Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership v. Upper Peninsula Power Co

Michigan Supreme Court

Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership v. Upper Peninsula Power Co

DecidedOctober 7, 2016

Docket153116

StatusPublished

This text of Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership v. Upper Peninsula Power Co (Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership v. Upper Peninsula Power Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership v. Upper Peninsula Power Co, (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 7, 2016 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

153116 Stephen J. Markman 153118 Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen, ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED Justices PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner-Appellee, v SC: 153116 COA: 321946 MPSC: U-017077 UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant, and MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee.

_________________________________________/

ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner-Appellee, v SC: 153118 COA: 321946 MPSC: U-017077 UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY, Respondent-Appellee, and MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellant.

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 22, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applications or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 2

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the analysis provided in Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 613 (1942), was relevant to the determination whether the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) exceeded its statutory authority by enforcing a settlement agreement that included a revenue decoupling mechanism for an electric utility; (2) if Dodge applies, whether the petitioner was barred from arguing that the settlement agreement is unenforceable or void; and (3) whether the petitioner is procedurally barred from challenging the MPSC’s prior orders when it failed to intervene in the cases or appeal from the orders. The parties may address other issues but should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. October 7, 2016 p1004 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 7, 2016 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

153116 Stephen J. Markman 153118 Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen, ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED Justices PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner-Appellee, v SC: 153116 COA: 321946 MPSC: U-017077 UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant, and MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee.

_________________________________________/

ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner-Appellee, v SC: 153118 COA: 321946 MPSC: U-017077 UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY, Respondent-Appellee, and MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellant.

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 22, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applications or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 2

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the analysis provided in Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 613 (1942), was relevant to the determination whether the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) exceeded its statutory authority by enforcing a settlement agreement that included a revenue decoupling mechanism for an electric utility; (2) if Dodge applies, whether the petitioner was barred from arguing that the settlement agreement is unenforceable or void; and (3) whether the petitioner is procedurally barred from challenging the MPSC’s prior orders when it failed to intervene in the cases or appeal from the orders. The parties may address other issues but should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. October 7, 2016 p1004 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership v. Upper Peninsula Power Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enbridge-energy-limited-partnership-v-upper-peninsula-power-co-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack