Opinion
Docket Nos. 146386 146387. COA Nos. 303009 303040.
2013-03-27
In re APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMPANY FOR EXPEDITED SITING CERTIFICATE Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, Appellee, v. Michigan Public Service Commission, Appellee, and International Transmission Company, d/b/a ITC Transmission, Petitioner–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, and Consumers Energy Company, Appellee, and Michigan Public Power Agency, and Michigan Municipal Electric Association, Appellants/Cross–Appellees. Michigan Public Power Agency and Michigan Municipal Electric Association, Appellants/Cross–Appellees, v. Michigan Public Service Commission, Appellee, and International Transmission Company, d/b/a ITC Transmission, Petitioner–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, and Consumers Energy Company and Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, Appellees.
Prior report: 298 Mich.App. 338, 827 N.W.2d 385.
Order
On order of the Court, the joint motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE, in part, the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Michigan Public Service Commission correctly determined that issuance of an expedited siting certificate under 2008 PA 295 carries with it authorization to construct the transmission line that is the subject of the certificate. The Court of Appeals clearly erred in determining that Const 1963, art 4, § 25 would be violated if 2008 PA 295 authorizes such construction because 2008 PA 295 was enacted without re-enacting and publishing 1995 PA 30, which generally governs construction of electric transmission lines. 2008 PA 295, and particularly Part 4 of the act, provides a comprehensive legislative scheme for issuing expedited siting certificates, and clearly intends construction of approved transmission lines. Because 2008 PA 295 is an act complete in itself, Const 1963, art 4, § 25 is not violated. See Alan v. Wayne County, 388 Mich. 210, 276–277, 200 N.W.2d 628 (1972), and People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481, 496–497, ––– N.W.2d –––– (1865). In all other respects, the applications are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.