UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ ENERGY MICHIGAN, INC.; ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES │ ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY (ABATE), │ Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees (23-1280/1323/1324), │ │ > Nos. 23-1280/1323/1324 v. │ │ MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, │ Defendant, │ │ │ DANIEL C. SCRIPPS; ALESSANDRA CARREON; KATHERINE L. │ PERETICK, │ Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants (23-1280/1324), │ │ CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, │ │ Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant (23-1280/1323). ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:20-cv-12521—David M. Lawson, District Judge.

Argued: December 7, 2023

Decided and Filed: January 16, 2025

Before: BOGGS, SUHRHEINRICH, and READLER, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Brion B. Doyle, VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Energy Michigan, Inc. Zachary C. Larsen, CLARK HILL PLC, Lansing, Michigan, for ABATE. Nicholas Q. Taylor, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Michigan Public Service Commissioners. Spencer A. Sattler, CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Jackson, Michigan, for Consumers Energy Company. ON BRIEF: Brion B. Doyle, VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zachary C. Larsen, CLARK HILL PLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Energy Michigan, Inc. and ABATE. Nicholas Q. Taylor, Steven D. Hughey, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Nos. 23-1280/1323/1324 Energy Mich., Inc., et al. v. Page 2 Mich. Public Serv. Comm’n, et al. Michigan Public Service Commissioners. Spencer A. Sattler, Kelly M. Hall, CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Jackson, Michigan, for Consumers Energy Company.

READLER, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUHRHEINRICH, J., concurred. BOGGS, J. (pp. 34–43), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. _________________

OPINION _________________

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. This appeal does not lack for challenging features. The factual backdrop is the complex market for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution in the United States. And the chief legal doctrine at play, the so-called dormant or negative Commerce Clause, has been unflatteringly described as a “quagmire,” Nw. States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 458 (1959), “hopelessly confused,” Kassel v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del., 450 U.S. 662, 706 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), and “inherently unpredictable,” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167, 203 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment).

But in practice,