City of Grosse Pointe v. Public Service Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals

City of Grosse Pointe v. Public Service Commission

287 N.W.2d 1, 93 Mich. App. 596, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2464

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 24, 1979

DocketDocket 78-2818, 78-2819

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 N.W.2d 1 (City of Grosse Pointe v. Public Service Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Grosse Pointe v. Public Service Commission, 287 N.W.2d 1, 93 Mich. App. 596, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2464 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a public utility rate increase case. On March 30, 1972, the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an interim rate order granting The Detroit Edison Company a 25 million dollar interim rate increase. On appeal to the Ingham County Circuit Court the decision of the commission was affirmed.

On appeal to this Court, four issues were raised. The first was whether the interim order had to *598 contain findings of fact in compliance with § 85 of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969, being MCL 24.285; MSA 3.560(185). This Court has applied § 85 to interim rate orders in Attorney General v Public Service Comm, 63 Mich App 69; 234 NW2d 407 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 779 (1975). We conclude, as did that Court, that application of § 85 is appropriate in reviewing such interim orders.

Next, appellant argued that the Michigan Public Service Commission did not make sufficient findings of fact to support the interim order. That issue lacks merit, the commission having specifically found: that the utility company was earning less than the rate previously found reasonable by the commission; that the utility company had been subjected to large increases in fuel cost, wages and taxes; that the utility company’s revenue deficiency, based upon the commission staffs minimum position, was at least $30,861,000; and, that at least several months would elapse before a final order would issue and the revenue lost during that period was irretrievable. The grant of some interim rate relief was supported by all four findings and the amount was within the range of evidence.

The third and fourth issues, relative to the staff "investigation and report” and the necessity for a financial emergency when issuing an interim rate order, lack merit on the authority of Attorney General v Public Service Comm, supra.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a public utility rate increase case. On March 30, 1972, the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an interim rate order granting The Detroit Edison Company a 25 million dollar interim rate increase. On appeal to the Ingham County Circuit Court the decision of the commission was affirmed.

On appeal to this Court, four issues were raised. The first was whether the interim order had to *598 contain findings of fact in compliance with § 85 of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969, being MCL 24.285; MSA 3.560(185). This Court has applied § 85 to interim rate orders in Attorney General v Public Service Comm, 63 Mich App 69; 234 NW2d 407 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 779 (1975). We conclude, as did that Court, that application of § 85 is appropriate in reviewing such interim orders.

Next, appellant argued that the Michigan Public Service Commission did not make sufficient findings of fact to support the interim order. That issue lacks merit, the commission having specifically found: that the utility company was earning less than the rate previously found reasonable by the commission; that the utility company had been subjected to large increases in fuel cost, wages and taxes; that the utility company’s revenue deficiency, based upon the commission staffs minimum position, was at least $30,861,000; and, that at least several months would elapse before a final order would issue and the revenue lost during that period was irretrievable. The grant of some interim rate relief was supported by all four findings and the amount was within the range of evidence.

The third and fourth issues, relative to the staff "investigation and report” and the necessity for a financial emergency when issuing an interim rate order, lack merit on the authority of Attorney General v Public Service Comm, supra.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 N.W.2d 1, 93 Mich. App. 596, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-grosse-pointe-v-public-service-commission-michctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack