in Re Application of Consumers Energy to Increase Electric Rates, 891 N.W.2d 871

Consumers Energy implemented an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) / "smart meter" program; PSC previously authorized pilot and Phase 2 expenditures and later approved full deployment in Case No. U-17087.
Consumers sought rate relief in U-17087 (settlement approving an $89 million annual increase); the Attorney General intervened and reserved two issues in the settlement: (1) request to suspend the AMI program, and (2) objection to the opt-out tariff amount.
Consumers presented an updated March 2012 business-case showing a 20-year positive NPV of $42 million; testimony relied on Phase 1 pilot data and projections.
The Attorney General’s expert (Coppola) produced an analysis showing a negative NPV (approx. $133 million) and criticized Consumers’ methodology and sample sizes.
PSC issued an order on June 28, 2013 approving continued AMI deployment and opt-out tariffs; the Attorney General appealed, and the Michigan Supreme Court later remanded the case for consideration of the Attorney General’s claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported PSC’s approval to continue AMI program	AG: Record lacks competent, material, substantial evidence; Consumers’ savings speculative; AG’s analysis shows negative NPV	Consumers/PSC: Updated business case and Phase 1 data show 20-year NPV of $42M; PSC may credit Consumers’ testimony	Court (majority): PSC decision was supported by competent evidence; affirmed PSC approval
Whether Attorney General has standing to appeal PSC order	AG: (asserted) statutory right to intervene to represent public interest in rates	Consumers/PSC: argued AG lacked standing or was collaterally attacking prior orders	Court: AG had statutory intervention rights and was aggrieved; has standing
Whether AG’s appeal is a collateral attack on prior PSC rulings	AG: arguments rely on record in U-17087 and are not collateral attack	Consumers/PSC: claimed appeal impermissibly collaterally attacks prior orders	Court: Not a collateral attack; this case involved an updated cost-benefit analysis and is reviewable
Opt-out tariff reasonableness (preserved in settlement)	AG reserved challenge to opt-out fee if AMI continued	Consumers: PSC approved opt-out tariffs in the order	Court: Opt-out issue was addressed in companion docket (317456) and remanded there; majority did not remand this docket on opt-out; dissent would remand to PSC for fuller findings

Mich Consol Gas Co v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 389 Mich 624 (1973) (rates prescribed by PSC are prima facie lawful and reasonable)
In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich 396 (1999) (appellant must show PSC failed to follow mandatory statute or abused discretion)
Associated Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 377 Mich 259 (1966) (an order is unreasonable if not supported by evidence)
In re Applications of Detroit Edison Co., 296 Mich App 101 (2012) (aspirational/speculative testimony cannot alone support rate approval)
Great Lakes Steel Div. of Nat’l Steel Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 130 Mich App 470 (1983) (PSC may credit one party’s testimony over contradictory evidence)
Rovas v. SBC Michigan, 482 Mich 90 (2008) (deference to agency statutory construction; not binding)
Pelland v. Ameritech Mich., 254 Mich App 675 (2003) (scope-of-authority review is de novo)
Federated Ins. Co. v. Oakland Co. Rd. Comm’r, 475 Mich 286 (2006) (to be aggrieved one must have pecuniary interest to appeal)
Wayne County v. Mich. State Tax Comm., 261 Mich App 174 (2004) (definition of substantial evidence)
In re Application of Consumers Energy to Increase Electric Rates, 498 Mich 967 (2016) (Supreme Court remand ordering Court of Appeals to consider merits of AG claim)
K & K Constr., Inc. v. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 267 Mich App 523 (2005) (lower courts must follow Supreme Court remand instructions)