Case Name: LA SALLE TOWNHOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION v. THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1976-05-18
Citations: 69 Mich. App. 7
Docket Number: Docket No. 23738
Parties: LA SALLE TOWNHOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION v THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
Judges: Before: Bronson, P. J., and Bashara and M. F. Cavanagh, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 69
Pages: 7–15

Head Matter:
LA SALLE TOWNHOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION v THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
Opinion of the Court
1. Courts — Jurisdiction—Public Service Commissions — Violations of Tariffs or Regulations — Invalid Rates.
A customer may sue a utility company in a court of general jurisdiction when the customer contends that damage has resulted from a violation of a tariff or regulation or when the customer contends that the rates approved by the Public Service Commission are invalid.
2. Public Service Commissions — Courts—Jurisdiction—Tariff and Code Provisions.
A party aggrieved by the provisions of a tariff or code should seek relief first by an attack upon those provisions before the Public Service Commission and from it to the Ingham County Circuit Court.
3. Public Service Commissions — Application of Utility Rates.
Customers who claim that the rates applicable to them should be different from those approved by the Public Service Commission and who do not directly challenge the validity of the rates approved by the commission should seek relief from the Public Service Commission.
4. Public Service Commissions — Application of Utility Rates.
The Public Service Commission is best suited to hear questions concerning the application of rates approved by the commission, since such a determination is particularly within the province of the commission’s specialized knowledge and expertise and if the approved rates are found not to apply then the commission can find or approve a rate which would apply.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2, 5-7] 64 Am Jur 2d, Public Utilities § 230 et seq.
[3, 4, 8, 9] 64 Am Jur 2d, Public Utilities §§ 9, 79-132.
1 Am Jur 2d, Administrative Law § 95.
Concurrence by Bronson, P. J.
5. Courts — Jurisdiction—Primary Jurisdiction — Administrative Law.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is used to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question arising in the proceeding before the court.
6. Courts — Primary Jurisdiction — Factors—Administrative Law.
Application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires the trial judge to consider as factors (1) the degree of uniformity which will be achieved by requiring a litigant to pursue administrative remedies, (2) the need for the administrative expertise of an agency in a particular area, and (3) if issues of law are paramount the trial court’s decision to entertain the proceedings is usually upheld, however, if factual issues are involved the administrative agency should be allowed to resolve those issues ñrst.
7. Courts — Primary Jurisdiction — Court’s Discretion — Administrative Law.
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction the ultimate decision whether an administrative agency should ñrst consider a case is within the discretion of the trial court, and because the doctrine rests upon a sound policy of judicial restraint, only ñrmly established expediences should be considered in the exercise of that discretion.
8. Courts — Public Service Commissions — Jurisdiction—Rate Issues.
The Public Service Commission and the courts have concurrent jurisdiction over utility rate issues.
9. Courts — -Rate Issues — Rules—Public Service Commissions.
The creation of a hard-and-fast rule that all direct challenges to utility rates must ñrs’t be brought before the Public Service Commission cannot be accepted where the case precedent for it is only dictum.
10. Administrative Law — Statutory Interpretation — Issue op Fact — Issue op Law- — Administrative Body.
While statutory interpretation is usually classiñed as a legal issue, the same cannot be said of an administrative body interpreting its own regulations.
Appeal from Wayne, Harry J. Dingeman, Jr., J.
Submitted October 11, 1975, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 23738.)
Decided May 18, 1976.
La Salle Townhouses Cooperative Association and others brought suit challenging the rate for steam heat applied to the association by The Detroit Edison Company. Accelerated judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Byron H. Higgins and Samuel I. Shuman, for plaintiffs.
Fischer, Franklin & Ford (by George Hogg, Jr., and Francis E. Bentley), for defendant.
Before: Bronson, P. J., and Bashara and M. F. Cavanagh, JJ.

Opinion:
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
Plaintiffs are four cooperative associations, and various individual members of those associations, who use steam heat provided by defendant, The Detroit Edison Company. For a number of years, Edison has included in its steam rate computations an automatic fuel adjustment clause by which it passes on to all steam heat users any increases in the cost of fuel utilized to produce the steam. Plaintiffs brought suit in Wayne County Circuit Court challenging the fuel adjustment clause and seeking to recover the money paid pursuant to it.
Detroit Edison moved for accelerated judgment on the ground that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial judge granted the motion ruling that exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter was in the Public Service Commission pursuant to MCLA 460.6; MSA 22.13(6). Alternatively, the trial judge ruled that even if the circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction in such matters, under Valentine v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 388 Mich 19; 199 NW2d 182 (1972), challenges to the validity of the MPSC rates themselves must first go to that commission. Plaintiffs now appeal that ruling.
Plaintiffs base their action on MCLA 460.6a; MSA 22.13(6a) which, prior to the 1972 amendment, prohibited the Public Service Commission from permitting the incorporation of fuel adjustment clauses in rate schedules for domestic service. Plaintiffs contend that they are domestic users. However, Detroit Edison has only two rates for steam heat; both are approved by the PSC; both contain fuel adjustment clauses.
As the trial judge noted, the basic issue is whether plaintiffs are "domestic" service within the meaning of MCLA 460.6a; MSA 22.13(6a). Plaintiffs do not challenge directly the validity of the PSC rates, but plaintiffs do argue that the rates do not apply to them. Plaintiffs challenge Detroit Edison's application of the fuel adjustment clause to them. But the clause is part of the rate. Detroit Edison has no rate schedule for steam heat which does not include a fuel adjustment clause. The PSC has only authorized Detroit Edison to sell steam heat at rates which include a fuel adjustment. Thus, the question is whether the rates approved by the PSC apply to plaintiffs.
Since the approved rates include fuel adjustment clauses, we presume the rates are "commercial". If plaintiffs are domestic service, not commercial, then they are entitled to a third "domestic" rate. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a classification of "domestic service" and a third rate schedule without a fuel adjustment clause is — as the trial court noted — "particularly within the province of the commission's specialized knowledge and exper tise". If the approved rates do not apply, then the PSC can find or require and approve a rate which would apply.
"There are some situations involving rates in which a customer may sue a utility in a court of general jurisdiction." Valentine, supra, 388 Mich at 25.
But this is not one of those situations. Plaintiffs do not contend that they have suffered damage as a result of violations of tariffs and regulations. See Valentine v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, supra, at 30. Nor do plaintiffs contend that the two PSC rates are invalid. Basically, plaintiffs' position is that the approved rates do not apply to them and that another rate, without a fuel adjustment clause, should apply.
"Ordinarily, a party aggrieved by the provisions of a tariff or code should seek relief by an attack upon those provisions before the Public Service Commission and from it to the Ingham County Circuit Court." 388 Mich at 26.
The PSC should determine whether the approved rates apply to plaintiffs.
Affirmed.
Bashara, J., concurred.