Power supply costs & revenues reconciliation; “Net increased costs”; MCL 460.6j(13)(c); “Solely”; Replacement capacity costs; Whether the case should be remanded; Petition for rehearing; Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (ABATE); Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC); Zonal Deliverability Charges (ZDCs); Zonal Deliverability Benefit (ZDB)

Holding that appellant-ABATE’s arguments were unavailing, the court affirmed appellee-PSC’s order approving with modifications petitioner-DTE’s application for approval to reconcile its power supply costs and revenues for calendar year 2020. ABATE argued “that the PSC erred in its interpretation and application of MCL 460.6j(13)(c), which provides for a disallowance of ‘net increased costs attributable to a generating plant outage of more than 90 days in duration unless the utility demonstrates by clear and satisfactory evidence that the outage, or any part of the outage, was not caused or prolonged by the utility’s negligence or by unreasonable or imprudent management.’” ABATE argued “the PSC erroneously limited the term ‘net increased costs’ as used in MCL 460.6j(13)(c) to net increased costs that are solely attributable to an extended outage.” ABATE asserted “that the PSC improperly read the word ‘solely’ into the statutory text so that only costs solely attributable to an extended outage are considered.” Contrary to ABATE’s claim, “the PSC did not insert the word ‘solely’ into the statutory text.” It was “true that the PSC used the word ‘sole’ in the context of quoting the PSC’s [8/11/22] order in Consumers Energy’s reconciliation case.” But the court concluded “the PSC was not purporting to interpret MCL 460.6j(13)(c) to include the word ‘sole’ or ‘solely.’ Rather, the PSC’s overall analysis reflects that it properly applied the statutory text. The PSC thoroughly analyzed the relevant testimony, the parties’ arguments, and the ALJ’s findings. The PSC found ABATE’s ‘argument that DTE Electric incurred additional capacity costs as a direct result of the Ludington Unit 3 outage extension unpersuasive.’” ABATE next argued “that the PSC disregarded or did not adequately consider evidence that DTE incurred replacement capacity costs and ZDCs that should have been disallowed because such costs were attributable to the Ludington Unit 3 outage extension.” ABATE further asserted “that the calculation of net increased costs should have accounted for ZDB credits that DTE allegedly earned as a result of the outage extension.” ABATE’s argument was unconvincing. The record contained “competent, material, and substantial evidence that supports the PSC’s decision.”