Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Campbell Plant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ottawa County discusses legal options, federal outreach as Consumers Energy plans Campbell plant closure
Summary
County commissioners debated next steps after Consumers Energy announced plans to close the James DeYoung (Campbell) coal plant, including asking the Michigan Public Service Commission for reconsideration, contacting federal intergovernmental affairs and the possibility of litigation if the MPSC declines to act.
Ottawa County commissioners debated potential legal and political responses to Consumers Energy’s announced closure of the Campbell power plant, with several members urging both administrative outreach to the federal government and further legal analysis of the county’s authority.
Commissioners and staff said the county has already asked the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) for a response and expects an answer this week; several commissioners said they expect the MPSC to “hold firm” on the closure. Commissioner discussion ranged from preparing a resolution for the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to asking legal staff to research whether the county has standing to sue Consumers Energy directly under the Michigan Constitution.
The debate followed a staff report that cited Article VII, section 15 of the Michigan Constitution, which the presenter said gives county boards the power to “enter or to intervene in any action or certificate proceeding involving the services, charges or rates of any privately owned public utility” serving county ratepayers. County corporate counsel told commissioners that statute arguably gives counties authority to intervene in utility proceedings, but warned that proving standing and prevailing would require expert evidence and would face Consumers and the MPSC’s technical and legal defenses.
Some commissioners pressed for an immediate legal filing if the MPSC response was unfavorable; others urged caution, citing the time and cost of litigation, the statewide scope of the MISO grid and recent executive orders that might change federal regulatory posture. Several commissioners asked county legal staff to prepare options: (1) pursue administrative/federal advocacy via the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and national groups (NACO), (2) develop a county-led legal petition against Consumers Energy (and related MPSC proceedings) if new evidence shows risk to grid reliability, or (3) pursue both paths in parallel depending on the MPSC response.
Commissioners also discussed working with neighboring counties and regional organizations (for example, Lakeshore Advantage and other counties that have filed related suits) to share costs if litigation proves appropriate. County counsel warned that a legal challenge would likely require expert testimony to rebut Consumer Energy and MPSC technical conclusions and that any lawsuit would take months to develop and resolve.
The committee directed staff to (a) share the MPSC response when received, (b) prepare a draft resolution and outreach letter for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and NACO to be considered at the next full board meeting, and (c) have legal staff prepare an options paper outlining standing, likely costs, timeline and evidentiary needs for potential litigation.
The issue remains unresolved; commissioners asked for a legal/options memo and a draft federal outreach resolution ahead of the next board meeting so the full board can consider a vote.
Ending: Commissioners agreed to return the topic to the full board with staff-prepared options and a draft resolution for federal outreach; legal counsel will provide a written assessment of standing and costs before any motion to litigate is considered.
