Whether the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) was empowered by the Legislature under 2016 PA 341 (Act 341) to impose a local clearing requirement upon individual alternative electric suppliers; Ripeness; Van Buren Charter Twp. v. Visteon Corp.; Huntington Woods v. Detroit; Citizens Protecting MI’s Constitution v. Secretary of State; People v. Bosca; People v. Robar; Review of MPSC orders; Attorney Gen. v. Public Serv. Comm’n; Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28; Consumers Power Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n; Principle that an agency’s powers cannot be extended by inference; Herrick Dist. Library v. Library of MI; Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n; MCL 460.6w(3), (6), & (8); The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO); Legislative history; Russel v. Detroit; In re Certified Question from U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit; Ambiguity; Village of Holly v. Holly Twp.; Statutory interpretation; Bush v. Shabahang; Administrative Procedures Act (MCL 24.201 et seq.); Faircloth v. Family Independence Agency; “Rule”; MCL 24.207; AFSCME v. Department of Mental Health; In re PSC Guidelines for Transactions Between Affiliates

Holding that MCL 460.6w did not authorize appellee-MPSC to impose a local clearing requirement on individual alternative electric suppliers, the court reversed the MPSC’s challenged final order and remanded. Appellants contended that the MPSC erred by determining that it was empowered by the Legislature under Act 341 to impose the requirement. The MPSC and appellee-Consumers urged the court to read the provisions of MCL 460.6w as granting the MPSC authority to impose it. They reasoned that because section 6w(8)(b) refers to the capacity obligations as “to each individual electric provider, it must be inferred that the local clearing requirement was meant to be applied to each alternative electric supplier individually.” The court could not agree because a review of the statute revealed that “no provision of MCL 460.6w clearly and unmistakably authorizes the MPSC to impose a local clearing requirement upon individual alternative electric providers.” It acknowledged that “section 6w(8)(b) provides that each electric provider must demonstrate that it owns or has contractual rights to sufficient capacity to meet its capacity obligations as set by the appropriate independent system operator, or the MPSC, as applicable. Section 6w(8)(c) directs that ‘[i]n order to determine the capacity obligations,’ the MPSC must ‘set any required local clearing requirement and planning reserve margin requirement, consistent with federal reliability requirements,’ and seek technical assistance from MISO in doing so. But although section 6w(8)(c) thus requires the MPSC to determine the local clearing requirement in order to determine capacity obligations, it does not specifically authorize the MPSC to impose the local clearing requirement upon alternative electric suppliers individually.” As the MPSC only has the “authority granted to it by the Legislature by ‘clear and unmistakable language,’” and authority “cannot be extended by inference,” the court declined “to infer such additional authority upon the MPSC” here. Further, a review of the statute suggested that the MPSC was obligated to “apply the local clearing requirement in a manner consistent with MISO.” The court noted that “section 6w(6) constrains the MPSC from assessing any capacity charge in a manner that ‘conflicts with a federal resource adequacy tariff, when applicable,’ and section 6w(8)(c) requires that the MPSC set any planning reserve margin or local clearing requirements ‘consistent with federal reliability requirements.’”