Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission

Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
Chief Justice Justices
Maura D. Corrigan Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Clifford W. Taylor
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman

FILED JUNE 9, 2004

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LANSING,
CITY OF LANSING, and INGHAM
COUNTY COMMISSIONER LISA DEDDEN,

Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

v No. 124136

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION and WOLVERINE PIPE
LINE COMPANY,

Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

_______________________________

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

TAYLOR, J.

In this case, we are called on to determine if

defendant Wolverine Pipe Line Company (Wolverine) must

obtain the permission of the city of Lansing before

constructing a gas pipeline longitudinally in the right-of-

way adjacent to an interstate highway when part of the

pipeline would be constructed within city limits. We

affirm the Court of Appeals decision that Wolverine must

obtain local consent but that such consent need not be
obtained before the application is submitted to the

Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC).

I

Wolverine is an interstate common carrier that

constructs, operates, and maintains pipelines used for

transporting petroleum products. It planned to construct a

twenty-six-mile liquid petroleum pipeline along the

Interstate-96 (I-96) corridor, within the right-of-way of

the interstate highway. Although the land is under the

control and jurisdiction of the state’s Department of

Transportation, several miles of the highway are within the

city limits.

In December 2001, Wolverine, before commencing any

work on the project, filed an application with the PSC for

approval of its plan. The mayor and the city, as well as

Ingham County Commissioner Lisa Dedden, were allowed to

intervene in the PSC proceeding.1 The application was

treated as a contested case and a hearing was held. The

city moved to dismiss the application, arguing that the PSC

had no jurisdiction because Wolverine’s application lacked

the requisite consent from the city. The PSC denied the

1
Because of the similarity of interests, these three
parties will be referred to as “the city.”

2

motion and authorized the project, finding that the city’s

consent was not required to accompany the application.

With regard to the reasonableness of the project, the PSC

determined that there were no equal protection violations

in the route selection and found the project necessary and

safe.

The city appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court

reviewed the plain language of MCL 247.183 and determined

that the statute did require local consent before

construction began, but not before the applicant sought PSC

approval. 257 Mich App 1, 16; 666 NW2d 298 (2003). Both

sides sought leave to appeal. Wolverine and the PSC

asserted that no local approval is required, and the city

argued that approval is required during the application

stage. This Court granted leave to appeal on both

applications. 469 Mich 898 (2003).

II

We review de novo a question of statutory

construction. In construing a statute, we are required to

give effect to the Legislature’s intent. That intent is

clear if the statutory language is unambiguous, and the

statute must then be enforced as written. Weakland v

Toledo Engineering Co, 467 Mich 344, 347; 656 NW2d 175

(2003). We use the same rules of construction both for

3

statutes and for administrative regulations. Soap &

Detergent Ass’n v Natural Resources Comm, 415 Mich 728,

756-757; 330 NW2d 346 (1982).

III

The statute that controls this case is MCL 247.183,

which reads:

(1) Telegraph, telephone, power, and other
public utility companies, cable television
companies, and municipalities may enter upon,
construct, and maintain telegraph, telephone, or
power lines, pipe lines, wires, cables, poles,
conduits, sewers or similar structures upon,
over, across, or under any public road, bridge,
street, or public place, including, subject to
subsection (2), longitudinally within limited
access highway rights of way, and across or under
any of the waters in this state, with all
necessary erections and fixtures for that
purpose. A telegraph, telephone, power, and other
public utility company, cable television company,
and municipality, before any of this work is
commenced, shall first obtain the consent of the
governing body of the city, village, or township
through or along which these lines and poles are
to be constructed and maintained.

(2) A utility as defined in 23 C.F.R.
645.105(m) may enter upon, construct, and
maintain utility lines and structures
longitudinally within limited access highway
rights of way in accordance with standards
approved by the state transportation commission
that conform to governing federal laws and
regulations. The standards shall require that the
lines and structures be underground and be placed
in a manner that will not increase highway
maintenance costs for the state transportation
department. The standards may provide for the
imposition of a reasonable charge for
longitudinal use of limited access highway rights
of way. The imposition of a reasonable charge is

4

 a governmental function, offsetting a portion of
the capital and maintenance expense of the
limited access highway, and is not a proprietary
function. The charge shall be calculated to
reflect a 1-time installation permit fee that
shall not exceed $1,000.00 per mile of
longitudinal use of limited access highway rights
of way with a minimum fee of $5,000.00 per
permit. All revenue received under this
subsection shall be used for capital and
maintenance expenses incurred for limited access
highways.

Wolverine does not here dispute that it is both a

“public utility,” as that phrase is used in subsection 1 of

the statute, as well as a subsection 2 “utility as defined

in 23 C.F.R 645.105[.]”2 Definitionally, both subsections

are applicable to Wolverine unless something in the statute

excludes Wolverine from the reach of one subsection or the

other. Wolverine argues that such exclusionary language is

found in subsection 1, which, paraphrased, states that any

covered utility, including those subject to subsection 2,

2
This includes

a privately, publicly, or cooperatively owned
line, facility or system for producing,
transmitting, or distributing communications,
cable television, power, electricity, light,
heat, gas, oil, crude products, water, steam,
waste, storm water not connected with highway
drainage, or any other similar commodity,
including any fire or police signal system, which
directly or indirectly serves the public. The
term utility shall also mean the utility company
inclusive of any wholly owned or controlled
subsidiary. [23 CFR 645.105.]

5

may use a public road longitudinally within the limited

access highway right-of-way if it has local permission

before work commences. The company’s construction of this

passage is that the quoted phrase serves to remove

subsection 2 utilities from subsection 1 rules and thus

such utilities must only comply with the requirements of

subsection 2. In support of this, Wolverine primarily

contends that this reading is the only proper construction

because otherwise the language “subject to subsection (2)”

would be left without meaning. Because such constructions

are to be avoided, and because Wolverine believes its

reading gives the phrase meaning, it urges us to adopt that

reading.3 We decline to do so, as did the Court of Appeals

before us, because we think the reading urged by the city

also gives meaning to and more accurately reflects the

statute.

3
Wolverine also suggests several ways in which the
statute could have been worded to clearly indicate an
intent to impose both subsections on longitudinal projects.
Wolverine posits that because the statute is not worded in
one of the ways it suggests, it follows that the
Legislature intended to impose only the requirements of
subsection 2 on longitudinal projects. This argument is
unconvincing because, while the Legislature doubtlessly
could have made its intentions clearer in this statute, the
fact that it has not done so by adopting any of Wolverine’s
suggested approaches does not relieve this Court of giving
meaning to what actually was written.

6

 We note that Random House Webster’s College Dictionary

(2001 ed), defines “subject” when used as an adjective in

six ways. The most applicable is the fourth definition,

“dependent upon something (usu. fol. by to): His consent is

subject to your approval.” This definition, in essence,

gives to the word “subject” the meaning, “dependent upon.”

When used as it is here and in other places in the

Legislature’s work, it is clear that the subsections work

together,4 see, e.g., MCL 15.443, 18.1237, and 168.677.

That is, both subsections are applicable because the

relevant words in subsection 1, the “subject to” words, do

not mean that the requirements of subsection 1 do not apply

to those utilities that are covered also by subsection 2.

Further, because the Legislature expressly (and uniquely)

used the word “including” before the “subject to” phrase,

the implication is even stronger that the two subsections

4
Moreover, even if one were inclined to utilize one of
the other five definitions in the dictionary (“under the
domination, control, or influence of something [often fol.
by to]”; “being under the dominion, rule, or authority of
a sovereign, state, etc. [often fol. by to]”; “open or
exposed [usu. fol. by to]: subject to ridicule”; “being
under the necessity of undergoing something [usu. fol. by
to]: All beings are subject to death”; or “liable, prone
[usu. fol. by to]: subject to headaches”), these also lead
to the same conclusion that “dependent upon” yields: that
interaction, rather than disconnection, of the subsections
is called for.

7

are to be read in combination. Thus, subsection 1 means

the project cannot go forward without local approval and,

not at all incompatibly, subsection 2 means it cannot go

forward unless it meets certain construction standards.

We are aware, and, indeed, Wolverine forcefully

argues, that this reading of the statute may facilitate

frivolous and potentially crippling resistance from local

governments along the route of a utility project. Such an

argument, however, misunderstands the role of the courts.

Our task, under the Constitution, is the important, but yet

limited, duty to read into and interpret what the

Legislature has actually made the law. We have observed

many times in the past that our Legislature is free to make

policy choices that, especially in controversial matters,

some observers will inevitably think unwise. This dispute

over the wisdom of a law, however, cannot give warrant to a

court to overrule the people’s Legislature. See Oakland Co

Rd Comm’rs v Michigan Property & Cas Guaranty Ass’n, 456

Mich 590, 612-613; 575 NW2d 751 (1998). We therefore

affirm the Court of Appeals decision that subsection 1 as

well as subsection 2 control and Wolverine is required by

MCL 247.183 to get local consent before constructing its

pipeline longitudinally in the right-of-way of I-96.

8

 IV

Because we find that Wolverine is required to obtain

local consent for its project, we must also address the

question of when that consent must be obtained. The Court

of Appeals found that local consent only has to be secured

before work is commenced. Thus, at the time the permit

from the PSC was sought, proof of local consent did not

need to accompany the application. We agree with this

holding.

We begin our analysis with the statute that

unambiguously requires local consent “before any of this

work is commenced . . . .” MCL 247.183. We note also that

the PSC’s applicable rule, 1999 AC, R 460.17601(2)(d),

indicates that applications for new construction of utility

facilities “shall set forth, or by attached exhibits show,

. . . [t]he municipality from which the appropriate

franchise or consent has been obtained, if required,

together with a true copy of the franchise or consent.”5

5
1999 AC, R 460.17601 reads in its entirety:

(1) An entity listed in this subrule shall
file an application with the commission for the
necessary authority to do the following:

(a) A gas or electric utility within the
meaning of the provisions of Act No. 69 of the
Public Acts of 1929, as amended, being §460.501
(continued…)

9

(…continued)
et seq. of the Michigan Compiled Laws, that wants
to construct a plant, equipment, property, or
facility for furnishing public utility service
for which a certificate of public convenience and
necessity is required by statute.

(b) A natural gas pipeline company within
the meaning of the provisions of Act No. 9 of the
Public Acts of 1929, as amended, being §483.101
et seq. of the Michigan Compiled Laws, that wants
to construct a plant, equipment, property, or
facility for furnishing public utility service
for which a certificate of public convenience and
necessity is required by statute.

(c) A corporation, association, or person
conducting oil pipeline operations within the
meaning of the provisions of Act No. 16 of the
Public Acts of 1929, being §483.1 et seq. of the
Michigan Compiled Laws, that wants to construct
facilities to transport crude oil or petroleum or
any crude oil or petroleum products as a common
carrier for which approval is required by
statute.

(2) The application required in subrule (1)
of this rule shall set forth, or by attached
exhibits show, all of the following information:

(a) The name and address of the applicant.

(b) The city, village, or township affected.

(c) The nature of the utility service to be
furnished.

(d) The municipality from which the
appropriate franchise or consent has been
obtained, if required, together with a true copy
of the franchise or consent.

(e) A full description of the proposed new
construction or extension, including the manner
in which it will be constructed.

(continued…)

10

 The PSC rule only requires utilities to provide proof

of local consent if such is required to be obtained at the

time the application is made, and the statute here does not

require it. Thus, we agree with the PSC and the Court of

Appeals that proof of local consent need not be filed with

the application for this project. Although local consent

was not filed with the application, the statute and the

rules have been complied with and the PSC proceeded well

within its authority.

V

Concerning the dissent, we offer the following

observations:

(1) The justices in this majority do not necessarily

disagree with the dissent that MCL 247.183, as we construe

it here, may be “cumbersome.” Post at 17. Nor, by this

opinion, does any justice in this majority suggest that,

had they been in the Legislature, they would have cast a

(…continued)
(f) The names of all utilities rendering the
same type of service with which the proposed new
construction or extension is likely to compete.

(3) A utility that is classified as a
respondent pursuant to the provisions of R
460.17101 may participate as a party to the
application proceeding without filing a petition
to intervene. It may file an answer or other
response to the application.

11

vote in support of MCL 247.183 as it is interpreted here.

Nor are the justices in this majority oblivious to the

practical difficulties that our interpretation of the law

may impose upon utilities such as Wolverine Pipe Line

Company. Rather, what we decide today is merely that the

language of MCL 247.183 compels a particular result, and

the justices of this majority do not believe themselves

empowered to reach a different result by substituting their

own policy preferences for those of the Legislature.

(2) Rather than interpreting the language of MCL

247.183, the dissent prefers to divine what it

characterizes as the Legislature’s “true intent.” Post at

1. This “true intent” is not one to be gleaned from the

words actually enacted into law by the Legislature, but

through reliance on various random facts and circumstances

that the dissent selectively picks out from the universe of

potentially available facts and circumstances. In

contrast, rather than engaging in legislative mind-reading

to discern the “true intent” of the law, we believe that

the best measure of the Legislature’s intent is simply the

words that it has chosen to enact into law. Among other

salutary consequences, this approach to reading the law

allows a court to assess not merely the intentions of one

12

or two highlighted members of the Legislature, but the

intentions of the entire Legislature.

(3) The dissent avoids the difficult task of having to

read the actual language of the law and determine its best

interpretation by peremptorily concluding that MCL 247.183

is “ambiguous.” Post at 2. A finding of ambiguity, of

course, enables an appellate judge to bypass traditional

approaches to interpretation and either substitute

presumptive “rule[s] of policy,” see Klapp v United

Insurance, 468 Mich 459, 474; 663 NW2d 447 (2003), quoting

5 Corbin, Contracts (rev ed, 1998), § 24.27, p 306, or else

to engage in a largely subjective and perambulatory reading

of “legislative history.” However, as Klapp, relying on

the treatises of both Corbin and Williston, concluded, a

finding of ambiguity is to be reached only after “all other

conventional means of [ ] interpretation” have been applied

and found wanting.6 Klapp, supra at 474. Where the

majority applies these conventional rules and concludes

that the language of MCL 247.183 can be reasonably

understood, the dissent, without demonstrating the flaws of

6
While Klapp concerned contract interpretation and the
instant case statutory interpretation, the rule stated in
Klapp, supra at 474—that ambiguity is a finding of last
resort—applies with equal force whether the court is
interpreting a statutory text or a contractual one.

13

the majority’s analysis except to assert that its opinion

is not in accord with the “true intent” of the Legislature,

opines that an “ambiguity” exists. An analysis, such as

that of the dissent, that is in conflict with the actual

language of the law and predicated on some supposed “true

intent” is necessarily a result-oriented analysis. In

other words, it is not a legal analysis at all.

(4) In peremptorily reaching its conclusion that MCL

247.183 is “ambiguous,” the dissent entirely misstates the

standard for discerning ambiguity. The dissent would

hasten findings of “ambiguity” by courts by predicating

these findings on the basis of whether “reasonable minds

can differ regarding” the meaning of a statute. Post at 3.

Especially in the context of the types of cases and

controversies considered by this Court—those in which the

parties have been the most determined and persistent, the

most persuaded by the merits of their own respective

arguments—it is extraordinarily difficult to conclude that

reasonable minds cannot differ on the correct outcome.

That is not, and has never been, the standard either for

resolving cases or for ascertaining the existence of an

ambiguity in the law. The law is not ambiguous whenever a

dissenting (and presumably reasonable) justice would

interpret such law in a manner contrary to a majority.

14

Where a majority finds the law to mean one thing and a

dissenter finds it to mean another, neither may have

concluded that the law is “ambiguous,” and their

disagreement by itself does not transform that which is

unambiguous into that which is ambiguous. Rather, a

provision of the law is ambiguous only if it

“irreconcilably conflict[s]” with another provision, id. at

467, or when it is equally susceptible to more than a

single meaning. In lieu of the traditional approach to

discerning “ambiguity”—one in which only a few provisions

are truly ambiguous and in which a diligent application of

the rules of interpretation will normally yield a “better,”

albeit perhaps imperfect, interpretation of the law—the

dissent would create a judicial regime in which courts

would be quick to declare ambiguity and quick therefore to

resolve cases and controversies on the basis of something

other than the words of the law.7 Moreover, the dissent

implies that the decision of the United States Supreme

Court in Yellow Transportation, Inc, v Michigan, 537 US 36;

7
The dissent also confusingly conflates
unambiguousness and clarity. Post at 5. Instead, a great
many unambiguous provisions of the law are far from clear.
The interpretative process is often quite difficult,
struggling to remove a great deal of textual underbrush. A
provision of law that is unambiguous may well be one that
merely has a better meaning, as opposed to a clear meaning.

15

123 S Ct 371; 154 L Ed 2d 377 (2002), should be read to

compel the adoption of his view of how we determine if a

statute is ambiguous. We believe this is a misreading of

Yellow Transportation. The United States Supreme Court

established no rule in Yellow Transportation for

determining or resolving statutory ambiguity. Moreover,

even if the Court had fixed upon a method it chooses to use

to determine if a statute is ambiguous, it could not be

understood to have superceded the rules that state courts

may use in a like undertaking. The United States courts,

of whatever sort, when they rule, are of course always

respectfully reviewed by state court judges but such

holdings are only binding in a narrow range of cases such

as, classically, in the construction and meaning of the

United States Constitution. Statutory construction

techniques are not of this genre. With that distraction

clarified, Yellow Transportation should be understood as a

narrow holding that stands for the simple proposition that

if a federal administrative agency has given a defensible

construction to a federal statute that it applied, that all

state courts must follow that construction even if

alternative constructions are also reasonable. We deal

with no such situation in this case, and thus Yellow

16

Transportation is inapposite in all particulars to this

matter.

(5) The dissent wrongly asserts that “the majority

fails to construe subsection 1 in light of subsection 2

. . . .” Post at 6-7. Rather, we assert that “subsection

1 means the project cannot go forward without local

approval and, not at all incompatibly, subsection 2 means

it cannot go forward unless it meets certain construction

standards,” p 8, and further assert that the “including,

subject to subsection (2)” language in subsection 1 makes

“the implication . . . even stronger that the two

subsections are to be read in combination.” Pp 7-8. It is

the dissent that misapprehends the relationship between

subsections 1 and 2 by attempting to read these provisions

in isolation and concluding that when read in this manner

they compel different results and thus are “ambiguous.”

However, the subsections of MCL 247.183, as with all other

provisions of law, are not to be read discretely, but as

part of a whole. The dissent errs in first reading these

subsections “alone” and then asserting that it is reading

these subsections “together” when it merely combines its

“alone” interpretations. Post at 6. Rather, to read the

law as a whole, it must, in fact, be read as a whole. The

interpretative process does not, as the dissent does,

17

remove words and provisions from their context, infuse

these words and provisions with meanings that are

independent of such context, and then reimport these

context-free meanings back into the law. The law is not

properly read as a whole when its words and provisions are

isolated and given meanings that are independent of the

rest of its provisions. This is especially true when, as

here, one of these provisions expressly cross-references

the other.

(6) Therefore, even if the existence of a reasonable

disagreement were the standard for identifying ambiguity—

which it is not—the dissent’s interpretation of MCL 247.183

is simply not a reasonable one when subsections 1 and 2 are

read together, as opposed to being read discretely. It

cannot correctly be said that these subsections “apply to

different entities,” post at 7, when subsection 1 expressly

observes that its provisions are made “subject to

subsection (2).” Contrary to the mandate of this Court,

the dissent fails to “give effect to every word, phrase,

and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that

would render any part of the statute surplusage,” State

Farm & Cas Co v Old Republic Ins Co, 466 Mich 142, 146; 644

NW2d 715 (2002), by essentially ignoring the term

18

“including subject to subsection (2)” in its

interpretation.

(7) The dissent further asserts that MCL 267.183 is

ambiguous because “application of the statute to the facts

has rendered the correct application of the statute

uncertain.” Post at 4. It is hard to know what this

means. While any interpretation of the law is in some

sense “fact specific,” the dissent fails to identify why

the interpretation of this statute, any more than any other

statute, is rendered ambiguous by the instant facts. This

majority’s view of the law is that, whenever a public

utility constructs a pipeline or other utility project

longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way,

MCL 247.183 requires that the utility must both obtain the

consent of the local governing body (subsection 1) and

construct the pipeline in accordance with state and federal

standards (subsection 2). Is it the dissent’s view that

its interpretation pertains in some instances but not in

others? If not, what is the relevance of the dissent’s

observation that its interpretation is “fact specific”?

(8) Moreover, even if MCL 247.183 were truly

ambiguous, the dissent’s analysis of what it views as the

relevant legislative history is altogether unpersuasive.

In In re Certified Question (Kenneth Henes v Continental

19

Biomass Ind, Inc), 468 Mich 109, 115 n 5; 659 NW2d 597

(2003), this Court emphasized that not all legislative

history is of equal value, which “results in varying

degrees of quality and utility of legislative history.”

There, we stated that examples of “the highest quality of

legislative history that relates to an action of the

Legislature from which a court may draw reasonable

inferences about the Legislature’s intent with respect to

an ambiguous statutory provision” are “actions of the

Legislature intended to repudiate the judicial construction

of a statute” or “actions of the Legislature in considering

various alternatives in language in statutory provisions

before settling on the language actually enacted.” Id. It

is noteworthy that the dissent fails to rely on legislative

history of either type. Instead, the dissent largely

relies on the least persuasive form of legislative history—

staff analyses—which we have found are of “considerably

diminished quality,” and thus “are entitled to little

judicial consideration in resolving ambiguous statutory

provisions . . . .” Id.8

8
“The problem with relying on bill analyses is that
they do not necessarily represent the views of even a
single legislator. Rather, they are prepared by House and
Senate staff. Indeed, the analyses themselves note that
they do not constitute an official statement of legislative
(continued…)

20

 (9) Even examining this legislative history on the

dissent's own terms, we are perplexed about how it supports

the dissent’s position. For example, the dissent cites the

fact that “SB 1008 was passed without a single ‘nay’ vote

in either the House or Senate . . . .” Post at 15. How

does this fact, this bit of legislative history, support

the dissent’s understanding of the law, i.e., that the

Legislature did not intend that utilities must obtain local

consent before constructing utility projects in

longitudinal highway rights-of-way? How does this

demonstrate anything more than that the Legislature

unanimously approved the statute being considered today?9

Similarly, we believe that the dissent misapprehends

the “changes” in which “the Department of Transportation

(…continued)

intent.” Frank W Lynch & Co v Flex Technologies, Inc, 463

Mich 578, 588 n 7; 624 NW2d 180 (2001).

9
Our confusion over the dissent’s analysis of
legislative history is heightened by its assertion that
“the 1994 statutory amendment transformed Michigan from a
state that generally did not allow entities to use limited
access highway rights-of-way to a state that generally does
allow the use of limited access highway rights-of-way, even
though that use is subject to the requirements contained in
subsection 2.” Post at 9. This seems to us not only
incorrect, but also contrary to the dissent’s own prior
analysis, post at 8, in which it notes that pre-1994
subsection 2 did allow use of rights-of-way by federally
defined utilities.

21

and the major state utilities concurred” when SB 1008 was

passed. Post at 16. The dissent suggests that the

“changes” concerned the overall effect the bill would have

on utility projects constructed in limited access highway

rights-of-way. However, when read in context, it appears

that the “changes” concerned only the “minor amendments”

made by the House of Representatives to SB 1008 concerning

the fee structure for such projects. Id.

In fact, when we look at the most valuable type of

legislative history available to us, that is, the actual

change in statutory language made by the Legislature in

1994, we find support for our view, rather than the

dissent’s. Regardless of the vote count, the change that

was enacted turned “except longitudinally within limited

access highway rights-of-way” to “including, subject to

subsection (2), longitudinally within limited access

highway rights-of-way.” We find this legislative action to

be a strong indication that the “true intent” of the

drafters was to include such projects in both subsections,

rather than exclude them from subsection 1.

Finally, while we agree with the dissent that the 1994

amendments were intended to “eliminate the ability of the

state to deny access to these locations for construction of

utility services,” the dissent relies on this statement to

22

support its proposition that “[i]f the [1994] amendment

were meant to remove the state’s power to deny access to

these locations, it certainly could not have meant to grant

this power to local entities . . . .” Post at 16-17.

Perhaps, the dissent's assertion is correct, but it is

hardly self-evident. There is nothing that logically

impels the conclusion that authority is to be denied the

locality if it is to be denied the state. While the

dissent, and perhaps some justices in this majority, might

question the wisdom of a policy that treats the state and

localities differently in terms of the approval required

for utility pipeline construction, it is hardly

inconceivable that a Legislature committed to local control

or to the principle of subsidiarity might adopt exactly

such a policy.10

10
Although not directly applicable to this case
because I-96 is a federal highway and, thus, not a highway
“of” the city, perhaps the Legislature intended to require
local approval because such approval had been a
longstanding part of Const 1963, art 7, § 29, which
provides in relevant part:

No person, partnership, association or corporation,
public or private, operating as a public utility shall have
the right to the use of the highways, streets, alleys or
other public places of any county, township, city or
village for wires, poles, pipes, tracks, conduits or other
public utility facilities, without the consent of the duly
constituted authority of the county, township, city or
village . . . .

23

 (10) The dissent states that “[w]hile the statute does

not clearly indicate whether the Legislature intended to

require federally defined utilities to obtain local

consent, it appears that this lack of clarity is the result

of a clerical error and the intent was not to reverse the

1989 elimination of local control.” Post at 14 (emphasis

added). What precisely is this supposed “clerical error”?

What is the dissent’s basis for assuming such a “clerical

error” occurred? What is the evidence in support of the

existence of such a “clerical error”? Is the dissent

justifying its conclusion that MCL 267.183 is “ambiguous”

on the basis of a “clerical error”? Or is the dissent,

instead, asserting that the legislative history of MCL

267.183 not only can be considered, but that this history

can supersede its very language?

(11) In the end, the essence of the dissent’s analysis

is its (perhaps understandable) frustrated assertion that

“I cannot believe that the Legislature intended to subject

federally defined public utilities to local consent

requirements.” Post at 17. This constitutes less a legal

conclusion than a statement of discontent with the fact

that the Legislature either had a different perspective on

pipeline approval than the dissent or it failed effectively

to communicate what the dissent alone knows to be its “true

24

intent.” In either case, there is no warrant for this

Court replacing the words of the Legislature with those of

its own.

VI

We conclude that the plain language of MCL 247.183

requires Wolverine to obtain local consent before beginning

construction of its project. However, local consent is not

required at the time of application to the PSC. We

therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals in

all respects.

Clifford W. Taylor
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman

25

 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LANSING,
CITY OF LANSING, and INGHAM
COUNTY COMMISSIONER LISA DEDDEN,

Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

v No. 124136

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION and WOLVERINE PIPE
LINE COMPANY,

Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

_______________________________

WEAVER, J. (concurring).

I concur with the majority in all but part V of its

opinion.

Elizabeth A. Weaver
 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LANSING,
CITY OF LANSING, and INGHAM
COUNTY COMMISSIONER LISA DEDDEN,

Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

v No. 124136

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION and WOLVERINE PIPE
LINE COMPANY,

Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

_______________________________

CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting).

Today, the majority finds no ambiguity in the

statutory provision at issue and, in so doing, ignores the

true intent of the Legislature. Because I believe the true

intent of the Legislature must be given effect, I

respectfully dissent. The majority, apparently frustrated

with my refusal to follow its lead and use a dictionary

while turning a blind eye to reality, has issued a lengthy

response to this dissent. While the majority asserts that

I substitute my own policy preferences for those of the

Legislature, I think it is necessary to note the following

in regard to the majority’s approach: “A method of
statutory interpretation that is deliberately uninformed,

and hence unconstrained, increases the risk that the

judge’s own policy preferences will affect the decisional

process.” Bedroc Limited, LLC v United States, 541 US ___,

___; 124 S Ct 1587, 1598; 158 L Ed 2d 338 (2004) (Stevens,

J., dissenting).

This case requires us to examine MCL 247.183 to

determine whether defendant Wolverine Pipe Line Company

(Wolverine) must obtain permission from plaintiff city of

Lansing to construct a gas pipeline longitudinally in the

right-of-way of an interstate highway within the city

limits. The majority finds no ambiguity in the statute

and, thus, holds that Wolverine must obtain local consent

before constructing the pipeline. I, on the other hand,

believe that the statute is ambiguous and turn to the

legislative history accompanying the statute to discern the

Legislature’s true intent. A review of the legislative

history indicates that the Legislature’s intent was to

create a streamlined permit system that would not require

consent from each municipality a pipeline crosses. On the

bases of the history of the statute itself and of the

legislative history recorded when the statute was enacted,

I would hold that Wolverine is not obligated to obtain

local consent.

2

 I agree with the majority that this case involves

principles of statutory construction and that in construing

a statute, we are required to give effect to the

Legislature’s intent. I also agree that legislative intent

must be gleaned from the statutory text if the language is

unambiguous. However, when a statute is ambiguous,

judicial construction is necessary to determine its

meaning. In re MCI, 460 Mich 396, 411; 596 NW2d 164

(1999).

A statute is ambiguous when reasonable minds can

differ regarding its meaning. Id. My dissent in Yellow

Freight System, Inc v Michigan, 464 Mich 21, 38; 627 NW2d

236 (2001) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting), rev'd 537 US 36; 123

S Ct 37; 151 L Ed 2d 377 (2002), vacated and remanded 468

Mich 862; 659 NW2d 229 (2003), on remand 257 Mich App 602;

669 NW2d 553 (2003), outlined the generally accepted method

for making an ambiguity determination.

[W]hen there can be reasonable disagreement over
a statute’s meaning, see People v Adair, 452 Mich
473, 479; 550 NW2d 505 (1996), or, as others have
put it, when a statute is capable of being
understood by reasonably well-informed persons in
two or more different senses, that statute is
ambiguous. See 2A Singer, Statutes & Statutory
Construction (6th ed), § 45.02, pp 11-12.

While the majority in Yellow Freight expressly

disagreed with my determination that the statute was

3

ambiguous,1 the United States Supreme Court reversed the

decision of the majority and held that the statute was

ambiguous. Yellow Transportation, Inc v Michigan, 537 US

36, 46; 123 S Ct 371; 154 L Ed 2d 377 (2002).

My dissent in Yellow Freight collected cases where

this Court has found statutes ambiguous.

[T]his Court has concluded that statutes have
been ambiguous when one word in the statute has
an unclear meaning, see Perez v Keeler Brass Co,
461 Mich 602, 610; 608 NW2d 45 (2000), when a
statute’s interaction with another statute has
rendered its meaning unclear, see People v Denio,
454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997), or when
application of the statute to facts has rendered
the correct application of the statute uncertain,
see Elias Bros v Treasury Dep’t, 452 Mich 144,
150; 549 NW2d 837 (1996). [464 Mich 38.]

In this case, application of the statute to the facts

has rendered the correct application of the statute

uncertain.

1
In fact, the majority made the same argument in
Yellow Freight that they assert here:

The dissent contends that the statute is
ambiguous, asserting that this is demonstrated by
“the several interpretations of its wording
advanced by the parties.” If the parties’
conflicting interpretations were the measure of a
statute’s ambiguity, then almost every statute
litigated would be deemed ambiguous. A statute
is not ambiguous because it requires careful
attention and analysis. [Yellow Freight, supra at
30 n 12.]

4

 MCL 247.183, in pertinent part, reads:

(1) . . . public utility companies . . . may
enter upon, construct, and maintain . . . pipe
lines . . . upon, over, across, or under any
public road, bridge, street or public place,
including, subject to subsection (2),
longitudinally within limited access highway
rights of way, and across or under any of the
waters of this state, with all necessary
erections and fixtures for that purpose. A . . .
public utility company . . . , before any of this
work is commenced, shall first obtain the consent
of the governing body of the city . . . through
or along which these lines and poles are to be
constructed and maintained.

(2) A utility as defined in 23 C.F.R. 645.105[]
may enter upon, construct, and maintain utility
lines and structures longitudinally within
limited access highway rights of way in
accordance with standards approved by the state
transportation commission that conform to
governing federal laws and regulations. . . .

The majority’s statutory analysis begins and ends with

the dictionary definition of “subject to.” The majority

concludes that “subject to” does “not mean that the

requirements of subsection 1 do not apply to those

utilities that are covered also by subsection 2.” Ante at

8. While the majority uses a double negative to hedge, I

think the more direct statement to be gleaned from the

inclusion of “subject to” in subsection 1 and its

conspicuous absence from subsection 2 is that subsection 2

utilities may not be “subject to” the requirements of

subsection 1. Because subsection 2 utilities are a

5

specific group of federally defined utilities that are

subject to regulations beyond those imposed on the broad

general utilities in subsection 1, I think it is fair to

say that the Legislature may have intended to create a

regulatory scheme specific to the more-regulated entities.

Thus, it is unclear whether the requirement in

subsection 1, that public utility companies must obtain

local consent, applies to a utility, as defined in

subsection 2. When reading subsection 1 alone it appears

that all public utilities must obtain local consent before

constructing pipelines in any public place. When reading

subsection 2 alone, however, it appears that federally

defined utilities may construct pipelines longitudinally

within limited access highway rights-of-way as long as they

comply with the applicable state standards. When the two

sections are read together, it is unclear whether

subsection 2 utilities must comply with the local consent

requirement in subsection 1.

“It is a well-established rule of statutory

construction that provisions of a statute must be construed

in light of the other provisions of the statute to carry

out the apparent purpose of the Legislature.” Farrington v

Total Petroleum, Inc, 442 Mich 201, 209; 501 NW2d 76

(1993). Here, the majority fails to construe subsection 1

6

in light of subsection 2 and, thus, concludes that the

statute is not ambiguous.

I cannot agree that the meaning of MCL 247.183 is

clear and unambiguous. A statute is ambiguous if there can

be reasonable disagreement over the statute’s meaning. In

re MCI, supra at 411. The meaning of this statute is

subject to reasonable disagreement. There is a reasonable

argument that subsection 2 imposes requirements, in

addition to those imposed by subsection 1, on utilities

that meet the definition of utility in 23 CFR 645.105, and

that are looking to construct lines longitudinally within

limited access highway rights-of-way. Under this reading

of the statute, subsection 2 utilities would be required to

obtain local consent.

However, there is also a reasonable argument that

subsections 1 and 2 apply to different entities and that

subsection 2 entities are excepted from the requirements of

subsection 1. Because there are at least two reasonable

interpretations of MCL 247.183, the statute is ambiguous.

When a statute is ambiguous, judicial construction is

appropriate. In re MCI, supra at 411. As previously

stated, it is a maxim of statutory construction that

“provisions of a statute must be construed in light of the

other provisions of the statute . . . .” Farrington, supra

7

at 209. In construing subsection 1 in light of subsection

2, I find that the Legislature intended to create a special

process for federally defined utilities that wish to

construct pipelines longitudinally within limited access

highway rights-of-way.

The statutory and legislative history further supports

the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend for

federally defined utilities, such as Wolverine, to have to

obtain local consent before constructing pipelines

longitudinally in limited access highway rights-of-way.

When the statute governing construction and maintenance of

pipelines was originally enacted in 1925, it did not

address longitudinal rights-of-way.2 Until 1988,

longitudinal use of interstate highway rights-of-way

required a permit from the Federal Highway Administration.

2
Section 13 of 1925 PA 368 provided, in pertinent
part:

Telegraph, telephone, power and other public utility
companies and municipalities are authorized to enter upon,
construct, and maintain . . . pipe lines . . . upon, over,
across, or under any public road, bridge, street or public
places and across or under any of the waters in this state,
with all the necessary erections and fixtures therefor:
Provided that every such . . . public utility company . . .
before any of the work of such construction and erection
shall be commenced, shall first obtain the consent of the
duly constituted authorities of the city, village, or
township through or along which said lines and poles are to
be constructed and erected.

8

In 1988, the federal regulations were amended to allow use

of longitudinal rights-of-way in accordance with federal

regulations if such use was permitted by the state. See 23

CFR 645.105.

The Michigan statute was amended in 1989 to reflect

this change. 1989 PA 215. The phrase “except

longitudinally within limited access rights of way” was

added to subsection 1, and the Legislature also added

subsection 2 to the statute.3 Essentially, MCL 247.183(1)

provided that certain entities were authorized to construct

pipelines upon, over, across, or under any public place,
3
When subsection 2 was added in 1989, it read:

The state transportation department may permit a
utility as defined in 23 CFR 645.105(m) to enter
upon, construct, and maintain utility lines and
structures longitudinally within limited access
highway rights of way in accordance with
standards approved by the state transportation
commission. Such lines and structures shall be
underground or otherwise constructed so as not to
be visible. The standards shall conform to
governing federal laws and regulations and may
provide for the imposition of a reasonable charge
for longitudinal use of limited access highway
rights of way. The imposition of a reasonable
charge constitutes a governmental function,
offsetting a portion of the capital and
maintenance expense of the limited access
highway, and is not a proprietary function. All
revenue received under this subsection shall be
used for capital and maintenance expenses
incurred for limited access highways.

9

except within limited access highway rights-of-way. In

other words, according to subsection 1, Michigan generally

did not allow longitudinal use of limited access highway

rights-of-way. While general use was prohibited by

subsection 1, subsection 2 allowed federally defined

utilities to obtain a permit to use the rights-of-way.

In 1994, the statute was amended again. 1994 PA 306.

The focus of the 1994 amendments was ensuring that it was

feasible for utilities to construct in limited access

highway rights-of-way. To this end, the fees that could be

charged for longitudinal use of limited access highway

rights-of-way were adjusted and the nature of the permit

system was altered by changing the phraseology of

subsection 1. In pertinent part, Senate Bill 1008 looked

like this:

Sec. 13. (1) Telegraph, telephone, power, and
other public utility companies, and cable
television companies, and municipalities are
authorized to MAY enter upon, construct and
maintain telegraph, telephone, or power lines,
pipe lines, wires, cables, poles, conduits,
sewers and like OR SIMILAR structures upon,
over, across, or under any public road, bridge,
street, or public place, except INCLUDING,
SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (2), longitudinally within
limited access highway rights of way . . . .

Notably, the word “except” was replaced with the

phrase “including, subject to subsection (2).” In other

words, the 1994 statutory amendment changed Michigan from a

10

state that generally did not allow entities to use limited

access highway rights-of-way, at least not without a

permit, to a state that generally does allow use of limited

access highway rights-of-way, even though that use is

subject to the requirements contained in subsection 2.

Before the 1994 amendments, subsection 1 permitted

pipeline construction in public areas, but prohibited

construction within limited access highway rights-of-way.

Subsection 1 also required local consent. Subsection 2, on

the other hand, allowed the state Department of

Transportation to issue permits to federally defined

utilities to construct pipelines within limited access

highway rights-of-way. After the 1994 amendments,

subsection 1 still permits construction in public areas,

but it also provides that entities may construct pipelines

longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way.

The second sentence of subsection 1 still requires

utilities to obtain local consent. Subsection 2 now states

that a utility may construct within limited access highway

rights-of-way if the utility pays a fee and conforms to

state standards that comport with the federal standards; it

no longer requires a state permit from the Department of

Transportation.

11

 While the history of the statute and the amendments

themselves provide some insight into the Legislature’s

intent, the legislative analyses and the documents

contained in the House and Senate committee files provide

even more insight. I recognize that this Court has held

that “a legislative analysis is a feeble indicator of

legislative intent and is therefore a generally

unpersuasive tool of statutory construction.” Frank W

Lynch & Co v Flex Technologies, Inc, 463 Mich 578, 587; 624

NW2d 180 (2001). However, this Court more recently

recognized

the benefit of using legislative history when a
statute is ambiguous and construction of an
ambiguous provision becomes necessary. Stajos v
City of Lansing, 221 Mich App 223; 561 NW2d 116
(1997); People v Hall, 391 Mich 175; 215 NW2d 166
(1974); Liquor Control Comm v Fraternal Order of
Eagles, Aerie No 629, 286 Mich 32; 281 NW 427
(1938). . . . Examples of legitimate legislative
history include . . . actions of the Legislature
in considering various alternatives in language
in statutory provisions before settling on the
language actually enacted. See, e.g., Miles ex
rel Kamferbeek v Fortney, 223 Mich 552, 558; 194
NW 605 (1923). . . . By comparing alternative
legislative drafts, a court may be able to
discern the intended meaning for the language
actually enacted. [In re Certified Question
(Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement,
Marketing and Consulting Corp v Continental
Biomass Industries, Inc), 468 Mich 109, 115 n 5;
659 NW2d 597 (2003).]

The “various alternatives in language” examined by the

Court in Miles were statutory amendments made over a

12

twenty-six year period. In that case, this Court found it

telling that the Legislature eliminated words in 1917 that

were added in 1909 and remained through the 1915 amendment.

The amendments were to the general election law, which at

the time of the election in question required election

inspectors to indorse all ballots “in ink or with indelible

pencil.” Miles, supra at 553. This Court concluded that

the Legislature’s deletion of the words “or with lead”

signified legislative intent to remove the possibility of

signature with lead pencils. Id. at 558, 564.

Although the Legislature added and then removed a

specific term in Miles, that was not the case here. In

this case, the Legislature did not eliminate the

possibility of constructing pipelines longitudinally within

limited access highway rights-of-way; rather, it subjected

such construction to the requirements of subsection 2 only.

It is clear from both the text of the statute and the

legislative analysis of the 1989 amendment that the 1989

amendment was intended to eliminate local control.

Subsection 1 of the 1989 amendment prohibited construction

within limited access highway rights-of-way. Thus, the

local consent requirements of subsection 1 clearly did not

apply to the prohibited actions. See also Senate

Legislative Analysis, HB 4767, October 11, 1989 (“The bill

13

would amend Public Act 365 of 1925 . . . to authorize the

Department of Transportation, rather than local governing

bodies, to permit the longitudinal construction of utility

lines . . . within limited access highway rights-of-

way. . . .”)

However, the 1989 amendment of MCL 247.183 is not the

language at issue because the most recent amendment of the

statute was the 1994 amendment. While the statute does not

clearly indicate whether the Legislature intended to

require federally defined utilities to obtain local

consent, it appears that the lack of clarity is the result

of a clerical error and the intent was not to reverse the

1989 elimination of local control. The legislative

analysis accompanying the 1994 amendment suggests that the

purpose of the amendment was simply to ensure that it was

feasible for utilities to use limited access highway

rights-of-way. This was accomplished by adjusting the fees

for longitudinal use of limited access highway rights-of-

way and ensuring that the state standards prevent an

increase in highway maintenance costs. See Senate

Legislative Analysis, SB 1008, August 3, 1994.

The House and Senate journals provide further support

for the notion that the Legislature did not intend the

amendment to impose a requirement that federally defined

14

utilities obtain local consent. The journals indicate that

SB 1008 was passed without a single “nay” vote in either

the House or Senate and the only amendments of the proposed

bill were to subsection 2, which deals with the fees to be

charged for longitudinal use of limited access highway

rights-of-way. 1994 Journal of the Senate 1558, 1578; 1994

Journal of the House 1639, 1978-1979.

In addition to the journals, the standing committee

records from the Senate Technology and Energy Committee and

the discussions regarding the bill on the Senate floor also

provide support for the notion that the Legislature did not

intend to subject federally defined utilities to the local

consent requirement. The Senate Committee on Technology

and Energy held a committee hearing on March 23, 1994.

Included in the committee records are the Senate

Legislative Analysis, an analysis of the Senate Majority

Policy Office, and written testimony of General Telephone

and Electronics and the Michigan Department of

Transportation.

The analysis from the Senate Majority Policy Office

states, “Senate Bill 1008 would amend current law to permit

a utility to enter and construct utility services along the

longitudinal axis of a limited access highway using

standards adopted by the State Transportation Commission.

15

The amendatory language would also eliminate the ability of

the state to deny access to these locations for

construction of utility services.”

Senate Bill 1008, which resulted in the 1994

amendments of the act, was introduced by Senator Hoffman.

SB 1008 was introduced on February 8, 1994, and sent on to

the House of Representatives on April 26, 1994. On June

12, 1994, the bill returned from the House to the Senate

with minor amendments and Senator Hoffman explained the

bill on the Senate Floor before a vote. He explained that

the House of Representatives made two amendments to the

bill concerning the fee structure for constructing in

limited access highway rights-of-way. He conveyed that the

Department of Transportation and the major state utilities

concurred in the changes and he urged the Senate members to

concur as well. Audio Tape: Michigan State Senate Session

(June 21, 1994)(on file at the State of Michigan Archives).4

If the amendment were meant to remove the state’s

power to deny access to these locations, it certainly could

4
Without stating what is missing from my alleged
recitation of “various random facts,” the majority asserts
that this dissent is underinclusive. Ante at 12. A few
breaths later, however, the majority asserts that I have
included a useless “bit of legislative history.” Ante at
20. I am at a loss for how to respond to a majority that
wants everything and nothing at the same time.

16

not have been meant to grant this power to local entities,

thus making it more cumbersome and maybe even impossible to

construct within limited access highway rights-of-way.

After reviewing the language used in the statute and the

legislative history, I cannot believe that the Legislature

intended to subject federally defined public utilities to

local consent requirements.

Because I believe that the statute is ambiguous and

the true legislative intent was not to require local

consent when federally defined utilities wish to construct

pipelines longitudinally within limited access highway

rights-of-way, I must respectfully dissent.

Michael F. Cavanagh
Marilyn Kelly

17