|
No. 134667, 134668, 134669, 134671, 134673, 134674, 134676, 134677
| Attorney General, |
|
Donald E. Erickson |
Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, et al, |
|
|
Appellees. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Detroit Edison Company, |
|
Stephen J. Rhodes |
Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, et al, |
|
|
Appellees. |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Attorney General, |
|
|
Appellant. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Attorney General, |
|
|
Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, et al, |
|
|
Appellees. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Detroit Edison Company, |
|
|
Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Assoc of Business Advocating Tariff Equity, et al, |
|
|
Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, et al, |
|
Daniel J. Martin |
Appellant. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Detroit Edison Company, |
|
|
Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, et al, |
|
|
Appellees. |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Michigan Environmental Council, et al, |
|
|
Appellants. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Michigan Environmental Council, et al, |
|
Don L. Keskey |
Appellants, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, et al, |
|
|
Appellees. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Detroit Edison Company, |
|
|
Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, et al, |
|
|
Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Assoc of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, |
|
|
Appellant. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Assoc of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, |
|
Thomas E. Maier |
Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Michigan Public Service Comm) |
|
|
| Michigan Public Service Commission, et al, |
|
|
Appellees. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
134667 - Appellant Attorney General's Reply Brief (in response to the MPSC)>>
134667 -
Appellant Attorney General's Reply Brief (in response to Detroit Edison)>>
134667-134668 - Appellee Michigan Public Service Commission's Brief on Appeal>>
134667-134668 - Appellee Detroit Edison Company's Brief on Appeal>>
134668 - Appellant Attorney General's Reply Brief (in response to Detroit Edison)>>
134668, 134671, 134673, and 134676 - Appellee Detroit Edison Company's Brief on Appeal>>
134671 - Appellant Michigan Public Service Commission's Brief on Appeal>>
134671 - Appellant Michigan Public Service Commission's Brief on Appeal>>
134671 - Appellant Michigan Public Service Commission's Reply Brief>>
134673-134674 - Appellants Michigan Environmental Council and Public Interest Research Group
in Michigan's Brief on Appeal>>
134673-134674 - Appellants Michigan Environmental Council and Public Interest Research Group
in Michigan's Reply Brief>>
134676-134677 - Appellant Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity's Brief on Appeal>>
134676 - Appellant Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity's Reply Brief>>
Michigan Electric and Gas Association, Michigan Electric Cooperative Association, Wolverine Power
Supply Cooperative, Inc., International Transmission Company, Michigan Electric Transmission
Company, American Transmission Company LLC, and ATC Management Inc.'s Amici Curiae Brief>>
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Public Service Company, Upper Peninsula Power
Company and Edison Sault Electric Company's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
Detroit Edison Company filed an application with the Michigan Public Service Commission for a general rate increase and for approval of a power supply cost recovery (PSCR) plan; Consumers Energy Company applied to the MPSC for approval of its own PSCR plans. The two applications proceeded as separate contested cases before the MPSC, with several interested parties participating in each case. In the Detroit Edison case, in addition to other issues, the MPSC ruled (1) that certain costs known as “transmission expenses” could be recovered as part of Detroit Edison’s PSCR plan; and (2) that Detroit Edison could not recover in its rates any portion of the “control premium” that it paid when it purchased MCN Energy, despite Detroit Edison’s claim of significant cost savings from the purchase. Similarly, in the Consumers Energy case, the MPSC allowed Consumers to recover its transmission expenses as part of its PSCR plan. Both MPSC decisions were appealed by numerous parties, for various reasons, to the Court of Appeals. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the MPSC’s rulings in the Consumers Energy case; in a separate, unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the MPSC’s decision as to Detroit Edison’s PSCR application. In each case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the MPSC that the utility companies could recover transmission expenses as part of their PSCR plans, reasoning that those expenses are essential for delivering electricity. But the Court of Appeals reversed the MPSC’s ruling that Detroit Edison could not recover any part of the control premium it paid when it purchased MCN Energy. Several parties sought to appeal the two Court of Appeals decisions. In the Consumers Energy case, the Supreme Court granted leave to consider the MPSC’s ruling regarding transmission expenses. In the Detroit Edison case, the Court agreed to consider the transmission expenses issue and the control premium issue. The Court ordered that the appeals in both cases be argued and submitted together.
Top of Page
|