Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Detroit Edison Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided April 10, 2012No. Docket Nos. 296374 and 296379Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShapiro, P.J.

I concur with the majority that the Public Service Commission’s decision to allow rate decoupling should be reversed because the issue is plainly controlled by the Legislature’s recent adoption of MCL 460.1089(6) and MCL 460.1097(4). These sections set forth the scope of the commission’s authority specifically with respect to rate decoupling and clearly limit that authority, regardless of what its scope was before their passage. Thus, the statutes determine the outcome of this issue, and the extent of the commission’s general authority as it existed before the adoption of these controlling…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re Consumers Energy Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Pennwalt Corp. v. Public Service CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Residential Ratepayer Consortium v. Public Service CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API