|
No. 136431
| Attorney General, |
|
Donald E. Erickson |
Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, Consumers |
|
|
| Energy Company, Adrian Energy Association, |
|
Jon R. Robinson |
| L.L.C., Cadillac Renewable Energy, L.L.C., |
|
|
| Genesee Power Station, L.P., Grayling Generating |
|
|
| Station, L.P., Hillman Power Company, L.L.C., |
|
|
| TES Filer City Station, L.P., Viking Energy of |
|
|
| Lincoln, Inc., Viking Energy of McBain, Inc., and |
|
|
| Midland Cogeneration Venture, L.P., |
|
|
Appellees. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Background
Detroit Edison Company filed an application with the Michigan Public Service Commission for a general rate increase and for approval of a power supply cost recovery (PSCR) plan; Consumers Energy Company applied to the MPSC for approval of its own PSCR plans. The two applications proceeded as separate contested cases before the MPSC, with several interested parties participating in each case. In the Detroit Edison case, in addition to other issues, the MPSC ruled (1) that certain costs known as “transmission expenses” could be recovered as part of Detroit Edison’s PSCR plan; and (2) that Detroit Edison could not recover in its rates any portion of the “control premium” that it paid when it purchased MCN Energy, despite Detroit Edison’s claim of significant cost savings from the purchase. Similarly, in the Consumers Energy case, the MPSC allowed Consumers to recover its transmission expenses as part of its PSCR plan. Both MPSC decisions were appealed by numerous parties, for various reasons, to the Court of Appeals. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the MPSC’s rulings in the Consumers Energy case; in a separate, unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the MPSC’s decision as to Detroit Edison’s PSCR application. In each case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the MPSC that the utility companies could recover transmission expenses as part of their PSCR plans, reasoning that those expenses are essential for delivering electricity. But the Court of Appeals reversed the MPSC’s ruling that Detroit Edison could not recover any part of the control premium it paid when it purchased MCN Energy. Several parties sought to appeal the two Court of Appeals decisions. In the Consumers Energy case, the Supreme Court granted leave to consider the MPSC’s ruling regarding transmission expenses. In the Detroit Edison case, the Court agreed to consider the transmission expenses issue and the control premium issue. The Court ordered that the appeals in both cases be argued and submitted together.
Top of Page
|
