STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE Commission

Transcription

1 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE Commission In the matter of the application of Consumers Energy Company for authority to reconcile electric DOCKET NO: U utility residual balances and PREHEARING for other relief. / Prehearing in the above-entitled matter before Administrative Law Judge Dennis W. Mack, at the Michigan Public Service Commission, 6545 Mercantile Way, Lansing, Michigan, on Tuesday, May 24, 2011, commencing at about 9:10 A.M. APPEARANCES: MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE Commission ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: KRISTIN M. SMITH (P46323) Public Service Division 6545 Mercantile Way, Suite 15 Lansing, Michigan (517) Appearing on Behalf of the Staff. CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY BY: ERIC V. LUOMA (P42678) One Energy Plaza Jackson, Michigan (517) Appearing on Behalf of Consumers Energy.

2 2 1 Tuesday. May 24, Lansing, Michigan 3 At or About 9:10 A.M. 4 P R O C E E D I N G S 5 JUDGE MACK: Good morning. This is the 6 proceeding before the Michigan Public Service Commission 7 regarding the application of Consumers Energy Company for 8 Authority to Reconcile Electric Residual Balances and for 9 other relief. The docket number of this case is U My name is Dennis Mack. I'm an administrative 11 law judge for the Michigan Administrative Hearing System. 12 Could we have appearances at this time? 13 MR. LUOMA: Yes, Your Honor. Eric Luoma, 14 L-u-o-m-a, appearing on behalf of Consumers Energy Company. 15 JUDGE MACK: Thank you. 16 MS. SMITH: Good morning, Your Honor. Assistance 17 Attorney General, Kristin Smith appearing on behalf of 18 staff of the Michigan Public Service Commission. 19 JUDGE MACK: Thank you. Mr. Luoma, would you 20 like to address the Notice requirements? 21 MR. LUOMA: Yes, Your Honor. 22 We actually had filed electronically on the 23rd 23 the Affidavits of Publication or electronic tear sheets 24 which affirm the publication of the Notice of Hearing. I 25 believe all parties have that. And if any of the parties

3 3 1 would like to, I've got a hard copy with me today that they 2 could briefly review. And I believe that complies with the 3 notice requirement. 4 JUDGE MACK: Thank you. 5 Ms. Smith, any objections to the notice in this 6 matter. 7 MS. SMITH: No, Your Honor. Thank you. 8 JUDGE MACK: Based on the May 23rd filing and 9 counsel's representations, all Notice requirements have 10 been satisfied in this matter. 11 On May 23rd we had a Petition to Intervene filed 12 by ABATE in this matter. Late last night I received an 13 from Mr. Rashes, counsel for ABATE. He was 14 experiencing travel difficulties. He was in Baltimore. He 15 did not expect to leave Baltimore until 12:30 a.m., 16 arriving in Detroit at 2:00 a.m. and did not expect that he 17 would be able to attend today; and he is not here today. 18 But he has indicated that if intervention is granted, he 19 would accept any schedule agreed to at this Prehearing. So 20 let us address the motion -- or Petition to Intervene. 21 Does Consumers have a position on that motion? 22 MR. LUOMA: Yes, we do, Your Honor. Consumers 23 would object to that Petition to Intervene just based on 24 the untimeliness and the failure of that party to show good 25 cause as to why they did not follow the time lines.

4 4 1 Consumers will admit, though, that it was not specifically 2 prejudiced by that late filing. 3 JUDGE MACK: Thank you. 4 Ms. Smith? 5 MS. SMITH: Staff would concur with Consumers 6 opposition pointing out to the Commission that the Notice 7 of Hearing was published on time. The Notice of Hearing 8 indicated that a Petition to Intervene would will be filed 9 on or before May 17th, 2001; and the rules of practice 10 require a good cause pleading in order to be admitted 11 late. That would be Rule Staff also recognizes, however, that the parties 13 are not prejudiced by this late intervention, but would 14 just like to point out as ABATE has practiced before the 15 commission regularly that some adherence or recognition of 16 the rules of the Commission be recognized and followed to 17 the best extent possible. 18 JUDGE MACK: Thank you. 19 MS. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 JUDGE MACK: I would also note I have brought 21 copies of Mr. Rashes if anybody would like a copy of 22 that. 23 I will acknowledge the rule that Ms. Smith cited 24 requires Petitions to Intervene be filed not less than 25 seven days before the date of the initial hearing. ABATE

5 5 1 did not comply with that requirement. ABATE's Petition to 2 Intervene did not set forth good grounds as to why it was 3 not filed in a timely manner. However given that there 4 does not seem to be any prejudice that would result to the 5 parties by granting the intervention, I will grant the 6 petition. But I will also acknowledge Ms. Smith's concern 7 that these rules be adhered to; and in the future, we will 8 look to those rules. 9 MS. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 JUDGE MACK: So ABATE is a party to this case. 11 Prior to opening the record, the parties agreed 12 to a schedule that I will go through at this point. 13 Staff and intervenors will file their testimony 14 by September 1st, Rebuttal testimony will be filed 15 by September 15th, Motions to strike shall be filed 16 by October 14th, Responses shall be filed by -- I'm 17 sorry, I don't have a response date on this. 18 MS. SMITH: We didn't put that in there, but, 19 Your Honor, by the next Friday, October 21st? 20 JUDGE MACK: Okay. 21 Responses to any motion to strike shall be filed 22 by October 21st. Cross-examination will be conducted on 23 October 25th and October 26th, 2011, beginning at 24 9:00 a.m.. Briefs will be filed by November 18th, 2011, 25 and replies will be filed by December 9th, And the

6 6 1 target date for the proposal for decision is January 10th, , after which this matter will be transmitted to the 3 Commission for its final decision in the matter. 4 Do the parties agree to this schedule? 5 MS. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor, we do. 6 MR. LUOMA: Yes, Your Honor. 7 JUDGE MACK: That schedule is adopted. 8 Anything on discovery? Did you talk about 9 discovery? 10 MS. SMITH: We didn't, but what would you 11 propose? 12 MR. LUOMA: Isn't it typically ten business days, 13 best efforts? 14 MS. SMITH: Yes. 15 JUDGE MACK: And do you want to do five business 16 days, best efforts on rebuttal -- on the turn around on 17 rebuttal? 18 MR. LUOMA: Yes, Your Honor. 19 MS. SMITH: Yes, please. Thank you. 20 JUDGE MACK: Then we will adopt that. 21 Discovery turn around will be ten business days or best 22 effort; and during rebuttal phase, five business days, best 23 effort. 24 That is all I have today. 25 Anything else?

7 7 1 MS. SMITH: No, Your Honor. 2 MR. LUOMA: Nothing, Your Honor. 3 JUDGE MACK: I would like to thank the parties 4 for their time and attendance today, and we are off the 5 record. 6 (The Prehearing was concluded 7 at 9:18 a.m.)

8 8 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2 Being a Notary public duly commissioned and 3 qualified in and for the State of Michigan at Large, I do hereby certify that pursuant to notice there came before me 4 the above proceeding which was, by me, recorded stenographically, and was later reduced to transcription 5 under my supervision; said transcription being a true record of the testimony given by the witness. 6 7 I further certify that I am neither attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the 8 parties to the action in which this relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or 9 financially interested in the action. 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed 11 my signature this June 2, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 14 December 27, 2012 PATRICIA J. HANKERD, CSR