In re Consumers Energy to Increase Electric Rates

Michigan Supreme Court

In re Consumers Energy to Increase Electric Rates

873 N.W.2d 108, 498 Mich. 967

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 27, 2016

DocketNo. 152263; Court of Appeals No. 317434

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 873 N.W.2d 108 (In re Consumers Energy to Increase Electric Rates) 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

In re Consumers Energy to Increase Electric Rates, 873 N.W.2d 108, 498 Mich. 967 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse that part of the Court of Appeals judgment that addressed the claim of appeal filed by the Attorney General, Docket No. 317434, and we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the merits of that claim of appeal. The fact that the Attorney General stipulated to a settlement agreement that recognized a rate increase is not inconsistent with the Attorney General’s appeal from the June 28, 2013 decision of the Michigan Public Service Commission. That decision resolved issues preserved by the Attorney General in the settlement agreement. Those preserved issues can be addressed independent of the $89 million in rate relief approved pursuant to the settlement agreement. This order does not disturb the Court of Appeals disposition in the consolidated case, Docket No. 317456. We express no opinion regarding the merits of the [968]*968Attorney General’s appeal. We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse that part of the Court of Appeals judgment that addressed the claim of appeal filed by the Attorney General, Docket No. 317434, and we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the merits of that claim of appeal. The fact that the Attorney General stipulated to a settlement agreement that recognized a rate increase is not inconsistent with the Attorney General’s appeal from the June 28, 2013 decision of the Michigan Public Service Commission. That decision resolved issues preserved by the Attorney General in the settlement agreement. Those preserved issues can be addressed independent of the $89 million in rate relief approved pursuant to the settlement agreement. This order does not disturb the Court of Appeals disposition in the consolidated case, Docket No. 317456. We express no opinion regarding the merits of the [968]*968Attorney General’s appeal. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 N.W.2d 108, 498 Mich. 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-consumers-energy-to-increase-electric-rates-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack