Legal Opinion · Dissent

in Re Application of Consumers Energy to Increase Electric Rates

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided July 5, 2016No. Docket 317434Published

1DissentO’Connell, P.J.

I respectfully dissent.

The Attorney General’s settlement in this case preserved two issues for further review: (1) a request to *241the Public Service Commission (PSC) to suspend the advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) program and (2) should the program continue, an objection to the amount of the opt-out fee. These issues are based on the PSC’s decision regarding the costs and benefits of the AMI program. Unfortunately, the PSC’s decision regarding these two issues does not provide this Court with an opportunity to meaningfully review its decision. I would remand this case to the PSC with…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. K & K Const. Inc. v. DeqMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. K & K Construction, Inc. v. Department of Environmental QualityMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. Attorney General v. Public Service Commission No 2Michigan Court of Appeals · 1999
  4. Attorney General v. Public Service CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Wayne County v. Michigan State Tax CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004

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

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

Powered by the Exa API