Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
May 13, 2015

COA affirms DTE's power supply cost recovery plan

In In re Application of Detroit Edison for 2012 Cost Recovery Plan, No. 318388, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the Michigan Public Service Commission’s approval of DTE’s power supply cost recovery plan and its related Reduced Emission Fuel project. Under the Reduced Emission Fuel project, DTE planned to sell coal to affiliated companies that would add chemicals reducing sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrous oxide emissions, and then sell the coal back to the company. The cost of the additives was to be offset by reduced power supply cost recovery emissions allowance expense, resulting in a net cost of zero for customers. 
 
The court rejected the Michigan Environmental Council's argument that the Reduced Emissions Fuel project violated the Public Service Commission’s Code of Conduct because the affiliated fuel companies were subsidized by receiving favorable tax treatment as a result of the transaction and because the sale and repurchase of the coal at the same price violated the Code’s pricing provision. The court reasoned that since DTE could not have obtained the same tax benefits as the fuel companies, and an unaffiliated company would have received the same benefits as an affiliated company, the regulated entity, DTE, did not subsidize the unregulated entities, the fuel companies, as prohibited by the Code of Conduct. With regard to the pricing issue, the court noted that the Michigan Environmental Council had not identified an alternative pricing scheme or indicated how an alternative pricing scheme could have complied with the Code of Conduct.
 
The court also held that the Commission’s finding that DTE had adequately investigated contracts with unaffiliated companies was supported by the evidence, and that DTE was not required to provide the actual contracts with the affiliated companies as long as they were adequately described.
 
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the Commission erred by finding that the approximately $500,000 generated for the affiliated companies by tax credits through the project was irrelevant in determining whether DTE took appropriate steps to minimize costs. The court held that no statutory authority allowed the Commission to consider favorable tax treatment to another party when approving a power supply cost recovery program.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset