Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 460 / Act 295 of 2008
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1153 (2026)

Notice; conduct of proceeding; determination by commission that requirements are met; precedence; certificate as conclusive and binding; time period for granting or denying certificate.

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

CLEAN AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY WASTE REDUCTION ACT


Act 295 of 2008


460.1153 Notice; conduct of proceeding; determination by commission that requirements are met; precedence; certificate as conclusive and binding; time period for granting or denying certificate.

Sec. 153.

    (1) Upon applying for a certificate, an electric utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent transmission company shall give public notice in the manner and form the commission prescribes of an opportunity to comment on and participate in a contested case with respect to the application. Notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the relevant wind energy resource zone within a reasonable time period after an application is provided to the commission and shall be sent to each affected municipality, electric utility, affiliated transmission company, and independent transmission company and each affected landowner on whose property a portion of the proposed transmission line will be constructed. The notice shall be written in plain, nontechnical, and easily understood terms and shall contain a title that includes the name of the electric utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent transmission company and the words "Notice of Intent to Construct a Transmission Line to Serve a Wind Energy Resource Zone".

    (2) The commission shall conduct a proceeding on the application for an expedited siting certificate as a contested case under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. Upon receiving an application for a certificate, each affected municipality and each affected landowner shall be granted full intervener status as of right in commission proceedings concerning the proposed transmission lines.

    (3) The commission shall grant an expedited siting certificate if it determines that all of the following requirements are met:

    (a) The proposed transmission line will facilitate transmission of electricity generated by wind energy conversion systems located in a wind energy resource zone.

    (b) The proposed transmission line has received federal approval.

    (c) The proposed transmission line does not represent an unreasonable threat to the public convenience, health, and safety.

    (d) The proposed transmission line will be of appropriate capability to enable the wind potential of the wind energy resource zone to be realized.

    (e) The proposed or alternate route to be authorized by the expedited siting certificate is feasible and reasonable.

    (4) If the commission grants an expedited siting certificate for a transmission line under this part, the certificate takes precedence over a conflicting local ordinance, law, rule, regulation, policy, or practice that prohibits or regulates the location or construction of the transmission line. A zoning ordinance or limitation imposed after an electric utility, affiliated transmission company, or independent transmission company files for a certificate shall not limit or impair the transmission line's construction, operation, or maintenance.

    (5) In an eminent domain or other related proceeding arising out of or related to a transmission line for which a certificate is issued, a certificate issued under this act is conclusive and binding as to the public convenience and necessity for that transmission line and its compatibility with the public health and safety or any zoning or land use requirements in effect when the application was filed.

    (6) The commission has a maximum of 180 days to grant or deny an expedited siting certificate under this section.

History: 2008, Act 295, Imd. Eff. Oct. 6, 2008

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 1 of Act 295 of 2008 provides: "Enacting section 1. As provided in section 5 of 1846 RS 1, MCL 8.5, this act is severable."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2012–2014 · leading case: In re Int'l Transmission Co., 847 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 847 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “MCL 460.1153(1) and (2) call for notice to affected landowners and for a contested case to be conducted on the application.”
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 298 Mich. App. 338 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 12× “3 The PSC determined that “ITC’s proofs fulfill[ed] all of the statutory requirements” under MCL 460.1153 and concluded that the transmission line was of “appropriate capability” because it met or exceeded the maximum load, noting that the 10 percent requirement for production…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1153(1) — 1 case
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 847 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 460.1153(1) and (2) call for notice to affected landowners and for a contested case to be conducted on the application.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1153(2) — 1 case
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 847 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 460.1153(1) and (2) call for notice to affected landowners and for a contested case to be conducted on the application.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1153(3) — 2 cases
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 847 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 460.1153(1) and (2) call for notice to affected landowners and for a contested case to be conducted on the application.”
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 298 Mich. App. 338 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “3 The PSC determined that “ITC’s proofs fulfill[ed] all of the statutory requirements” under MCL 460.1153 and concluded that the transmission line was of “appropriate capability” because it met or exceeded the maximum load, noting that the 10 percent requirement for production…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1153(3)(d) — 1 case
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 298 Mich. App. 338 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “3 The PSC determined that “ITC’s proofs fulfill[ed] all of the statutory requirements” under MCL 460.1153 and concluded that the transmission line was of “appropriate capability” because it met or exceeded the maximum load, noting that the 10 percent requirement for production…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1153(4) — 2 cases
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 847 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 460.1153(1) and (2) call for notice to affected landowners and for a contested case to be conducted on the application.”
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 298 Mich. App. 338 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “3 The PSC determined that “ITC’s proofs fulfill[ed] all of the statutory requirements” under MCL 460.1153 and concluded that the transmission line was of “appropriate capability” because it met or exceeded the maximum load, noting that the 10 percent requirement for production…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1153(5) — 2 cases
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 847 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 460.1153(1) and (2) call for notice to affected landowners and for a contested case to be conducted on the application.”
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 298 Mich. App. 338 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “3 The PSC determined that “ITC’s proofs fulfill[ed] all of the statutory requirements” under MCL 460.1153 and concluded that the transmission line was of “appropriate capability” because it met or exceeded the maximum load, noting that the 10 percent requirement for production…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1153(6) — 2 cases
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 847 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 460.1153(1) and (2) call for notice to affected landowners and for a contested case to be conducted on the application.”
In re Int'l Transmission Co., 298 Mich. App. 338 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “3 The PSC determined that “ITC’s proofs fulfill[ed] all of the statutory requirements” under MCL 460.1153 and concluded that the transmission line was of “appropriate capability” because it met or exceeded the maximum load, noting that the 10 percent requirement for production…”
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.