exhibit S-4, page 5, as

well as in each individual year included in that average, as shown in Exhibit S-4, pages

1 to 4.55 It is, therefore, not possible on this record to conclude that the MGA is a cost-

effective approach to remediating the cast iron and unprotected pipe. Staff’s stepped

51 See DTE Gas reply brief, page 5 and Harris, Tr 37. 52 See Tr 44-45. 53 See Harris, Tr 45. 54 Ms. Harris in her rebuttal testimony and DTE Gas in its briefs treats Staff’s proposal as based on the historical average cost for main renewal, but as shown in Exhibit S-5, Staff uses the same cost assumptions DTE Gas used in its Exhibit A-4 to determine the miles associated with its recommended spending targets. 55 The MGA unit cost estimate is approximately 27% above the historical average remediation cost of $665,304.

U-17701 Page 28

approach will provide an opportunity for the Commission to evaluate the MGA program

before committing a larger expenditure to this approach.

Third, Staff raises a concern that the Modified Grid Approach does not target

grids based exclusively on risk criteria. As Ms. Sandberg explained in her rebuttal

testimony:

Grosse Pointe and Dearborn in Southeastern Michigan are the first two MGA areas selected to facilitate the expanded Main Renewal Program based on the availability of high pressure gas mains, higher existing leaks, denser customer population, and greater concentration of unprotected main. Since access to high pressure gas mains is a key factor in determining where a MGA project can initiate, selection of new MGA areas are unlikely to be based solely on risk ranking. However, when building off of the MGA areas, risk ranking will be a consideration in determining what area and direction to expand to. In addition, expansion of the MGA will be considered in Greater Michigan after 2017 to align the 25-30 year replacement strategy in both regions.56

She also explained that DTE Gas will continue its current plan to remediate 15 miles

annually of the highest-risk main.57 In discussing its concern, Staff notes that all of the

57 extra miles DTE Gas plans to remediate with the additional funding requested will be

directed to the MGA, rather than to the portion of DTE Gas’s program targeted to the

highest-risk main. Again, Staff’s stepped approach will allow for further evaluation of

the MGA program.

Finally, consistent with Ms. Creisher’s testimony, the Commission has expressed

a preference for addressing such major program changes in the context of a general

rate case.58 Staff’s concern that a doubling of the size of the program would best be

56 See Tr 59. 57 See Tr 59-60. 58 See, e.g., the Commission’s April 16, 2013 order in Case No. U-16999 (“The Commission generally agrees that when rate adjustments occur outside of a general rate case, caution must be exercised both to protect the public interest and to avoid running afoul of Section 6a(2).”)

U-17701 Page 29

reviewed in a general rate case is consistent with the Commission’s general reluctance

to increase rates outside a general rate case.59

This PFD finds that Staff’s concerns as discussed above are well taken and

support its recommended modification to the company’s proposal. Because DTE Gas

has approximately 4,000 thousand miles of cast iron and unprotected pipe to replace or

retire, by proceeding cautiously to implement the MGA method, and seeking an

opportunity to review an analysis of the MGA method costs and risk-reduction benefits

before significantly expanding funding, Staff’s proposal provides a more meaningful

opportunity for the Commission to ensure that the remediation occurs in as reasonably

efficient a manner as possible.

To implement Staff’s proposal, this PFD therefore finds that DTE Gas’s tariffs

should be changed to reflect the IRM surcharges calculated by Staff for 2016 and 2017,

assuming that the 2016 spending and mileage targets are met, as presented in Exhibit

S-7. The determination whether an IRM surcharge reduction is warranted can be made

in the context of the 2016 performance review and reconciliation. As Mr. Revere

testified:

Staff proposes that the Company’s tariff sheets be modified to reflect Staff’s proposed surcharges assuming the 2016 targets are met. If Staff, after its review of the Company’s 2016 performance in the reconciliation filing described by Staff witness Creisher, finds that the Company failed to meet its targets, the tariff sheets should be modified to reflect Staff’s proposed surcharge assuming the 2016 targets are not met.60

59 See, e.g.: August 4, 1987 order in Case No. U-8681, page 12; December 8, 1992 order in Case Nos. U-10040 and U-10040A, pages 20-21; April 13, 1995 order in Case No. U-10630, page 13; October 29, 1997 order in Case No. U-11453, page 6; and February 9, 2006 order in Case No. U-14428. 60 See Tr 91.

U-17701 Page 30

The parties agree on the reporting requirements for both the planning and

performance reporting, with the exception of what appears to be an unresolved minor

dispute whether DTE Gas should include estimated O & M savings associated with lost

and unaccounted for gas in its performance report. Ms. Creisher recommended this at

Tr 85. In her rebuttal testimony at Tr 46-47, Ms. Harris explained that DTE Gas has not

factored lost and unaccounted for gas savings into the IRM calculation, but plans to

address lost and unaccounted for gas using the traditional five-year average method.

Staff’s initial brief indicates that it supports all the reporting requirements identified by

Ms. Creisher, but does not directly address Ms. Harris’s rebuttal testimony on this issue

in either its brief or its reply brief. DTE Gas addresses the issue by citing Ms. Harris’s

testimony in its briefs.61 This PFD recommends that the Commission direct DTE Gas to

report the requested information, with the explicit recognition that the purpose of the

reporting is not to adjust the IRM, but to assist in the continuing evaluation of the MRP.

V.

CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, this PFD recommends that the Commission

reach the following findings and conclusions:

1. The Commission has the authority to expand the MRP in this docket;

2. Staff’s proposed stepped approach to the MRP program and IRM should be

adopted;

61 See DTE Gas brief, page16, at n8; DTE Gas reply brief, page 9, at n6.

U-17701 Page 31

3. The IRM surcharges should be revised as set forth in Exhibit S-7, subject to

reconciliation and reduction consistent with the Commission’s April 16, 2013 order in

Case No. U-16999 and Mr. Revere’s testimony as quoted above;

4. DTE Gas should adhere to the reporting requirements identified by Staff, with

the proviso that estimated lost and unaccounted for gas savings are not reflected in the

IRM calculations, and are reported to aid in the evaluation of the MRP.

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM For the Michigan Public Service Commission _____________________________________ Sharon L. Feldman Administrative Law Judge

Issued and Served: 8/17/15 drr