Regulatory Matters	6 Months Ended
Regulatory Matters	Jun. 30, 2016
Regulatory Matters	2:Regulatory Matters Regulatory matters are critical to Consumers. The Michigan Attorney General, ABATE, the MPSC Staff, and certain other parties typically participate in MPSC proceedings concerning Consumers, such as Consumers’ rate cases and PSCR and GCR processes. These parties often challenge various aspects of those proceedings, including the prudence of Consumers’ policies and practices, and seek cost disallowances and other relief. The parties also have appealed significant MPSC orders. Depending upon the specific issues, the outcomes of rate cases and proceedings, including judicial proceedings challenging MPSC orders or other actions, could negatively affect CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations. Consumers cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. There are multiple appeals pending that involve various issues concerning cost recovery from customers, the adequacy of the record evidence supporting the recovery of Smart Energy investments, and other matters. Consumers is unable to predict the outcome of these appeals. Electric Rate Case: In December 2014, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annual rate increase of $163 million, based on a 10.7 percent authorized return on equity. In June 2015, Consumers self-implemented an annual rate increase of $110 million, subject to refund with interest. The MPSC issued an order in November 2015, authorizing an annual rate increase of $165 million, based on a 10.3 percent authorized rate of return on equity. In April 2016, upon the retirement of seven coal-fueled electric generating units, the annual rate increase was reduced to $126 million. In February 2016, Consumers filed a reconciliation of total revenues collected during self-implementation to those that would have been collected under final rates. In June 2016, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement that resulted in a $1 million refund to customers. Gas Rate Case: In July 2015, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annual rate increase of $85 million, based on a 10.7 percent authorized return on equity. In January 2016, Consumers self-implemented an annual rate increase of $60 million, subject to refund with interest. In April 2016, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement authorizing a $40 million annual rate increase. In July 2016, Consumers filed a reconciliation of total revenues collected during self-implementation to those that would have been collected under final rates. The reconciliation indicated that a $10 million refund would be required, which Consumers had recorded as a reserve for customer refunds at June 30, 2016. Energy Optimization Plan Incentive: In May 2016, Consumers filed its 2015 energy optimization reconciliation, requesting the MPSC’s approval to collect the maximum performance incentive of $18 million from customers for exceeding its statutory savings targets in 2015 and for achieving certain other goals. Electric Transmission: Consumers became registered under NERC standards as a transmission owner, transmission planner, and transmission operator in October 2015. Consumers had previously received approval from the MPSC in 2014 and FERC in 2015 to reclassify $34 million of net plant assets from distribution to transmission. In March 2016, Consumers received FERC approval to begin collecting transmission revenues under MISO’s transmission tariff effective April 2016. Consumers completed the reclassification in April 2016. In a separate matter, in February 2015, METC notified Consumers that the reclassified assets need to be conveyed by Consumers to METC under the terms of the DTIA. Consumers disagrees with METC’s interpretation of the provisions of the DTIA. The parties remain in dispute resolution. In April 2016, METC filed a formal challenge to Consumers’ transmission revenue requirement calculation filed at FERC. METC claims that Consumers’ transmission revenue requirement should be reduced from $9 million to $6 million. Consumers is disputing METC’s claim at FERC.
Consumers Energy Company [Member]
Regulatory Matters	2:Regulatory Matters Regulatory matters are critical to Consumers. The Michigan Attorney General, ABATE, the MPSC Staff, and certain other parties typically participate in MPSC proceedings concerning Consumers, such as Consumers’ rate cases and PSCR and GCR processes. These parties often challenge various aspects of those proceedings, including the prudence of Consumers’ policies and practices, and seek cost disallowances and other relief. The parties also have appealed significant MPSC orders. Depending upon the specific issues, the outcomes of rate cases and proceedings, including judicial proceedings challenging MPSC orders or other actions, could negatively affect CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations. Consumers cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. There are multiple appeals pending that involve various issues concerning cost recovery from customers, the adequacy of the record evidence supporting the recovery of Smart Energy investments, and other matters. Consumers is unable to predict the outcome of these appeals. Electric Rate Case: In December 2014, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annual rate increase of $163 million, based on a 10.7 percent authorized return on equity. In June 2015, Consumers self-implemented an annual rate increase of $110 million, subject to refund with interest. The MPSC issued an order in November 2015, authorizing an annual rate increase of $165 million, based on a 10.3 percent authorized rate of return on equity. In April 2016, upon the retirement of seven coal-fueled electric generating units, the annual rate increase was reduced to $126 million. In February 2016, Consumers filed a reconciliation of total revenues collected during self-implementation to those that would have been collected under final rates. In June 2016, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement that resulted in a $1 million refund to customers. Gas Rate Case: In July 2015, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annual rate increase of $85 million, based on a 10.7 percent authorized return on equity. In January 2016, Consumers self-implemented an annual rate increase of $60 million, subject to refund with interest. In April 2016, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement authorizing a $40 million annual rate increase. In July 2016, Consumers filed a reconciliation of total revenues collected during self-implementation to those that would have been collected under final rates. The reconciliation indicated that a $10 million refund would be required, which Consumers had recorded as a reserve for customer refunds at June 30, 2016. Energy Optimization Plan Incentive: In May 2016, Consumers filed its 2015 energy optimization reconciliation, requesting the MPSC’s approval to collect the maximum performance incentive of $18 million from customers for exceeding its statutory savings targets in 2015 and for achieving certain other goals. Electric Transmission: Consumers became registered under NERC standards as a transmission owner, transmission planner, and transmission operator in October 2015. Consumers had previously received approval from the MPSC in 2014 and FERC in 2015 to reclassify $34 million of net plant assets from distribution to transmission. In March 2016, Consumers received FERC approval to begin collecting transmission revenues under MISO’s transmission tariff effective April 2016. Consumers completed the reclassification in April 2016. In a separate matter, in February 2015, METC notified Consumers that the reclassified assets need to be conveyed by Consumers to METC under the terms of the DTIA. Consumers disagrees with METC’s interpretation of the provisions of the DTIA. The parties remain in dispute resolution. In April 2016, METC filed a formal challenge to Consumers’ transmission revenue requirement calculation filed at FERC. METC claims that Consumers’ transmission revenue requirement should be reduced from $9 million to $6 million. Consumers is disputing METC’s claim at FERC.