OLSON, BZDOK & HOWARD - PDF Free Download

LAW OFFICES OF OLSON, BZDOK & HOWARD A Professional Corporation James M. Olson * Christopher M. Bzdok Scott W. Howard Jeffrey L. Jocks Michael C. Grant William Rastetter, Of Counsel N Michael H. Dettmer, Of Counsel 420 East Front Street Traverse City, MI 49686 Telephone: (231) 946-0044 Facsimile: (231) 946-4807 www.envlaw.com December 10, 2008 * Admitted in Colorado N Admitted in Indiana Ms. Mary Jo. Kunkle Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 o. RE: MPSC Case N U-15805 Dear Ms. Kunkle: The following are attached for paperless electronic filing: Natural Resources Defense Council s Petition to Intervene Affidavit of Rebecca Stanfield Electronic Service List Sincerely, Christopher M. Bzdok chris@envlaw.com /ral xc: Rebecca Stanfield (rstanfield@nrdc.org)

STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter, on the Commission s own motion, regarding the regulatory reviews, revisions, determinations, and/or approvals necessary for CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY to fully comply with Public Acts 286 and 295 of 2008. o. Case N U-15805 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL S PETITION TO INTERVENE 1. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a national organization representing over 12,000 Michigan rate-payers and possessing extensive experience in utility proceedings, seeks to intervene in this case to advocate for Renewable Energy and Energy Optimization Plans for Consumers Energy Company (hereinafter, Consumers ) that will serve the interests of NRDC s members in being supplied with environmentally sound, economically stable sources of electricity. 2. NRDC is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. NRDC is a national environmental organization with over 30 years experience working on state energy policy, including utility regulation and energy efficiency. 3. NRDC has 12,395 members who live in, use electricity in, and pay electric bills in, Michigan. 4. NRDC has 4,887 members who are within Consumers service territory. These members are directly affected by the rates, terms and conditions, and policies governing the provision of electricity by Consumers to them. 5. NRDC, its 12,395 Michigan members, and its 4,887 members within Consumers service territory, have a strong interest in promoting greater reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy. These members have a strong interest in having their electricity needs met in a manner that is dependable, environmentally responsible, and provided at costs that are relatively stable over the long term. NRDC s members also have 1

a strong interest in being protected from economic harm caused by imprudent utility practices. 6. We understand that the Michigan Public Service Commission recognizes two types of intervention. 7. The first type is intervention by right, which requires that the party will suffer an injury-in-fact as a result of the outcome of the case, and that the party is within the zone of interest protected by the statute. See for example, Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc v Camp, 397 US 150; 90 S Ct 827; 250 L Ed 184 (1970). 8. The second type of intervention is permissive, where the Commission has the discretion to permit a party to intervene in the case where that party can provide useful information to the Commission or a unique perspective on the issues in the case. 9. NRDC meets both tests. 10. From the Commission s order, and the notice of intent to consolidate filed by 1 Consumers, it appears that this case will include not only the determination of the permissible level of alternative electric supplier sales, but will also include at least preliminary proceedings about Consumers Renewable Energy and Energy Optimization Plans. 11. NRDC s members generally, and specifically those members who are customers of Consumers, have an interest in having their rate money invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency to the maximum extent that is reasonable and prudent. 12. NRDC s members have this interest both because investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency will displace resources that contribute to the degradation environmental quality locally and globally, and because investments in renewable energy and efficiency will lower electric bills in the long run particularly in light of reasonably foreseeable environmental costs such as greenhouse gas constraints or taxes. 1 Document No. 0006. 2

13. NRDC s members would be harmed if they were required to pay higher electric bills and encounter the environmental harm that would result from less reliance on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and greater reliance on conventional fossil-fired electric generating facilities. 14. NRDC s members are within the zone of interests protected by the Public Utilities statutes, as amended, and by Public Acts 286 and 295 of 2008. The Public Utilities statutes generally protect ratepayers and provide opportunities for advocacy by ratepayer groups to protect their interests in Commission proceedings. The purposes of Public Act 295 are: (a) Diversify the resources used to reliably meet the energy needs of consumers in this state. (b) Provide greater energy security through the use of indigenous energy resources available within the state. (c) Encourage private investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. (d) Provide improved air quality and other benefits to energy consumers and citizens of this state. 2 15. NRDC also meets the test for permissive intervention, because NRDC will provide useful information to the Commission and a unique perspective on the issues. 16. NRDC will bring significant expertise to bear in these proceedings. Our staff and witnesses have extensive history with the design and implementation of utility programs and policies designed to deploy energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies to benefit the public. We have intervened and/or testified on these issues in similar proceedings a number of states including Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, Oregon, California, New Jersey, and Iowa, to name a few. Specific proceedings include: a. Public Utility Commission of Ohio Case No. 08-0920-EL-SSO b. Public Utility Commission of Ohio, Case No. 08-0935-EL-SSO c. Iowa Utilities Board Docket No. RPU-08-03 2 Section 1(2) of Public Act 295 of 2008. 3

d. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Docket No. UE-050684 e. Public Service Commission of Utah, Docket No. 05-057-T-01 17. NRDC regularly presents testimony before Congress and state legislatures related to electric industry use of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, utility rate design, utility planning and other topics relevant to this proceeding. 18. The Commission s order states that one of the reasons for opening this docket early is to facilitate the participation of intervenors: The early opening of these dockets will assist in the orderly implementation of the new laws, expedite the processing of the company's future applications, and provide intervenors additional time to comply with intervention requirements in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, R 460.17202. 3 19. This petition to intervene is timely. The Commission initiated this proceeding on October 21, 2008. NRDC did not have Michigan counsel at that time, but moved promptly to select and engage Michigan counsel. Other interested parties filed intervention petitions on November 5, 12 and 18, 2008. Consumers filed a notice of intent that it may consolidate the cases on its Renewable Energy Plan and Energy Optimization Plan on November 19 and a request to consolidate on November 20, 2008. No other proceedings have taken place. 20. The Commission s order also allows Consumers to file proposed Renewable Energy and Energy Optimization Plans, and for discovery to commence on those plans after they are filed, but no plans have been filed yet. members. 21. No other party adequately represents the interests of NRDC and its 22. NRDC plans to evaluate the Renewable Energy and Energy Optimization plans that Consumers submits, and to present testimony on the adequacy of those plans and the propriety of any incentive mechanism they propose. Because NRDC will, in part, 3 Document No. 0001. 4

be responding to Consumers proposals, NRDC reserves the right to refine its positions, and to take other positions, as this case develops. 23. NRDC requests that all notices and pleadings be served on: Christopher M. Bzdok Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C. 420 E. Front St. Traverse City, MI 49686 chris@envlaw.com and on: Rebecca Stanfield Natural Resources Defense Council 101 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 609 Chicago, IL 60606 rstanfield@nrdc.org For the reasons just outlined, NRDC respectfully requests that the Commission grant this petition to intervene and treat NRDC as a party to this proceeding. Date: December 10, 2008 OLSON, BZDOK & HOWARD, P.C. Counsel for NRDC By: Christopher M. Bzdok (P53094) Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C. 420 E. Front St. Traverse City, MI 49686 Phone: 231/946-0044 Fax: 231/946-4807 Email: chris@envlaw.com G:\WPFILES\RAL\NRDC\U-15805 (CEC)\12-10-08 NRDC Petition to Intervene (U-15805).wpd 5