Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 124 / Act 35 of 1951
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 124.3 (2026)

Furnishing municipal service outside municipal corporate limits; definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACTS BETWEEN MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS


Act 35 of 1951


124.3 Furnishing municipal service outside municipal corporate limits; definitions.

Sec. 3.

    (1) A municipal corporation may contract for adequate consideration with a person or another municipal corporation to furnish to property outside the municipal corporate limits any lawful municipal service that it is furnishing to property within the municipal corporate limits. A municipal corporation may sell and deliver heat, power, and light in amounts as determined by the governing body of the utility, except for both of the following:

    (a) Electric delivery service is limited to the area of any city, village, or township that was contiguous to the municipal corporation as of June 20, 1974, and to the area of any other city, village, or township being served by the municipal utility as of June 20, 1974.

    (b) Retail sales of electric generation service are limited to the area of any city, village, or township that was contiguous to the municipal corporation as of June 20, 1974, and to the area of any other city, village, or township being served by the municipal utility as of June 20, 1974.

    (2) A municipal corporation shall not render electric delivery service for heat, power, or light outside its corporate limits to a customer that is currently receiving or within the previous 3 years has received the service from another utility unless the serving utility consents in writing.

    (3) As used in this section:

    (a) "Customer" means only the building or facilities served rather than the individual, association, partnership, corporation, governmental body, or other entity taking service.

    (b) "Electric delivery service" has the same meaning as "delivery service" under section 10y of 1939 PA 3, MCL 460.10y.

    (c) "Electric generation service" means the sale of electric power and related ancillary services.

    (d) "Person" means an individual, partnership, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity.

History: 1951, Act 35, Imd. Eff. May 8, 1951 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 157, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1974 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 155, Imd. Eff. June 14, 2000 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 516, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 2018

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co., 308 Mich. App. 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co., 308 Mich. App. 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 64× “The trial court opined that Holland is not subject to regulation by the MPSC and that the customer that Holland began providing power to in April 2012 was not and had not been a Consumers’ customer, it having never before received power from another utility. On appeal, Consumers…”
Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 489 Mich. 27 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 16× “It also directed the PSC to consider whether a “customer[]” was “already receiving service” pursuant to MCL 124.3 when plaintiff acquired the property.”
Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 775 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “Cherryland points out that MCL 124.3 was amended in 2000, after the promulgation of Rule 411 and the effective date of MCL 460.”
City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co. (Mich. 2017). · cites it 40× “, granted summary disposition in favor of Coldwater, finding that neither Rule 411 nor MCL 124.3 was applicable. Consumers appealed in the Court of Appeals.”
City of Coldwater v. Consumers Energy Co. (Mich. 2017). · cites it 40× “, granted summary disposition in favor of Coldwater, finding that neither Rule 411 nor MCL 124.3 was applicable. Consumers appealed in the Court of Appeals.”
Great Lakes Energy Coop. v. City of Petoskey (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 38× “Plaintiff argued that MCL 124.3 (which creates a “no switch” rule) 1 MCL 124.”
Van Buren Charter Twp. v. Visteon Corp., 923 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. 2019). “2d 154 (2017) (noting that the phrase "already receiving" within MCL 124.3(2) is a present participle and that "[t]he verb tense is meaningful here because it indicates a present-tense lens").”
Consumers Power Co. v. Lansing Bd. of Water & Light, 503 N.W.2d 680 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “The trial court granted defendant’s motion on the basis of its finding that MCL 124.3; MSA 5.4083 (hereinafter § 3) authorized defendant to sell electricity at retail rates to customers in Watertown Township.”
City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “If we answer that question in the negative, then we must determine whether MCL 124.3(2) provides such a bar. Defendant Consumers rightly observes that the substantive language in Great Wolf Lodge was sweeping and, in that case, it was of no consequence that the utility provider…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 124.3(2) — 8 cases
City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co., 308 Mich. App. 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The trial court opined that Holland is not subject to regulation by the MPSC and that the customer that Holland began providing power to in April 2012 was not and had not been a Consumers’ customer, it having never before received power from another utility. On appeal, Consumers…”
Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 489 Mich. 27 (Mich. 2011). “It also directed the PSC to consider whether a “customer[]” was “already receiving service” pursuant to MCL 124.3 when plaintiff acquired the property.”
Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 775 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Cherryland points out that MCL 124.3 was amended in 2000, after the promulgation of Rule 411 and the effective date of MCL 460.”
City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co. (Mich. 2017). “, granted summary disposition in favor of Coldwater, finding that neither Rule 411 nor MCL 124.3 was applicable. Consumers appealed in the Court of Appeals.”
City of Coldwater v. Consumers Energy Co. (Mich. 2017). “, granted summary disposition in favor of Coldwater, finding that neither Rule 411 nor MCL 124.3 was applicable. Consumers appealed in the Court of Appeals.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 124.3(3) — 1 case
City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co., 308 Mich. App. 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The trial court opined that Holland is not subject to regulation by the MPSC and that the customer that Holland began providing power to in April 2012 was not and had not been a Consumers’ customer, it having never before received power from another utility. On appeal, Consumers…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 124.3(3)(a) — 4 cases
City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co., 308 Mich. App. 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The trial court opined that Holland is not subject to regulation by the MPSC and that the customer that Holland began providing power to in April 2012 was not and had not been a Consumers’ customer, it having never before received power from another utility. On appeal, Consumers…”
Great Lakes Energy Coop. v. City of Petoskey (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Plaintiff argued that MCL 124.3 (which creates a “no switch” rule) 1 MCL 124.”
City of Holland v. Consumers Energy Co. (Mich. 2017). “, granted summary disposition in favor of Coldwater, finding that neither Rule 411 nor MCL 124.3 was applicable. Consumers appealed in the Court of Appeals.”
City of Coldwater v. Consumers Energy Co. (Mich. 2017). “, granted summary disposition in favor of Coldwater, finding that neither Rule 411 nor MCL 124.3 was applicable. Consumers appealed in the Court of Appeals.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.