## Facts

- Michigan enacted the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act (Act 295). Part 4 created a wind-energy-resource-zone (WERZ) board to identify areas with strong wind potential and directed the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) to designate a “primary wind energy resource zone.”
- The WERZ board issued a final report identifying four regions with the highest wind-energy potential.
- International Transmission Company (ITC) provided information to the WERZ board about the need for additional transmission facilities in “region four” (the Thumb area).
- The PSC designated region four as Michigan’s primary wind energy resource zone.
- ITC sought approval from the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) for a transmission line to serve region four, and MISO approved the project.
- ITC then applied to the PSC for an expedited siting certificate under Part 4 of Act 295 for the proposed wind-energy transmission line.
- After contested proceedings, the PSC found that ITC satisfied the statutory requirements in MCL 460.1153, including that the line was of “appropriate capability,” and that the line’s size was reasonable given potential future transmission-capacity needs; the PSC issued the expedited siting certificate authorizing the project.
- The Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (ABATE), the Michigan Public Power Agency, and the Michigan Municipal Electric Association challenged the PSC’s order, arguing (among other things) that the Electric Transmission Line Certification Act (Act 30) required a separate certificate of public convenience and necessity before construction could begin.

## Issues

1. Whether an expedited siting certificate issued under Part 4 of Act 295 is itself a construction permit for a transmission line in the primary wind energy resource zone, or whether the applicant must also obtain a certificate under Act 30.
2. Whether the PSC’s findings under MCL 460.1153—especially that the proposed line was of “appropriate capability” and reasonably sized in light of potential future capacity needs—were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
3. Whether the PSC’s decision was lawful and reasonable, including whether the project posed an unreasonable threat to the public convenience.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the PSC’s substantive determinations that ITC met Act 295’s expedited siting criteria, including the PSC’s findings on appropriate capability and the reasonableness of the line’s size based on potential future transmission-capacity needs.
- The Court of Appeals nonetheless held that an Act 295 expedited siting certificate did not, by itself, constitute a construction permit, and concluded ITC was required to obtain additional authorization under Act 30 before commencing construction.
- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed in part on other grounds, holding that an expedited siting certificate under Act 295 does constitute a construction permit, and otherwise left the Court of Appeals’ disposition undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Courts reviewing PSC orders do not reweigh evidence; they ask whether the agency’s findings are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record and whether the order is lawful and reasonable.
- Under MCL 460.1153, the PSC may approve a wind-zone transmission project if statutory criteria are met, including that the proposed line is of “appropriate capability” and its size is reasonable in light of expected future transmission-capacity needs.
- In construing related statutes, courts read them together where possible, but specific statutory language controls the legal effect of an agency-issued certificate.
- As clarified by the Michigan Supreme Court, an expedited siting certificate issued under Part 4 of Act 295 is a construction permit for the approved transmission line, so separate Act 30 construction approval is not required for that same project.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld the PSC’s factual and evidentiary determinations granting ITC an expedited siting certificate under Act 295 for a transmission line serving the primary wind energy resource zone, but initially required additional Act 30 approval to build; the Michigan Supreme Court reversed that portion, holding the Act 295 siting certificate itself is a construction permit.


In re Application of International Transmission Co., 827 N.W.2d 385 (2012), rev'd in part on other grounds, 822 N.W.2d 23 (2013)