Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd. Partnership v. Public Service Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided April 19, 1993No. Docket 124705, 128175Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTaylor, J.

I disagree with the majority’s analysis and disposition of most of the issues presented. Prefacing my analysis of the points with which I take exception (majority issues i, m-vi) is a short description of the backdrop against which the issues must be seen.

*323I

The Public Service Commission was created partly to protect the smaller customers of public utilities enjoying service monopolies.1 Utilities are businesses with shareholders who generally expect to realize returns on their investments. As a result, utilities are caught between the authority of the psc on the one hand and the expectations…

2Cases cited24 opinions

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. New York Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. v. Public Service CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Michigan Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
Union Carbide Corp. v. Public Service CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1988

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.