## Facts

- Wolverine Pipe Line Company, an interstate common carrier, proposed constructing a 26-mile petroleum pipeline along the I-96 corridor, within the interstate highway right-of-way.
- Part of the proposed longitudinal pipeline route lay within the City of Lansing; the right-of-way was under the Michigan Department of Transportation’s control.
- Wolverine applied to the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) for approval before beginning construction.
- The Mayor of Lansing, the City of Lansing, and an Ingham County commissioner intervened and argued the application had to be dismissed because MCL 247.183 required Lansing’s consent as a precondition to PSC jurisdiction.
- The PSC rejected the jurisdictional argument, concluded municipal consent was not required with the application, and approved the project as necessary and safe.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that MCL 247.183 required local consent before construction, but not before filing with the PSC.

## Issues

1. Under MCL 247.183, must Wolverine obtain the City of Lansing’s consent to construct a pipeline longitudinally in a highway right-of-way within the city limits?
2. If consent is required, must it be obtained before submitting an application to the PSC, or only before construction begins?

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The Court held that Wolverine must obtain the City of Lansing’s consent before constructing the pipeline within the city limits.
- The Court held that municipal consent is not a prerequisite to filing an application with the PSC or to the PSC’s consideration and approval of the proposal.
- The PSC had authority to review and approve the application despite the absence of municipal consent at the application stage.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation is a judicial function; an agency’s construction is not controlling when inconsistent with the statute’s text and structure.
- MCL 247.183 requires municipal consent for longitudinal occupation of highway rights-of-way within a municipality, including by utilities addressed in subsection (2).
- Subsection (2) supplements, rather than displaces, the general municipal-consent rule stated in subsection (1).
- Municipal consent operates as a substantive precondition to lawful construction in the municipality, not as a jurisdictional prerequisite to PSC review.

## Conclusion

A pipeline company proposing longitudinal construction within a city’s highway right-of-way must secure the city’s consent before building, but it may seek and obtain PSC approval without first obtaining that municipal consent.


Mayor of the City of Lansing v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 470 Mich. 154, 680 N.W.2d 840 (Mich. 2004)