Court Opinion

ID: 9807775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:15:35.445227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:48:45.698596
License: Public Domain

WILDER, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I join with the majority in the analysis and result *634reached in Part IV of the majority opinion which holds that MCL 460.6a(8) “should be construed to mean that annual adjustments to the $1,000,000 cap shall be calculated by applying the CPI rate for the PSCR year at issue to the $1,000,000 cap as adjusted in prior years, or by applying the cumulative CPI rate from 2009 forward to the $1,000,000 cap.” However, I respectfully disagree and dissent from the analysis and outcome reached in Part III of the majority opinion. Rather, I agree with Judge WHITBECK’s dissent in In re Application of Consumers Energy Co for Reconciliation of 2009 Costs, 307 Mich App 32, 55-56; 859 NW2d 216 (2014), and also would hold that the “NOx requirements were not implemented until 2009 because they were not effective until 2009,” and that “[t]herefore, the exception in MCL 460.6a(8) applied to TES Filer.”