Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission
680 N.W.2d 840, 470 Mich. 154 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public utility must obtain consent from the governing body of a municipality before constructing a pipeline longitudinally within a limited access highway right-of-way that passes through the municipality's limits. This consent is required before construction commences, but not at the time the utility applies for project approval from the Public Service Commission.
Facts:
- Wolverine Pipe Line Company (Wolverine) is an interstate common carrier that transports petroleum products.
- Wolverine planned to construct a 26-mile liquid petroleum pipeline.
- The proposed pipeline was to be located longitudinally within the right-of-way of the Interstate-96 (I-96) highway corridor.
- The land for the right-of-way is under the control and jurisdiction of the state's Department of Transportation.
- Several miles of the proposed pipeline route are located within the city limits of Lansing.
Procedural Posture:
- Wolverine Pipe Line Company filed an application with the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking approval for its pipeline construction plan.
- The city of Lansing intervened in the PSC proceeding to oppose the application.
- The city of Lansing filed a motion to dismiss Wolverine's application, arguing the PSC lacked jurisdiction because the city had not given its required consent.
- The PSC denied the city's motion and issued an order authorizing the project.
- The city of Lansing, as appellant, appealed the PSC's decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, holding that local consent was required before construction could begin but was not a prerequisite for filing an application with the PSC.
- Both Wolverine Pipe Line Company and the city of Lansing were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does MCL 247.183 require a public utility company to obtain consent from a local municipality before constructing a pipeline longitudinally within a limited access highway right-of-way that passes through the municipality's limits, and if so, must that consent be obtained before applying for a state permit?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
Yes, MCL 247.183 requires a public utility to obtain local municipal consent for such construction, but No, that consent is not required at the time of application to the PSC; it is only required before construction commences. The plain language of MCL 247.183(1) requires utilities to obtain local consent, and its phrase 'including, subject to subsection (2)' means that utilities constructing along highways must satisfy the requirements of both subsections, not that subsection (2) creates an exception to subsection (1). The term 'subject to' indicates that the subsections work together and are codependent. The statute unambiguously states that consent is required 'before any of this work is commenced,' which does not mean it must be filed with the PSC application. Therefore, Wolverine must get Lansing's consent before building, but its application to the PSC was not premature.
Dissenting - Cavanagh, J.
No, MCL 247.183 does not require a federally defined utility like Wolverine to obtain local municipal consent for such construction. The statute is ambiguous because reasonable minds can differ on whether subsection (2) creates an exception to subsection (1)'s local consent requirement for the specific projects it governs. Given this ambiguity, legislative history should be consulted, which reveals the Legislature's intent was to create a streamlined, statewide permit system and remove local veto power over such crucial infrastructure. The majority's reading creates a 'cumbersome' process that makes such projects nearly impossible, contrary to the Legislature's true intent to facilitate, not obstruct, the use of highway rights-of-way for utilities.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of local control over land use, even within state-controlled highway corridors, by interpreting state law to require municipal consent for utility projects. It establishes that state-level regulatory approval from the Public Service Commission does not preempt a municipality's statutory right to grant or deny consent for construction within its boundaries. The ruling creates a dual-approval system that can complicate and potentially halt large-scale infrastructure projects that span multiple municipalities, highlighting the tension between local autonomy and the need for statewide utility infrastructure.
