Coldwater wrote to Consumers, asking whether Consumers would object to CBPU providing electric service to the parcel. Consumers objected on the basis of Rule 411 of the Michigan Administrative Code and this Court's decision in Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm. , 489 Mich. 27, 799 N.W.2d 155 (2011). Despite this objection, Consumers removed its electric facilities from the property so that the preexisting building could be demolished.

Consumers claimed that it had previously provided electric service to the customer at issue and was currently doing so and provided an affidavit and copies of electric bills to support its position. Consumers further asserted that the case of Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 489 Mich. 27, 799 N.W.2d 155 (2011), already addressed, in Consumers' favor, most of the issues raised in this case. Finally, Consumers asserted that the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) had primary jurisdiction of the claims in this case and that PSC Rule 411 required holding in Consumers' favor.

Consumers claimed that it had previously provided electrical service to the customer at issue and was currently doing so and provided an affidavit and copies of electrical bills to support its position. Consumers further asserted that the case of Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v Pub Serv Comm, 489 Mich 27; 799 NW2d 155 (2011) already addressed most of the currently raised issues in Consumers' favor. Finally, Consumers asserted that the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) had primary jurisdiction of the claims in this case and that MPSC Rule 411 required finding in Consumers' favor.

The rules of statutory construction also apply to the construction of administrative rules. Great Wolf Lodge v Pub Serv Comm, 489 Mich 27, 37; 799 NW2d 155 (2011). When interpreting an administrative rule, we must ascertain and give effect to the intent of the drafter.

The rules of statutory construction apply with equal force when interpreting administrative rules. Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v Public Serv Comm, 489 Mich 27, 37; 799 NW2d 155 (2011). Looking at the plain language of BEM 405, it is clear that the circuit court incorrectly interpreted ¶ 1:

These cases do not stand for the proposition that the PSC lacks discretion to approve a cost recovery mechanism absent statutory authority for the creation of that specific mechanism. See, e.g., Great Wolf Lodge v Pub Serv Comm, 489 Mich 27, 42-43; 799 NW2d 155 (2011) (authority to award interest not authorized by statute, but lawful under MCL 460.6(1)). The Attorney General cites no applicable authority in support of its assertion that the PSC lacked the authority to approve the IRM because no Michigan Supreme Court decision has affirmed the PSC's power in that regard.

The rules of statutory construction apply to administrative rules. Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v Pub Serv Comm, 489 Mich 27, 37; 799 NW2d 155 (2011). Thus, an administrative rule is to be interpreted according to its plain language.

Construction of administrative rules is governed by the principles of statutory construction. Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v Pub Serv Comm, 489 Mich 27, 37; 799 NW2d 155 (2011). Rule 324.81 reads in relevant part as follows:

All regulations, practices, and services prescribed by the PSC are presumed, prima facie, to be lawful and reasonable. MCL 462.25; Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 489 Mich. 27, 37–38, 799 N.W.2d 155 (2011). A party aggrieved by a PSC order bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the order is unlawful or unreasonable.

However, the construction given to a statute by the PSC is not binding on us. In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mich, 482 Mich 90, 103-109; 754 NW2d 259 (2008); see also Great Wolf Lodge v Pub Serv Comm, 489 Mich 27, 37-38; 799 NW2d 155 (2011). Whether the PSC exceeded the scope of its authority is a question of law that we review de novo.