Two Michigan local distribution utilities have squared off with Michigan Electric Transmission Co. (METC) over the transmission company’s request to spend $15 million on a pilot project to build charging facilities for long-haul medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicles.

In November, METC filed a request with FERC to recover its costs to build three charging stations along the state’s interstate highways (ER21-424). It also sought assurance that FERC would grant it 100% of its costs if the project is abandoned for reasons beyond METC’s control, in accordance with the commission’s 2009 Smart Grid Policy Statement.

Because of the charging demands of commercial trucks, METC said, their DC fast charging (DCFC) stations “may be best served by interconnections to the transmission system depending on the local system configuration and the availability and proximity of robust distribution infrastructure.” The proposal received support from Michigan officials, including the Public Service Commission, along with General Motors, Ford and several clean energy groups.

But Consumers Energy and DTE Electric Co. have asked the commission to reject METC’s petition until the company can provide more details, saying it could conflict with the distribution planning process and infrastructure development already underway in the state. They say METC’s proposal belongs in MISO’s Transmission Expansion Plan process.

FERC is expected to issue a ruling in the dispute on Thursday.

Corey Proctor, manager of transmission design at METC parent ITC Holdings Corp., told FERC in testimony that the DCFC charging stations will be sited based on criteria including proximity to interstate highways and existing transmission, available properties with willing partners, and location of ancillary services such as convenience stores, restrooms and existing petroleum fueling locations.

METC said it is only requesting cost-recovery of transmission-related infrastructure such as transmission lines of 138-kV and above and associated substations and technology to convert AC power into DC power.

“Power will be supplied by local distribution companies, and the charging stations will be owned and operated by third parties,” Proctor said. “Consequently, the pilot project will depend on the applicant’s successful collaboration with its customers and unaffiliated vendors that provide DCFC services.”

Proctor said although the pilot locations could recharge light-duty EVs, they will be designed to serve medium- and heavy-duty long-haul trucks with charging ports that can charge batteries with that have a demand of 1-3 MWh. Each charging station will have six charging ports.

METC would like to begin the pilot project next year.

Policy Statement

FERC’s 2009 policy statement, issued in response to the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), provides “guidance regarding the development of a smart grid for the nation’s electric transmission system, focusing on the development of key standards to achieve interoperability and functionality of smart grid systems and devices.” It set an interim rate policy to apply until the commission adopts interoperability standards.

METC said its proposal meets the policy statement’s requirements for rate recovery: it will advance the policy and goals of Section 1301 of EISA; will not adversely affect the reliability and cybersecurity of the bulk electric system; minimizes the possibility of stranded investment; and will include information-sharing with the Department of Energy’s Smart Grid Clearinghouse.

“Additionally, the pilot project will provide information to METC and the commission regarding the important role that transmission can play in facilitating the deployment of medium- and heavy-duty commercial EVs,” Proctor said.

The company said it can implement the project through the MISO and regional distribution system interconnection planning framework and recover its costs through MISO’s tariff.

Consumers Energy, DTE Oppose

METC’s 5,600-circuit mile transmission system (120 kV to 345 kV) is spread over two-thirds of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. Consumers Energy is a transmission customer of METC whose 67,000 miles of electric distribution largely overlap METC’s service territory.

Both Consumers and DTE, which owns 40,000 miles of distribution in southeastern Michigan, say they have been heavily involved in Michigan’s efforts to encourage EV use.

Consumers’ “limited” protest said FERC should be careful to “preserve the well-established demarcation between transmission and local distribution facilities, both under the Federal Power Act and under a longstanding contractual arrangement between Consumers Energy and METC.”

Consumers also said the proposal shouldn’t circumvent existing regional transmission planning processes and that METC should be required to partner with Consumers and other affected distribution companies.

Consumers said FERC should reject the application without prejudice and require METC “to work with affected stakeholders, including distribution companies and load-serving entities, and return to the commission with a proposal to construct specific facilities that fit within a coordinated framework for encouraging electric vehicle adoption in Michigan.”

Consumers also asked the commission to conduct “stakeholder collaboratives” on the role of transmission facilities in the EV transition.

Consumers and DTE also insisted most distribution facilities can handle truck charging loads.

“METC’s witnesses contemplate charging stations that could individually serve 2.5 MW of load with all chargers in operation — an amount that is normally (and easily) served by local distribution facilities and local distribution companies,” Consumers said. “Even loads ten times larger could readily be served by Consumers Energy’s high-voltage distribution system.”

DTE said that METC’s application falls short of the requirements in FERC’s Smart Grid Policy and “also sows confusion and potential conflict with the distribution planning process and infrastructure development already well underway in Michigan.”

“Moreover, based on the description of the pilot project provided so far, METC appears to be seeking rate incentives for facilities that may well be local distribution facilities and thus outside FERC’s jurisdiction.”

“It is important to highlight that METC is a transmission owner, only,” DTE said. “It does not own any distribution facilities, and therefore METC lacks the requisite insight into the distribution system which is needed in order to be able to ascertain the most appropriate and cost-effective method of service for a new, end-use customer.”