|
Nos. 125950, 125954, 125955
| Detroit Edison Company, |
|
Stephen J. Rhodes |
| Michigan Electric Cooperative Association, |
|
Christine Mason Soneral |
| Consumers Energy Company, |
|
Jon R. Robinson |
Appellants, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Mich Public Service Commission) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, |
|
Steven D. Hughey |
| Michigan Alliance for Fair Competition, et al, |
|
Haran C. Rashes |
Appellees. |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Appellant Detroit Edison Company's Brief on Appeal>>
Appellant Detroit Edison Company's Reply Brief>>
Appellant Michigan Electric Cooperative Association's Brief on Appeal>>
Appellant Michigan Electric Cooperative Association's Reply Brief>>
Appellant Consumers Energy Company's Brief on Appeal>>
Appellant Consumers Energy Company's Reply Brief>>
Appellee Michigan Public Service Commission's Brief on Appeal>>
Appellee Michigan Alliance for Fair Competition's Brief on Appeal>>
SBC's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
The MPSC was legislatively vested with the jurisdiction to regulate public utilities by way of the Public Service Commission Act (Act 3) in 1939. The MPSC's first effort to use its authority to establish a more competitive framework for electric suppliers was struck down as being beyond its powers and jurisdiction in Consumers Power Co v Public Service Comm, 460 Mich 148 (1999). In 2000, the Legislature enacted the Customer Choice and Electricity Reliability Act, also known as Act 141, which expanded the existing powers of the MPSC and required the MPSC to establish a Code of Conduct, MCL 460.10a(4). The MPSC developed the required Code of Conduct by issuing orders in a pending contested case. The appellants, Detroit Edison, Consumers Energy, and Michigan Electric Cooperative, contend that the MPSC's orders are unlawful because the MPSC failed to comply with rulemaking provisions of Michigan 's Administrative Procedures Act when implementing the Code of Conduct. The Court of Appeals found that the MPSC's implementation of the Code of Conduct fell within the scope of MCL 24.207(f), which provides an exception to the APA rulemaking requirements for "a determination, decision, or order in a contested case." The appellants appeal.
Top of Page
|
