Direct Testimony And Exhibits of Sebastian Coppola

Transcription

1 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 GAS COMPANY for the Reconciliation of Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) Costs and Revenues for the Calendar Year 2017 / MPSC Case No. U Direct Testimony And Exhibits of Sebastian Coppola On behalf of Attorney General Bill Schuette December 14, 2018

2 1 2 Qualifications Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, OCCUPATION, AND ADDRESS. 3 4 A. My name is Sebastian Coppola. I am an independent business consultant. My office is located at 5928 Southgate Rd., Rochester, Michigan Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS A. I am a business consultant specializing in financial and strategic business issues in the fields of energy and utility regulation. I have more than thirty years of experience in public utility and related energy work, both as a consultant and utility company executive. I have testified in several regulatory proceedings before the Michigan Public Service Commission ( MPSC or Commission ) and other regulatory jurisdictions. I have prepared and/or filed testimony in general rate case proceedings, revenue decoupling reconciliations, infrastructure replacement mechanisms, gas conservation programs, Gas Cost Recovery ( GCR ) cases and Power Supply Cost Recovery ( PSCR ) cases, among many other regulatory matters Q. WHAT EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE WITH ELECTRIC UTILITIES? A. I have performed rate case analyses and filed testimony in several electric general rate cases addressing issues such as revenue requirements, sales level determination, operation and maintenance expenses, cost allocations, cost of capital, cost of service and 19 rate design, and various cost tracking mechanisms. In addition, I have performed U S. Coppola Direct 2 12/14/18

3 1 2 analyses of power costs and filed testimony in power supply cost recovery cases, including cases involving reconciliation of annual power supply costs. 3 4 In my position as Senior Vice President of Finance at MCN Energy Group ( MCN ), I had responsibility for project financing of independent power generation plants in which 5 MCN was an owner. In this regard, I was intricately involved with and became knowledgeable of PURPA qualified cogeneration plants in Michigan and other states. In addition, I was involved in negotiating the development and financing of power generation and electricity distribution plants in other countries, such as India Q. PLEASE LIST SOME OF THE MORE RECENT CASES YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN BEFORE THE MPSC AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. A. Here is a partial list of the most recent regulatory cases in which I have participated: o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Electric (DTEE) 2018 rate Case U on several issues, including operations and maintenance expenses, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in Consumers Energy Company (CECo) 2018 Tax Credit B refund for the Electric Division in case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 Integrated Resource Plan in case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 Tax Credit B refund case U for the natural gas business. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas Company (DTE Gas) 2018 Tax Credit B refund case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 electric rate Case U on several issues, including capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. U S. Coppola Direct 3 12/14/18

4 o Filed direct testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General for the reconciliation of the rate surcharge for the Qualified Infrastructure Program (Rider QIP) of the Peoples Gas and Coke Company s (Peoples Gas) in Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas GCR reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO Energy Gas Company (SEMCO) GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 Tax Credit A refund case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M) 2018 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in Upper Peninsula Power Company (UPPCO) 2018 Tax Credit A refund case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas 2018 Tax Credit A refund case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTEE 2018 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas 2017 gas rate Case U on several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2017 gas rate Case U on several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2016 PSCR reconciliation case U R. o Assisted the Michigan Attorney General in the review of several GCR and PSCR cases during 2017 and 2018, and proposed terms for settlement of those cases. o Assisted the Michigan Attorney General in the filing of comments with the Michigan Public Service Commission relating to rate case filing requirements in U S. Coppola Direct 4 12/14/18

5 case U-18238, refunds of tax savings from the lower federal tax rate in case U and Performance Based Regulation. o Filed direct and rebuttal testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General for the reconciliation of the rate surcharge for the Qualified Infrastructure Program (Rider QIP) of the Peoples Gas and Coke Company (Peoples Gas) in Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Electric Company s (DTEE) 2017 electric rate case U on several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design, and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in Consumers Energy Company s (CECo) 2017 electric rate case U on several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditure programs, cost of capital, and other items. o Filed direct and rebuttal testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General for the re-opening of proceedings in the restructuring of the Peoples Gas s main replacement program and gas system modernization plan in Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in the Upper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation (UMERC) application for a certificate of public necessity and convenience to build two power plants in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO Energy Gas Company s (SEMCO) application for a certificate of public necessity and convenience to build a pipeline in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Public Counsel Division of the Washington Attorney General in Puget Sound Energy s 2016 Complaint for Violation of Gas Safety Rules in Docket No. UE o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTEE s 2017 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo s 2015 Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo s 2016 gas general rate case U on a several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, working capital, cost of capital, and other items. Appendix A elaborates further on my qualifications in the regulated energy field. U S. Coppola Direct 5 12/14/18

6 Prepared Direct Testimony Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? A. I have been asked by the Michigan Department of Attorney General to make an independent analysis of Consumers Energy Company s (CECo) PSCR Reconciliation for the year This testimony presents a report of my analysis Q. WHAT TOPICS ARE YOU ADDRESSING IN YOUR TESTIMONY? A. I will be addressing two major topics in this case: 1. The disallowance of replacement power costs related to outages at certain power plants. 2. The adjustment for operation and maintenance ( O&M ) costs incurred by Biomass Merchant Plants ( BMPs ). The absence of a discussion of other matters in my testimony should not be taken as an indication that I agree with those aspects of CECo s PSCR reconciliation filing. Instead, my testimony is focused on priority issues based on the available resources Q. IS YOUR TESTIMONY ON THESE TOPICS ACCOMPANIED BY EXHIBITS? A. Yes. the following exhibits accompany this testimony: 1. Exhibit AG-1 CECo Responses to Karn 1 Outage 2. Exhibit AG-2 CECo Response to Campbell Unit 2 Outages 3. Exhibit AG-3 CECo Response to Campbell Unit 2 Wire Problem Outage 4. Exhibit AG-4 CECo Response on Campbell 2 Operator Error Outage 5. Exhibit AG-5 CECo Response to Campbell 2 Pump Failure Outage U S. Coppola Direct 6 12/14/18

7 1 6. Exhibit AG-6 CECo Response on BMPs O&M Error Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE TOPICS YOU IDENTIFIED ABOVE. A. I summarize my conclusions and recommendations as follows: I conclude that the Company incurred higher power costs as a result of performance errors and imprudent actions related to five plant power outages. As a result, I recommend that the Commission disallow $2,426,036 from the total power cost recovery amount proposed by the Company in this case The Biomass Merchant Plants that sell power to the Company incurred additional recoverable O&M costs in the amount of $1,785,060. These costs have not been included in this reconciliation and should be added to the total recoverable PSCR costs The remainder of my testimony provides further details to support these conclusions and recommendations Power Plant Outages Q. PLEASE BRIEFLY DISCUSS THOSE POWER PLANT OUTAGES THAT WARRANT A POTENTIAL COST DISALLOWANCE. U S. Coppola Direct 7 12/14/18

8 A. According to witness David Kehoe s direct testimony, the Company had 481 outages in 2017 at its power generating plants. 1 This number is a decrease of approximately 10% from the 534 outages experienced in The total amount of lost power from the 481 outages was 16,795,000 MWh. Exhibit A-3 (DBK-1) lists the 2017 outages in summary form with the related lost power. Exhibit A-5 (DBK-3) provides additional details with causes and remedies for 128 of the outages where the generating units had lower availability than the established industry standards (NERC-GADS) After reviewing the outage reports in Exhibits A-3 (DBK-1) and A-5 (DBK-3), I have determined that there are five outage incidents where the Company failed to exercise proper planning and diligence, resulting in higher power costs to PSCR customers during The incremental power costs that I propose to disallow from the five incidents total approximately $2.4 million for Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE FIRST OUTAGE INCIDENT A. The first outage incident relates to an outage that started on February 21, 2017 to repair a super-heater leak at the Karn Unit 1. The actual period of concern started on March 7, 2017 and lasted until March 21, Page 39 of Exhibit A-5 (DBK-3) describes this incident. Apparently, during the above-referenced repair, the Company discovered that the manufacturer, Siemens, had incorrectly installed a turbine main stop valve. The stem 1 Direct testimony of David Kehoe at page 5. 2 U R, Direct testimony of Robert Schram at page 3. 3 Direct testimony of David Kehoe at page 6. U S. Coppola Direct 8 12/14/18

9 1 2 to crosshead connection was loose, causing the stem to bend every time the valve was cycled In response to discovery request AG-CE-20, the Company explained that during assembly the stem to the crosshead was not bottomed out completely, leaving a small gap, which allowed force to be applied to the threads rather than the crosshead. Over time, the threads failed causing the valve to bind and stick. Exhibit AG-1 includes the discovery response To make the repairs, the initial outage was extended to the period of March 7 to March 31, The extended outage allowed Siemens and a subcontractor to disassemble the affected components and reassemble the valve and crosshead correctly. Siemens covered the costs of labor and parts for replacement of the valve, and any related components, but did not cover the cost of the lost power during this extended outage. The Company has calculated the potential lost power during the March 7 to March 31 period at 82,297 MWh, and an adjusted economic loss of 78,620 MWh. As calculated by the Company, the incremental cost of acquiring the replacement power during this period was $514,143. Page 2 of Exhibit AG-1 includes this information Q. WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE KARN UNIT 1 OUTAGE OF MARCH 7 TO MARCH 31, 2017? A. It is apparent that an installation error was made by the manufacturer when the valve was last replaced and assembled. The Company has a post-installation inspection procedure that apparently failed to detect the installation error. The discovery response in Exhibit U S. Coppola Direct 9 12/14/18

10 AG-1 discloses the existence of the post-installation procedure and confirms the failure to detect the error. Both the Company and its supplier are responsible for the problem, and should be held accountable for the incremental cost of procuring replacement power during the outage Customers should not be responsible to pay for costs that are the result of errors by the Company or its suppliers, particularly when the Company s own inspection procedure fail to detect the error. As stated earlier, the Company had 481 power outages in with the potential loss of 16,795,000 MWh. Customers are already absorbing the 9 10 incremental cost of most of these power outages and should not be responsible for higher power costs that are the result of costly errors made by the Company and its suppliers Therefore, I recommend that the Commission disallow $514,143 of power costs for this outage from the total power costs included in this reconciliation case. 13 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SECOND OUTAGE INCIDENT A. The second outage incident occurred at the Campbell Unit 2 on March 13, 2017 and lasted until March 17, Page 2 of Exhibit A-3 (DBK-1) describes this incident under event 18. This outage followed several maintenance outages from January 4 to March 3 as outlined on page 2 of Exhibit A-3 and further described in response to discovery AG-CE-71, page 2. The discovery response is included in Exhibit AG With regard to the Campbell 2 outage event 18, the Company decided to schedule a maintenance outage between March 13 to March 17 to clean water strainers and oil U S. Coppola Direct 10 12/14/18

11 1 coolers, as well as replace problem valves that presented a failure risk. Prior to commencing this work, Campbell Unit 2 was in an economic reserve outage. The Company anticipated that the economic reserve outage would continue for at least two weeks Instead, the outage resulted in an economic loss of 28,920 MWh at an incremental power cost of $138,165 as calculated by the Company and shown in discovery response AG- CE-96, which is included in Exhibit AG Q. WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE CAMPBELL UNIT 2 OUTAGE EVENT 18 OF MARCH 13 TO MARCH 17, 2017? A. Scheduling a maintenance outage on March 13 through March 17 was unnecessary when the Company had previously scheduled and conducted a maintenance outage on February 27 through March 2, which was extended to March 3. This outage and the extension are described as Event 012 and 013 on page 2 of Exhibit A-3, and on page 2 of Exhibit AG-2. The Company should have had sufficient time between February 27 and March 3 to perform the required maintenance completed in outage event 18 without scheduling another maintenance outage between March 13 and March 17, thus avoiding incremental power costs In discovery, the Company was asked to explain why the maintenance work for outage event 18 was not done between February 27 and March 2, 2017 when both Campbell Unit 1 and Unit 2 were down due to an economic reserve outage and for preventive maintenance. In its response to AG-CE-96, which is included in Exhibit AG-2, the U S. Coppola Direct 11 12/14/18

12 Company stated that the plant had limited time and limited personnel resources. However, no evidence was provided to support this claim. The Company also stated in its response that the full duration of the economic reserve outage was unknown at the time the outage scope was developed for the February 27 to March 2 timeframe. However, this statement is not accurate. On page 2 of Exhibit AG-2, the Company stated that in scheduling the Event 012 maintenance outage, it expected a two week extension of the Campbell Unit 3 economic reserve outage According to the Company, the amount of work was scheduled and done in small increments so that the plant could be moved from maintenance to economic reserve outage. The Company stated that it prefers this methodology of work being performed in small increments with frequent maintenance outages to supposedly remove risk of operation This explanation is unsatisfactory. First, there is no evidence that the work completed between March 13 and March 17 could not be completed between February 27 and March 3, Second, in explaining the February 27 to March 2 outage, the Company stated market forecasts indicated an increase to an expected two week extension of Campbell Unit 2 economic reserve outage. Therefore, the Company would have had sufficient reason to extend the February 27 outage past March 3 if necessary to complete the additional work performed on March 13 to March 17. The decision not to take advantage of the earlier outage was not prudent and cost customers an additional $138,165 in higher power costs. U S. Coppola Direct 12 12/14/18

13 1 2 Therefore, I recommend that the Commission disallow the amount of $138,165 from the total power costs included in this PSCR reconciliation case. 3 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE THIRD OUTAGE INCIDENT A. The third outage incident occurred at the Campbell Unit 2 on July 31, 2017 and lasted until August 4, Page 21 of Exhibit A-5 (DBK-3) describes this outage. According to the Company, a transformer was wired backwards several years ago causing the 7 Campbell plant to be susceptible to false trips from external grid faults. Due to complications from the loss of power to Campbell Unit 1 from the power trip fault, Campbell Unit 2 was removed from service. This resulted in an uncontrolled shutdown and damage to other equipment which required an extended outage to repair The Company has determined that the outage resulted in an economic loss of power of $20,060 MWh at an incremental replacement cost of $458,696. This information was provided in response to discovery request AG-CE-76 and is included in Exhibit AG Q. WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE CAMPBELL UNIT 2 OUTAGE EVENT OF JULY 31 TO AUGUST 4, 2017? A. In discovery, the Company was asked to explain why the backwards wiring problem which occurred during installation 17 years earlier, was not discovered sooner. In its response, the Company stated that full system functional testing of the polarization scheme had not been performed since the sale of the Campbell 138 kv substation to ITC. Consumers Energy assumed ITC would continue all testing previously performed. U S. Coppola Direct 13 12/14/18

14 However, ITC did not test this scheme because only Consumers uses this scheme for tripping a fault. The Company also explains that installation of new transformers and an air quality control system changed some of the operating characteristics of the polarizing scheme and when a fault would occur. Exhibit AG-3 includes the Company discovery response AG-CE The basic problem here is an error by the Company in initially installing the transformer and wiring the polarizing scheme backwards. The problem persevered due to a lack of communication and coordination of equipment testing procedures between the Company and ITC. The combination of these two problems resulted in a power outage for which the Company should solely be held responsible. Customers should not pay for the financial impact on power costs from errors made by the Company, even if the source of those errors date back several years and manifested in Therefore, I recommend that the Commission disallow $458,696 of power costs for this outage from the total power costs included in this reconciliation case. 15 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE FOURTH OUTAGE INCIDENT A. The fourth outage incident occurred at the Campbell Unit 2 on September 19, 2017 and lasted 1 day. Page 23 of Exhibit A-5 (DBK-3) describes this outage. According to the Company, during the turbine trip test, the operator released the test lever prior to returning the trip and reset lever to the normal position, thus causing the turbine to trip and shutdown. The Company classifies the incident as an operator error from not following the proper test procedure. U S. Coppola Direct 14 12/14/18

15 1 2 The Company has stated that increased supervisory oversight during all turbine testing and remedial operator training would prevent such an incident The outage resulted in an economic power loss of 11,440 MWh at an incremental replacement cost of $179,537. Exhibit AG-4 includes the discovery response AG-CE-77 with this cost information provided by the Company. 6 7 Q. WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE CAMPBELL UNIT 2 OUTAGE EVENT OF SEPTEMBER 19-20, 2017? A. This outage is the result of an employee error in failing to follow proper procedure. The result is higher power costs. Ultimately, the Company is responsible for the actions of its employees. The responsibility for higher costs must then reside with the Company. It certainly would not be fair to burden customers with higher power costs resulting from employee errors Therefore, I recommend that the Commission disallow recovery of $179,537 related to this outage from the total power costs in this PSCR reconciliation case. 15 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE FIFTH OUTAGE INCIDENT A. The fifth outage incident occurred at the Campbell Unit 2 on September 20, 2017 and lasted through October 3, Page 24 of Exhibit A-5 (DBK-3) describes this outage. According to the Company, during start-up of the unit, the feed-water pump was run at less than minimum flow causing the pump to fail and requiring a 14-day outage to replace the pump. The Company has calculated the economic power loss at 66,360 U S. Coppola Direct 15 12/14/18

16 1 2 MWh and the incremental cost of replacement power at $1,135,495. This information is included in Exhibit AG In response to discovery, the Company elaborated on the problem stating that there was no direction in the operating procedure which specified the maximum time interval between the closing of the startup boiler feed pump discharge valve and the removal of that pump from service. During the transfer from startup to operation, the startup boiler feed pump discharge valve was left closed, restricting flow. This caused the water flashing to steam inside of the pump cavity and the pump being damaged. Exhibit AG-5 included discovery response AG-CE-78 describing this procedure in more detail According to the discovery response, the Company also installed a controller on the automatic recirculation valve in 2012 to allow for smooth transitioning of the unit when switching between the startup boiler feed pump to the main boiler feed pumps. In a subsequent discovery request, the Company was asked to explain why the controller 14 installed in 2012 did not prevent the pump failure problem. From the Company response, it appears that while the controller solved certain problems, it did not specifically resolve the startup pump problem The Company also assigns fault to a manufacturer supplied recirculation line that was not working in an acceptable manner. Following the September 2017 failure described above, the Company performed an evaluation of the water flow volume and determined that the startup pump was operated at below the minimum flow volume for more than 3 minutes. As a result of this discovery, the Company changed its operating procedure. U S. Coppola Direct 16 12/14/18

17 1 2 Exhibit AG-5 also includes discovery response AG-CE-102 describing these additional factors. 3 4 Q. WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE CAMPBELL UNIT 2 OUTAGE EVENT OF SEPTEMBER 20 TO OCTOBER 3, 2017? A. From reading page 24 of Exhibit A-5 and the Company s explanations provided in response to discovery questions, it is apparent that the Company did not have an adequate understanding of how the startup water pump should work and what procedures 8 it should follow to avoid a failure. The problem may have been compounded by 9 equipment suppliers not providing the best equipment or operating procedures However, this is not new technology. The Company has been operating Campbell Unit 2 for decades using water pumps with multiple startups and shutdowns. It is difficult to understand why the Company would have such difficulties with a process that should be rather routine. This outage shows that the Company failed to perform these basic functions. The higher power costs emanating for this outage cannot be considered prudently incurred. Customers should not pay for the incremental power costs. The responsibility for these costs resides with the Company Therefore, I recommend that the Commission disallow recovery of $1,135,495 related to this outage from the total power costs in this PSCR reconciliation case Q. WHAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF POWER COSTS THAT YOU RECOMMEND THE COMMISSION SHOULD DISALLOW? U S. Coppola Direct 17 12/14/18

18 1 2 A. I recommend that the Commission disallow a total amount of $2,426,036 pertaining to the five outage incidents I have described above Biomass Merchant Plants Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ARRANGEMENT FOR RECOVERY OF ADDITIONAL COSTS FROM THE OPERATION OF BIOMASS MERCHANT PLANTS ( BMPS ) SELLING POWER TO THE COMPANY. A. Consumers Energy has in place power purchase agreements ( PPAs ) with seven woodwaste and biomass fueled electric generating facilities. 4 In addition to being paid for energy generation and plant capacity under the PPAs, the BMPs are also reimbursed for a portion of the fuel, and operating and maintenance ( O&M ) expenses above the variable power sales revenue billed from delivering energy. Under MCL 460.6a (7), (8) and (9), and in accordance with the August 2009 Commission order in Case No. U , the BMPs can, together, recover the shortfall in fuel and O&M expenses up to a total amount of $12 million annually, adjusted for inflation since enactment of the applicable sections of the law. The inflation-adjusted maximum amount for 2017 filed by the BMPs in Exhibit BMP-1 is $13,860, However, in response to discovery request AG-CE-92, Consumers Energy witness Jenny Richard reported that the calculation of the inflation-adjustment maximum payment filed by the BMPs was incorrect and should be $13,710,600. Exhibit AG-6 includes the 4 The BMPs are: Cadillac Renewable Energy, LLC; Genesee Power Station, Limited Partnership; Grayling Generating Station, Limited Partnership; Hillman Power Company, LLC; T.E.S. Filer City Station, Limited Partnership; Viking Energy of Lincoln, LLC; and Viking Energy of McBain, LLC. 5 Exhibit BMP-1, line 27. U S. Coppola Direct 18 12/14/18

19 1 corrected Exhibit BMP-1 and BMP-2 provided by Consumers Energy. Given that 2 3 Consumers Energy has only included $12,000,000 in accrued cost relating to the BMPs O&M costs, the PSCR reconciliation should reflect an additional expense of $1,710, Additionally, TES Filer City LP receives reimbursement of SOx and NOx expenses not subject to the $1 million expense limitation. The amount of this reimbursement of $74,460 should be added as an additional expense to this PSCR reconciliation. 7 8 Therefore, a total amount of $1,785,060 should be added to the PSCR cost in this reconciliation Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY? A. Yes, it does. However, I reserve the right to amend, revise and supplement my testimony to incorporate new information that may become available. U S. Coppola Direct 19 12/14/18

20 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola Mr. Sebastian Coppola is an independent energy business consultant and president of Corporate Analytics, Inc., whose place of business is located at 5928 Southgate Rd., Rochester, Michigan EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND Mr. Coppola has been an independent consultant for more than 15 years. Before that, he spent three years as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of SEMCO Energy, Inc. with responsibility for all financial operations, corporate development and strategic planning for the company s Michigan and Alaska regulated and non-regulated operations. During the period at SEMCO Energy, he had also responsibility for certain storage and pipeline operations as President and COO of SEMCO Energy Ventures, Inc. Prior to SEMCO, Mr. Coppola was Senior Vice President of Finance for MCN Energy Group, Inc., the parent company of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (now DTE Gas Company). During his 24-year career at MCN and MichCon, he held various analytical, accounting, managerial and executive positions, including Manager of Gas Accounting with responsibility for maintaining the accounting records and preparing financial reports for gas purchases and gas production. In this role, he had also responsibility for preparing Gas Cost Recovery (GCR) reconciliation analysis and reports, and supporting preparation of testimony for the cost of gas reconciliation proceedings before the MPSC. Over the years, Mr. Coppola also held the positions of Treasurer, Director of Investor Relations, Director of Accounting Services, Manager of Corporate Finance, Manager of Customer Billing and Manager of Materials Inventory and Warehousing Accounting. In many of 1

21 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola these positions he interacted with various operating areas of the company and was intricately involved in construction and operating programs, defining gas purchasing strategies, rate case analysis, cost of capital studies and other regulatory proceedings. ENERGY INDUSTRY AND REGULATORY EXPERIENCE Mr. Coppola has been an independent consultant for more than 15 years. Before that, he spent three years as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of SEMCO Energy, Inc. with responsibility for all financial operations, corporate development and strategic planning for the company s Michigan and Alaska regulated gas utility operations and non-regulated businesses. During the period at SEMCO Energy, he had also responsibility for certain storage and pipeline operations as President and COO of SEMCO Energy Ventures, Inc. Prior to SEMCO, Mr. Coppola was Senior Vice President of Finance for MCN Energy Group, Inc., the parent company of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company. During his 24-year career at MCN and MichCon, he held various analytical, accounting, managerial and executive positions, including Manager of Gas Accounting with responsibility for maintaining the accounting records and preparing financial reports for gas purchases and gas production. In this role, he had also responsibility for preparing Gas Cost Recovery (GCR) reconciliation analysis and reports, and supporting preparation of testimony for the cost of gas reconciliation proceedings before the MPSC. Over the years, Mr. Coppola also held the positions of Treasurer, Director of Investor Relations, Director of Accounting Services, Manager of Corporate Finance, Manager of Customer Billing and Manager of Materials Inventory and Warehousing Accounting. In many of 2

22 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola these positions he interacted with various operating areas of the company and was intricately involved in construction and operating programs, defining gas purchasing strategies, rate case analysis, cost of capital studies and other regulatory proceedings. Mr. Coppola is intricately knowledgeable of capital markets and financial institutions. As Treasurer and Vice President of Finance, he has directed the issuance of more than $2 billion in securities, including common stock, corporate bonds, tax-deductible preferred stock and high-equity value convertible securities. He has established bank lines of credit, commercial paper and asset acquisition facilities. He has had extensive interactions with equity and debt investors, financial analysts, rating agencies and other members of the financial community. ENERGY INDUSTRY AND REGULATORY EXPERIENCE As a business consultant, Mr. Coppola specializes in financial and strategic business issues in the fields of energy and utility regulation. He has more than forty years of experience in public utility and related energy work, both as a consultant and utility company executive. He has testified in several regulatory proceedings before State Public Service Commissions. He has prepared and/or filed testimony in electric and gas general rate case proceedings, power supply and gas cost recovery mechanisms, revenue and cost tracking mechanisms/riders and other regulatory proceedings. As accounting manager and later financial executive for two regulated gas utilities with operations in Michigan and Alaska, he has been intricately involved in operating and construction programs, gas cost recovery and reconciliation cases, gas purchase strategies and rate case filings. 3

23 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola Mr. Coppola has extensive experience with gas utilities in the areas of gas operations, gas supply and regulatory proceedings. He has led or participated in the financial operations, gas supply planning and/or gas cost recovery arrangements of two major gas utilities in Michigan and in Alaska. He has prepared testimony in multiple electric and gas general rate cases, Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) and Gas Cost Recovery (GCR) reconciliation proceedings, Cast Iron and Pipeline Replacement Programs and other regulatory cases on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General, Citizens Against Rate Excess (CARE), the Public Counsel Division of the Washington Attorney General, the Illinois Attorney General and the Ohio Office of Consumers Counsel in electric and gas utility rate cases, including AEP Ohio, Ameren-Illinois Utilities, Avista, Consumers Energy, Detroit Edison, MichCon (DTE Gas), Michigan Gas Utilities Corp, PacifiCorp, Peoples Gas, Puget Sound Energy, SEMCO, Upper Peninsula Power Company and Wisconsin Public Service Company. As accounting manager and later financial executive for two regulated gas utilities, he has been intricately involved in construction materials procurement, gas purchase strategies and CGR reconciliation cases. He has had direct responsibility for preparing GCR reconciliation analysis and reports, and supporting preparation of testimony for the cost of gas reconciliation proceedings before the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC). He is intricately familiar with construction projects, the power supply and gas cost recovery mechanisms, gas supply and pricing issues, and regulatory issues faced by utilities. As manager of customer billing, Mr. Coppola developed intricate knowledge of customer billing and meter reading operations. As manager of 4

24 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola materials inventory and warehousing accounting, he also developed intricate knowledge of pipeline and materials procurement, warehousing and construction operations including safety compliance issues. Mr. Coppola has testified extensively on gas utility pipeline, service lines and inside meters replacement programs related to at-risk pipes that provide safety issues to customers and the general public. In his role as Treasurer and Chairman of the MCN/MichCon Risk Committee from 1996 through 1998, Mr. Coppola was involved in reviewing and deciding on the appropriate gas purchase price hedging strategies, including the use of gas future contracts, over the counter swaps, fixed price purchases and index price purchases. In March 2001, Mr. Coppola testified before the Michigan House Energy and Technology Subcommittee on Natural Gas Fixed Pricing Mechanisms. Mr. Coppola frequently participates in natural gas issue forums sponsored by the American Gas Association and stays current on various energy supply issues through review of industry analyst reports and other publications issued by various trade groups. Specific Regulatory Proceedings And Related Experience: o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Electric (DTEE) 2018 rate Case U on several issues, including operations and maintenance expenses, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in Consumers Energy Company (CECo) 2018 Tax Credit B refund for the Electric Division in case U

25 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 Integrated Resource Plan in case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 Tax Credit B refund case U for the natural gas business. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas Company (DTE Gas) 2018 Tax Credit B refund case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 electric rate Case U on several issues, including capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed direct testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General for the reconciliation of the rate surcharge for the Qualified Infrastructure Program (Rider QIP) of the Peoples Gas and Coke Company s (Peoples Gas) in Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas GCR reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO Energy Gas Company (SEMCO) GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 Tax Credit A refund case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M) 2018 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in Upper Peninsula Power Company (UPPCO) 2018 Tax Credit A refund case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas 2018 Tax Credit A refund case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTEE 2018 PSCR Plan case U

26 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2018 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas 2017 gas rate Case U on several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2017 gas rate Case U on several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2016 PSCR reconciliation case U R. o Assisted the Michigan Attorney General in the review of several GCR and PSCR cases during 2017 and 2018, and proposed terms for settlement of those cases. o Assisted the Michigan Attorney General in the filing of comments with the Michigan Public Service Commission relating to rate case filing requirements in case U-18238, refunds of tax savings from the lower federal tax rate in case U and Performance Based Regulation. o Filed direct and rebuttal testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General for the reconciliation of the rate surcharge for the Qualified Infrastructure Program (Rider QIP) of the Peoples Gas and Coke Company s (Peoples Gas) in Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTEE 2017 electric Rate Case U on a several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2017 electric rate Case U on a several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditure programs, cost of capital and other items. o Filed direct and rebuttal testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General for the re-opening of proceedings in the restructuring of the 7

27 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola Peoples Gas s main replacement program and gas system modernization plan in Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in the Upper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation (UMERC) application for a certificate of public necessity and convenience to build two power plants in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO application for a certificate of public necessity and convenience to build a pipeline in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Public Counsel Division of the Washington Attorney General in Puget Sound Energy s 2016 Complaint for Violation of Gas Safety Rules in Docket No. UE o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTEE 2017 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2015 Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2016 gas general rate case U on a several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, working capital, cost of capital and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General for the restructuring of the Peoples Gas s main replacement program in Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas GCR Plan reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in the formation of UMERC and the transfer of Michigan assets of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Wisconsin Electric Company to UMERC in Case U

28 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo Court of Appeals Remand Case U for review of the Automated Meter Infrastructure (AMI) opt-out fees. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2016 electric Rate Case U on a several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditure programs, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation (MGUC) GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTEE 2016 electric Rate Case U on a several issues, including revenue, revenue decoupling, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, cost of capital, rate design and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas 2015 gas general rate case U on a several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, main replacement program, Revenue Decoupling Mechanism (RDM) program, cost of capital and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2016 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo GCR Plan reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTEE 2016 PSCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO GCR Plan reconciliation case U R. 9

29 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2015 gas general rate case U on a several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, main replacement program, infrastructure cost recovery mechanism, cost of capital and other items.. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo Gas Choice and End-User Transportation tariff changes case U o Analyzed the gas rate case filings of MGUC in Case U and assisted the Michigan Attorney General in settlement of the case. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2014 PSCR reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas GCR Plan reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTEE 2014 electric Rate Case U on a several issues, including operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, AMI program, cost of capital and other items. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General in Ameren Illinois Company s 2015 general rate case on operation and maintenance costs in Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2014 electric Rate Case U on a several issues, including sales, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, cost of capital, AMI program, revenue decoupling and infrastructure cost recovery mechanisms. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in MGUC GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2015 PSCR Plan case U

30 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola o Analyzed the electric rate case filings of Northern States Power in Case U and Wisconsin Public Service Company U-17669, and assisted the Michigan Attorney General in settlement of these cases. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo GCR Plan reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in MGUC GCR Plan reconciliation cases U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO GCR Plan reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2014 gas general rate case U on a several issues, including revenue, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures, main replacement program, cost of capital and other items.. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General in Wisconsin Energy merger with Integrys on the Peoples Gas and Coke Company s Accelerated Main Replacement Program Docket o Filed testimony on behalf of Citizens Against Rate Excess in Wisconsin Public Service Company s 2013 PSCR plan reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2014 PSCR plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo 2014 OPEB Funding case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in MGUC GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony for Citizens Against Rate Excess in Wisconsin Public Service Company s 2014 PSCR plan case U

31 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola o Filed testimony in March 2013 on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo s electric Rate Case U on remand from the Michigan Court of Appeals for review of the AMI program. o Filed testimony for Citizens Against Rate Excess in Upper Peninsula Power Company s 2012 PSCR plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in MGUC GCR Reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in DTE Gas Company GCR Reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo GCR Reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO GCR Reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony for Citizens Against Rate Excess in Upper Peninsula Power Company s 2012 Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony in Puget Sound Energy s 2013 Power Cost Only Rate Case on behalf of the Public Counsel Division of the Washington Attorney General in Docket No. UE on the power costs adjustment mechanism. o Filed testimony in PacifiCorp s 2013 General Rate Case on behalf of the Public Counsel Division of the Washington Attorney General in Docket No. UE on power costs, cost allocation factors, O&M expenses and power cost adjustment mechanisms. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in MGUC GCR Plan case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in CECo s 2012 electric Rate Case U on a several issues, including cost of service methodology, rate design, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures and infrastructure cost recovery mechanism and other revenue/cost trackers. 12

32 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola o Filed reports on gas procurement and hedging strategies of four gas utilities before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission on behalf of the Washington Attorney General Office of Public Counsel in April o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in MGUC and SEMCO GCR Plan reconciliation cases U R and U R. o Filed testimony for Citizens Against Rate Excess in Upper Peninsula Power Company s 2012 Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) plan case U o Filed testimony in MichCon s 2012 gas Rate Case U on a several issues, including sales volumes, revenue decoupling mechanism, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures and infrastructure cost recovery mechanism. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Washington Attorney General Office of Public Counsel on executive and board of directors compensation in the 2012 Avista general rate case. o Filed testimony for Citizens Against Rate Excess in Upper Peninsula Power Company s 2011 Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony on behalf of the Ohio Office of Consumers Counsel in AEP Ohio s power supply restructuring case in June o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in MGUC and SEMCO GCR Plan cases U and U o Filed testimony for Citizens Against Rate Excess in Upper Peninsula Power Company s 2012 PSCR plan case U o Filed testimony for Citizens Against Rate Excess in Wisconsin Public Service Corporation s 2012 PSCR plan case U o Filed testimony for the Michigan Attorney General in CECo s gas business Pilot Revenue Decoupling Mechanism in case U o Filed testimony for the Michigan Attorney General in Consumers Energy Gas 2011 Rate Case U on several issues, including 13

33 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola sales volumes, operations and maintenance cost, employee benefits, capital expenditures and cost of capital. o Filed testimony for the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO and MGUC GCR Plan reconciliation cases U R and U R. o Filed testimony for the Michigan Attorney General in Consumers Energy 2011 electric Rate Case U on several issues, including electric sales forecast, revenue decoupling mechanism, operations and maintenance cost, employee benefits, capital expenditures and cost of capital. o Filed testimony for the Michigan Attorney General in CECo s electric business Pilot Revenue Decoupling Mechanism in case U o Filed testimony on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO and MGUC GCR Plan cases U and U o Filed testimony for the Michigan Attorney General in Detroit Edison 2010 electric Rate Case U on several issues, including revenue decoupling mechanism, operations and maintenance cost, executive compensation and benefits, capital expenditures and cost of capital. o Filed testimony for the Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO GCR reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony for Michigan Attorney General in MGUC GCR reconciliation case U R. o Filed testimony for Michigan Attorney General, in Consumers Energy Gas 2010 Rate Case U on several issues, including sales volumes, operations and maintenance costs, capital expenditures and cost of capital. o Filed testimony for Michigan Attorney General, in SEMCO 2010 Rate Case U on several issues, including sales volumes, rate design, operations and maintenance cost, executive compensation and benefits, capital expenditures and cost of capital. o Filed testimony, for Michigan Attorney General in Consumers Energy 2009 electric Rate Case U on several issues, including sales 14

34 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola volumes, revenue decoupling mechanism, operations and maintenance cost and capital expenditures. o Filed testimony for Michigan Attorney General, in MichCon 2009 gas Rate Case U on several issues, including sales volumes, revenue decoupling mechanism, operations and maintenance cost, capital expenditures and cost of capital. o Filed testimony for Michigan Attorney General and was crossexamined in Consumers Energy 2009 gas Rate Case U on several issues, including sales volumes, revenue decoupling mechanism, operations and maintenance cost, capital expenditures and cost of capital. o Prepared testimony and assisted the Michigan Attorney General in discussions and settlement of SEMCO and MGUC GCR Plan cases U and U o Prepared testimony and assisted Michigan Attorney General in settlement of SEMCO GCR case U o Prepared testimony and assisted Michigan Attorney General in settlement of MGUC GCR case U o Prepared testimony and assisted the Michigan Attorney General in discussions and settlement of SEMCO GCR case U and reconciliation case U R. o Prepared testimony and assisted Michigan Attorney General in discussions and settlement of MGUC GCR reconciliation case U R. o Prepared testimony for Michigan Attorney General in SEMCO GCR Reconciliation Case U R. o Prepared testimony for Michigan Attorney General filed in MGUC GCR Reconciliation Case U R. o Participated in drafting of testimony for all aspects of SEMCO rate case filing with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) in o Filed testimony in 2001 before the (RCA) and was cross-examined on the financing plans for the acquisition of Enstar Corporation and the capital structure of SEMCO. 15

35 Appendix A Experience and Qualifications of Sebastian Coppola o Developed a cost of capital study in support of testimony by company witness in the Saginaw Bay Pipeline Company rate request proceeding in o Prepared testimony for company witness on cost of capital and capital structure in MichCon 1988 gas rate case. o Filed testimony in MichCon gas conservation surcharge case in o Testified before MPSC ALJ in MichCon customer bill collection complaints in o Participated in analysis of uncollectible gas accounts expense for inclusion in rate filings between 1975 and o Participated in analysis of allocation of corporate overhead to subsidiaries and use of the Massachusetts Formula at MichCon and at SEMCO in 1975 and o Prepared support information on GCR and rate case-o&m testimony at MichCon from 1975 to o Filed testimony in MichCon financing orders in 1987 and o Participated in rate case filing strategy sessions at MichCon and SEMCO from 1975 to o Provided Hearing Room assistance and guidance to counsel on financial and policy issues in various cases from 1975 to EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Mr. Coppola did his undergraduate work at Wayne State University, where he received the Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting in He later returned to Wayne State University to obtain his Master of Business Administration degree with major in Finance in

36 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-1 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-80 Page 1 of 2

37 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-1 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-80 Page 2 of 2

38 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-2 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-71 Page 1 of 7

39 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-2 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-71 Page 2 of 7

40 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-2 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-71 Page 3 of 7

41 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-2 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-71 Page 4 of 7

42 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-2 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-71 Page 5 of 7

43 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-2 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-96 Page 6 of 7

44 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-2 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-96 Page 7 of 7

45 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-3 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-76 Page 1 of 3

46 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-3 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-76 Page 2 of 3

47 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-3 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-76 Page 3 of 3

48 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-4 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-77 Page 1 of 1

49 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-5 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-78 Page 1 of 3

50 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-5 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-78 Page 2 of 3

51 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-5 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-102a Page 3 of 3

52 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-6 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-92 Page 1 of 4

53 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-6 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-92 Page 2 of 4

54 MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Case No: U Consumers Energy Company Exhibit: AG-6 Date: December 14, 2018 CECo response to discovery request AG-CE-92 Page 3 of 4