XML 24 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT ﻿
v2.3.0.11

Regulatory Matters (Consumers Energy Company [Member]) | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2011
Consumers Energy Company [Member] |
Regulatory Matters | 4: REGULATORY MATTERS Rate matters are critical to Consumers. Depending upon the specific issues, the outcomes of rate cases and proceedings 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. Consumers' Electric Utility Electric Rate Cases: The MPSC, in its 2010 electric rate case order, authorized Consumers to increase its rates by $146 million annually, $4 million less than the rate increase self-implemented by Consumers in July 2010. In June 2011, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement, finding that no refund of self-implemented rates to customers is required. In June 2011, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annual increase in revenue of $195 million, based on a 10.7 percent authorized return on equity. The filing requested authority to recover new investment in system reliability, environmental compliance, and technology enhancements. Presented in the following table are the components of the requested increase in revenue:
In Millions |
Components of the increase in revenue |  |  |  |
Investment in rate base |  | $ | 81 |
Recovery of depreciation and property taxes |  |  | 70 |
Impact of sales declines |  |  | 50 |
Reduced operating and maintenance costs |  |  | (4 | )
Cost of capital |  |  | (2 | )
Total |  | $ | 195 |
Power Supply Cost Recovery: The PSCR process is designed to allow Consumers to recover all of its power supply costs if incurred under reasonable and prudent policies and practices. The MPSC reviews these costs, policies, and practices in annual plan and reconciliation proceedings. Consumers adjusts its PSCR billing factor monthly in order to minimize the overrecovery or underrecovery amount in the annual PSCR reconciliation. PSCR Plan: In September 2010, Consumers submitted its 2011 PSCR plan to the MPSC. In accordance with its proposed plan, Consumers self-implemented the 2011 PSCR charge beginning in January 2011. PSCR Reconciliation: Presented in the following table is the PSCR reconciliation filing pending with the MPSC:
PSCR Year |  | Date Filed |  |  | Net Underrecovery |  |  | PSCR Cost of Power Sold |
2010 |  | March 2011 |  |  | $ 15 million |  |  | $ 1.7 billion |
In June 2011, the MPSC issued an order approving Consumers' 2009 PSCR reconciliation, as modified by the order, and authorized Consumers to include an underrecovery of $31 million in its 2010 PSCR reconciliation. Electric Revenue Decoupling Mechanism: Consumers' 2009 electric rate case order authorized an electric revenue decoupling mechanism, subject to certain conditions. This decoupling mechanism, which was extended in the 2010 electric rate case order, allows Consumers to adjust future electric rates to compensate for changes in sales volumes resulting from weather fluctuations, energy efficiency, and conservation. Various parties have filed appeals concerning the electric 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. Other parties are opposing this recovery. At June 30, 2011, Consumers had a $58 million non-current regulatory asset recorded for electric decoupling, which included the $27 million balance referred to above. Uncollectible Expense Tracking Mechanism: In March 2011, Consumers filed its reconciliation of the uncollectible expense tracking mechanism with the MPSC, requesting recovery of $3 million from customers for November 2009 through November 2010, the entire period of the tracker. The uncollectible expense tracking mechanism, authorized by the MPSC in its November 2009 electric rate order, allowed future rates to be adjusted to collect or refund 80 percent of the difference between the level of electric uncollectible expense included in rates and actual uncollectible expense. During 2009, various parties filed appeals concerning the uncollectible expense tracking mechanism. In its 2010 electric rate order, the MPSC terminated the uncollectible expense tracking mechanism as of November 2010. Electric Operation and Maintenance Expenditures Show-Cause Order: In 2005, the MPSC ordered Consumers to spend certain amounts on future tree-trimming and line-clearing activities, as well as on the operation and maintenance of Consumers' fossil-fueled power plants. In 2009, the MPSC issued a show-cause order alleging that, in 2007, Consumers spent $14 million less on forestry and fossil-fueled plant operation and maintenance activity than the amount ordered by the MPSC and that Consumers had not refunded this amount to customers. Consumers' response indicated that the total amount it spent on forestry and fossil-fueled plant operation and maintenance activity for the years 2006 through 2009 exceeded the total amounts included in rates for these activities. In June 2011, the MPSC found that Consumers violated the 2005 order, but that customers were not affected significantly by the violation. The MPSC levied a $65,200 penalty on Consumers, but concluded that no refund was required. Big Rock Decommissioning: The MPSC and FERC regulate the recovery of Consumers' costs to decommission Big Rock. Subsequent to 2000, Consumers stopped funding a Big Rock trust fund because the collection period for an MPSC-authorized decommissioning surcharge expired. The level of funds provided by the trust fell short of the amount needed to complete decommissioning and Consumers provided $44 million of corporate contributions for decommissioning costs. In an order issued in February 2010, the MPSC concluded that certain revenues collected during a statutory rate freeze from 2001 through 2003 should have been deposited in a decommissioning trust fund. The MPSC agreed that Consumers was entitled to recover $44 million of decommissioning costs, but concluded that Consumers had collected this amount previously through the rates in effect during the rate freeze. In April 2010, the MPSC ordered Consumers to refund $85 million of revenue collected in excess of decommissioning costs plus interest. Consumers completed this refund in January 2011. Consumers filed an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals in March 2010 to dispute the MPSC's conclusion that the collections received during the rate freeze should be subject to refund. Consumers paid $30 million to Entergy to assume ownership and responsibility for the Big Rock ISFSI, and incurred $55 million for nuclear fuel storage costs as a result of the DOE's failure to accept spent nuclear fuel. At June 30, 2011, Consumers had an $85 million regulatory asset recorded on its consolidated balance sheets for these costs. In July 2011, Consumers entered into a settlement agreement with the DOE related to the DOE's failure to accept spent nuclear fuel. For further information, see Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments, "Nuclear Matters." Renewable Energy Plan: In 2010, Consumers filed with the MPSC its first annual report and reconciliation for its renewable energy plan, requesting approval of Consumers' reconciliation of renewable energy plan costs for 2009. In June 2011, the Administrative Law Judge issued a proposal for decision, recommending that the MPSC issue an order finding that Consumers met its 2009 renewable portfolio standards and that actual 2009 renewable energy expenses and revenues fell within MPSC-authorized levels. The Administrative Law Judge also recommended, however, that the MPSC exclude from recovery through the renewable surcharge $3 million of capital expenditures, along with related carrying costs, that Consumers incurred prior to enactment of the 2008 Energy Law. In May 2011, the MPSC issued an order approving Consumers' amended renewable energy plan, with slight modifications. The amended plan reduces the renewable energy surcharge billed to customers by an annual amount of $54 million. The reduction is a result of lower-than-anticipated costs to comply with the renewable energy requirements prescribed by the 2008 Energy Law. Consumers filed its second annual report and reconciliation with the MPSC in June 2011, requesting approval of its reconciliation of renewable energy plan costs for 2010. Energy Optimization Plan: In May 2011, the MPSC issued an order approving Consumers' reconciliation of energy optimization plan costs for 2009. The MPSC also authorized Consumers to collect $6 million from customers as an incentive payment for exceeding savings targets under both its gas and electric energy optimization plans during 2009. Consumers will collect the incentive over 12 months beginning June 2011. In April 2011, Consumers filed with the MPSC its second annual report and reconciliation for its energy optimization plan, requesting approval of Consumers' reconciliation of energy optimization plan costs for 2010. Consumers also requested approval to collect $8 million from customers as an incentive payment for exceeding savings targets under both its gas and electric energy optimization plans during 2010. Electric Depreciation: In February 2010, Consumers filed an electric depreciation case related to its wholly owned electric utility property. As ordered by the MPSC, Consumers prepared a traditional cost-of-removal study, which supported a $46 million increase in annual depreciation expense. In June 2011, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement in this electric depreciation case, authorizing a $19 million increase in annual depreciation expense. The new depreciation rates will go into effect with a final order in Consumers' next electric rate case. Also in February 2010, Consumers filed an electric depreciation case for Ludington, the pumped-storage plant jointly owned by Consumers and Detroit Edison. This case, filed jointly with Detroit Edison, requests an increase in annual depreciation expense. Consumers' share of this increase is $9 million annually. Consumers' Gas Utility Gas Rate Case: In August 2010, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annual increase in revenue of $55 million based on an 11 percent authorized return on equity. The filing requested recovery for investments made to enhance safety, system reliability, and operational efficiencies that improve service to customers. Consumers filed testimony and exhibits with the MPSC in January 2011, supporting a self-implemented annual gas rate increase of $48 million, subject to refund with interest. In February, Consumers filed a letter with the MPSC reducing the proposed self-implemented increase to $29 million. The MPSC then issued an order delaying Consumers' self-implementation in order to give other parties to the proceeding an opportunity to respond to Consumers' revised self-implementation filing. In May 2011, the MPSC approved a partial settlement agreement authorizing Consumers to increase its rates by $31 million annually, based on a 10.5 percent authorized return on equity. Matters not yet addressed in this case include the decoupling mechanism, the Smart Grid program, and contributions to the low-income and energy efficiency fund. Presented in the following table are the components of the rate increase authorized by the MPSC and the rate increase originally requested by Consumers:
In Millions |
|  |  |  |  |  | Increase Originally |  |  |  |
|  | Increase Authorized |  |  | Requested by |  |  |  |
Components of the increase in revenue |  | by the MPSC |  |  | Consumers |  |  | Difference |
Investment in rate base |  | $ | 29 |  |  | $ | 30 |  |  | $ | (1 | )
Impact of sales declines |  |  | 15 |  |  |  | 4 |  |  |  | 11 |
Recovery of operating and maintenance costs |  |  | 2 |  |  |  | 16 |  |  |  | (14 | )
Cost of capital |  |  | (15 | ) |  |  | 5 |  |  |  | (20 | )
Total |  | $ | 31 |  |  | $ | 55 |  |  | $ | (24 | )
Gas Cost Recovery: The GCR process is designed to allow Consumers to recover all of its purchased natural gas costs if incurred under reasonable and prudent policies and practices. The MPSC reviews these costs, policies, and practices in annual plan and reconciliation proceedings. Consumers adjusts its GCR billing factor monthly in order to minimize the overrecovery or underrecovery amount in the annual GCR reconciliation. GCR Plan: In December 2010, Consumers submitted its 2011-2012 GCR plan to the MPSC. In accordance with its proposed plan, Consumers self-implemented the 2011-2012 GCR charge beginning in April 2011. GCR Reconciliations: Presented in the following table are the GCR reconciliation filings pending with the MPSC:
GCR Year |  | Date Filed |  |  | Net Overrecovery |  |  | GCR Cost of Gas Sold |
2009-2010 |  | June 2010 |  |  | $ 1 million |  |  | $ 1.3 billion |
2010-2011 |  | June 2011 |  |  | 6 million |  |  | 1.2 billion |

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for public utilities. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 71 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration