Opinion ID: 1709354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged MPSC Order Fixing Rates

Text: As noted, the Court of Appeals makes reference to an apparently nonexistent or mislabeled order. It is difficult to base jurisdiction on this. However, the Court of Appeals seems to base its finding of any order of the commission fixing any rate on the refusal of MPSC to grant Consumers' request for immediate effectiveness of its rates. We have sufficiently discussed that contention in Part III. There is no order meeting the statutory criterion. Furthermore, we might observe that Consumers' argument goes too far. It would, if carried to its logical conclusion, establish that there was an MPSC order setting rates any time the utility requested a proposed rate increase be put into effect, as they did in this case, and MPSC for whatever reason said it could not put the proposed rate into effect. For example, the utility, the day after it filed its original petition for a rate increase and before any proof was offered, might request MPSC to permit the utility to collect the proposed rates under bond. To say that that was an MPSC rate order permitting the utility to go to court certainly does not make much sense, and there is no evidence that the Legislature contemplated anything like that.