4:	REGULATORY MATTERS

Rate matters are critical to Consumers. The Michigan Attorney General, ABATE, the MPSC Staff, and certain other parties typically participate in MPSC proceedings concerning Consumers and often appeal 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 have a material adverse effect on CMS Energy's and Consumers' liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations. Consumers cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings.

Electric Rate Case: In June 2011, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annual rate increase of $195 million, based on a 10.7 percent authorized return on equity, in order to recover new investment in system reliability, environmental compliance, and technology enhancements.

In November 2011, Consumers filed testimony and exhibits with the MPSC in support of a self-implemented annual rate increase of $147 million. In December 2011, the MPSC issued an order stating that it found good cause to prevent implementation of any amount over $118 million. Accordingly, Consumers self-implemented an annual rate increase of $118 million in December 2011, subject to refund with interest. In March 2012, the administrative law judge recommended that the MPSC approve an annual rate increase of $43 million, based on a 10.25 percent return on equity.

Big Rock Nuclear Decommissioning: The MPSC and FERC regulate the recovery of Consumers' costs to decommission Big Rock. Subsequent to 2000, Consumers stopped funding a Big Rock decommissioning trust fund because the collection period for an MPSC-authorized decommissioning surcharge expired.

In 2010, the MPSC concluded that certain revenues collected during a statutory rate freeze from 2001 through 2003 should have been deposited in the Big Rock decommissioning trust fund and ordered Consumers to refund $85 million of revenue collected in excess of decommissioning costs plus interest. Consumers completed this refund in 2011. Consumers filed an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2010 to dispute the MPSC's conclusion that the collections received during the rate freeze should be subject to refund. In January 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Consumers' appeal. In March 2012, Consumers filed an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court to dispute this decision.

Consumers has an $85 million regulatory asset recorded for $30 million it paid to Entergy to assume ownership responsibility for the Big Rock ISFSI and for $55 million of nuclear fuel storage costs it incurred as a result of the DOE's failure to accept nuclear fuel. Consumers filed a complaint against the DOE in 2002 for this failure. In July 2011, Consumers entered into an agreement with the DOE to settle its claims for $120 million; Consumers recorded a $120 million regulatory liability related to this settlement. In September 2011, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC requesting authority to utilize $85 million of the settlement amount as recovery of its regulatory asset, and to refund to customers $23 million previously collected through rates for spent nuclear fuel costs. If the MPSC concludes that Consumers may retain any portion of the remaining $12 million of the settlement amount, Consumers will recognize that amount in earnings. For further information, see Note 3: Contingencies and Commitments – Consumers Electric Utility Contingencies – Nuclear Matters.

Electric and Gas Revenue Decoupling Mechanisms: The MPSC's 2009 electric rate case order authorized Consumers to implement an electric revenue decoupling mechanism, subject to certain conditions. This decoupling mechanism, which was extended through November 2011 in the 2010 electric rate case order, allowed Consumers to adjust future electric rates to compensate for changes in sales volumes resulting from the difference between the level of average sales per customer adopted in the order and actual average sales per customer. Various parties have filed appeals concerning Consumers' electric revenue decoupling mechanism.

In March 2011, Consumers filed its first reconciliation of the electric revenue decoupling mechanism with the MPSC, requesting recovery of $27 million from customers for the period December 2009 through November 2010. In February 2012, the administrative law judge recommended that the MPSC approve Consumers' reconciliation of the electric revenue decoupling mechanism for the full amount of its request for the first year of operation of the decoupling mechanism. The matter remains pending before the MPSC. The MPSC Staff and intervenors oppose this recovery.

In March 2012, Consumers filed its second reconciliation of the electric revenue decoupling mechanism, requesting recovery of $32 million from customers for the period December 2010 through November 2011.

In April 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in an appeal filed by ABATE that disputed the MPSC's decision to authorize an electric revenue decoupling mechanism for Detroit Edison. The Court concluded that the MPSC lacks statutory authority to approve or direct the use of a revenue decoupling mechanism for electric providers. Consumers cannot predict whether this decision will be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court or the timing or outcome of any such appeal. As a result, Consumers determined that it no longer met the accounting criteria for recognition of a regulatory asset under an alternative revenue program, and wrote off its $59 million electric revenue decoupling mechanism regulatory asset at March 31, 2012. Although the case before the Court of Appeals related specifically to Detroit Edison, Consumers will continue to pursue all of its legal and regulatory avenues to recover its decoupling revenues, including participating in or supporting any appeal of the Detroit Edison decision.

The MPSC's 2009 gas rate case order authorized Consumers to implement a gas revenue decoupling mechanism, subject to certain conditions. This decoupling mechanism, which was extended in the 2010 gas rate case order, allows Consumers to adjust future gas rates to compensate for changes in sales volumes resulting from the difference between the level of average sales per customer adopted in the order and actual average weather-adjusted sales per customer. In September 2011, Consumers filed its first reconciliation of the gas revenue decoupling mechanism with the MPSC, requesting recovery of $16 million from customers for the period June 2010 through May 2011.

At March 31, 2012, Consumers had a $28 million non-current regulatory asset recorded for gas revenue decoupling. If the MPSC were to reject all or a major portion of Consumers' requested recovery from its gas revenue decoupling mechanism or if the recovery period were to be substantially delayed, Consumers could be required to write off all or portions of the related regulatory asset. An unfavorable outcome in this reconciliation also could impair Consumers' ability to continue recording decoupling revenue as volume deficiencies occur, rather than waiting until the recovery period.

Renewable Energy Plan: In June 2011, Consumers filed with the MPSC its second annual report and reconciliation for its renewable energy plan, requesting approval of its plan costs for 2010. In March 2012, the MPSC approved Consumers' renewable energy plan reconciliation.

In October 2011, Consumers filed an application for the biennial review and approval of its renewable energy plan. In March 2012, Consumers filed a settlement agreement with the MPSC, proposing to reduce the renewable energy surcharge by an annual amount of $3 million, to $20 million, reflecting a reduction in expected costs to comply with renewable energy requirements.

Energy Optimization Plan: As one of the conditions to the continuation of the electric and gas revenue decoupling mechanisms, Consumers must exceed the statutory savings targets for 2012 through 2015 specified in the 2008 Energy Law. In August 2011, Consumers filed an amended energy optimization plan with the MPSC, requesting approval of the additional spending necessary to exceed these savings targets. The MPSC approved Consumers' amended energy optimization plan in April 2012.

For exceeding savings targets under its gas and electric energy optimization plans during 2011, Consumers will request the MPSC's approval to collect $15 million, the maximum incentive, in the energy optimization reconciliation to be filed in April 2012.