Municipal electric service outside limits; MCL 124.3; City of Coldwater v Consumers Energy Co; Definition of “customer”; MCL 124.3(3)(a); In re Complaint of Consumers Energy Co; Great Wolf Lodge v Public Serv Comm’n; Public Service Commission (PSC) jurisdiction & Rule 411 (“right of first entitlement”) inapplicability to municipalities; MCL 460.6(1)

In an issue of first impression concerning the interpretation of MCL 124.3(3)(a), the court held that MCL 124.3’s no-switch rule did not bar defendant-City from providing electric service to newly constructed subdivision buildings on a parcel where plaintiff-Cooperative separately served a different building. The Cooperative had long provided electric service in Resort Township, while the City held a nonexclusive franchise there. A developer requested the City provide service to nine new homes in a new subdivision on part of a larger parcel where the Cooperative already served a garage outside the subdivision. The trial court granted the City summary disposition. It found the subdivision’s buildings and facilities were not “customers” that were currently receiving or had received service from another utility within the prior three years, and that PSC Rule 411’s “right of first entitlement” did not apply to a municipal utility. On appeal, the court held the 2018 amendment defining “customer” in MCL 124.3(3)(a) as “only the building or facilities served” made the statutory inquiry building-specific rather than parcel-wide, so the relevant “customer” was the new subdivision’s buildings and facilities, which were undisputedly vacant and unserved for at least three years before development. The court rejected the Cooperative’s attempt to treat the entire parcel as the customer based on its service to a garage and infrastructure presence, emphasizing that MCL 124.3(2) turns on whether the particular buildings or facilities sought to be served are receiving, or within three years have received, service from another utility. The court also explained that Rule 411’s first-entitlement “premises” concept has no analogue in MCL 124.3 and cannot be judicially imported, particularly because municipal utilities are generally outside PSC jurisdiction. Affirmed.