Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


WALTER ZAREMBA, Appellant, v MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, and LUIGI ALBANO, Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED December 3, 1999

No. 210673 MPSC LC No. 11398

Before: Murphy, P.J., and Gage and Wilder, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals as of right from an order of the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) denying his application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) under 1929 PA 9 (Act 9), MCL 483.101 et seq.; MSA 22.1311 et seq. We affirm. Appellant filed an application with the PSC for a CPCN to construct and operate a natural gas transmission pipeline to be known as the Jordan Valley Pipeline System. The pipeline was to start at the wellhead of appellant's proposed natural gas well in Antrim County, and interconnect with the existing Lee's Petroleum Chess Play Pipeline System. Because the Chess Play pipeline was not an Act 9 transmission line and did not transport third-party gas, appellant proposed that the Chess Play pipeline be reclassified as an Act 9 transmission line. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) intervened, and the PSC staff also elected to participate in the case. The PSC denied appellant's application for a CPCN. The PSC found that appellant met the jurisdictional requirements of MCL 483.101; MSA 22.1311, either by claiming the right to transport gas for hire or to engage in the business of transporting gas. The PSC considered the "necessity and practicability" of the proposed pipeline to determine whether it would serve the public convenience and necessity. MCL 483.109; MSA 22.1319. The PSC concluded that the proposed pipeline project would not be economically feasible; thus, it could not determine that the pipeline would be either necessary or practicable. In reaching this conclusion, the PSC relied on the staff's analysis of the economic feasibility of the proposed project rather than that offered by appellant. The PSC determined -1

that the figures relating to production volume, revenue, and cost projection utilized by the staff were more appropriate than those utilized by appellant. The standard of review for PSC orders is narrow and well established. Pursuant to MCL 462.25; MSA 22.44, all rates, fares, charges, classification and joint rates, regulations, practices, and services prescribed by the PSC are presumed, prima facie, to be lawful and reasonable. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co v Public Service Comm, 389 Mich 624, 635-636; 209 NW2d 210 (1973). A party aggrieved by an order of the PSC bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the order is unlawful or unreasonable. MCL 462.26(8); MSA 22.45(8). Const 1963, art 6,

Download WALTER ZAREMBA V MPSC.pdf

Michigan Law