In re Consumers Energy Co.
291 Mich. App. 106
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Consolidated rate cases filed by Consumers Energy in 2007; AG and Forner appeal PSC order.
- PSC upheld funding mechanisms and rate adjustments: forestry/tree-trimming tracker, ECIM, LIEEF funding, and consultant funding by Consumers.
- AG challenges retroactive ratemaking aspects of forestry tracker and ECIM; claims lack statutory authority.
- Forner challenges absence of interest on ASP subsidy refund and allocation of ASP-related postage costs; PSC previously ruled against these in separate action.
- Court agrees most challenges were improper but finds one error harmless and affirms PSC order overall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive ratemaking authority | AG argues tracker/ECIM incur retroactive ratemaking. | Consumers/PSC defend as prospective or non-rate-affecting in substance. | No reversible error; tracker/ECIM permissible as prospective. |
| LIEEF funding source beyond six-year period | AG contends funding must follow statutory securitization constraints. | PSC/ prior decision allow ongoing LIEEF funding beyond six years. | PSC funding approach upheld; binding authority supports continuation. |
| Funding of consultants by Consumers | PSC erred by having Consumers cover consultants; creates appearance of impropriety. | PSC relied on statutory-like authority and precedent; funding in this case was permissible. | Error found; improper funding mechanism, but harmless; admonished to avoid future funding outside authorization. |
| Interest and postage re ASP subsidy | Forner seeks interest on refund and postage allocation; argued anew. | Res judicata and prior PSC/appeals rulings preclude revisiting these issues. | Issues precluded; PSC not required to revisit interest or postage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Detroit Edison Co v Pub Serv Comm, 82 Mich App 59 (1978) (retroactive ratemaking distinction and rate structure correction)
- Attorney General v Pub Serv Comm, 206 Mich App 290 (1994) (consensual, prospective adjustments; one-time refunds not guaranteed)
- Attorney General v Pub Serv Comm, 262 Mich App 649 (2004) (storm-related deferred costs; no rate adjustments previously charged; prospective effect)
- In re Complaint of Pelland Against Ameritech Mich, 254 Mich App 675 (2003) (scope of PSC authority; de novo review for legal questions)
- In re Application of Consumers Energy Co, 279 Mich App 180 (2008) (LIEEF funding continued beyond six-year period; binding authority on funding source)
- Attorney General v Pub Serv Comm No 2, 237 Mich App 82 (1999) (deference to PSC expertise; standards of review)