Public Service Commission (PSC) order approving distribution of a one-time recovery of excess revenue; “Aggrieved party”; MCR 7.203(A)(2); Federated Ins Co v Oakland Cnty Rd Comm’n; Principle that the PSC cannot order a refund; Detroit Edison Co v Public Serv Comm’n; Applicability of MCL 462.26(1); Residential Customer Group (RCG)

Holding that appellant-RCG was not an aggrieved party, the court dismissed its appeal from appellee-PSC’s order approving appellee-Consumers Energy’s distribution of a one-time recovery of excess revenue. The court noted that RCG did “not dispute that its member-ratepayers are not legally entitled to refunds when approved rates end up providing a utility with greater revenues than expected,” pursuant to Detroit Edison. However, it insisted that they were still “aggrieved to the extent that the PSC has allowed Consumers Energy to invest these excess revenues in its foundation and six internal programs instead of providing ratepayers more direct benefits by way of monetary refunds, expenditures on structural improvements, lower future rates, etc.” But the court concluded that the ratepayers were not aggrieved by the order at issue. First, as RCG agreed, they were not legally entitled to a refund. Second, any objections as to the effect of a utility’s decision on how to expend excess revenues “on future rates are speculative and are instead matters for consideration and decision in contested rate cases apart from the proceedings underlying this appeal.” The court further found that MCL 462.26(1) did not save the appeal. At issue here was a one-time accounting of $28 million. The court has “previously held that retroactive ratemaking does not occur when ‘one-time refunds are merely potential, not guaranteed,’ in connection with a consensual agreement between a utility and the PSC that does not change existing rates and ‘applies on a prospective basis only.’ . . . That such a one-time refund is not considered ratemaking further supports our conclusion that RCG is not an aggrieved party from this order. The commission order was not fixing any rate or rates, fares, charges, classifications, joint rate or rates, or any order fixing any regulations, practices, or services of Consumers Energy.”