Meaning of “interconnect” under the Transmission Infrastructure Planning Act (enacted by 2021 PA 125 - Act 125); Incumbent electric transmission line owners’ rights of first refusal over future regionally cost-shared transmission projects; MCL 460.593(1); Use of the word “connecting” in MCL 460.593(3)(a); Long-Range Transmission Plan (LRTP)

In an issue of first impression concerning the Transmission Infrastructure Planning Act (Act 125), the court held that the trial court correctly ruled “that a direct, physical connection is necessary to show that the facilities are ‘interconnected’ under Act 125.” The parties were electric transmission companies. The dispute involved two new transmission-line projects. “Act 125 gives incumbent electric transmission line owners . . . rights of first refusal over future regionally cost-shared transmission projects.” The issue here was “whether defendant’s electric transmission line interconnects with a regionally cost-shared transmission line, which would grant defendant the right to engage with plaintiff as a co-owner of that regionally cost-shared transmission line.” The trial court granted plaintiff summary disposition. Defendant argued that it erred in determining there was no evidence “that defendant’s facilities would ‘interconnect’ with the Projects within the meaning of Act 125.” The court disagreed. As the “word ‘interconnect’ is not statutorily defined,” the court could “consult a dictionary to determine the word’s ‘common and ordinary meaning.’” And it found that “[d]efining ‘interconnect’ with its root word, ‘connect,’ appears to comport with surrounding” statutes. MCL 460.593(3)(a)’s “use of the word ‘connecting’ strongly suggests that defining ‘interconnect’ is meant to include ‘connect.’ The more common and ordinary meaning of the word ‘connect’ is to ‘become joined[.]’ Taking this definition into account,” the court concluded “that defendant’s Oneida Lines must physically ‘join’ with the Projects.” The court added that it agreed “with the trial court that defendant’s interpretation could lead to absurd results.” That interpretation seemed to render “the word ‘interconnect’ meaningless by allowing a company to meet the requirement simply by being connected to a different company’s transmission lines, which in turn directly connect to a regionally cost-shared transmission line.” As to the merits of defendant’s argument that summary disposition was improper, the court concluded there was “no genuine issue of material fact that defendant’s Oneida Lines did not interconnect with the Projects. Both the LRTP and the physical geography demonstrated that the Oneida Lines did not touch the Projects. Instead, the Oneida Lines were separated by plaintiff’s facilities, which were the only direct connection to the Projects.” Affirmed.