The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolutions - 2026.05.21 - 42979 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Oakland County to Intervene in Proceedings before the Public Service Commission Regarding Proposed Rate Increases by DTE Electric Company DEPARTMENT: Board of Commissioners MEETING: Board of Commissioners DATE: Thursday, May 21, 2026 9:30 AM - Click to View Agenda ITEM SUMMARY SHEET COMMITTEE REPORT TO BOARD Resolution #2026-6607 _ 26-25 Motion to adopt the attached suggested resolution. ITEM CATEGORY SPONSORED BY Resolution David Woodward INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On April 28, 2026, DTE Electric Company filed an application with the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) seeking approval of additional electric rate increases in Case No. U-22046. The proposed increases would affect Oakland County residents, businesses, schools, nonprofit organizations, and local governmental entities at a time when many households continue to face rising costs for housing, food, insurance, and other necessities. As one of Michigan’s largest electric utilities, DTE provides service to a substantial portion of Oakland County. Any increase in electric rates has a direct impact on household affordability, small business operations, and the cost of providing public services. Increased utility costs may place additional financial strain on working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and vulnerable residents, while also increasing operational costs for local governments and community institutions funded by taxpayers. Article VII, Section 15 of the Michigan Constitution authorizes counties to intervene in proceedings involving the rates, services, and charges of privately owned public utilities serving county residents. Intervention in MPSC Case No. U-22046 will allow Oakland County to review DTE’s proposal, monitor the justification for the requested rate increases, and advocate for fair, reasonable, and accountable utility rates on behalf of Oakland County residents and businesses. The proposed resolution authorizes Oakland County to intervene in the proceeding and directs Corporation Counsel to oversee and coordinate the County’s participation before the MPSC. Through intervention, the County will be positioned to oppose unreasonable rate increases and advocate for the protection of Oakland County consumers and taxpayers. FISCAL IMPACT: No Budget Amendment Needed Committee members can contact Barbara Winter, Policy and Fiscal Analysis Supervisor at 248.821.3065 or winterb@oakgov.com or the department contact persons listed for additional information. CONTACT David Woodward, Commissioner ITEM REVIEW TRACKING Aaron Snover, Board of Commissioners Created/Initiated - 5/29/2026 David Woodward, Board of Commissioners Approved - 5/29/2026 Lisa Brown, Clerk/Register of Deeds Final Approval - 6/3/2026 AGENDA DEADLINE: 05/07/2026 4:30 PM ATTACHMENTS 1. U-22046 DTE Electric Company's Rate Case Summary 2. 00 U-22046 DTE Elec Application 3. U-22046 20260519 Oakland County Cvr Ltr Petition POS SL e COMMITTEE TRACKING 2026-05-21 Legislative Affairs & Government Operations - Recommend to Board 2026-05-21 Full Board - Adopt Motioned by: Commissioner Michael Gingell Seconded by: Commissioner Penny Luebs Yes: Ann Erickson Gault, Michael Gingell, Marcia Gershenson, Robert Hoffman, Karen Joliat, Christine Long, Penny Luebs, Gwen Markham, William Miller III, Kristen Nelson, Angela Powell, Robert Smiley, Yolanda Smith Charles, Michael Spisz, Linnie Taylor, Philip Weipert, David Woodward (17) No: Charles Cavell (1) Abstain: None (0) Absent: Brendan Johnson (1) Passed May 21, 2026 RESOLUTION #2026-6607 _ 26-25 Sponsored By: David Woodward Board of Commissioners - Authorize Oakland County to Intervene in Proceedings before the Public Service Commission Regarding Proposed Rate Increases by DTE Electric Company Chair and Members of the Board: WHEREAS the County of Oakland is a political subdivision of the State of Michigan; and WHEREAS pursuant to Article VII, Section 15 of the Michigan Constitution, a county may intervene in proceedings involving the services, charges, or rates of privately owned public utilities serving residents within the county; and WHEREAS the DTE Electric Company, an investor-owned public utility providing electric service within Oakland County, filed an application on April 28, 2026, with the Michigan Public Service Commission seeking approval of electric service rate increases affecting residents, businesses, and public institutions of Oakland County (Case No. U-22046); and WHEREAS the proposed rate increases may significantly impact county residents, businesses, and public institutions. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners authorizes Oakland County to intervene in DTE Electric Company's Michigan Public Service Commission Rate Case No. U-22046 to review the proposed rate increases and take action necessary to protect the interests of Oakland County residents, businesses, and public institutions, including, but not limited to, opposing rate increases. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Oakland County’s Corporation Counsel shall oversee and direct the County's efforts in Case No. U-22046. Chair, the following Commissioners are sponsoring the foregoing Resolution: David Woodward. Date: May 29, 2026 David Woodward, Commissioner Date: June 03, 2026 Lisa Brown, County Clerk / Register of Deeds COMMITTEE TRACKING 2026-05-21 Legislative Affairs & Government Operations - Recommend to Board 2026-05-21 Full Board - Adopt Motioned by Commissioner Michael Gingell seconded by Commissioner Penny Luebs to adopt the attached Resolution: Authorize Oakland County to Intervene in Proceedings before the Public Service Commission Regarding Proposed Rate Increases by DTE Electric Company. Yes: Ann Erickson Gault, Michael Gingell, Marcia Gershenson, Robert Hoffman, Karen Joliat, Christine Long, Penny Luebs, Gwen Markham, William Miller III, Kristen Nelson, Angela Powell, Robert Smiley, Yolanda Smith Charles, Michael Spisz, Linnie Taylor, Philip Weipert, David Woodward (17) No: Charles Cavell (1) Abstain: None (0) Absent: Brendan Johnson (1) Passed STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, Lisa Brown, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on May 21, 2026, with the original record thereof now remaining in my office. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Circuit Court at Pontiac, Michigan on Thursday, May 21, 2026. Lisa Brown, Oakland County Clerk / Register of Deeds April 23, 2026 Lisa Felice Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 West Saginaw Highway Lansing, MI 48917 RE: In the matter of the Application of DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY for authority to increase its rates, amend its rate schedules and rules governing the distribution and supply of electric energy, and for miscellaneous accounting authority MPSC Case No. U-22046 Dear Ms. Felice: Attached for electronic filing in the above captioned matter is DTE Electric Company’s Rate Case Summary. Also attached is the Proof of Service. Very truly yours, Jon P. Christinidis JPC/erb Attachments cc: Service List (313) 235-7706 Jon.christinidis@dteenergy.com One Energy Plaza, 1635 WCB Detroit, MI 48226-1279 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY ) for authority to increase its rates, amend ) Case No. U-22046 its rate schedules and rules governing the ) distribution and supply of electric energy, and ) for miscellaneous accounting authority. ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RATE CASE SUMMARY In accordance with the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (“MPSC” or the “Commission”) April 25, 2024 Order in Case No. U-18238, DTE Electric Company (“DTE Electric” or the “Company”) submits its Rate Case Summary. DTE Electric’s Rate Case Summary is being provided for informational purposes only. Modifications may be made to the Company’s upcoming rate case filing that could impact the information contained herein. In DTE Electric’s most recent rate case, Case No. U-21860, the Company requested the Commission authorize an adjustment to retail rates for the generation and distribution of electricity to provide additional revenue in the amount of $574.1 million annually.1 This was based on the utilization of a projected test year commencing January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2026. In its February 19, 2026 Order in Case No. U-21860, the Commission authorized DTE Electric to increase its retail rates for the generation and distribution of electricity by $242.4 million annually (a $4.93 increase per month to the average residential customer2) with a Return on Equity of 9.9%. New rates based on the Commission Order dated February 19, 2026 in Case No. U-21860 were 1 The Company’s revenue deficiency was voluntarily revised downward to $561.7 million during the course of the proceeding. 2 Based on a residential customer using 500 kWh/month 2 implemented on March 5, 2026. DTE Electric’s upcoming rate case filing, Case No. U-22046, is primarily driven by the Company’s continued distribution infrastructure investments to improve the reliability of the grid and to sustain the reliability of its generation fleet while moving toward cleaner sources of generation. Specifically, with respect to distribution infrastructure investments, DTE Electric is focused on meeting the Service Quality Reliability Standards set forth by the Commission, achieving the targets defined in the Financial Incentives and Disincentives proceeding, and implementing the recommendation of the independent distribution audit performed at the Commission’s direction. The Company is upgrading aging infrastructure and using technology to create a smarter, more resilient grid that will deliver the energy our customers demand and deserve as it makes progress toward meeting its own aspiration of reducing power outages by 30% and cutting outage time in half by 2029. Based on the evidentiary support provided in its upcoming filing, DTE Electric requests that the Commission authorize the Company to adjust its retail rates for the generation and distribution of electricity to provide additional revenue in the amount of approximately $474.3 million annually based on a projected 12-month test year of March 1, 2027, through February 29, 2028. In addition, the Company is proposing the extension and expansion of the Infrastructure Recovery Mechanism, which is focused on specific distribution capital expenditures that address customer safety, reliability, and the integration of increasing levels of electric vehicles and distributed energy resources, in 2028-2030. These expenditures will be recovered by means of the IRM surcharge revenue requirement of $154.4 million for 2028, $227.8 million for 2029, and $318.1 million for 2030. The Company is requesting a Return on Equity of 10.25% based on a 51.50% equity / 48.50% debt capital structure, and uses inflation factors of 2.9% for 2026, 3.0% for 2027, and 2.9% for 2028. The Company is utilizing a historical test year of 2025. 3 The key drivers associated with the Company’s revenue requirement are: Key Drivers  Revenue Requirements ($000,000) Revenue Requirement Impact a. Rate Base $355 b. Rate of Return 108 c. Operating Cost 47 d. Sales Margin & Other Revenue (29) e. Other (8) f. Total Revenue Requirement Impact $474 The revenue requirement associated with rate base is as follows: Key Drivers  Rate Base ($000) Drivers Rate Base Impact Revenue Requirement Impact (Return on, Return f. Increase from Last Order $2,820,772 $477,812 j.Net Increase from Last Order $2,820,772 $355,200 With respect to rate design, the Company is providing the six cost of service and rate design studies in response to the Commission Order in Case No. U-21990. 4 For the projected test year, the Company’s average overall revenue increase will be: 5 In addition to the requests described above, DTE Electric is seeking Commission approval of certain accounting requests, including but not limited to, regulatory asset treatment for certain vegetation management costs, regulatory liability treatment for the net liability related to excess sales margin of the Company’s large load customer, and deferral treatment (regulatory asset or liability) for unamortized investment tax credits. DTE Electric intends to file its upcoming electric rate case on April 28, 2026, which will allow for new rates to be effective as early as March 1, 2027. The Company will include all available information related to the requirements in Case No. U-18238. Respectfully Submitted, DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY By: Attorneys for DTE Electric Company Andrea Hayden (P71976) Jon P. Christinidis (P47352) One Energy Plaza, 1635WCB Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 235-7706 Dated: April 23, 2026 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY for ) authority to increase its rates, amend its ) rate schedules and rules governing the ) Case No. U-22046 distribution and supply of electric energy, ) and for miscellaneous accounting authority ) PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WAYNE ) ESTELLA R. BRANSON states that on April 23, 2026, she served a copy of DTE Electric Company’s Rate Case Summary in the above captioned matter, via electronic mail upon the persons listed on the attached service list. ESTELLA R. BRANSON MPSC Case No. U-22046 U-21534 & U-21860 Joint Service List 2/24/2026 Page 1 ABATE Benjamin J. Holwerda Michael J. Pattwell Clark Hill PLC 215 South Washington Square, Suite 200 Lansing, MI 48933 bholwerda@clarkhill.com mpattwell@clarkhill.com Stephen A. Campbell Clark Hill PLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 scampbell@clarkhill.com bholwerda@clarkhill.com ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED; ENERGY MICHIGAN, INC.; FOUNDRY ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN; INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATION; MICHIGAN ENERGY INNOVATION BUSINESS COUNCIL Laura A. Chappelle Timothy J. Lundgren Justin K. Ooms Varnum LLP 333 Bridge Street NW, Suite. 1700 Grand Rapids, MI 49501 lachappelle@varnumlaw.com tjlundgren@varnumlaw.com jkooms@varnumlaw.com CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD OF MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; SIERRA CLUB Christopher M. Bzdok Tracy Jane Andrews Holly L. Hillyer Troposphere Legal, PLC 420 East Front Street Traverse City, MI 49686 chris@tropospherelegal.com tjandrews@tropospherelegal.com holly@tropospherelegal.com CITY OF ANN ARBOR Valerie Jackson Assistant City Attorney City of Ann Arbor Guy C. Larcom City Hall 301. E. Huron Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Vjackson@a2gov.org Valerie J.M. Brader Rivenoak Law Group P.C. 3331 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 109 Troy, MI 48084 valerie@rivenoaklaw.com ecf@rivenoaklaw.com ELECTRIFY AMERICA, LLC Krystal D. Hermiz Jennifer A. Morante Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani 37000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 khermiz@grsm.com jmorante@grsm.com Stephen Bright Electrify America, LLC 1950 Opportunity Way, Suite 1500 Reston, Virginia 20190 Steve.Bright@electrifyamerica.com Environmental Law & Policy Center; Ecology Center; Union of Concerned Scientists; Vote Solar (CEO) Daniel Abrams Katie Duckworth Nicholas Wallace Environmental Law & Policy Center 35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 dabrams@elpc.org kdduckworth@elpc.org nwallace@elpc.org mpscdocket@elpc.org MPSC Case No. U-22046 U-21534 & U-21860 Joint Service List 2/24/2026 Page 2 EVGO SERVICES, LLC Nikhil Vijaykar Keyes & Fox LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 nvijaykar@keyesfox.com Michael G. Oliva Foster Swift Collins & Smith, PC 313 S. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933-2193 moliva@fosterswift.com GERDAU MACSTEEL, INC. Jennifer Utter Heston Potomac Law Group PLLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1025 Washington, DC 20006 jheston@potomaclaw.com GREAT LAKES RENEWABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION INC. Don L. Keskey Brian W. Coyer University Office Place 333 Albert Avenue, Suite 425 East Lansing, MI 48823 donkeskey@publiclawresourcecenter.com bwcoyer@publiclawresourcecenter.com INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMPANY d/b/a ITCTRANSMISSION Richard J. Aaron Courtney F. Kissel Olivia R.C.A. Flower Hannah E. Buzolits 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 RAaron@dykema.com CKissel@dykema.com OFlower@dykema.com HBuzolits@dykema.com THE KROGER COMPANY Michael L. Kurtz Kurt J. Boehm, Esq. Jody Kyler Cohn, Esq. Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry 425 Walnut Street, Suite 2400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 mkurtz@BKLlawfirm.com KBoehm@BKLlawfirm.com JKylerCohn@BKLlawfirm.com MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL Joel King Lucas Wollenzien Assistant Attorney General ENRA Division 525 W. Ottawa Street, 6th Floor P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 KingJ38@michigan.gov WollenzienL@michigan.gov ag-enra-spec-lit@michigan.gov MICHIGAN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOC.; ZECO SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A GREENLOTS Sean P. Gallagher Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap 124 West Allegan Street, Suite 1000 Lansing, MI 48933 sgallagher@fraserlawfirm.com MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION FOR UTILITY ISSUES (“MI-MAUI”); THE MICHIGAN COALITION TO PROTECT PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY (PROTEC) Michael J. Watza Nathan D. Inks Bloom Sluggett, PC 400 Renaissance Center, Ste 2600 Detroit, MI 48243 mike@bloomsluggett.com nathan@bloomsluggett.com MPSC Case No. U-22046 U-21534 & U-21860 Joint Service List 2/24/2026 Page 3 Valerie J.M. Brader Rivenoak Law Group P.C. 3331 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 109 Troy, MI 48084 valerie@rivenoaklaw.com ecf@rivenoaklaw.com MPSC STAFF Adam Cozort Heather M.S. Durian Michael J. Orris Amit T. Singh Monica M. Stephens Anna Stirling Assistant Attorney General Public Service Division 7109 West Saginaw Hwy, 3rd Floor Lansing, MI 48917 cozorta1@michigan.gov durianh@michigan.gov orrism@michigan.gov singha9@michigan.gov stephensm11@michigan.gov stirlinga1@michigan.gov Lori Mayabb MPSC Staff Case Coordinator mayabbl@michigan.gov SOULARDARITY; WE WANT GREEN, TOO Mark Templeton Amanda Urban Sam Heppell Jacob R. Schuhardt University of Chicago Law School Abrams Environmental Law Clinic 6020 South University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 templeton@uchicago.edu aurbanlaw@gmail.com heppell@uchicago.edu jschuhardt@uchicago.edu aelc_mpsc@lawclinic.uchicago.edu LOCAL 223, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (UWUA), AFL-CIO Richard G. Mack, Jr. Jacob S. Porcarelli Miller Cohen, PLC 7700 Second Ave, Suite 335 Detroit, MI 48202 richardmack@millercohen.com jporcarelli@millercohen.com Ben King 3950 W. 11 Mile Road Berkley, MI 48072 bking@michworkerlaw.com WAL-MART Melissa M. Horne Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, LLP 10 Dorrance Street, 4th Floor Providence, RI 02903 mhorne@hcc-law.com DTE Electric Company One Energy Plaza, 1635 WCB Detroit, MI 48226-1279 Andrea E. Hayden (313) 235-9449 andrea.hayden@dteenergy.com April 28, 2026 Lisa Felice Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 West Saginaw Highway Lansing, MI 48917 RE: In the matter of the Application of DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY for authority to increase its rates, amend its rate schedules and rules governing the distribution and supply of electric energy, and for miscellaneous accounting authority MPSC Case No. U-22046 Dear Ms. Felice: Attached for electronic filing in the above captioned matter are DTE Electric Company’s Application, Proposed Notice of Hearing, the Commission’s Non-Modifiable Protective Order and Nondisclosure Certificates, Testimony, and Exhibits. Also attached is the Proof of Service. In addition, Confidential Exhibit A-27, Schedule Q3 will be electronically delivered and filed under seal with the Commission. Confidential Workpapers are also being provided under seal. The confidential exhibit and confidential workpapers will be made available to Staff and to persons associated with parties who have signed the appropriate Non-Disclosure Certificate upon issuance of the Protective Order in this proceeding. All public testimony, exhibits, and workpapers are accessible to Staff and parties to Case No. U-21534 and U-21860 concurrently with this filing via the secure link below. Voluminous Exhibit A-23, Schedules M7, M8.1, M17.1 and M18 are exclusively available in the electronic link below. Also provided to the MPSC electronically on April 28, 2026 for filing are DTE Electric Company’s Part II – Financial Information materials, Part III – Supplemental Data and electronic files also available in the link below. https://dteenergy.sharepoint.com/sites/DiscoveryPortal/Elec/U-22046/default.aspx Very truly yours, Digitally signed by Andrea E. Andrea E. Hayden Hayden Date: 2026.04.28 13:51:51 -04'00' Andrea E. Hayden AEH/erb Attachments cc: Service List 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY ) for authority to increase its rates, amend ) Case No. U-22046 its rate schedules and rules governing the ) distribution and supply of electric energy, and ) for miscellaneous accounting authority. ) APPLICATION DTE Electric Company (“Applicant,” the “Company” or “DTE Electric”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal office at One Energy Plaza, Detroit, Michigan 48226, files this Application pursuant to, inter alia, MCL 460.6 et seq., and various Michigan Public Service Commission (“Commission”) Orders, requesting authority to increase rates, and amend its rate schedules and rules governing the distribution and supply of electric energy. In support of the relief requested in this Application, the Company respectfully represents to the Commission as follows: 1. DTE Electric is owned by DTE Electric Holdings, LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DTE Energy providing retail electric service to customers located in Michigan, and is a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 2. The Company is presently serving its electric customers under schedules of rates and charges approved by this Commission in, inter alia, its Order dated February 19, 2026, in Case No. U-21860 (the “U-21860 Order”) 3. This Application is being filed in accordance with the Commission’s determinations in Case No. U-18238. The Commission’s Case No. U-18238 Order dated April 25, 2024 and the Case No. U-18238 Rate Case Filing Requirements dated July 9, 2024 contains a 2 version of a Protective Order described as “non-modifiable.” As a consequence, the Company submits herewith that version of a Protective Order. The Company does not waive and reserves all of its rights with respect to that Protective Order. 4. The Company has determined the need for additional annual base electric revenues in the amount of approximately $474.3 million effective as early as March 1, 2027, in order to recover, among other things, Applicant’s continued infrastructure investments to improve the reliability of the grid and to sustain the reliability of its generation fleet while moving toward cleaner sources of generation, including the associated depreciation and property tax increases. 5. This filing provides the rationale, spending, timing, and expected customer benefits associated with significant investments in distribution, generation, information technology and customer service. Strategic distribution investments align with the Company’s 2026 Distribution System Plan (DSP), support continued distribution infrastructure investments to improve the reliability of the grid and to sustain the reliability of its generation fleet while moving toward cleaner sources of generation. Specifically, with respect to distribution infrastructure investments, DTE Electric is focused on meeting the Service Quality Reliability Standards set forth by the Commission, achieving the targets defined in the Financial Incentives and Disincentives proceeding, and generally implementing the recommendation of the independent distribution audit performed at the Commission’s direction. The Company is upgrading aging infrastructure and using technology to create a smarter, more resilient grid that will deliver the energy our customers demand and deserve as it makes progress toward meeting its own aspiration of reducing power outages by 30% and cutting outage time in half by 2029. In addition, the Company’s filing supports the conversion of Belle River Power Plant’s fuel source from coal to natural gas, the execution of the Trenton Channel Energy Center Battery Energy Storage System, as well as additional energy storage contracts supporting the Company’s clean energy transition, 3 consistent with the Integrated Resource Plan Order in Case No. U-21193, the State’s Clean Energy Standard targets, and the Company’s and State’s energy storage goals. Plant removal associated with the decommissioning of power generation assets at River Rouge, St. Clair, and Trenton Channel Power Plants, is also addressed. 6. The proposed revenue increase described in this Application is necessary to allow the Company to continue to provide safe and reliable electric service, meet customers’ service quality expectations, and allow the Company a reasonable opportunity to recover its costs, including a reasonable rate of return. The historical test year being used by DTE Electric is the calendar year ended December 31, 2025. This 12-month period was then normalized and adjusted for known and measurable changes, as supported by the Company’s witnesses in this case, to arrive at the Company’s March 1, 2027 through February 29, 2028 projected test year. 7. DTE Electric’s projected rate base of approximately $25.9 billion includes actual net plant and working capital as of December 31, 2025, with projected changes through February 29, 2028 and includes the impact of base capital expenditures and further adjustments including but not limited to specific major projects. Major capital projects from 2025 through the projected period ending February 29, 2028, are described in the testimony and exhibits of the Company’s witnesses. 8. DTE Electric’s testimony and exhibits filed contemporaneously with this Application evidence a need for additional annual base rate revenue beginning March 1, 2027, of approximately $474.3 million. 9. Attachment 1 to this Application summarizes the Company’s request. DTE Electric proposes to allocate the required electric revenue increase among rate classes as set forth on Attachment 2 to this Application. A comparison of typical bills and proposed rates for Residential Service Rate D1.11 is shown on Attachment 3 to this Application. In addition, the Proposed Draft Notice of Hearing is included as Attachment 4 to this Application. 4 10. With respect to rate design, the Company is proposing the extension and expansion of the Infrastructure Recovery Mechanism (IRM) focused on certain distribution capital expenditures that address customer safety, customer reliability, and the integration of increasing levels of electric vehicles and distributed energy resources to be recovered by means of the IRM surcharge revenue requirements $154.4 million for 2028, $227.8 million for 2029, and $318.1 million for 2030. 11. DTE Electric is also seeking Commission approval of certain accounting requests, including but not limited to, regulatory asset treatment for certain vegetation management costs, regulatory liability treatment for the net liability related to excess sales margin of the Company’s large load customer, and deferral treatment (regulatory asset or liability) for unamortized investment tax credits. 12. DTE Electric is seeking cost recovery of its variable compensation programs that are used to attract and retain employees with the requisite skills and experience to provide quality customer service, make DTE Electric’s employees’ total compensation externally competitive, and differentiate total compensation based on organizational and individual contributions. However, the Company is not seeking to recover the expense related to the financial measures of the Company’s short-term incentive plans as well as the costs of its long-term incentive compensation plans. In addition, the Company is not seeking to recover the variable compensation for the top five DTE Energy executives. 13. DTE Electric is requesting a return on equity of 10.25% with an overall rate of return of 5.97% after tax and 7.42% pre-tax. The Company is requesting a permanent capital structure of approximately 51.5% equity and 48.5% long-term debt. The average rate base for the projected test year is approximately $25.9 billion, which includes an equity base of approximately $10.4 billion. 14. DTE Electric is requesting that the Commission adopt the Power Supply Cost 5 Recovery (PSCR) base established in the Commission’s Order in Case No. U-15244 on January 13, 2009, adjusted for an updated loss factor. 15. In 2016, the Michigan legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, PA 341 which, in the part pertinent to this proceeding, amended MCL 460.1 et seq. by adding Section 6w (MCL 460.6w). Act 341 became effective on April 20, 2017 and directed the creation of a state reliability mechanism (SRM) and capacity charge. DTE Electric has calculated the capacity charge consistent with the methodology used in the Commission’s Order in Case No. U-21860 dated February 19, 2026. 16. On December 18, 2025, the Commission issued an Order in Case No. U-21990 approving special contracts consisting of a primary supply agreement and energy storage agreement with a data center and determined that DTE Electric is to file a cost allocation and rate design proposal (including the six cost allocation and rate design studies detailed in the Order) which are submitted herewith. 17. The Company is filing the direct testimony and exhibits of 35 witnesses concurrently with this Application. The contents, recommendations, revenue and expense items, and proposed ratemaking items set forth in those documents are incorporated into this Application by reference. 18. The fact that Applicant may not address an item or position addressed by Applicant in previous cases, or which is presently on appeal before the courts, does not constitute a waiver of such item or position by the Company, or of any rights or positions that the Company may wish to take on these matters in this or any other proceedings before the Commission (now or in the future), or in any other appropriate court or venue. WHEREFORE, DTE Electric requests that the Commission: A. Accept this Application for filing; B. Give such Notice to interested parties as may be required by statute or the 6 Commission's rules; C. Establish a date, place and time for a prehearing conference; D. Conduct a hearing on this Application; E. Approve an additional annual revenue increase effective as soon as possible in the projected test year as described herein; F. Approve the Company’s proposed capital structure and return on equity; G. Approve new rates effective as early as March 1, 2027 in the manner described in this Application, the accompanying Attachments and the Company’s Direct Testimony and Exhibits; H. Grant the Company’s request to approve the PSCR base; I. Approve the Company’s proposals to implement certain customer rate schedules and tariffs; J. Approve recovery of the Company’s investments related to the strengthening of the Company’s distribution system and improving reliability; K. Approve recovery of the Company’s generation and storage investments; L. Approve the extension, and expansion of the IRM as proposed by the Company; M. Approve all proposed regulatory accounting treatments as requested by the Company; N. Approve the capacity charge calculated by the Company which is based on the methodology approved in Case No. U-21860 and approve the capacity-related costs supported by the Company in this proceeding; O. Grant any other relief described in this Application as requested by the Company; and; P. Grant Applicant such further additional relief, as the Commission may deem 7 suitable and appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY Marco A. Digitally signed by Marco A. Bruzzano By: Bruzzano M arco A. Bruzzano Date: 2026.04.28 13:53:15 -04'00' Senior Vice President –Regulatory Affairs DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY Legal Department Dated: April 28, 2026 By: Digitally signed by Andrea E. Hayden Date: 2026.04.28 13:53:54 -04'00' Attorneys for DTE Electric Company Andrea E. Hayden (P71976) Jon P. Christinidis (P47352) One Energy Plaza, 1635 WCB Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 235-7706 Andrea E. Hayden Attachment 1 DTE Electric Company Electric Revenue Deficiency by Major Component ($ Millions) (a) (b) 1 Rate Base (Plant Investment - Return On & Of, plus Property Taxes) $ 355 2 Rate of Return 108 3 Operating Expenses 47 4 Sales Margin & Other Revenue (29) 5 Other (8) (1) Revenue Deficiency calculated from last approved rate case U-21860 Secondary D13 XL $0 $0 $0 - Total All Classes $6,727,746 $474,345 7.6% MPSC Case No. U -22046 Attachment 2 DTE Electric Company Summary of Present and Proposed Revenue by Rate Schedule (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Total Total Total Net Total Net Present Proposed Increase/ Increase/ Revenue Revenue (Decrease) (Decrease) Residential ($000's) ($000's) ($000's) (%) Other Primary Attachment 3 (summer) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Increase Assumes ~15% of usage is on peak (as designed) Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS OF DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY CASE NO. U-22046 • DTE Electric Company may increase its annual base electric revenues by approximately $474.3 million (with additional revenue requirements of $154.4 million for 2028, $227.8 million for 2029, and $318.1 million for 2030 if the Infrastructure Recovery Mechanism (IRM) proposed by the Company is accepted) above existing base electric rate levels along with other requested relief if the Michigan Public Service Commission (Commission) approves its request. • A typical residential customer’s average electric bill, using 500 kWh per month, may be increased by up to $11.06 per month, if the Michigan Public Service Commission approves the request. • The information below describes how a person may participate in this case. • You may call or write DTE Electric Company, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, Michigan 48226, 1-800-477-4747, for a free copy of its application, testimony and exhibits. Any person may review the application, testimony and exhibits at the offices of DTE Electric Company or on the Commission’s website at: michigan.gov/mpscedockets • A pre-hearing will be held: DATE/TIME: , 2026, at a.m. BEFORE: Administrative Law Judge LOCATION: PARTICIPATION: Any interested person may participate. Persons needing any assistance to participate should contact the Commission's Executive Secretary at (517) 284-8090, or by email at mpscedockets@michigan.gov in advance of the hearing. Page 2 The Michigan Public Service Commission (Commission) will hold a pre-hearing to consider DTE Electric Company’s April 28, 2026 application to increase its annual base electric revenues by approximately $474.3 million along with other requested relief. DTE Electric Company’s Application states that the requested increase is required to recover the costs associated with significant investments in distribution, generation, information technology and customer service. The Company explains that strategic distribution investments align with the Company’s 2026 Distribution System Plan (DSP), support continued distribution infrastructure investments to improve the reliability of the grid and to sustain the reliability of its generation fleet while moving toward cleaner sources of generation. With respect to distribution infrastructure investments, DTE Electric states that it is focused on meeting the Service Quality Reliability Standards set forth by the Commission, achieving the targets defined in the Financial Incentives and Disincentives proceeding, and generally implementing the recommendation of the independent distribution audit performed at the Commission’s direction. The Company explains that it is upgrading aging infrastructure and using technology to create a smarter, more resilient grid. In addition, the Company’s filing supports the conversion of Belle River Power Plant’s fuel source from coal to natural gas, the execution of the Trenton Channel Energy Center Battery Energy Storage System, as well as additional energy storage contracts supporting the Company’s clean energy transition, consistent with the Integrated Resource Plan Order in Case No. U-21193, the State’s Clean Energy Standard targets, and the Company’s and State’s energy storage goals. Plant removal associated with the decommissioning of power generation assets at River Rouge, St. Clair, and Trenton Channel Power Plants, is also addressed. The filing further includes a cost allocation and rate design proposal (including the six cost allocation and rate design studies detailed in Case No. U-21990). DTE Electric Company’s requested relief also includes certain changes to its tariffs, and rules and regulations, as well as the approval of certain accounting requests, including but not limited to, regulatory asset treatment for certain vegetation management costs, regulatory liability treatment for the net liability related to excess sales margin of the Company’s large load customer, and deferral treatment (regulatory asset or liability) for unamortized investment tax credits. In addition, the Company is proposing the extension and expansion of the Infrastructure Recovery Mechanism (IRM), which is focused on specific distribution capital expenditures that address customer safety, reliability, and the integration of increasing levels of electric vehicles and distributed energy resources, in 2028-2030, to be recovered by means of an IRM surcharge. The Application also requests approval of capital structure cost changes. In total, DTE Electric Company’s Application seeks Commission approval for additional base electric annual revenues of approximately $474.3 million based upon a March 1, 2027 through February 29, 2028 projected test year with rates effective as early as March 1, 2027 (the request also includes revenue requirement of $154.4 million for 2028, $227.8 million for 2029, and $318.1 million for 2030 for the IRM proposed by the Company). The chart below summarizes DTE Electric Company's proposed base revenue increases. Page 3 DTE Electric Company Summary of Proposed Base Electric Revenue Increase /(Decrease) Line Total Present Total Proposed Total Net Increase/ Total Net Increase/ No. 1 D1 non-transmit meter $18,782 $20,591 $1,809 9.6% 2 D1.1 Int. Air $54,211 $64,211 $10,000 18.4% 3 D1.2 TOD $76,529 $85,055 $8,526 11.1% 4 D1.7 TOD $17,493 $19,328 $1,835 10.5% 5 D1.8 Dynamic $32,878 $36,069 $3,190 9.7% 6 D1.9 Elec. Vehicle $3,517 $3,871 $355 10.1% 7 D1.11 Time of Use $2,996,001 $3,279,397 $283,396 9.5% 8 D2 Elec. Space Heat $52,939 $58,051 $5,112 9.7% 9 D5 Res. Water Ht. $14,472 $15,916 $1,444 10.0% 10 Total Residential $3,266,822 $3,582,490 $315,667 9.7% 11 12 13 D1.1 Int. Air $790 $812 $22 2.8% 14 D1.7 TOD $1,887 $1,988 $101 5.3% 15 D1.8 Dynamic $390 $410 $20 5.1% 16 D 1.9 Elec Vehicle $260 $285 $25 9.7% 17 D3 Gen. Serv. $1,242,497 $1,304,457 $61,960 5.0% 18 D3.1 Unmetered $13,091 $13,805 $714 5.5% 19 D3.2 Sec. Educ. $73,899 $77,903 $4,004 5.4% 20 D3.3 Interruptible $8,146 $8,575 $429 5.3% 21 D3.5 Charging Serv. $0 $0 $0 - 22 D4 Lg. Gen. Serv. $281,885 $296,076 $14,191 5.0% 23 D5 Com. Wat. Ht. $899 $944 $44 4.9% 24 E1.1 Eng. St. Ltg. $1,278 $1,344 $67 5.2% 25 R7 Greenhs. Ltg. $401 $422 $22 5.4% 26 R8 Space Cond. $10,709 $11,252 $543 5.1% 27 Total Secondary $1,636,132 $1,718,272 $82,140 5.0% 28 29 30 D11 Prim. Supply $1,072,736 $1,133,799 $61,064 5.7% 31 D12 Exp. Lrg Cust $0 $0 $0 - 32 D6.2 Pri. Educ. $54,841 $56,445 $1,604 2.9% 33 D8 Int. Primary $45,239 $47,540 $2,301 5.1% 34 D10 El.Schools $2,238 $2,364 $127 5.7% 35 R1.1 Alt. Mtl. Melt. $6,646 $6,892 $246 3.7% 36 R1.2 El. Pr. Htg. $30,295 $31,301 $1,006 3.3% 37 R3 Standby $8,505 $9,025 $519 6.1% 38 R10 Int. Supply $43,372 $44,076 $705 1.6% 39 Total Primary $1,263,871 $1,331,441 $67,570 5.3% 40 41 D13 XL $0 $0 $0 - 42 43 44 D9 Protective Ltg. $12,933 $14,796 $1,862 14.4% 45 E1 Muni Street Ltg $67,639 $74,473 $6,834 10.1% 46 E2 Traffic Lights $6,003 $6,274 $271 4.5% 47 Total Other $86,576 $95,543 $8,967 10.4% 48 49 $6,253,400 $6,727,746 $474,345 7.6% Page 4 All documents filed in this case shall be submitted electronically through the Commission’s E-Dockets website at: michigan.gov/mpscedockets. Requirements and instructions for filing can be found in the User Manual on the E-Dockets help page. Documents may also be submitted, in Word or PDF format, as an attachment to an email sent to: mpscedockets@michigan.gov. If you require assistance prior to e-filing, contact Commission staff at (517) 284-8090 or by email at: mpscedockets@michigan.gov. Any person wishing to intervene and become a party to the case shall electronically file a petition to intervene with this Commission by , 2026. (Interested persons may elect to file using the traditional paper format.) The proof of service shall indicate service upon DTE Electric Company’s attorney, Jon P. Christinidis, One Energy Plaza, 1635 WCB, Detroit, MI 48226. The prehearing is scheduled to be held . Persons filing a petition to intervene will be advised of the process to participate in the hearing. Any person wishing to participate without intervention under Mich Admin Code, R 792.10413 (Rule 413), or file a public comment, may do so by filing a written statement in this docket. The written statement may be mailed or emailed and should reference Case No. U-22046. Statements may be emailed to: mpscedockets@michigan.gov. Statements may be mailed to: Executive Secretary, Michigan Public Service Commission, 7109 West Saginaw Hwy., Lansing, MI 48917. All information submitted to the Commission in this matter becomes public information, thus available on the Michigan Public Service Commission’s website, and subject to disclosure. Please do not include information you wish to remain private. For more information on how to participate in a case, you may contact the Commission at the above address or by telephone at (517) 284-8090. Requests for adjournment must be made pursuant to the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules R 792.10422 and R 792.10432. Requests for further information on adjournment should be directed to (517) 284-8130. A copy of DTE Electric Company’s application may be reviewed on the Commission’s website at: michigan.gov/mpscedockets, and at the office of DTE Electric Company, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226. For more information on how to participate in a case, you may contact the Commission at the above address or by telephone at (517) 284-8090. The Utility Consumer Representation Fund has been created for the purpose of aiding in the representation of residential utility customers in various Commission proceedings. Contact the Chairperson, Utility Consumer Participation Board, Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, P.O. Box 30004, Lansing, Michigan 48909, for more information. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 1909 PA 106, as amended, MCL 460.551 et seq.; 1919 PA 419, as amended, MCL 460.54 et seq.; 1939 PA 3, as amended, MCL 460.1 et seq.; 1969 PA 306, as amended, MCL 24.201 et seq.; and Parts 1 & 4 of the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules, Mich. Admin Code, R 792.10106 and R 792.10401 through R 792.10448. 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY ) for authority to increase its rates, amend ) Case No. U-22046 its rate schedules and rules governing the ) distribution and supply of electric energy, and ) for miscellaneous accounting authority. ) PROTECTIVE ORDER This Protective Order governs the use and disposition of Protected Material that any Party discloses to another Party during the course of this proceeding. This Protective Order protects non-public, confidential information and materials so designated by the Disclosing Party as Protected Material, as defined herein. Accordingly, it is ordered: I. “Protected Material” and Other Definitions A. “Protected Material” consists of trade secrets or confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information provided in Disclosing Party’s application, exhibits, discovery or audit responses, any witness’ related exhibits and testimony, motions, objections, briefing, responses to an order issued by the presiding hearing officer or the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC” or the “Commission), and any arguments of counsel describing or relying upon the Protected Material. Subject to challenge under Paragraph IV.A, Protected Material shall also consist of non-public confidential information and materials including, but not limited to, the following information disclosed during the course of this case if it is marked as required by this Protective Order: 1. To the extent permitted, information obtained under license from a third- party licensor, to which the Disclosing Party or witnesses engaged by the Disclosing Party is a licensee, that is subject to any confidentiality or non- transferability clause. This information includes reports; analyses; models 2 (including related inputs and outputs); trade secrets; and confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information that the Disclosing Party or one of its witnesses receives as a licensee and is authorized by the third- party licensor to disclose consistent with the terms and conditions of this Protective Order. 2. Information that is protected as confidential in another jurisdiction that the Applicant provides utility service, and the source of the other jurisdiction’s protective designation is made known to the Receiving Party. B. The information subject to this Protective Order does not include: 1. Information that is or has become available to the public through no fault of the Receiving Party or Reviewing Representative and no breach of this Protective Order, or information that is otherwise lawfully known by the Receiving Party without any obligation to hold it in confidence; 2. Information received from a third party free to disclose the information without restriction; 3. Information that is approved for release by written authorization of the Disclosing Party, but only to the extent of the authorization; 4. Information that is required by law or regulation to be disclosed, but only to the extent of the required disclosure; or Information that is disclosed in response to a valid, non-appealable order of a court of competent jurisdiction or governmental body, but only to the extent the order requires. C. “Applicant” refers to the filing party in this proceeding. D. “Disclosing Party” means a Party producing Protected Material in this proceeding. E. “Party” refers to the Applicant, MPSC Staff (“Staff”), Michigan Attorney General, or any other person, company, organization, or association that is granted intervention in this case under the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Mich Admin Code, R 792.10401 et al. F. “Receiving Party” means any Party to this proceeding who requests or receives access to Protected Material. A Receiving Party is responsible for assuring that persons, 3 representatives, or agents under its control or supervision comply with this Protective Order. G. “Reviewing Representative” means a representative of the Receiving Party who is: 1. An attorney who has entered an appearance in this proceeding for a Receiving Party; 2. An attorney, paralegal, or other employee associated, for the purpose of this case, with an attorney described in Paragraph I.G.1; 3. An expert or employee of an expert retained by a Receiving Party to advise, prepare for, or testify in this proceeding; or an employee or other representative of a Receiving Party with significant responsibility in this case. H. “Nondisclosure Certificate" refers to Attachment 1 to this Protective Order. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Reviewing Party and Reviewing Representatives will be required to sign Nondisclosure Certificates. However, Nondisclosure Certificates will not be required from administrative law judges, members of the Commission and its support staff, Staff (excluding consultants, third-party experts, agents or other similar persons), and Staff counsel, for whom by virtue of their employment are presumed to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order. II. Access to and Use of Protected Material A. This Protective Order governs the use of all provided Protected Material. This Protective Order protects: (i) the Protected Material; (ii) any copy or reproduction of the Protected Material made by any person; and (iii) any memorandum, handwritten notes, or any other form of information that copies, contains, or discloses Protected Material. All Protected Material in the possession of a Receiving Party and a Reviewing Representative shall be maintained in a secure place. Access to Protected Material shall be limited to the Receiving 4 Party and the Reviewing Representative, after each has executed the Nondisclosure Agreement and provided a copy of the Nondisclosure Agreement to the Disclosing Party, subject to the limited exception in Paragraph I.H. B. Protected Material must be used and disclosed by the Receiving Party solely in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Protective Order. A Receiving Party and Reviewing Representative may analyze the Protected Material; make or respond to discovery; present evidence; prepare testimony, argument, briefs, or other filings; prepare for cross- examination; consider strategy; and evaluate settlement. A Reviewing Representative shall not release or disclose the content of Protected Material to any other person or use the information for any other purpose. C. The Disclosing Party may request the Receiving Party withhold certain information from a Reviewing Representative and retains the right to object to any designated Reviewing Representative if the Disclosing Party has reason to believe that there is an unacceptable risk of misuse of confidential information. If a Disclosing Party objects to a Reviewing Representative, then the Disclosing Party shall submit the dispute to the presiding hearing officer simultaneously upon objection. If the Disclosing Party notifies a Receiving Party of an objection to a Reviewing Representative, then the Protected Material shall not be provided to that Reviewing Representative until the objection is resolved by agreement or by the presiding hearing officer. D. If a Receiving Party seeks access to Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (“CEII”) as defined in 16 U.S.C § 824o-1(a)(3) and FERC rules, specifically 18 CFR § 388.113(c), the Receiving Party and Reviewing Representative shall also sign the CEII Nondisclosure Certificate (Attachment 2 to this Protective Order) and provide a copy of the 5 executed CEII Nondisclosure Certificates to the Disclosing Party. E. The obligations under this Protective Order do not expire by entry of a final order in this case and are enforceable by the MPSC or a court of competent jurisdiction. To the extent Protected Material is not returned to a Disclosing Party, it remains subject to this Protective Order. Members of the Commission, Commission staff assigned to assist the Commission with its deliberations, and the presiding hearing officer shall have access to all Protected Material that is submitted to the Commission under seal. F. A Party retains the right to seek further restrictions on the dissemination of Protected Material to persons who have or may subsequently seek to intervene in this MPSC proceeding. G. Nothing in this Protective Order precludes a Party from asserting a timely evidentiary objection to the proposed admission of Protected Material into the evidentiary record for this case. III. Procedures A. The Disclosing Party shall identify what portion(s) of any document designated confidential it considers confidential. This can be done through highlights or other clear identifier. The Disclosing Party must mark any information that it considers confidential as “CONFIDENTIAL: SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED IN CASE NO. U- 22046.” Software executable files containing Protected Material may not be capable of being marked with the foregoing required protective language. The inability to mark software executable files containing Protected Material with such protective language shall not diminish the requirements of this Protective Order. It shall be sufficient if the medium used to deliver software executable files containing Protected Material is marked with the required protective 6 language. However, any output from the software executable files containing Protected Material that is generated only as a reproducible document, whether electronic or non-electronic, that is capable of being marked with the required protective language, shall be marked by the party who generated the output with such protective language and subject to the requirements of this Protective Order. If the Receiving Party or a Reviewing Representative makes copies of any Protected Material, they shall conspicuously mark the copies as Protected Material. Notes of Protected Material shall also be conspicuously marked as Protected Material by the person making the notes. B. If a Receiving Party wants to quote, refer to, or otherwise use Protected Material in pleadings, pre-filed testimony, exhibits, cross-examination, briefs, oral argument, comments, or in some other form in this proceeding (including administrative or judicial appeals), the Receiving Party shall do so consistent with procedures that will maintain the confidentiality of the Protected Material. For purposes of this Protective Order, the following procedures apply: 1. Written submissions using Protected Material shall be filed in a sealed record to be maintained by the MPSC’s Docket Section, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in envelopes clearly marked on the outside, “CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED IN CASE NO. U- 22046.” Simultaneously, identical documents and materials, with the Protected Material redacted, shall be filed and disclosed the same way that evidence or briefs are usually filed; 2. Oral testimony, examination of witnesses, or argument about Protected Material shall be conducted on a separate record to be maintained by the MPSC’s Docket Section or by a court of competent jurisdiction. These separate record proceedings shall be closed to all persons except those furnishing the Protected Material and persons otherwise subject to this Protective Order. The Receiving Party presenting the Protected Material during the course of the proceeding shall give the presiding officer or court sufficient notice to allow the presiding officer or court an opportunity to take measures to protect the confidentiality of the Protected Material; and 3. Copies of the documents filed with the MPSC which contain Protected Material, including the portions of the exhibits, transcripts, or briefs that refer 7 to Protected Material, shall be marked or identified as, “CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER IN CASE NO. U-22046” and shall be maintained in a separate portion of the record under seal, segregated in the files of the Commission, and withheld from inspection by any person not bound by the terms of this Order. C. The Protected Material subject to this Order shall be shielded from disclosure to the extent permitted by law. If any person files a request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) with the MPSC or the Michigan Attorney General seeking access to documents subject to this Protective Order, the MPSC’s Executive Secretary, Staff, or the Attorney General shall promptly notify the Disclosing Party, and the Disclosing Party may take whatever legal actions it deems appropriate to protect the Protected Material from disclosure. In light of Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.235, the notice must be given at least five (5) business days before the MPSC, Staff, and/or the Michigan Attorney General grant the request in full or in part. IV. Termination of Protected Status A. A Receiving Party reserves the right to challenge by motion whether a document or information is Protected Material and whether this information can be withheld under this Protective Order. The Receiving Party challenging the protected status of the document must explicitly state its reason for challenging the confidential designation. In response to a motion, the Commission or the presiding hearing officer in this case may revoke a document’s protected status after notice and hearing. If the presiding hearing officer revokes a document’s protected status, then the document loses its protected status after 14 days unless a Party files an application for leave to appeal the ruling and a request for a stay to the Commission pursuant to R 792.10433. If the application for leave is timely, the document’s protected status will continue during the Commission appeal process. Any Party opposing the application for leave to appeal 8 and the stay shall file an answer with the Commission no more than 14 days after the filing and service of the appeal. Continued protected status post order, will be determined by the Commission in its order addressing the application for leave and the request for stay. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the Disclosing Party from seeking a stay on appeal of the Commission’s decision regarding the revocation of any document’s protected status. B. The Disclosing Party bears the burden of proving that the document should continue to be protected from disclosure. V. Retention of Documents Protected Material remains the property of the Disclosing Party and, except as required by applicable law and State retention schedules, only remains available to the Receiving Party until the time expires for petitions for rehearing of a final MPSC order, until the MPSC has ruled on all petitions for rehearing in this case (if any), or until judicial review is completed and the time to take further appeal has expired. If the Disclosing Party seeks to have the Receiving Party return all Protected Material in the Receiving Party’s possession or in the possession of its Reviewing Representatives, or certify in writing that all Protected Material has been destroyed, it is the responsibility of the Disclosing Party to contact the Receiving Party and make its request no earlier than the expiration of time for filing petitions for rehearing of a final MPSC order, until the MPSC has ruled on all petitions for rehearing in this case (if any), or until judicial review is completed and the time to take further appeal has expired. Further, for a Receiving Party that is associated with the State, the request must be consistent with the expiration of the State retention requirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, counsel for the Receiving Party may maintain a single confidential file of Protected Material subject to all other provisions in this Order. Should 9 counsel seek to refer to the Protected Material in another Commission proceeding, the Disclosing Party must be the Applicant in said proceeding and counsel must ensure there is a protective order in said proceeding which protects the Protected Material from public disclosure. VI. Limitations and Disclosures This Protective Order does not apply to a particular document, or portion of a document, described in Paragraph II.A if a Receiving Party can demonstrate that it has been previously disclosed by the Disclosing Party on a non-confidential basis or meets the criteria set forth in Paragraphs I.B.1 through I.B.4. A Receiving Party intending to disclose information taken directly from materials identified as Protected Material must-before actually disclosing the information-do one of the following: (i) contact the Disclosing Party’s counsel of record and obtain written permission to disclose the information, or (ii) challenge the confidential nature of the Protected Material and obtain a ruling under Paragraph IV that the information is not confidential and may be disclosed in or on the public record. VII. Remedies If a Receiving Party violates this Protective Order by improperly disclosing or using Protected Material, the Receiving Party shall take all necessary steps to remedy the improper disclosure or use. This includes promptly notifying all Parties and the presiding hearing officer in writing. The written notice must identify the person known or reasonably suspected to have obtained the Protected Material. A Party or person that violates this Protective Order remains subject to this paragraph regardless of whether the Disclosing Party could have discovered the violation earlier than it was discovered. This paragraph applies to both inadvertent and intentional violations. Nothing in this Protective Order limits the Disclosing Party’s rights and remedies, at law or in equity, against a Party or person using Protected Material in a manner not authorized by this Protective Order, including the right to obtain injunctive relief in a court of 10 competent jurisdiction to prevent violations of this Protective Order. VIII. Modification Formal Addendums to this agreement may be established by an ALJ upon motion by any party and after notice and hearing. MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM For the Michigan Public Service Commission Administrative Law Judge Attachment 13 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY ) for authority to increase its rates, amend ) Case No. U-22046 its rate schedules and rules governing the ) distribution and supply of electric energy, and ) for miscellaneous accounting authority. ) Attachment 1 NONDISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE By signing this Nondisclosure Certificate, I acknowledge that access to Protected Material is provided to me under the terms and restrictions of the Protective Order issue in Case No. U- 22046, that I have read the Protective Order, and that I agree to be bound by the terms of the Protective Order. Reviewing Representative: Date: Title: Receiving Party: Printed Name: Attachment 13 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY ) for authority to increase its rates, amend ) Case No. U-22046 its rate schedules and rules governing the ) distribution and supply of electric energy, and ) for miscellaneous accounting authority. ) Attachment 2 NONDISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE FOR CRITICAL ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION I hereby agree and certify my understanding that access to Critical Electric Infrastructure Information (“CEII”) as defined at 16 USC Section 824o-1(a)(3) and 18 CFR Section 388.113(c) is provided to me pursuant to the terms and restriction of this CEII Nondisclosure Certificate and the Protective Order issued in Case No. U-22046, that I have been given a copy of and have read the Protective Order, and I agree to be bound by the terms of this CEII Nondisclosure Certificate and the Protective Order. I further agree that: 1. I will use CEII only for the purpose for which it was requested; 2. I will only discuss CEII with a Party and/or Reviewing Representative; 3. I will keep CEII in a secure place in a manner that prevents unauthorized access; 4. I will destroy CEII or return it to the disclosing party upon request; 5. I understand that CEII is not subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act; Attachment 13 6. I understand that I am obligated to protect CEII even after a designation as CEII has lapsed until a determination by the administrative law judge that the information should no longer be designated as CEII; and 7. I will report all unauthorized disclosures of CEII to the Disclosing Party. Reviewing Representative: Date: Title: Receiving Party: Printed Name: STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of ) DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY for ) authority to increase its rates, amend its ) rate schedules and rules governing the ) Case No. U-22046 distribution and supply of electric energy, ) and for miscellaneous accounting authority ) PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WAYNE ) ESTELLA R. BRANSON states that on April 28, 2026, she served a copy of DTE Electric Company’s Application, Proposed Notice of Hearing, the Commission’s Non-Modifiable Protective Order and Nondisclosure Certificates, Testimony and Exhibits, DTE Electric Company’s Part II – Financial Information materials and Part III – Supplemental Data materials in the above captioned matter, via electronic mail and secure electronic link, upon the persons listed on the attached service list. Confidential Exhibit A-27, Schedule Q3 will filed under seal with the Commission. Estella R. Branson Digitally signed by Estella R. Branson Date: 2026.04.28 13:54:42 -04'00' ESTELLA R. BRANSON Page 1 MPSC Case No. U-22046 U-21534 & U-21860 Joint Service List 2/24/2026 ABATE Benjamin J. Holwerda Michael J. Pattwell Clark Hill PLC 215 South Washington Square, Suite 200 Lansing, MI 48933 bholwerda@clarkhill.com mpattwell@clarkhill.com Stephen A. Campbell Clark Hill PLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 scampbell@clarkhill.com bholwerda@clarkhill.com ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED; ENERGY MICHIGAN, INC.; FOUNDRY ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN; INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATION; MICHIGAN ENERGY INNOVATION BUSINESS COUNCIL Laura A. Chappelle Timothy J. Lundgren Justin K. Ooms Varnum LLP 333 Bridge Street NW, Suite. 1700 Grand Rapids, MI 49501 lachappelle@varnumlaw.com tjlundgren@varnumlaw.com jkooms@varnumlaw.com CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD OF MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; SIERRA CLUB Christopher M. Bzdok Tracy Jane Andrews Holly L. Hillyer Troposphere Legal, PLC 420 East Front Street Traverse City, MI 49686 chris@tropospherelegal.com tjandrews@tropospherelegal.com holly@tropospherelegal.com CITY OF ANN ARBOR Valerie Jackson Assistant City Attorney City of Ann Arbor Guy C. Larcom City Hall 301. E. Huron Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Vjackson@a2gov.org Valerie J.M. Brader Rivenoak Law Group P.C. 3331 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 109 Troy, MI 48084 valerie@rivenoaklaw.com ecf@rivenoaklaw.com ELECTRIFY AMERICA, LLC Krystal D. Hermiz Jennifer A. Morante Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani 37000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 khermiz@grsm.com jmorante@grsm.com Stephen Bright Electrify America, LLC 1950 Opportunity Way, Suite 1500 Reston, Virginia 20190 Steve.Bright@electrifyamerica.com Environmental Law & Policy Center; Ecology Center; Union of Concerned Scientists; Vote Solar (CEO) Daniel Abrams Katie Duckworth Nicholas Wallace Environmental Law & Policy Center 35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 dabrams@elpc.org kdduckworth@elpc.org nwallace@elpc.org mpscdocket@elpc.org Page 2 MPSC Case No. U-22046 U-21534 & U-21860 Joint Service List 2/24/2026 EVGO SERVICES, LLC Nikhil Vijaykar Keyes & Fox LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 nvijaykar@keyesfox.com Michael G. Oliva Foster Swift Collins & Smith, PC 313 S. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933-2193 moliva@fosterswift.com GERDAU MACSTEEL, INC. Jennifer Utter Heston Potomac Law Group PLLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1025 Washington, DC 20006 jheston@potomaclaw.com GREAT LAKES RENEWABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION INC. Don L. Keskey Brian W. Coyer University Office Place 333 Albert Avenue, Suite 425 East Lansing, MI 48823 donkeskey@publiclawresourcecenter.com bwcoyer@publiclawresourcecenter.com INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMPANY d/b/a ITCTRANSMISSION Richard J. Aaron Courtney F. Kissel Olivia R.C.A. Flower Hannah E. Buzolits 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 RAaron@dykema.com CKissel@dykema.com OFlower@dykema.com HBuzolits@dykema.com THE KROGER COMPANY Michael L. Kurtz Kurt J. Boehm, Esq. Jody Kyler Cohn, Esq. Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry 425 Walnut Street, Suite 2400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 mkurtz@BKLlawfirm.com KBoehm@BKLlawfirm.com JKylerCohn@BKLlawfirm.com MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL Joel King Lucas Wollenzien Assistant Attorney General ENRA Division 525 W. Ottawa Street, 6th Floor P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 KingJ38@michigan.gov WollenzienL@michigan.gov ag-enra-spec-lit@michigan.gov MICHIGAN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOC.; ZECO SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A GREENLOTS Sean P. Gallagher Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap 124 West Allegan Street, Suite 1000 Lansing, MI 48933 sgallagher@fraserlawfirm.com MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION FOR UTILITY ISSUES (“MI-MAUI”); THE MICHIGAN COALITION TO PROTECT PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY (PROTEC) Michael J. Watza Nathan D. Inks Bloom Sluggett, PC 400 Renaissance Center, Ste 2600 Detroit, MI 48243 mike@bloomsluggett.com nathan@bloomsluggett.com Page 3 MPSC Case No. U-22046 U-21534 & U-21860 Joint Service List 2/24/2026 Valerie J.M. Brader Rivenoak Law Group P.C. 3331 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 109 Troy, MI 48084 valerie@rivenoaklaw.com ecf@rivenoaklaw.com MPSC STAFF Adam Cozort Heather M.S. Durian Michael J. Orris Amit T. Singh Monica M. Stephens Anna Stirling Assistant Attorney General Public Service Division 7109 West Saginaw Hwy, 3rd Floor Lansing, MI 48917 cozorta1@michigan.gov durianh@michigan.gov orrism@michigan.gov singha9@michigan.gov stephensm11@michigan.gov stirlinga1@michigan.gov LOCAL 223, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (UWUA), AFL-CIO Richard G. Mack, Jr. Jacob S. Porcarelli Miller Cohen, PLC 7700 Second Ave, Suite 335 Detroit, MI 48202 richardmack@millercohen.com jporcarelli@millercohen.com Ben King 3950 W. 11 Mile Road Berkley, MI 48072 bking@michworkerlaw.com WAL-MART Melissa M. Horne Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, LLP 10 Dorrance Street, 4th Floor Providence, RI 02903 mhorne@hcc-law.com Lori Mayabb MPSC Staff Case Coordinator mayabbl@michigan.gov SOULARDARITY; WE WANT GREEN, TOO Mark Templeton Amanda Urban Sam Heppell Jacob R. Schuhardt University of Chicago Law School Abrams Environmental Law Clinic 6020 South University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 templeton@uchicago.edu aurbanlaw@gmail.com heppell@uchicago.edu jschuhardt@uchicago.edu aelc_mpsc@lawclinic.uchicago.edu 124 West Allegan Street, Suite 1000 Lansing, Michigan 48933 T (517) 482-5800 F (517) 482-0887 www.fraserlawfirm.com Sean P. Gallagher sgallagher@fraserlawfirm.com (517) 377-0820 FRASER TREBILCOC K DAVIS & DUNLAP | PC May 19, 2026 E-FILING AND EMAIL Ms. Lisa Felice Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 W. Saginaw Highway Lansing, Michigan 48917 RE: MPSC Docket No. U-22046 Dear Ms. Felice: Enclosed for filing please find Oakland County, Michigan’s Petition for Leave to Intervene and a Proof of Service. If you have any questions regarding the attached, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Fraser Trebilcock Davis Dunlap & Cavanaugh, P.C. Sean P. Gallagher Enclosures cc: Parties of Record STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of for authority ) ) ) ) Case No. U-22046 OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Oakland County, Michigan (“Oakland County” or the “County”), by and through its attorneys, Fraser Trebilcock Davis Dunlap & Cavanaugh, P.C., hereby responds as follows to the application filed by DTE Electric Company (“DTE” or the “Company”) and the notice of hearing issued by the Michigan Public Service Commission (“Commission”) and presents its petition for leave to intervene: STATEMENT OF INTEREST 1. Over 206 years ago, effective March 28, 1820, and pursuant to the Northwest Ordinance adopted by the Confederation Congress of the United States on July 13, 1787, Michigan Territorial Governor Lewis Cass established Oakland County by issuance of a Proclamation, locating its County seat at the Town of Pontiac.1 2. Effective January 26, 1837, by virtue of action of the United States Congress, Oakland County became part of Michigan when Michigan became a State.2 1 https://www.oakgov.com/home/showpublisheddocument/16026/638145599971870000, last accessed May 13, 2026. 2 https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/michigan-admitted-union, last accessed May 13, 2026. 2 3. Today, pursuant to Michigan law, the County is a body politic and subdivision of the State of Michigan, governed by a Board of Commissioners, which is seated in the now-City of Pontiac (“Pontiac”) and serves the same overall governance function with the legal authority of a board of supervisors for a county as set forth in the Michigan Constitution of 1963. See MCL 46.416; see also Const 1963, art 7, § 7. 4. The County delivers governance and other public services in support of public safety, health, and welfare to the over 1.2 million Michigan citizens who reside in Oakland County in over 530,000 households and who own, operate, or work at numerous businesses.3 5. Oakland County intervenes and appears in this proceeding for and on behalf of the electric utility service rate paying Michigan citizens residing in and businesses operating in the County as well as itself as a rate payer. As will be shown herein and below, Oakland County meets the standards for intervention by right and for permissive intervention. 6. The interests of Oakland County’s electric utility service rate paying citizens and businesses and the County itself as a body of government related to electric utility service are public interests. 7. Oakland County is critically important to Michigan’s economy, contributing more than 22% of Michigan’s gross domestic product, making the County Michigan’s primary engine for growth.4 3 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oaklandcountymichigan/PST045224, last accessed May 13, 2026. 4 https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/econ- assets/Econdocs/RSQE%20PDFs/RSQE_Oakland_Forecast_April2026.pdf, last accessed May 13, 2026. 3 8. Many, if not all, of the over 530,000 households in Oakland County take retail electric distribution and/or supply utility service from DTE, as do many of the County’s businesses. 9. The County also owns and operates extensive facilities in Pontiac and throughout the County taking electric service from DTE under various tariff rate schedules at its facilities. 10. For a portion of its load, the County has exercised the option to take its electric supply through electric choice, doing business with two alternative electric suppliers, while still paying DTE for distribution service related to those electric choice loads. 11. The County annually spends hundreds of thousands of county taxpayer dollars on the electric utility supply and distribution services it receives from DTE. 12. This docket involves an application filed on April 28, 2026, by DTE Electric Company (“DTE”) for authority to increase its electricity rates and for other relief (“Application”). 13. The Commission issued its Notice of Hearing for a prehearing conference to be held May 27, 2026. 14. The Notice of Hearing provides that a timely petition to intervene should be filed by May 19, 2026. 15. The Application proposes to add additional revenue of approximately $474.3 million to DTE’s rate base effective as early as March 1, 2027. See Case No. U-22046, Dkt. 0003, Application at 2. 16. As part of that proposed revenue increase, the Application includes a proposal to increase retail electric rate revenue recovered from the residential ratepayer class by an average of 9.7% as early as March 1, 2027. See Dkt. No. U-22046-0003, Application (“Application”), p. 6 and Attachment 2, line 10, column (3). 4 17. According to DTE, this will translate to an estimated monthly residential summer electric rate increase of as much as 10.82%. Application, Attachment 3, line 13, column (e). 18. The proposed residential rate increases comes on the heels of the rate increases approved by the Commission for DTE implemented on and after March 5, 2026, which increased the revenue recovered from the residential rate class by an average of 4.1%. In re Application of DTE Electric Company, order of the Public Service Commission, entered February 19, 2026 (Case No. U-21860) at p. 479; see also Attachment A, p. 2 of 4, line 10, column (e). 19. If approved on the timing requested by DTE, then DTE would thereby impose two (2) rate increases on Oakland County residents in less than one (1) year with a total increase in residential electric service rates of as much as 15%.5 20. DTE’s Application raises concerns of affordability of electric utility service rates for Oakland County residents and businesses at a time when inflation and affordability of basic necessities such as food, and commodities like electricity, are critical concerns. 21. The County is not only concerned about affordability of critical services such as electric utility service for its residents and businesses, but is also concerned with sustainability of electric energy use in Oakland County, including, but not limited to, residential and business energy efficiency, low income assistance for utility service, renewable energy adoption and use, and plug-in electric vehicle (“PEV”) charging station deployment and PEV adoption. 22. The County is also concerned with the increases to the rates the County pays at its various facilities, which also just received an increase in March 2026, to between an estimated 5 In rough math, assuming residential rate base as of March 1, 2026 equals 1.00, and multiplying that value by a 4.1% increase (0.041) with the March 5, 2026 rate increase, the equals 1.041. Multiplying the new 1.014 rate base as of March 2026 by an approximate10% increase implemented by March 1, 2027 (1.10), equals 1.15, or a 15% increase in less than one (1) year, from March 5, 2026, to March 1, 2027. 5 average of 5.0% to 10.4% as soon as March 2027, based on the proposed revenues to be recovered from the non-residential rate classes. See Application, Attachment 2, line 27, column (e); line 39, column (e); and line 47, column (e). 23. The Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides counties with authority to intervene in public utility rate case proceedings such as the instant proceeding: Any county, when authorized by its board of supervisors shall have the authority to enter or to intervene in any action or certificate proceeding involving the services, charges or rates of any privately owned public utility furnishing services or commodities to rate payers within the county. Const 1963 art 7, § 15.6 24. Citing Article 7, § 15, of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the Commission has previously “recognize[d] . . . the constitutional right of . . . counties in the company’s service area to participate in rate case proceedings.” In re application of Michigan Bell Tel Co, order of the Public Service Commission, February 23, 1993 (Case No. U-10238) at p. 2 (emphasis added) (finding Michigan Bell’s failure to follow instructions of the Executive Secretary to provide notice to all cities, incorporated villages, townships, and counties in the company’s service area may constitute grounds for dismissal of a rate case application). 25. DTE is a privately owned public utility furnishing electric utility service regulated by the Commission to rate payers within Oakland County. 26. County boards of commissioners hold the legal authority of county boards of supervisors as set forth in the Michigan Constitution of 1963. MCL 46.416. 6 Prior to the adoption of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, counties did not have this authority. See Wayne Co v Public Service Comm, 343 Mich 144, 151; 72 NW2d 109 (1955). 6 OAKLAND COUNTY MEETS THE STANDARD FOR INTERVENTION BY RIGHT 27. Based on its various interests in this proceeding, as set forth above, Oakland County qualifies as an intervenor under the standard for intervention by right. 28. Rule 410(1) states, in relevant part: A person who is not a complainant, respondent, protestant, applicant, or staff, as defined in these rules, and who claims an interest in a proceeding may petition for leave to intervene. R792.10410. 29. Although Rule 410 is framed in terms of leave to intervene, the Commission has indicated that it considers the ability to intervene to be one of right when a petitioner can meet the two-prong test for standing.7 This test requires a showing that the prospective intervenor will (1) suffer an injury in fact as a result of the outcome of the case; and (2) the interests allegedly endangered fall within the zone of interests intended to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.8 30. Oakland County has direct and vital interests in the issues raised in this docket because the County, its residents, and its businesses purchase electric service from DTE under various rate schedules, including residential, secondary, general service, and other tariff rates. The increased rates proposed in the Application will cause injury in fact to the County, its residents, and its businesses and those interests endangered here fall within the zone of interests protected 7 The United States Supreme Court established the two-prong test for standing in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc v Camp, 397 US 150; 90 S Ct 827; 25 L Ed 2d 184 (1970), applied to utility matters in Drake v The Detroit Edison Co, 453 F Supp 1123, 1127 (WD Mich 1978), and adopted by the Commission in its November 10, 1988 Order in Case No. U-9138, p 5. 8 In re application of Consumers Energy Co for authority to implement a power supply cost recovery plan, MPSC Case No. U-17317, March 6, 2014 Order, p 4. 7 by Michigan law concerning the just and reasonableness of electric rates. See, e.g., MCL 460.557(4). 31. It is the position of Oakland County that the rates proposed in this proceeding by DTE, or by other parties, should be carefully examined to assure that they are just and reasonable. The Commission should adopt a reasonable rate design and should disallow any expenditures that are found to be unnecessary, imprudent, redundant, excessive, or otherwise not just and reasonable. 32. Based on the foregoing, Oakland County meets the standard for intervention by right. OAKLAND COUNTY MEETS THE STANDARD FOR PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION 33. In addition to meeting the requirements for intervention by right, Oakland County meets the Commission’s criteria for permissive intervention. As recognized in prior Commission orders, “the Commission’s discretion to grant leave to intervene is broader than the two-prong test…Unlike a court of law, an administrative agency can allow intervention whenever the resulting delay will likely be outweighed by the benefit of the intervenor’s participation.”9 34. Permissive intervention has been granted where a proceeding “raises novel questions and important issues of policy” and the intervenor will “bring a unique perspective” to the case.10 35. The relief which Oakland County seeks is a final order approving only those rates, terms, and conditions as are just and reasonable, and that meet all applicable legal requirements. 9 In re Michigan Consolidated Gas Co for authority to increase its rates, MPSC Case No. U- 10150, December 8, 1992 Order, p 5. 10 In re Consumers Energy Co to fully comply with Public Act 295 of 2008, MPSC Case No. U- 17771, October 27, 2015 Order, p 6, citing In re Mascotech Forming Technologies, MPSC Case No. U11057, June 5, 1996 Order, pp 2-3. 8 36. As the economic engine of Michigan, delivering over 22% of Michigan’s GDP and being home to over 1.2 million residents and over 530,000 households, Oakland County brings a unique perspective to this case and meets the Commission’s criteria for permissive intervention. 37. Oakland County’s interests, as set forth above, are not adequately represented by the present parties and, therefore, it would be detrimental to the public interest to deny Oakland County from participating as a full party to this proceeding. This particularly the case because all of the interests Oakland County has as a consumer of electricity as well as the public interest in its citizens and its businesses in just and reasonable electric rates. 38. Because the issues set forth above are of great significance to Oakland County and to the public, a denial of Oakland County’s filing to participate as a full party to this proceeding would result in a miscarriage of justice. 39. Oakland County reserves the right to take other positions and seek other relief based on a review of the DTE’s filings and discovery responses in this proceeding. 40. Oakland County requests that all notices and filings be served on: Sean P. Gallagher sgallagher@fraserlawfirm.com Jared A. Roberts jroberts@fraserlawfirm.com Geofrey C. Bilabaye gbilabaye@fraserlawfirm.com and Joann M. Schofield, Legal Assistant jschofield@fraserlawfirm.com 9 REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, Oakland County, Michigan, hereby respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge and Commission grant its intervention based on the foregoing and allow the County to participate in the above-entitled proceedings as a full party of record. Respectfully Submitted, Fraser Trebilcock Davis Dunlap & Cavanaugh, P.C. Dated: May 19, 2026 By: Sean P. Gallagher (P73108) Jared A. Roberts (P55182) Geofrey Bilabaye (P83397) 124 West Allegan Street, Suite 1000 Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 482-5800 Facsimile: (517) 482-0887 sgallagher@fraserlawfirm.com jroberts@fraserlawfirm.com gbilabaye@fraserlawfirm.com Attorneys for Oakland County, Michigan STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of for authority ) ) ) ) Case No. U-22046 PROOF OF SERVICE Joann M. Schofield hereby certifies that on May 19, 2026, she caused to be filed in the above-referenced electronic docket the Appearances of Sean P. Gallagher, Jared A. Roberts, and Geofrey C. Bilabaye; Oakland County, Michigan’s Petition for Leave to Intervene; and this Proof of Service and to be delivered to the persons identified on the attached service list by electronic mail. /s/ Joann M. Schofield Joann M. Schofield Service List U-22046 Counsel, Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, and Counsel, Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, and Counsel, Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, and Counsel, Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, and Counsel, Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, and Counsel, Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, and Innovation Business Council, Institute for Energy Innovation, Advanced Energy United, Energy Michigan, and Foundry Association of Service List U-22046 Innovation Business Council, Institute for Energy Innovation, Advanced Energy United, Energy Michigan, and Foundry Association of Innovation Business Council, Institute for Energy Innovation, Advanced Energy United, Energy Michigan, and Foundry Association of Innovation Business Council, Institute for Energy Innovation, Advanced Energy United, Energy Michigan, and Foundry Association of Coalition to Protect the Public Rights of Way) and MI-MAUI (Michigan Municipal Association for Service List U-22046 Coalition to Protect the Public Rights of Way) and MI-MAUI (Michigan Municipal Association for