Lansing v. Public Service Comm

9 Citing cases

  1. Michigan Farm Bureau v. Bureau of Workmen's Compensation

    408 Mich. 141 (Mich. 1980)   Cited 14 times

    While expressing no view as to the proper construction of the exception, we note that the statute establishing the Public Service Commission contains procedural protections applicable to the exercise of its rate-making authority, some of which duplicate the rule-making safeguards of the APA. See MCL 460.1 et seq.; MSA 22.13(1) et seq.; Lansing v Public Service Comm, 330 Mich. 608; 48 N.W.2d 133 (1951). The Worker's Disability Compensation Act contains no similar procedural safeguards regarding adjustments in the maximum and minimum weekly compensation rate schedules.

  2. Attorney General v. Michigan Public Ser. Comm

    237 Mich. App. 82 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 62 times
    In Attorney General v Pub Serv Comm, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 30, 2015 (Docket Nos. 317434 and 317456), this Court, in Docket No. 317456, remanded the matter to the PSC to conduct a contested-case hearing to examine the opt-out tariff.

    Our Supreme Court has stated that the PSC has the authority to grant rehearing; further, it cannot be assumed that it will do so "capriciously, without good cause shown." City of Lansing v. Public Service Comm, 330 Mich. 608, 613; 48 N.W.2d 133 (1951). The PSC's decision to grant rehearing of the May 9, 1995 order is not inconsistent with prior PSC rulings or decisions of this Court.

  3. Miller Bros. v. Public Service Commission

    180 Mich. App. 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 24 times

    The party attacking an order of the PSC must prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the order complained of is unlawful or unreasonable. MCL 462.26; MSA 22.45; City of Lansing v Public Service Comm, 330 Mich. 608; 48 N.W.2d 133 (1951); Attorney General v Public Service Comm, 161 Mich. App. 506, 515; 411 N.W.2d 469 (1987), lv den 429 Mich. 879 (1987). A reviewing court gives due deference to the PSC'S administrative expertise and is not to substitute its judgment for that of the PSC. Yankoviak v Public Service Comm, 349 Mich. 641, 648; 85 N.W.2d 75 (1957); Building Owners Managers Ass'n of Metropolitan Detroit v Public Service Comm, 131 Mich. App. 504, 517; 346 N.W.2d 581 (1984), aff'd 424 Mich. 494; 383 N.W.2d 72 (1986).

  4. Antrim Resources v. Public Service Commission

    179 Mich. App. 603 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 14 times
    In Antrim Resources, the central issue "concerned the producers' assertions that... the PSC did not have jurisdiction under § 10 of 1929 PA 9 to establish prices that Mich Con may pay for commonly purchased natural gas."

    The party attacking an order of the PSC must prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the order complained of is unlawful or unreasonable. MCL 462.26; MSA 22.45; City of Lansing v Public Service Comm, 330 Mich. 608; 48 N.W.2d 133 (1951); Attorney General v Public Service Comm, 161 Mich. App. 506, 515; 411 N.W.2d 469 (1987), lv den 429 Mich. 879 (1987). The reviewing court is to give due deference to the PSC'S administrative expertise and is not to substitute its judgment for that of the PSC. Yankoviak v Public Service Comm, 349 Mich. 641, 648; 85 N.W.2d 75 (1975), Building Owners Managers Ass'n of Metropolitan Detroit v Public Service Comm, 131 Mich. App. 504, 517; 346 N.W.2d 581 (1984), aff'd 424 Mich. 494 (1986).

  5. Attorney General v. Public Service Commission #2

    350 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 7 times

    Under MCL 462.25; MSA 22.44, all rates, fares, charges, classification and joint rates, regulations, practices, and services prescribed by the commission are deemed, prima facie, to be lawful and reasonable. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co v Public Service Comm, 389 Mich. 624; 209 N.W.2d 210 (1973); Consumers Power Co v Public Service Comm, 65 Mich. App. 73; 237 N.W.2d 189 (1975); Attorney General v Public Service Comm, 122 Mich. App. 777, 796; 333 N.W.2d 131, lv den 418 Mich. 886 (1983). The person attacking an order of the commission must prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the order complained of is unlawful or unreasonable. MCL 462.26; MSA 22.45; Lansing v Public Service Comm, 330 Mich. 608; 48 N.W.2d 133 (1951); Michigan Bell Telephone Co v Public Service Comm, 85 Mich. App. 163; 270 N.W.2d 546 (1978); Attorney General v Public Service Comm, supra, pp 796-797. Although not specifically authorized by statute or case law, the establishment of the System Availability Incentive Provision comes within the commission's statutory power.

  6. Attorney General v. Public Service Commission #1

    349 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    In Attorney General v Public Service Comm #1, 133 Mich. App. 719, 727; 349 N.W.2d 539 (1984), this Court found lawful the commission's adoption of an Operations and Maintenance Expense Indexing System, an indexing method which allowed rate adjustments based on certain utility maintenance and operation expenses.

    Under MCL 462.25; MSA 22.44, all rates, fares, charges, classification and joint rates, regulations, practices, and services prescribed by the commission are deemed, prima facie, to be lawful and reasonable. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co v Public Service Comm, 389 Mich. 624; 209 N.W.2d 210 (1973); Consumers Power Co v Public Service Comm, 65 Mich. App. 73; 237 N.W.2d 189 (1975); Attorney General v Public Service Comm, 122 Mich. App. 777; 333 N.W.2d 131, lv den 418 Mich. 886 (1983). The person attacking an order of the commission must prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the order complained of is unlawful or unreasonable. MCL 462.26; MSA 22.45; City of Lansing v Public Service Comm, 330 Mich. 608; 48 N.W.2d 133 (1951); Michigan Bell Telephone Co v Public Service Comm, 85 Mich. App. 163; 270 N.W.2d 546 (1978); Attorney General v Public Service Comm, supra, pp 796-797. Although not authorized by specific statute or case law, the establishment of the Other O M Indexing System appears to fall within the commission's statutory power.

  7. Great Lakes Steel Division of National Steel Corp. v. Michigan Public Service Commission

    130 Mich. App. 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 33 times
    In Great Lakes Steel Div. of Nat'l Steel Corp. v. Public Service Comm, 130 Mich. App. 470, 482-483; 344 N.W.2d 321 (1983), this Court recognized that experimental rates "[b]y their very nature... must await results on a test basis," unless the rates are arbitrary or capricious. Appellants have not contended that the EGCC program is arbitrary or capricious.

    The person attacking an order of the commission has the burden of proving by clear and satisfactory evidence that the order complained of is unlawful or unreasonable. MCL 462.26; MSA 22.45; Lansing v Public Service Comm, 330 Mich. 608; 48 N.W.2d 133 (1951); Michigan Bell Telephone Co v Public Service Comm, 85 Mich. App. 163; 270 N.W.2d 546 (1978)." 122 Mich. App. 796-797.

  8. Attorney General v. Michigan Public Service Commission

    333 N.W.2d 131 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    In Attorney General, the Court did not assert that the commission had the power to order a utility to cease construction of a generating plant.

    To begin with, all rates, fares, charges, classification and joint rates, regulations, practices, and services prescribed by the commission are deemed, prima facie, to be lawful and reasonable. MCL 462.25; MSA 22.44; Michigan Consolidated Gas Co v Public Service Comm, 389 Mich. 624; 209 N.W.2d 210 (1973); Consumers Power Co v Public Service Comm, 65 Mich. App. 73; 237 N.W.2d 189 (1975). The person attacking an order of the commission has the burden of proving by clear and satisfactory evidence that the order complained of is unlawful or unreasonable. MCL 462.26; MSA 22.45; Lansing v Public Service Comm, 330 Mich. 608; 48 N.W.2d 133 (1951); Michigan Bell Telephone Co v Public Service Comm, 85 Mich. App. 163; 270 N.W.2d 546 (1978). In this appeal, the Attorney General has failed to demonstrate, clearly and satisfactorily, that the order of the commission approving the purchased power adjustment clause is unlawful.

  9. Northern M. Water Co. v. P.S. Comm

    5 Mich. App. 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 3 times

    Unquestionably the commission has the authority to regulate rates of public utilities by virtue of the act before amendment. See City of Dearborn v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. (1941), 297 Mich. 388 (39 PUR NS 31); City of Jackson v. Consumers Power Co. (1945), 312 Mich. 437 (62 PUR NS 48); City of Big Rapids v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (1949), 324 Mich. 358 (79 PUR NS 301); City of Lansing v. Public Service Commission (1951), 330 Mich. 608 (89 PUR NS 125). While these cases deal with the jurisdiction of the public service commission to regulate the rates charged by gas companies, the statute cited as granting this jurisdiction is the same statute as herein involved which was amended by PA 1960, No 44, so as to include water companies within its regulatory provisions.