6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 RE: MPSC Case No. U ...
18
October 3, 2012 Ms. Mary Jo. Kunkle Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 RE: MPSC Case N U-16432-R o. Dear Ms. Kunkle: The following is attached for paperless electronic filing: Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E., LLC, Submitted on Behalf of Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) [REDACTED] Exhibits MEC-1 [REDACTED] and MEC-2 E-Service List Sincerely, Christopher M. Bzdok [email protected] xc: Parties to Case No. U-16432-R James Clift, MEC ( [email protected])
Transcript of 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 RE: MPSC Case No. U ...
October 3, 2012
Ms. Mary Jo. KunkleMichigan Public Service Commission6545 Mercantile WayP. O. Box 30221Lansing, MI 48909
RE: MPSC Case N U-16432-Ro.
Dear Ms. Kunkle:
The following is attached for paperless electronic filing:
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E., LLC, Submitted onBehalf of Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) [REDACTED]
Exhibits MEC-1 [REDACTED] and MEC-2
E-Service List
Sincerely,
Christopher M. [email protected]
xc: Parties to Case No. U-16432-RJames Clift, MEC ([email protected])
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In the matter of the application ofCONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY forthe Reconciliation of Power Supply CoastRecovery Costs and Revenues for theCalendar Year 2011
Case N U-16432-Ro.
ALJ Dennis J. Mack
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GEORGE E. SANSOUCY P.E., LLCSUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF
MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL (MEC)
Christopher M. Bzdok (P53094)Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C.Attorneys for MEC420 East Front StreetTraverse City, MI 49686Telephone: (231) 946-0044Email: [email protected]
October 3, 2012
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 1 of 12
1
2 I. INTRODUCTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS
3 Q. Please state your name, business address, and affiliation.
4 A. My name is George E. Sansoucy. My business address is 32 Nimble Hill
5 Road, Newington, New Hampshire 03801. I am the owner of George E. Sansoucy,
6 P.E., LLC.
7 Q. What are your educational background and professional
8 qualifications to appear in this proceeding?
9 A. I have a Bachelors and a Masters of Science Degree in Civil Engineering
10 and am a Registered Professional Engineer in New Hampshire. My firm, George E.
11 Sansoucy, P.E., LLC, provides valuation, consulting and engineering services to clients
12 throughout the United States. The firm’s two primary services are 1) the valuation of
13 public utility infrastructure, energy projects, and complex industrial properties, and 2)
14 consultation services on energy and regulatory matters involving the public and private
15 utilities sector in the United States. I have testified in legal and regulatory proceedings
16 before state and federal courts and administrative agencies, including the Federal
17 Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I have
18 testified before the Michigan Public Service Commission in the following cases:
19 • Case No. U-14992 (Consumers Palisades Nuclear Power Plant sale);
20 • Case No. U-15805 (Consumers Renewable Energy Plan);
21 • Case No. U-15806 (Detroit Edison Renewable Energy Plan);
22 • Case No. U-16045 (Consumers 2010 Power Supply Cost Recovery Plan);
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 2 of 12
1 • Case No. U-15675-R (Consumers 2009 Power Supply Cost Recovery
2 Reconciliation);
3 • Case No. U-16191 (Consumers Rate Case);
4 • Case No. U-16300 (Consumers Renewable Energy Reconciliation);
5 • Case No. U-16472 (Detroit Edison Rate Case);
6 • Case No. U-16432 (Consumers 2011 Power Supply Cost Recovery Plan);
7 • Case No. U-16582 (Detroit Edison Renewable Energy Biennial Review);
8 • Case No. U-16357 (Detroit Edison 2010 Renewable Cost Reconciliation);
9 • Case No. U-16794 (Consumers Rate Case);
10 • Case No. U-16892 (Detroit Edison 2012 Power Supply Cost Recovery Plan).
11 Q. What documents have you reviewed in preparation for your
12 testimony?
13 A. I have reviewed the company’s filing and discovery responses in this
14 docket; testimony, exhibits, discovery responses, as well as materials from previous
15 Consumers Energy PSCR dockets.
16 II. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
17 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
18 A. My testimony supports the Michigan Environmental Council’s position
19 regarding the issue of the continued dispatch of the Company’s Zeeland facility.
20 Q. Are you sponsoring any exhibits?
21 A. Yes. I am sponsoring two exhibit(s):
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 3 of 12
1 1. MEC 1 (“November Simulated Dispatch Summary for Zeeland
2 Natural Gas Combined Cycle Generating Plant”); and
3 2. MEC 2 (“Western Coal Graphs Summarized”).
4 Q. Were these exhibits obtained or prepared by you, or at your
5 direction?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Please summarize your testimony.
8 A. The Company’s response to discovery request 16432R-MEC-CE-38d,
9 prepared by Richard T. Blumenstock, describes increased use of the Zeeland Natural
10 Gas Combined Cycle generating plant. However, simulations run by the company
11 showed that for much of 2011, Zeeland was not being dispatched in a way that was
12 most economically beneficial for the PSCR customer. Additionally, if the dispatch of
13 Zeeland was better optimized, it would have been more beneficial to run in a base load
14 mode of operation than Whiting. While the increased use of the Zeeland power plant
15 and the corresponding decrease in coal fired generation is a positive development for
16 ratepayers and the environment, I believe that the Company should be generating
17 electricity from the Zeeland plant to an even greater extent than it has.
18 Q. How did you reach this conclusion?
19 A. I reviewed the data submitted in response to discovery request 16432R-
20 MEC-CE-38d, which was a retrospective analysis comparing replacement power costs
21 associated with the Zeeland Combined Cycle Unit in both baseload and cycling modes
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 4 of 12
1 each month from April 2011 through November 2011. I then used the Excel
2 spreadsheets in which this data was provided to run four more-optimized dispatch
3 scenarios and compare replacement power costs associated with baseload and cycling
4 modes in those scenarios. I chose the month of November to make these comparisons,
5 but the data were provided in the same format for each of the months in the study.
6 Finally, I compared the economic benefit of these more-optimized scenarios with the
7 economic benefit associated with the Whiting coal plant during a similar time frame.
8
9 III. ZEELAND DISPATCH
10 Q. Please describe Consumers’ retrospective study.
11 A. The retrospective study provided in confidential discovery response
12 16432R-MEC-CE-38d provides the Company’s forecast of the megawatt hours
13 dispatched by either cycling or baseload operations. The results of each simulated
14 forecast are summarized for comparison on a one-page table including a line chart
15 which visually illustrates the Simulated Dispatch in megawatts by each hour of the
16 month. The table provides the following information for each of Consumers dispatch
17 models – cycling and baseload: 1) the month’s total simulated dispatch in megawatt
18 hours; 2) total monthly revenue (sum of the month’s day ahead awards less the sum of
19 the production cost); 3) total startup costs for the month; 4) monthly revenue after
20 startup costs (monthly revenue less startup costs); 5) the imputed gas price in dollars
21 per MMBTU; 6) the average locational marginal price for Zeeland in dollars per
22 megawatt hour; 7) the locational marginal price forecast gas price in dollars per
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 5 of 12
1 MMBTU; 8) the number of hot, intermediate and cold starts included in each forecast;
2 9) the capacity factor as a percent run time for each method of operation; 10) the
3 minimum dispatch megawatts of 360, the maximum dispatch megawatts without duct
4 burners of 525 megawatts, and the maximum dispatch with duct burners of 575
5 megawatts.
6 Q. What are duct burners?
7 A. Duct burners are supplementary burners used in a heat recovery steam
8 generator. A generator with duct burners has the capability to fire with fuel after the gas
9 turbine in order to increase the quantity or temperature of the steam generated, thereby
10 producing energy. In this case additional fuel is added to the turbine’s exhaust. The
11 efficiency of a combined cycle power plant is lower with supplementary duct burner
12 firing, but firing the duct burners allows the plant to respond to fluctuations and peaking
13 of electrical load.
14 Q. Describe the way baseload operation was simulated in the study
15 provided by Consumers.
16 A. Baseload operation was simulated over the course of the entire month at
17 levels of 360 MW at night, on weekends and over the Thanksgiving holiday and at 525
18 MW or 575 MW during the day. The day level depended on whether the duct burners
19 were being fired. There were no shutdown periods forecast in Consumers’ simulated
20 baseload operation.
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 6 of 12
1 Q. Describe the way cycling operation was simulated in the study
2 provided by Consumers.
3 A. Cycling operation was simulated at levels of 360 MW at night and 525
4 MW or 575 MW during the day, just as with baseload operation. However, the
5 simulation also assumed no operation for 19 hours on three weekends, and no
6 operation during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend in 2011.
7 Q. Please describe what the Company’s simulated dispatch model
8 showed for baseload operation in November.
9 A. For the baseload dispatch model in November, the Company anticipated
10 dispatching 333,510 MWh of electric generation, total monthly revenue (sum of the
11 month’s day ahead awards less the sum of the production cost) of $�����������, startup
12 costs of $���������, and monthly revenue after startup costs (monthly revenue less startup
13 costs) of $364,744.
14 Q. Please describe what the Company’s simulated dispatch model
15 showed for cycling operation in November.
16 A. With the same dispatch simulation for the cycling operation, the Company
17 forecasts an electric generation of 280,485 MWh, total monthly revenue (sum of the
18 month’s day ahead awards less the sum of the production cost) of $994,547, startup
19 costs of $217,086, and monthly revenue after startup costs (monthly revenue less
20 startup costs) of $777,461.
21 Q. What did the company conclude from this analysis?
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 7 of 12
1 A. From this analysis, the Company concluded that maintaining a cycling
2 mode of operation from 360 MW to 575 MW of capacity best maximizes the
3 opportunities available through the ownership of the Zeeland combined cycle gas fired
4 power plant.
5 Q. Do you agree that the company’s analysis demonstrates that Zeeland
6 is being operated in the most beneficial manner to the PSCR customer?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Why not?
9 A. The main factor driving the difference between the two modes is the
10 baseloading of the plant through the weekends and holidays. This mode of operation
11 builds in a significant level of negative operating margins.
12 Q. Are there other indications in the study of non-optimal operation of
13 the Zeeland plant?
14 A. Yes. The Company also includes the dispatch of the duct burners as part
15 of both baseload and cycling operation of the plant. The Company uses 575 megawatts
16 of maximum capacity by firing off the additional duct burners with natural gas. Use of
17 the duct burners is part of the peaking capability of the Company, and is not a part of
18 the combined cycle mode of operation which maximizes the Zeeland plant’s efficiency.
19 It is essentially pouring pipeline gas into the heat recovery steam generator in a
20 relatively inefficient fashion at a significantly higher cost than the operation of the
21 combined cycle plant without the firing of duct burners. Based on the data provided in
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 8 of 12
1 discovery response 16432R-MEC-CE-38d, the total incremental cost of production with
2 duct burners is $�������� per MWh. The incremental cost of production without the duct
3 burners is $�������� per MWh, a difference of 42%. The simulated dispatch and costs for
4 the use of Zeeland should not include the firing of the duct burners. The duct burner
5 firing is an opportunistic peaking mode or requirement which should be separately
6 valued, assessed, and dispatched based on its incremental cost of peaking production,
7 against the economic peaking dispatch of the company-owned peaking fleet, and not
8 be part of the decision making process to either baseload or cycle the Zeeland plant. It
9 penalized the plant modeling by raising the average cost of production.
10 IV. ZEELAND DISPATCH UNDER ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
11 Q. Did you run alternate scenarios?
12 A. Yes. I ran four alternate scenarios.
13 Q. What was the basis for the scenarios?
14 A. Operation of other generating plants in the country that I am familiar with,
15 as well as Consumers’ own simulation of its cycling mode.
16 Q. Please describe the first alternate scenario.
17 A. In the first alternate scenario I forecast the dispatch of Zeeland at 525
18 megawatts, without duct burners, for five days (Monday – Friday) at 16 hours per day
19 and reduced the dispatch to 360 megawatts overnight, for 19 consecutive hours over
20 the weekend, and over the entire Thanksgiving holiday weekend.
21 Q. What was the result of the first alternate scenario?
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 9 of 12
1 A. Under this dispatch scenario startup costs will be incurred only once as
2 there are no shutdown periods. The monthly revenue after startup costs (monthly
3 revenue less startup costs) based on this dispatch of Zeeland is $933,962. This
4 represents a 20% increase in benefits over the company’s highest cycling forecast.
5 Q. Please describe the second alternate scenario.
6 A. In the second alternate scenario I forecast the dispatch of Zeeland at 525
7 megawatts, without duct burners, for five days (Monday – Friday) at 24 hours per day
8 and reduced the dispatch to 360 megawatts for 48 hours over each weekend and the
9 Thanksgiving holiday.
10 Q. What was the result of the second alternate scenario?
11 A. Under this dispatch scenario startup costs will be incurred only once as
12 there are no shutdown periods. The monthly revenue after startup costs (monthly
13 revenue less startup costs) based on this dispatch of Zeeland is $1,054,465. This
14 represents a 36% increase in benefits over the company’s highest cycling forecast.
15 Q. Please describe the third alternate scenario.
16 A. In the third alternate scenario I forecast the dispatch of Zeeland at 525
17 megawatts, without duct burners, for five days (Monday – Friday) at 16 hours per day,
18 reduced the dispatch to 360 megawatts overnight, and scheduled a 48 hour shutdown
19 period on weekends and over the Thanksgiving/day after Thanksgiving holiday.
20 Q. What was the result of the third alternate scenario?
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 10 of 12
1 A. Under this dispatch scenario startup costs will be incurred after each of
2 the shutdown periods. The monthly revenue, after subtraction of startup costs, based
3 on this dispatch of Zeeland is $1,279,125. This represents a 65% increase in benefits
4 over the company’s highest cycling forecast.
5 Q. Please describe the fourth alternate scenario.
6 A. In the fourth alternate scenario I forecast the dispatch of Zeeland at 525
7 megawatts, without duct burners, for five (5) days at 24 hours per day, a 48 hour
8 shutdown period on each weekend and a 48 hour shutdown period including the
9 Thanksgiving/day after Thanksgiving holiday.
10 Q. What was the result of the fourth alternate scenario?
11 A. Under this dispatch scenario startup costs will be incurred after each of
12 the shutdown periods. The monthly revenue after startup costs (monthly revenue less
13 startup costs) based on this dispatch of Zeeland is $1,547,981. This represents a 99%
14 increase in benefits over the company’s highest cycling forecasts.
15 IV. CONCLUSIONS
16 Q. What did you conclude from your revised simulated dispatch
17 models?
18 A. As demonstrated from the revised simulated dispatch, MEC believes that
19 the Company, while moving forward with additional utilization of the Zeeland plant, can
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 11 of 12
1 further maximize the value of the Zeeland plant, burn more gas, and subsequently burn
2 less coal.
3 Q. Was the operation of Zeeland for the month of November more
4 economically beneficial than the operation of the Whiting coal fired power plant
5 during this same time period?
6 A. Yes. As part of the Company’s data response, in addition to forecasting
7 the operation of Zeeland, the Company also forecasts the conversion of more western
8 coal from November 10 , 2011 through January 30, 2012. This is provided byth
9 Consumers in response to discovery request 16432R-MEC-CE-38c, herein. A summary
10 of this information is provided as MEC - 2 (“Western Coal Graphs Summarized”), and
11 summarizes each monthly dispatch of each western coal graph for each power plant
12 unit for each scenario studied by the Company, for each day of the month of November.
13 Q. What were the results of your summary of Consumers’ western coal
14 graphs?
15 A. From this summary table prepared by MEC, it can be seen, for example,
16 that Whiting Unit I had a maximum sum total monthly economic benefit of $158,981.32.
17 Whiting Unit II had a maximum sum total monthly economic benefit of $176,191.50 and
18 Whiting Unit III had a maximum sum total monthly economic benefit of $229,670.58.
19 These data points are highlighted in blue in the exhibit. The Whiting plant total, all three
20 units, had a maximum sum total monthly economic benefit of $564,843.40. This benefit
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E - REDACTED.
On Behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council
U-16432-R - October 3, 2012
Page 12 of 12
1 is less than the total benefit of either cycling or baseload under my scenarios for
2 Zeeland.
3 Q. What is your recommendation?
4 A. I recommend that the Commission disallow an amount commensurate
5 with the lack of optimal operation of the Zeeland plant, based on the entire record in this
6 proceeding, including the company’s forthcoming rebuttal testimony on this issue. In
7 the alternative, and at a minimum, I recommend that the Commission direct the
8 company to better optimize the operation of the Zeeland plant consistent with this
9 analysis, starting in 2013.
10 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
11 A. Yes.
Scenario # 1 Scenario # 2 Scenario # 3 Scenario #4 Scenario # 5 Scenario # 6Cycle Baseload Baseload Baseload Cycling Cycling
With Duct Burners With Duct Burners No Duct Burner No Duct Burner No Duct Burner No Duct Burner
Consumers Cycle Consumers Baseload
Weekdays-8 hrs @ 360 MW & 16 hrs @ 525 MW /
19 hr-WE @ 360 MWWeekdays-24 hrs @ 525
MW / 48 hr-WE @ 360 MW
Weekdays-8 hrs @ 360 MW & 16 hrs @ 525 MW /
48 hr-WE ShutdownWeekdays-24 hrs @ 525
MW / 48 hr-WE ShutdownTotal Month Day Ahead Dispatch (MWh) 280,485 333,510 323,220 338,400 225,600 252,000 Gas Used, Estimated (MCF) 2,047,541 2,434,623 2,359,506 2,470,320 1,646,880 1,839,600 Day Ahead Awards LESS Production Cost 994,547 1,496,211 1,765,067 Startup Costs 217,086 217,086 217,086 Day Ahead Awards LESS Production Cost and Startup Costs 777,461 364,744 933,962 1,054,465 1,279,125 1,547,981
Highest awards uses least amount of gas
Direct Testimony of George E. sansoucy, P.E. -REDACTED U-16432-R - October 3, 2012 Exhibit: MEC-1 Source:November Simulated Dispatch Summary for Zeeland Natural Gas Combined Cycle Generating Plant Page 1 of 1
10-03-12 Western Coal Graphs
Date Range of Data (Totaled) 60% WCB 100% WCB 80% WCB 100% WCB 80% WCB 100% WCB 83% WCB 100% WCB 83% WCB 100% WCB 83% WCB 100% WCB 83% WCB 100% WCB 85% WCB 100% WCB 85% WCB 100% WCB 85% WCB 100% WCB
Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 10_2011 to Dec 09_2 -804,278.33 -99,397.12 -243,479.68 192.65 -223,350.98 14,279.10 -424,403.11 -155,049.24 -249,289.26 -12,847.07 -29,333.39 136,168.98 17,834.65 174,952.98 -161,088.43 -67,223.46 -137,047.13 -46,717.16 -161,494.91 -38,574.37Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 11_2011 to Dec 10_2 -558,261.30 156,784.48 6,186.54 234,276.67 -65,553.68 162,935.89 -171,305.49 -94,936.75 141,502.13 330,587.28 141,549.44 264,681.49 192,438.03 301,616.25 -73,706.61 21,152.84 -50,743.72 39,947.24 -54,548.59 71,007.98Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 12_2011 to Dec 11_2 -574,665.05 139,548.41 -98,183.38 172,953.98 -74,089.23 154,346.00 -312,158.79 -110,770.96 119,806.30 310,224.28 130,788.68 254,296.23 181,291.26 291,072.31 -79,737.39 14,827.78 -56,561.01 33,799.39 -61,872.33 63,151.80Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 13_2011 to Dec 12_2 -482,962.73 214,354.96 44,310.79 268,409.40 -26,137.17 192,438.90 15,681.32 232,686.67 202,874.23 379,462.68 179,090.16 294,630.74 230,620.94 331,587.23 -50,879.99 42,075.73 -27,728.56 60,754.98 -26,051.75 98,146.88Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 15_2011 to Dec 14_2 -401,547.55 293,390.96 -1,424.83 260,630.77 25,263.05 237,223.36 92,422.78 303,464.18 281,247.37 450,537.06 229,007.19 339,784.28 281,501.04 377,141.80 -22,563.36 69,929.74 492.80 88,140.33 8,837.70 133,241.55Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 16_2011 to Dec 15_2 -380,450.56 314,034.12 -387.01 265,310.34 26,851.61 288,756.34 99,227.05 309,484.38 296,176.67 464,599.52 232,457.59 342,640.49 285,153.54 380,030.13 -16,841.17 76,053.03 5,941.03 94,073.91 16,044.43 140,996.71Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 17_2011 to Dec 16_2 -367,250.14 331,024.11 12,536.61 277,914.03 39,992.54 301,568.80 107,058.17 318,759.11 303,957.12 473,728.67 247,806.86 356,923.87 300,802.19 394,417.77 -7,651.09 85,415.21 15,021.95 103,220.93 27,202.87 152,630.10Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 18_2011 to Dec 17_2 -567,060.30 220,072.41 -63,869.06 224,246.90 -45,898.79 241,147.36 -57,908.63 195,782.22 148,838.22 405,155.70 170,913.86 302,600.15 205,797.38 325,490.39 -55,630.69 47,298.05 -32,143.20 66,217.23 -29,260.19 106,625.56Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 19_2011 to Dec 18_2 -458,426.30 306,383.50 -13,453.17 268,107.54 5,926.45 285,220.43 23,062.87 264,760.32 232,784.17 478,199.37 220,772.54 343,763.71 256,341.09 366,711.60 -26,696.48 74,534.12 -2,935.85 93,189.48 7,046.94 141,685.87Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 20_2011 to Dec 19_2 -377,914.59 377,612.69 29,255.76 307,592.54 49,665.64 325,345.55 89,935.30 325,377.62 301,437.88 541,834.81 264,945.15 382,962.27 301,346.48 406,160.56 -1,234.45 99,349.94 22,279.96 117,651.98 38,337.63 173,119.40Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 23_2011 to Dec 22_2 -262,878.92 475,991.00 175,061.67 411,749.32 114,997.14 383,085.15 187,665.52 412,504.25 403,487.08 633,418.29 329,158.44 438,191.41 366,071.87 461,794.62 38,088.26 137,300.43 61,602.72 155,109.35 87,189.19 221,646.04Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 24_2011 to Dec 23_2 -385,070.31 375,956.43 116,748.35 359,293.35 52,651.42 328,008.52 85,776.04 322,373.65 296,751.19 539,240.43 264,732.62 383,583.16 301,295.04 406,934.84 432.31 100,984.04 23,814.11 119,277.59 40,422.60 175,290.15Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 29_2011 to Dec 28_2 -281,253.99 499,915.51 185,037.39 434,744.55 147,041.70 427,084.00 234,042.00 474,188.90 440,049.73 683,188.45 358,322.00 477,741.96 378,949.78 488,012.66 48,030.48 150,242.82 70,873.60 167,557.23 91,535.96 229,670.58Western Coal Graphs for the week of Nov 30_2011 to Dec 29_2 -258,275.19 -258,275.19 196,543.12 446,046.05 157,566.37 433,849.87 248,155.79 484,067.28 457,171.73 721,056.84 370,347.24 485,449.72 391,558.54 495,435.39 57,393.95 158,981.32 79,843.54 176,191.50 103,319.43 229,393.77Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 02_2011 to Dec 31_2 -477,006.36 -477,006.36 44,334.87 247,856.78 -19,084.06 217,512.77 -334,790.79 -170,565.60 140,085.35 334,685.48 175,638.27 270,561.83 191,550.45 277,682.87 -51,741.36 25,969.94 -28,420.29 45,717.22 -41,310.89 28,863.63Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 03_2011 to Jan 01_2 -490,674.29 -490,674.29 34,196.74 234,548.60 -35,187.46 200,282.17 -201,985.13 30,421.26 114,471.34 307,959.33 159,101.70 254,063.83 174,574.24 261,022.83 -60,246.57 16,708.34 -36,339.41 36,842.48 -51,325.60 18,035.94Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 04_2011 to Jan 02_2 -414,234.56 -414,234.56 69,968.55 270,262.85 9,153.14 242,366.43 -127,692.00 98,777.03 179,199.31 369,179.83 203,198.78 294,215.38 219,191.31 301,333.18 -35,372.29 41,472.95 -11,810.66 61,114.93 -20,956.09 56,390.65Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 07_2011 to Jan 05_2 -257,227.72 -257,227.72 144,169.15 346,495.15 102,247.72 331,912.71 36,561.37 291,843.21 320,487.53 505,219.78 292,244.54 376,858.96 309,697.48 384,538.94 15,685.57 92,564.98 38,544.84 111,075.16 41,269.81 59,213.91Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 08_2011 to Jan 06_2 -350,722.99 -350,722.99 97,547.23 303,801.28 51,543.63 287,387.33 -50,386.19 213,725.81 235,341.11 429,421.84 240,138.58 332,469.68 256,913.82 340,046.95 -15,084.44 63,030.03 7,623.38 82,010.02 3,216.32 28,815.76Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 09_2011 to Jan 07_2 -344,441.53 -344,441.53 100,031.49 304,603.54 53,120.05 288,869.68 -39,286.99 223,556.12 245,212.27 437,857.13 241,235.76 333,341.65 257,961.11 340,901.84 -4,893.17 65,363.39 10,194.07 84,367.18 6,297.40 31,353.60Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 10_2011 to Jan 08_2 -356,935.02 -356,935.02 26,479.15 264,083.21 45,732.62 281,925.24 -63,070.44 202,103.48 220,755.57 416,263.21 204,182.39 281,912.23 217,030.50 332,454.89 -11,646.62 58,685.59 3,908.38 49,344.93 -1,713.15 107,402.87Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 11_2011 to Jan 09_2 -305,881.43 -305,881.43 50,451.04 284,976.61 70,060.44 302,931.73 -12,155.74 247,432.24 271,431.68 460,503.56 228,349.02 301,958.13 241,371.85 354,142.26 -12,692.39 -9,505.94 1,364.85 17,131.91 17,674.82 113,921.01Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 14_2011 to Jan 13_2 -363,998.36 -363,998.36 -883.61 251,657.26 19,279.11 270,471.02 -108,020.77 173,509.68 181,036.32 392,482.49 185,018.60 272,086.16 198,421.91 322,391.18 -49,927.84 -59,568.60 -35,309.66 -7,391.41 -26,634.25 88,107.14Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 16_2011 to Jan 15_2 -496,930.33 -496,930.33 -72,699.20 183,786.16 -55,267.88 201,222.15 -243,504.30 48,766.28 53,544.30 274,017.03 109,110.94 206,229.79 121,514.16 251,407.14 -88,572.27 -51,239.33 -71,584.36 5,459.66 -82,246.43 31,342.59Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 17_2011 to Jan 16_2 -503,709.95 -503,709.95 -80,703.82 175,724.70 -63,547.20 192,794.29 -397,897.85 -90,121.42 -236,216.26 31,479.47 101,134.10 236,105.95 113,551.86 243,568.29 -94,486.48 -13,638.21 -77,191.32 6,667.47 -88,868.02 24,735.91Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 18_2011 to Jan 17_2 -579,124.79 -579,124.79 -113,145.97 138,809.14 -62,277.99 181,748.96 -474,772.27 -186,874.03 -352,097.51 -86,480.80 51,491.81 185,720.66 84,935.82 212,088.57 -98,937.84 -21,821.87 -115,069.14 -32,016.97 -137,499.63 -26,799.92Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 21_2011 to Jan 20_2 -627,333.30 -627,333.30 -137,541.66 118,508.06 -86,971.03 125,136.29 -500,182.04 -65,819.66 -378,463.68 81,250.50 26,007.06 163,784.50 59,243.16 190,088.69 -117,567.09 -90,960.88 -133,158.37 -48,367.94 -159,890.86 -48,436.41Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 22_2011 to Jan 21_2 -748,369.88 -748,369.88 -209,359.52 50,261.63 -159,247.92 59,969.19 -481,587.11 -293,576.85 -270,189.58 -32,650.45 -47,923.64 93,593.71 -15,718.76 119,202.69 -164,526.85 -83,448.81 -178,369.61 -92,344.65 -213,437.86 -102,724.31Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 23_2011 to Jan 22_2 -943,281.40 -943,281.40 -300,149.27 -42,265.49 -193,599.43 2,049.38 -674,650.61 -452,989.63 -447,536.92 -200,282.29 -110,145.41 22,734.42 -86,965.44 42,121.72 -233,297.58 -149,504.30 -244,239.84 -156,473.18 -292,178.86 -182,597.73Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 24_2011 to Jan 23_2 -888,225.37 -888,225.37 -273,829.88 -16,833.24 -166,631.15 27,177.46 -628,322.60 -416,774.22 -401,906.85 -157,264.03 -84,343.08 47,453.20 -60,164.08 67,487.41 -216,921.61 -133,738.10 -228,929.32 -141,395.39 -273,377.93 -163,122.41Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 25_2011 to Jan 24_2 -840,450.67 -840,450.67 -247,135.77 9,326.93 -142,349.82 50,232.82 -577,861.42 -374,045.75 -356,111.94 -113,556.07 -58,641.70 72,113.77 -33,752.87 92,638.10 -200,744.67 -117,970.03 -213,717.61 -126,100.03 -255,171.66 -144,310.20Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 29_2011 to Jan 28_2 -693,669.29 -693,669.29 -139,167.35 115,898.53 -49,147.48 139,661.52 -381,283.46 -200,309.77 -185,582.10 53,959.41 37,266.61 166,762.73 64,980.04 188,753.72 -135,562.57 -53,181.40 -150,666.52 -63,509.47 -182,020.81 -69,151.47Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 30_2011 to Jan 29_2 -535,014.26 -535,014.26 -60,596.75 187,364.47 31,369.87 205,451.10 -414,137.43 -94,082.03 -43,225.62 180,287.84 121,810.39 242,845.79 150,995.46 265,366.94 -80,233.56 -1,693.09 -98,497.63 -13,293.76 -117,541.56 -4,092.63Western Coal Graphs for the week of Dec 31_2011 to Jan 30_2 -644,277.30 -644,277.30 14,636.05 302,474.15 97,098.51 304,579.52 -203,880.64 186,161.36 -62,901.60 160,316.63 223,404.76 378,264.37 250,905.00 398,905.69 -93,674.81 -14,988.26 -112,032.61 -27,000.07 -132,165.71 -18,932.42
CA 2 60% WCB 60% WCBKA1 75% WCB 83% WCB
CO4CA2 WH3WH2WH1WE8WE7KA2KA1CO5
Direct Testimony of George E. Sansoucy, P.E. U-16432-R - October 3, 2012 Exhibit: MEC-2 - Source: Western Coals Graphs Page 1 of 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In the matter of the application ofCONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY forthe Reconciliation of Power Supply CoastRecovery Costs and Revenues for theCalendar Year 2011
Case N U-16432-Ro.
ALJ Dennis W. Mack
ELECTRONIC SERVICE LIST
On the date below, an electronic copy of Direct Testimony of George E.Sansoucy, P.E., LLC, Submitted on Behalf of Michigan Environmental Council (MEC)[REDACTED] and Exhibits MEC-1 [REDACTED] and MEC-2 was served on the following:
Name/Party E-mail Address
Dennis W. Mack, ALJ [email protected]
Counsel for Consumers Energy Co.John C. Shea [email protected]
Counsel for MPSC StaffHeather M. DurianAmit T. Singh
[email protected]@michigan.gov
Counsel for Attorney GeneralDonald E. EricksonJohn Janiszewski
[email protected]@michigan.gov
Counsel for MCAAADon L. Keskey [email protected]
Counsel for MI Power and Ada Cogen LPDavid E. S. Marvin [email protected]
Counsel for Biomass Merchant Plants (BMPs):Cadillac Renewable Energy, LLC, Genesee PowerStation LP, Grayling Generating Station LP,Hillman Power Co LLC, TES Filer City Station LP,Viking Energy of Michigan, Inc., & Viking Energyof McBainThomas J. Waters
Counsel for Midland Cogeneration Venture LPRichard J. AaronDavid R. Whitfield
[email protected]@wmj.com
1
The statements above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
OLSON, BZDOK & HOWARD, P.C.Counsel for MEC
Date: October 3, 2012By:___________________________________
Ruth Ann Liebziet, Legal AssistantKimberly Flynn, Legal Assistant420 E. Front St.Traverse City, MI 49686Phone: 231/946-0044Email: [email protected] [email protected]
2
