Opinion ID: 1810700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Inspection, Review, Control

Text: The Air Exemption Act empowers the tax commission to issue a certificate exempting certain facilities from real and personal property taxes [3] [i]f the director of public health finds that the facility is designed and operated primarily for the control, capture and removal of pollutants from the air, and is suitable, reasonably adequate and meets the intent and purpose of the air pollution act, Act No. 348 of the Public Acts of 1965, as amended, being sections 336.11 to 336.36 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, and rules promulgated thereunder   . MCL 336.3; MSA 7.793(3). At the time application for this exemption was made, a facility was defined, for purposes of the Air Exemption Act, to mean: machinery, equipment, structures, or any part or accessories thereof, installed or acquired for the primary purpose of controlling or disposing of air pollution which if released would render the air harmful or inimical to the public health or to property within this state. It does not include an air conditioner, dust collector, fan or other similar facility for the benefit of personnel or of a business. MCL 336.1; MSA 7.793(1). The township contends that the Palisades plant's air pollution control facilities cannot qualify for tax exemption unless they are subject to control and continuing inspection and review by a state agency, because such control, inspection and review is necessary to meet the intent and purpose of the Air Pollution Act, and the rules promulgated under that act, as required by MCL 336.3; MSA 7.793(3). Yet, no state control, inspection or review of these facilities is permitted because the Federal government has preempted the regulation of nuclear facilities. Northern States Power Co v Minnesota, 447 F2d 1143 (CA 8, 1971), aff'd without opinion 405 US 1035; 92 S Ct 1307; 31 L Ed 2d 576 (1972). Therefore, the township concludes, no tax exemption can lawfully be granted. We do not agree. Our review of the Air Pollution Act, MCL 336.11 et seq.; MSA 14.58(1) et seq., compels the conclusion that no state control, inspection or review of air pollution control facilities is required in order for such facilities to meet the intent and purpose of that act. The intent and purpose of the act is manifest in its statutory language. The title to that act provides, in pertinent part, that it is [a]n act to control air pollution in this state   . Air pollution was defined, with certain narrow exceptions not applicable here, to mean: [T]he presence in the outdoor atmosphere of air contaminants in quantities, of characteristics and under conditions and circumstances and of a duration which are injurious to human life or property or which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and property, and which are reasonably detrimental to plant and animal life in this state   . MCL 336.12; MSA 14.58(2). Another section of the act provides, in part: It is the purpose of this act to provide additional and cumulative remedies to prevent and abate air pollution. Nothing in this act contained shall abridge or alter rights of action or remedies now or hereafter existing, nor shall any provision of this act or anything done by virtue of this act be construed as estopping    other governmental units from the exercise of their respective rights to suppress nuisances or to prevent or abate air pollution. MCL 336.34; MSA 14.58(24). Finally, among its statutory powers, we note that the Air Pollution Control Commission is given the authority to [c]ooperate with the appropriate agencies of the United States    with respect to the control of air pollution   . MCL 336.15(n); MSA 14.58(5)(n). Contrary to the contention of the township, we find that the intent and purpose of this act is to control air pollution in the state; that the act itself contemplates that Federal agencies or other governmental units may have authority over the control of air pollution in the state; and that the commission need not have control over all activities regulating air pollution but may cooperate with other agencies or governmental units to meet the act's purpose of preventing and abating air pollution. We agree with the holding of the tax commission below that: The intent and purposes of the Air Pollution Act and Rules    are to control pollution and thereby to protect the health, welfare and safety of Michigan citizens, the productive capability of the assets of those citizens, and the natural resources of the State. That intent and those purposes are served by pollution control facilities constructed within the State of Michigan whether required by reason of federal or state regulation. Compatibility with intent and purposes is not dependent upon regulation. Such compatibility is established by the ability of a facility to control pollution. It is not regulation that is the quid pro quo for tax exemption. That quid pro quo is the control of pollution and, thereby, the protection of the health, welfare and safety of Michigan citizens and their assets. It is the fact that pollution control is provided that is important and not whether that pollution control is provided in response to state or federal regulation. If the Legislature had wanted to require more, it would have been a simple matter to require that all facilities eligible for exemption be subject to regulation under    the air pollution control act and rules   . (Emphasis in original.) We conclude that tax exemption can lawfully be granted for air pollution control facilities pursuant to the requirements of the Air Exemption Act even though such facilities may not be subject to mandatory inspection, review and control by the state.