MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Act 3 of 1939
460.11 Establishment of electric rates; establishment of eligible low-income customer or senior citizen customer rates; public and private schools, universities, and community colleges rate schedules.
Sec. 11.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the commission shall ensure the establishment of electric rates equal to the cost of providing service to each customer class. In establishing cost of service rates, the commission shall ensure that each class, or sub-class, is assessed for its fair and equitable use of the electric grid. If the commission determines that the impact of imposing cost of service rates on customers of an electric utility would have a material impact on customer rates, the commission may approve an order that implements those rates over a suitable number of years. The commission shall ensure that the cost of providing service to each customer class is based on the allocation of production-related costs based on using the 75-0-25 method of cost allocation and transmission costs based on using the 100% demand method of cost allocation. The commission may modify this method if it determines that this method of cost allocation does not ensure that rates are equal to the cost of service.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the commission may establish eligible low-income customer or eligible senior citizen customer rates. Upon filing of a rate increase request, a utility shall include proposed eligible low-income customer and eligible senior citizen customer rates and a method to allocate the revenue shortfall attributed to the implementation of those rates upon all customer classes. As used in this subsection, "eligible low-income customer" and "eligible senior citizen customer" mean those terms as defined in section 10t.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the commission shall establish rate schedules that ensure that public and private schools, universities, and community colleges are charged retail electric rates that reflect the actual cost of providing service to those customers. Electric utilities regulated under this section shall file with the commission tariffs to ensure that public and private schools, universities, and community colleges are charged electric rates as provided in this subsection.
History: Add. 2008, Act 286, Imd. Eff. Oct. 6, 2008 ;-- Am. 2014. Act 169, Imd. Eff. June 17, 2014 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 341, Eff. Apr. 20, 2017
Notes of Decisions
In re Indiana Michigan Power Co., 297 Mich. App. 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 7× “] This version of § 6a(l) was enacted by 2008 PA 286 , which also added § 11(1), MCL 460.11(1). Section 11(1) provides: This subsection applies beginning January 1, 2009.”
In re Detroit Edison Co., 296 Mich. App. 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “[MCL 460.11(1).] The PSC reported that in Detroit Edison’s most recent general rate case, all parties agreed that “the allocation formula mandated by the Legislature should be understood to consist of a 50% weighting of peak demand, a 25% weighting of on-peak energy use, and a…”
in Re Application of Upper Peninsula Power Co to Increase Rates (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 12× “” Although CARE argues on appeal that the PSC’s order did not take into account various factors to arrive at a required “reasonable” rate for each customer class, it proposed below actual rate disparity caps. Moreover, in the PSC, CARE did not point to any evidence or testimony…”
in Re Application of Upper Peninsula Power Co to Increase Rates (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 12× “” Although CARE argues on appeal that the PSC’s order did not take into account various factors to arrive at a required “reasonable” rate for each customer class, it proposed below actual rate disparity caps. Moreover, in the PSC, CARE did not point to any evidence or testimony…”
Brent Adams v. Traverse City Light & Power (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“6a(1), MCL 460.11. Finally, plaintiffs argue that defendant was obligated to provide evidence comparing its fees and profitability to those of similar communities.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.11(1) — 2 cases
In re Indiana Michigan Power Co., 297 Mich. App. 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“] This version of § 6a(l) was enacted by 2008 PA 286 , which also added § 11(1), MCL 460.11(1). Section 11(1) provides: This subsection applies beginning January 1, 2009.”
In re Detroit Edison Co., 296 Mich. App. 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“[MCL 460.11(1).] The PSC reported that in Detroit Edison’s most recent general rate case, all parties agreed that “the allocation formula mandated by the Legislature should be understood to consist of a 50% weighting of peak demand, a 25% weighting of on-peak energy use, and a…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.11(11) — 2 cases
in Re Application of Upper Peninsula Power Co to Increase Rates (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“” Although CARE argues on appeal that the PSC’s order did not take into account various factors to arrive at a required “reasonable” rate for each customer class, it proposed below actual rate disparity caps. Moreover, in the PSC, CARE did not point to any evidence or testimony…”
in Re Application of Upper Peninsula Power Co to Increase Rates (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“” Although CARE argues on appeal that the PSC’s order did not take into account various factors to arrive at a required “reasonable” rate for each customer class, it proposed below actual rate disparity caps. Moreover, in the PSC, CARE did not point to any evidence or testimony…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.11(12) — 2 cases
in Re Application of Upper Peninsula Power Co to Increase Rates (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“” Although CARE argues on appeal that the PSC’s order did not take into account various factors to arrive at a required “reasonable” rate for each customer class, it proposed below actual rate disparity caps. Moreover, in the PSC, CARE did not point to any evidence or testimony…”
in Re Application of Upper Peninsula Power Co to Increase Rates (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“” Although CARE argues on appeal that the PSC’s order did not take into account various factors to arrive at a required “reasonable” rate for each customer class, it proposed below actual rate disparity caps. Moreover, in the PSC, CARE did not point to any evidence or testimony…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.11(3) — 2 cases
in Re Application of Upper Peninsula Power Co to Increase Rates (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“” Although CARE argues on appeal that the PSC’s order did not take into account various factors to arrive at a required “reasonable” rate for each customer class, it proposed below actual rate disparity caps. Moreover, in the PSC, CARE did not point to any evidence or testimony…”
in Re Application of Upper Peninsula Power Co to Increase Rates (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“” Although CARE argues on appeal that the PSC’s order did not take into account various factors to arrive at a required “reasonable” rate for each customer class, it proposed below actual rate disparity caps. Moreover, in the PSC, CARE did not point to any evidence or testimony…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.11(4) — 1 case
In re Detroit Edison Co., 296 Mich. App. 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“[MCL 460.11(1).] The PSC reported that in Detroit Edison’s most recent general rate case, all parties agreed that “the allocation formula mandated by the Legislature should be understood to consist of a 50% weighting of peak demand, a 25% weighting of on-peak energy use, and a…”
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.