Consumers 2023 Securitization Funding SF-1Registration of securities

CONSEQUENTLY NO KEY INFORMATION DOCUMENT REQUIRED BY REGULATION (EU) NO 1286/2014, AS AMENDED, FOR OFFERING OR SELLING THE BONDS OR OTHERWISE MAKING THEM AVAILABLE TO EEA RETAIL INVESTORS IN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA HAS BEEN PREPARED; AND THEREFORE OFFERING OR SELLING THE BONDS OR OTHERWISE MAKING THEM AVAILABLE TO ANY EEA RETAIL INVESTOR IN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA MAY BE UNLAWFUL UNDER REGULATION (EU) NO 1286/2014, AS AMENDED.

THIS PROSPECTUS IS NOT A PROSPECTUS FOR PURPOSES OF THE PROSPECTUS REGULATION. THIS PROSPECTUS HAS BEEN PREPARED ON THE BASIS THAT ANY OFFER OF BONDS IN ANY MEMBER STATE OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA WILL BE MADE ONLY PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE PROSPECTUS REGULATION FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH A PROSPECTUS FOR OFFERS OF BONDS. ACCORDINGLY ANY PERSON MAKING OR INTENDING TO MAKE AN OFFER IN THAT MEMBER STATE OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA OF BONDS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE OFFERING CONTEMPLATED IN THIS PROSPECTUS MAY ONLY DO SO IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH NO OBLIGATION ARISES FOR THE ISSUING ENTITY OR ANY OF THE UNDERWRITERS TO PUBLISH A PROSPECTUS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE PROSPECTUS REGULATION, IN RELATION TO SUCH OFFER. NEITHER THE ISSUING ENTITY NOR ANY UNDERWRITER HAVE AUTHORIZED, NOR DO THEY AUTHORIZE, THE MAKING OF ANY OFFER OF BONDS IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN OBLIGATION ARISES FOR THE ISSUING ENTITY OR ANY OF THE UNDERWRITERS TO PUBLISH A PROSPECTUS FOR SUCH OFFER.

ACCORDINGLY, ANY PERSON MAKING OR INTENDING TO MAKE AN OFFER IN THAT RELEVANT MEMBER STATE OF BONDS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE OFFERING CONTEMPLATED IN THIS PROSPECTUS MAY DO SO ONLY WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFIED INVESTORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROSPECTUS REGULATION. NEITHER WE NOR ANY UNDERWRITER HAS AUTHORIZED, NOR DO WE OR THEY AUTHORIZE, THE MAKING OF ANY OFFER OF BONDS OTHER THAN TO QUALIFIED INVESTORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROSPECTUS REGULATION.

ANY DISTRIBUTOR SUBJECT TO DIRECTIVE 2014/65/EU, AS AMENDED, THAT IS OFFERING, SELLING OR RECOMMENDING THE BONDS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UNDERTAKING ITS OWN TARGET MARKET ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE BONDS AND DETERMINING APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MIFID PRODUCT GOVERNANCE RULES UNDER EU DELEGATED DIRECTIVE 2017/593.

EACH UNDERWRITER HAS REPRESENTED AND AGREED THAT IT HAS NOT OFFERED, SOLD OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE, AND WILL NOT OFFER, SELL OR OTHERWISE

ALL SUCH PERSONS TOGETHER BEING REFERRED TO IN THIS PARAGRAPH AS RELEVANT PERSONS. THE BONDS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE TO, AND ANY INVITATION, OFFER OR AGREEMENT TO SUBSCRIBE, PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRE SUCH BONDS WILL BE ENGAGED IN ONLY WITH, RELEVANT PERSONS. ANY PERSON IN THE UNITED KINGDOM THAT IS NOT A RELEVANT PERSON SHOULD NOT ACT OR RELY ON THIS PROSPECTUS OR ITS CONTENTS. THE BONDS ARE NOT BEING OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

ANY DISTRIBUTOR SUBJECT TO THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY HANDBOOK PRODUCT INTERVENTION AND PRODUCT GOVERNANCE SOURCEBOOK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UNDERTAKING ITS OWN TARGET MARKET ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE BONDS AND DETERMINING APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS.

IN ADDITION, IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, EACH UNDERWRITER HAS REPRESENTED AND AGREED IN THE UNDERWRITING AGREEMENT THAT THE BONDS MAY NOT BE OFFERED OTHER THAN BY AN UNDERWRITER THAT:

THE BONDS MAY BE SOLD IN CANADA ONLY TO PURCHASERS PURCHASING, OR DEEMED TO BE PURCHASING, AS PRINCIPAL THAT ARE ACCREDITED INVESTORS, AS DEFINED IN NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 45-106 PROSPECTUS EXEMPTIONS OR SUBSECTION 73.3(1) OF THE SECURITIES ACT (ONTARIO), AND ARE PERMITTED CLIENTS, AS DEFINED IN NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 31-103 REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS, EXEMPTIONS AND ONGOING REGISTRANT OBLIGATIONS. ANY RESALE OF THE BONDS MUST BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN EXEMPTION FROM, OR IN A TRANSACTION NOT SUBJECT TO, THE PROSPECTUS REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS.

SECURITIES LEGISLATION IN CERTAIN PROVINCES OR TERRITORIES OF CANADA MAY PROVIDE A PURCHASER WITH REMEDIES FOR RESCISSION OR DAMAGES IF THIS PROSPECTUS (INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENT THERETO) CONTAINS A MISREPRESENTATION, PROVIDED THAT THE REMEDIES FOR RESCISSION OR DAMAGES ARE EXERCISED BY THE PURCHASER WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE SECURITIES LEGISLATION OF THE PURCHASER’S PROVINCE OR TERRITORY. THE PURCHASER SHOULD REFER TO ANY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIES LEGISLATION OF THE PURCHASER’S PROVINCE OR TERRITORY FOR PARTICULARS OF THESE RIGHTS OR CONSULT WITH A LEGAL ADVISOR.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3A.3 OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 33-105 UNDERWRITING CONFLICTS, THE UNDERWRITERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 33-105 UNDERWRITING CONFLICTS REGARDING UNDERWRITER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH THIS OFFERING.

The Securitization Property securing the Bonds is created pursuant to the Statute and the Financing Order issued to Consumers Energy by the MPSC pursuant to the Statute. There is uncertainty associated with investing in bonds payable from an asset that depends for its existence on legislation because there is limited judicial or regulatory experience implementing and interpreting the legislation. Because the Securitization Property is a creation of the Statute, any judicial determination affecting the validity of or interpreting the Statute, the Securitization Property or the Issuing Entity’s ability to make payments on the Bonds might have an adverse effect on the Bonds. A federal or state court could be asked in the future to determine whether the relevant provisions of the Statute are unlawful or invalid. If the Statute is invalidated, the Financing Order might also be invalidated.

Other states have passed legislation similar to the Statute to authorize recoveries by utilities of specified costs, such as costs associated with deregulation of the electricity market, environmental control costs or hurricane recovery costs, and some of those laws have been challenged by judicial actions or utility commission proceedings. To date, none of those challenges has succeeded, but future challenges might be made. An unfavorable decision challenging legislation similar to the Statute would not automatically invalidate the Statute or the Financing Order, but it might provoke a challenge to the Statute or the Financing Order, establish a legal precedent for a successful challenge to the Statute or the Financing Order or heighten awareness of the political and other risks of the Bonds, and in that way may limit the liquidity and value of the Bonds. Therefore, legal activity in other states might indirectly affect the value of your investment in the Bonds.

If an invalidation of any relevant underlying legislative provision or Financing Order provision were to result from such litigation, you might lose some or all of your investment or you might experience delays in recovering your investment.

If an action of the Michigan legislature adversely affecting the Securitization Property or the ability to collect Securitization Charges were considered a taking under the United States or Michigan Constitutions, the State of Michigan might be obligated to pay compensation for the taking. However, even in that event, there is no assurance that any amount provided as compensation would be sufficient for you to recover fully your investment in the Bonds or to offset interest lost pending that recovery.

Under the Michigan Constitution, the Michigan electorate has the power of initiative, which gives the electorate the ability to propose laws and to enact and repeal laws that the legislature has the power otherwise to enact. Among other requirements, qualifying an initiative for an election requires petitions signed by registered electors constituting at least 8% of the total votes cast for governor at the immediately preceding general election at which a governor was elected. An initiative proposal that is not subsequently approved by

The enforcement of any rights against the State of Michigan or the MPSC under the State Pledge may be subject to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and to the limitations on legal remedies against state and local governmental entities in Michigan. These limitations might include, for example, the necessity to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit in a court or limitations on type and locations of courts in which the State of Michigan or the MPSC may be sued.

Federal preemption of the Statute could prevent Holders from receiving payments on the Bonds. In the past, bills have been introduced in Congress to prohibit the recovery of charges similar to the Securitization Charges, although Congress has not enacted any law to that effect. As of the date of this prospectus, neither the Issuing Entity nor Consumers Energy is aware of the House or the Senate, or any of their committees having primary relevant jurisdiction, having considered legislation that would prohibit the recovery of charges similar to the Securitization Charges. However, we can give no assurances that Congress may not do so in the future. Enactment of a federal law prohibiting the recovery of charges similar to the Securitization Charges might have the effect of preempting the Statute and thereby prohibiting the recovery of the Securitization Charges, which would cause delays and losses on payments on the Bonds.

The Issuing Entity can give no assurances that a court would consider the preemption by federal law of the Statute to be a taking of property from the Issuing Entity or the Holders under the U.S. Constitution or under the Constitution of the State of Michigan. Moreover, even if this preemption of the Statute by the federal government were considered a taking under the U.S. Constitution or under the Constitution of the State of Michigan for which the federal government had to pay just compensation, the Issuing Entity can give no assurance that this compensation would be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal of and interest on the Bonds or to pay those amounts on a timely basis.

The Statute provides that the Financing Order together with the Securitization Charges authorized in the Financing Order are irrevocable and that the MPSC may not impair, reduce or alter, except for the True-Up Adjustments, the Securitization Charges authorized under the Financing Order. However, the MPSC retains the power to adopt, revise or rescind rules or regulations affecting Consumers Energy. The MPSC also retains the power to interpret the Financing Order granted to Consumers Energy, and in that capacity might be called upon to rule on the meanings of provisions of the Financing Order that might need further elaboration. Any new or amended regulations or orders from the MPSC might attempt to affect the ability of the Servicer to collect the Securitization Charges in full and on a timely basis, affecting the amortization of the Bonds and their weighted average lives, and, accordingly, the rating of the Bonds or their price. However, in the Financing Order, the MPSC affirmed that it shall not reduce, impair, postpone, terminate or otherwise adjust the Securitization Charges approved in the Financing Order or impair the Securitization Property or the collection of Securitization Charges or the recovery of the Qualified Costs and Ongoing Other Qualified Costs and that it will act pursuant to the Financing Order to ensure that the expected Securitization Charges are sufficient to pay on a timely basis scheduled payments of principal of and interest on the Bonds issued pursuant to the Financing Order and the Ongoing Other Qualified Costs in connection with the Bonds.

Consumers Energy, as Servicer, will be responsible for, among other things, calculating, billing, collecting and posting the Securitization Charges from Customers, submitting requests to the MPSC to adjust these charges, monitoring the Collateral for the Bonds and taking certain actions in the event of non-payment by a Customer. The Indenture Trustee’s receipt of collections in respect of the Securitization Charges, which will be used to make payments on the Bonds, will depend in part on the skill and diligence of the Servicer in performing these functions. The systems that the Servicer has in place for Securitization Charge billings, collections and postings, as the same may be modified by any applicable current or future MPSC Regulations, might, in particular circumstances, cause the Servicer to experience difficulty in performing these functions in a timely and accurate manner. In addition, should the Servicer enter into bankruptcy, to the extent permitted by law or the bankruptcy court, it may stop acting as Servicer, which may result in the disruption of collection of the Securitization Charges. If the Servicer fails to make collections for any reason, then the Servicer’s payments to the Indenture Trustee in respect of the Securitization Charges might be delayed or reduced. In that event, the Issuing Entity’s payments on the Bonds might be delayed or reduced.

Consumers Energy operates in an industry that requires the continued operation of sophisticated information and control technology systems and network infrastructure, which control an interconnected system of generation, distribution and transmission systems shared with third parties. Consumers Energy’s technology systems are vulnerable to disability or failures due to cyber incidents, physical security threats, acts of war or terrorism, and other causes, as well as loss of operational control of Consumers Energy’s electric generation and distribution assets.

Information security risks have increased in recent years as a result of the proliferation of new technologies and the increased sophistication and frequency of cyberattacks, and data security breaches. Suppliers, vendors, contractors, and information technology providers have access to systems that support Consumers Energy’s operations and maintain customer and employee data. A breach of these third-party systems, such as at another utility, electric generator, system operator or commodity supplier, could adversely affect the business as if it was a breach of Consumers Energy’s own system. In addition, Consumers Energy’s generation and electrical distribution facilities may be targets of physical security threats or terrorist activities that could disrupt Consumers Energy’s ability to operate.

Consumers Energy has been subject to attempted cyberattacks from time to time, but these attacks have not had a material impact on its system or business operations. A successful physical or cyber security intrusion may occur despite Consumers Energy’s security measures or those that it requires its vendors to take, which include compliance with reliability standards and critical infrastructure protection standards. Despite the implementation of security measures, all assets and systems are potentially vulnerable to disability, failures, or unauthorized access due to physical or cyber security intrusions caused by human error, vendor bugs, terrorist attacks, or other malicious acts.

If Consumers Energy’s assets or systems were to fail, be physically damaged, or be breached, and were not recovered in a timely manner, Consumers Energy may be unable to perform critical business functions, including the distribution of electricity and the metering and billing of customers, all of which could materially affect Consumers Energy’s ability to bill and collect Securitization Charges or otherwise service the Securitization Property.

The Servicer will be required to remit estimated Securitization Charge collections to the Indenture Trustee no later than the second Servicer Business Day of receipt. The Servicer will not segregate

Despite this requirement, the Servicer might fail to remit the full amount of the Securitization Charges payable to the Indenture Trustee or might fail to do so on a timely basis. This failure, whether voluntary or involuntary, might materially reduce the amount of Securitization Charge collections available to make payments on the Bonds.

Absent a default under the Servicing Agreement, Consumers Energy will be permitted to remit estimated Securitization Charge collections to the Indenture Trustee instead of being required to remit actual amounts. While Consumers Energy will be responsible for identifying and calculating the actual amount of Securitization Charge collections in the event of a default under the Servicing Agreement, it may be difficult for Consumers Energy to identify such charges, given existing limitations in its billing system.

The Statute provides that the priority of a lien and security interest perfected in Securitization Property is not impaired by the commingling of the funds arising from Securitization Charges with any other funds. In a bankruptcy of the Servicer, however, a bankruptcy court might rule that federal bankruptcy law takes precedence over the Statute and might decline to recognize the Issuing Entity’s right to collections of the Securitization Charges that are commingled with other funds of the Servicer as of the date of bankruptcy. If so, the collections of the Securitization Charges held by the Servicer as of the date of bankruptcy would not be available to pay amounts owing on the Bonds. In this case, the Issuing Entity would have only a general unsecured claim against the Servicer for those amounts. This decision could cause material delays in payments of principal or interest, or losses, on your Bonds and could materially reduce the value of your investment in the Bonds.

These principles are important to maintaining payments on the Bonds in accordance with their terms during any bankruptcy of Consumers Energy.

A bankruptcy court generally follows state property law on issues such as those addressed by the Statute described above. However, a bankruptcy court has authority not to follow state law if it determines that the state law is contrary to a paramount federal bankruptcy policy or interest. If a bankruptcy court in a bankruptcy of Consumers Energy refused to enforce one or more of the state property law provisions described above, the effect of this decision on you as a Holder could be similar to the treatment you would receive in a bankruptcy of Consumers Energy if the Bonds had been issued directly by Consumers Energy. A decision by the bankruptcy court that, despite the separateness of the Issuing Entity from Consumers Energy, the assets and liabilities of the Issuing Entity and those of Consumers Energy should be substantively consolidated would have a similar effect on you as a Holder.

The Issuing Entity has taken steps together with Consumers Energy, as the Seller, to reduce the risk that, in the event Consumers Energy or an affiliate of Consumers Energy were to become the debtor in a

Furthermore, if Consumers Energy were to become a debtor in a bankruptcy case, it could be permitted to stop acting as Servicer, and it may be difficult to find a third party to act as successor Servicer. The failure of the Servicer to perform its duties or the inability to find a successor Servicer could cause payment delays or losses on your investment in the Bonds. Also, the mere fact of a Servicer or Seller bankruptcy proceeding might have an adverse effect on the resale market for the Bonds and on the value of the Bonds.

The Statute provides that an agreement by an electric utility to transfer securitization property that expressly states that the transfer is a sale or other absolute transfer signifies that the transaction is a true sale and is not a secured transaction, that legal and equitable title has passed to the entity to which the securitization property is transferred, and that a true sale applies regardless of, among other things, the treatment of the transfer as a financing for tax, financial reporting or other purposes. The Issuing Entity and Consumers Energy will treat the transaction as a sale under applicable law, although for financial reporting and federal and state income tax purposes the transaction will be treated as a financing. In the event of a bankruptcy of Consumers Energy, a party in interest in the bankruptcy might assert that the sale of the Securitization Property to the Issuing Entity was a financing transaction and not a true sale or other absolute transfer and that the treatment of the transaction for financial reporting and tax purposes as a financing and not a sale lends weight to that position. If a court were to recharacterize the transaction as a financing, the Issuing Entity expects that it would, on behalf of the Issuing Entity and the Indenture Trustee, be

In the event of a bankruptcy of the Servicer, a party in interest might take the position that the remittance of funds prior to bankruptcy of the Servicer, pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, constitutes a preference under bankruptcy law if the remittance of those funds was deemed to be paid on account of a preexisting debt. If a court were to hold that the remittance of funds constitutes a preference, any such remittance within 90 days of the filing of the bankruptcy petition could be avoidable, and the funds could be required to be returned to the bankruptcy estate of the Servicer. To the extent that Securitization Charges have been commingled with the general funds of the Servicer, the risk that a court would hold that a remittance of funds was a preference would increase. Also, if the Issuing Entity is considered an “insider” of the Servicer, any such remittance made within one year of the filing of the bankruptcy petition could be avoidable as well if the court were to hold that such remittance constitutes a preference. In either case, the Issuing Entity or the Indenture Trustee would merely be an unsecured creditor of the Servicer. If any funds were required to be returned to the bankruptcy estate of the Servicer, the Issuing Entity would expect that the amount of any future Securitization Charges would be increased through the statutory True-Up Adjustments to recover such amount, though this would not eliminate the risk of payment delays or losses on your investment in the Bonds.

If the Seller were to become a debtor in a bankruptcy case, claims, including indemnity claims, by the Issuing Entity against the Seller under the Sale Agreement and the other documents executed in connection with the Sale Agreement would be unsecured claims and would be adjudicated in the bankruptcy case. In addition, the bankruptcy court might estimate any contingent claims that the Issuing Entity has against the Seller and, if it determines that the contingency giving rise to these claims is unlikely to occur, estimate the claims at a lower amount. A party in interest in the bankruptcy of the Seller might challenge the enforceability of the indemnity provisions in the Sale Agreement. If a court were to hold that the indemnity provisions are unenforceable, the Issuing Entity would be left with a claim for actual damages against the Seller based on breach of contract principles, which would be subject to estimation and/or calculation by the court. The Issuing Entity cannot give any assurance as to the result if any of the above-described actions or claims are made. Furthermore, the Issuing Entity cannot give any assurance as to what percentage of its claims, if any, unsecured creditors would receive in any bankruptcy proceeding involving the Seller.

If an Event of Default is caused by the electric utility or its successors in paying revenues arising with respect to Securitization Property to the accounts held pursuant to the Indenture relating to the Bonds, the Statute provides that the MPSC or a court of appropriate jurisdiction, upon the application of a Financing Party, including the Indenture Trustee, and without limiting any other remedies available to the Financing

Technological developments and/or tax or other economic incentives might result in the introduction of economically attractive, more fuel-efficient, more environmentally-friendly and/or more cost-effective alternatives to purchasing electricity through a utility’s distribution facilities for increasing numbers of customers. Manufacturers of self-generation facilities may develop smaller-scale, more fuel-efficient on-site generating and/or storage units that can be cost-effective options for a greater number of customers.

Moreover, an increase in Self-Service Power may result if extreme weather conditions cause shortages of grid-supplied energy or if other factors cause grid-supplied energy to be less reliable. Technological developments might allow greater numbers of customers to reduce or even altogether avoid Securitization Charges under such provisions through on-site generation and storage. This might reduce the kWh of electric energy delivered to customers by means of Consumers Energy’s distribution facilities, thereby causing reduced collections and payment delays on the Bonds. In addition, Securitization Charges to the remaining Customers would increase, which could increase the risk of charge-offs.

A downgrading of the credit ratings of the Bonds might have an adverse effect on the market value of the Bonds. Credit ratings might change at any time and a nationally recognized statistical rating organization, referred to in this prospectus as an NRSRO, has the authority to revise or withdraw its rating based solely upon its own judgment. In addition, any downgrade in the credit ratings of the Bonds may result in the Bonds becoming ineligible to be held by certain funds or investors, which may require such investors to liquidate their investment in the Bonds and result in lower prices and a less liquid trading market for the Bonds.

The Issuing Entity expects the Bonds will receive credit ratings from two NRSROs. A rating is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold the Bonds. The ratings merely analyze the probability that the Issuing Entity will repay the total principal amount of each tranche of Bonds at the Final Maturity Date for such tranche (which is later than the expected Scheduled Final Payment Dates) and will make timely interest payments. The ratings are not an indication that the Rating Agencies believe that principal payments are likely to be paid on time according to the expected sinking fund schedule included in this prospectus.

Under Rule 17g-5 under the Exchange Act, NRSROs providing the Sponsor with the requisite certification will have access to all information posted on a website by the Sponsor for the purpose of determining the initial rating and monitoring the rating after the issuance date in respect of the Bonds. As a result, a NRSRO other than the NRSROs hired by the Sponsor, referred to in this prospectus as the Hired NRSROs, may issue ratings on the Bonds, referred to in this prospectus as Unsolicited Ratings, which may be lower, and could be significantly lower, than the ratings assigned by the Hired NRSROs. The Unsolicited Ratings may be issued prior to, or after, the issuance date in respect of the Bonds. Issuance of any Unsolicited Rating will not affect the issuance of the Bonds. Issuance of an Unsolicited Rating lower than the ratings assigned by the Hired NRSROs on the Bonds might adversely affect the value of the Bonds and, for regulated entities, could affect the status of the Bonds as a legal investment or the capital treatment of the Bonds. Investors in the Bonds should consult with their legal counsel regarding the effect of the issuance of a rating by a NRSRO other than the Hired NRSROs that is lower than the rating of a Hired NRSRO. None of

The EU Securitization Regulation and certain related regulatory technical standards, implementing technical standards and official guidance (together, referred to in this prospectus as the European Securitization Rules) imposes certain restrictions and obligations with regard to securitisations (as such term is defined for purposes of the EU Securitization Regulation). The European Securitization Rules are in force throughout the European Union (and are expected also to be implemented in the non-European Union member states of the European Economic Area).

Pursuant to the European Securitization Rules, European Union institutional investors investing in a securitisation (as so defined) must, amongst other things, verify that:

Article 5 of the UK Securitization Regulation places certain conditions on investments in a “securitisation” ​(as defined in the UK Securitization Regulation) by a United Kingdom institutional investor. United Kingdom institutional investors include:

Prior to investing in (or otherwise holding an exposure to) a “securitisation position” ​(as defined in the UK Securitization Regulation), a United Kingdom institutional investor, other than the originator, sponsor or original lender (each as defined in the UK Securitization Regulation), must, among other things:

The Issuing Entity and Consumers Energy do not believe that the Bonds fall within the definition of a “securitization” for purposes of the EU Securitization Regulation or the UK Securitization Regulation as there is no tranching of credit risk associated with exposures under the transactions described in this prospectus. Therefore, the Issuing Entity and Consumers Energy believe such transactions are not subject to the European Securitization Rules or the UK Securitization Rules. As such, neither the Issuing Entity nor Consumers Energy, nor any other party to the transactions described in this prospectus, intend, or are required under the transaction documents, to retain a material net economic interest in respect of such transactions, or to take, or to refrain from taking, any other action, in a manner prescribed or contemplated by the European Securitization Rules or the UK Securitization Rules. In particular, no such Person undertakes to take, or to refrain from taking, any action for purposes of compliance by any investor (or any other Person) with any requirement of the European Securitization Rules or the UK Securitization Rules to which such investor (or other Person) may be subject at any time.

However, if a competent authority were to take a contrary view and determine that the transactions described in this prospectus do constitute a securitization for purposes of the EU Securitization Regulation or the UK Securitization Regulation, then any failure by a European Union institutional investor or a United Kingdom institutional investor (as applicable) to comply with any applicable European Securitization Rules or UK Securitization Rules (as applicable) with respect to an investment in the Bonds may result in the imposition of a penalty regulatory capital charge on that investment or of other regulatory sanctions and remedial measures.

Consequently, the Bonds may not be a suitable investment for European Union institutional investors or United Kingdom institutional investors. As a result, the price and liquidity of the Bonds in the secondary market may be adversely affected.

Prospective investors are responsible for analyzing their own legal and regulatory position and are advised to consult with their own advisors and any relevant regulator or other authority regarding the scope, applicability and compliance requirements of the European Securitization Rules and the UK Securitization Rules, and the suitability of the Bonds for investment. Neither the Issuing Entity nor Consumers Energy, nor any other party to the transactions described in this prospectus, make any representation as to any such matter, or have any liability to any investor (or any other Person) for any non-compliance by any such Person with the European Securitization Rules, the UK Securitization Rules or any other applicable legal, regulatory or other requirements.

The amount and the rate of collection of the Securitization Charges for the Bonds will be impacted by the actual electric usage by Customers and collections from Customers’ electricity bills by the Servicer and, together with the related Securitization Charge adjustments, will generally determine whether there is a delay in the scheduled repayment of Bond principal. If the Servicer collects the Securitization Charges at a slower rate than expected, it might have to request adjustments of the Securitization Charges to correct for those delays. If those adjustments are not timely and accurate, you might experience a delay in payments of principal and interest and a decrease in the value of your investment in the Bonds.

The Statute was enacted into Michigan law on June 5, 2000. The Statute provides an electric utility (such as Consumers Energy) the opportunity to recover qualified costs through securitization charges, as approved by the MPSC. Qualified costs are:

Upon the application of an electric utility, if the MPSC finds that the net present value of the revenues to be collected under a financing order is less than the amount that would be recovered over the remaining life of the qualified costs using conventional financing methods and that the financing order is consistent with the following standards, then the MPSC is required under the Statute to issue a financing order to allow the utility to recover qualified costs. In issuing such financing order, the MPSC is required to ensure all of the following:

The Statute allows electric utilities an opportunity to recover their qualified costs. As a mechanism to recover qualified costs, the Statute provides for the imposition and collection of securitization charges on retail electric distribution customers’ bills.

The Statute authorizes the MPSC to issue financing orders (such as the Financing Order described in this prospectus) approving, among other things, the issuance of securitization bonds to recover the qualified costs of an electric utility. An electric utility, its successor or an assignee under the financing order may issue securitization bonds, and that successor or assignee may use the proceeds to purchase the electric utility’s rights and interests under the financing order, which is the securitization property. Under the Statute, proceeds of securitization bonds are required to be used solely to refinance or retire an electric utility’s debt or equity. Securitization bonds are secured by and payable from the securitization property (rights and interests of the electric utility, or its successor, under the financing order, including the right to impose, collect and receive securitization charges authorized in the financing order in an amount necessary to provide the full recovery of all qualified costs, the right under the financing order to obtain periodic adjustments of securitization charges under the Statute and all revenue, collections, payments, money and proceeds

The Statute provides that a financing order (including the Financing Order), together with the securitization charges authorized in the financing order, are irrevocable, subject to rehearing by the MPSC only on the motion of the electric utility. Notwithstanding its irrevocability, a party to the MPSC proceeding may appeal a financing order to the Michigan court of appeals within 30 days after the financing order is issued by the MPSC. Under the Statute, a financing order and the securitization charges authorized in the financing order are also not subject to reduction, impairment or adjustment by further action of the MPSC, other than pursuant to the securitization charge adjustment provisions of the Statute.

The Statute provides that the imposition and collection of securitization charges are a Nonbypassable charge, which means that the charges will be payable by all customers required to pay such charges of an electric utility or its assignees or successors regardless of the identity of the customer’s electric generation supplier.

The Statute provides that the Statute shall control in any conflict between the Statute and any other law of the State of Michigan regarding the attachment and perfection and the effect of perfection and the priority of any security interest in securitization property.

The Statute provides that an agreement by an electric utility or assignee to transfer securitization property that expressly states that the transfer is a sale or other absolute transfer signifies that the transaction is a true sale and is not a secured transaction and that title, legal and equitable, has passed to the entity to which the securitization property is transferred. The characterization of the transfer as a true sale is not affected by the fact that:

The Statute provides that the acquisition, ownership and disposition of any direct interest in any securitization bond shall not be taken into account in determining whether a person is subject to any income tax, franchise tax, business activities tax, intangible property tax, excise tax, stamp tax or any other tax imposed by the State of Michigan or any agency or political subdivision of the State of Michigan.

On September 18, 2020, Consumers Energy filed with the MPSC an application, referred to in this prospectus as the Application, for a financing order pursuant to the Statute in MPSC Docket No. U-20889. In its Application, Consumers Energy requested that it be given the authority, among other things, to securitize, through the issuance of securitization bonds, up to $702,800,000 in qualified costs associated with the retirement of its D.E. Karn Units 1 and 2 coal-fired generation units. Under its Application, Consumers Energy alone was proposed to be the sole Sponsor and Seller into securitization.

On December 17, 2020 in Case No. U-20889, the MPSC issued the Financing Order, which became effective on December 17, 2020. Under the Financing Order, Consumers Energy was given the authority, among other things, to securitize, through the issuance of securitization bonds, up to $688,300,000 in Qualified Costs, including $10,600,000 of Initial Other Qualified Costs.

The Statute allows a party to appeal the Financing Order to the Michigan Court of Appeals within 30 days after the Financing Order is issued. On January 15, 2021, Hemlock Semiconductor Operations, LLC filed a claim of appeal of the Financing Order. On November 18, 2021, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the Financing Order.

Consumers Energy unconditionally accepted all conditions and limitations requested by the Financing Order in a letter dated January 7, 2021 from Consumers Energy to the MPSC.

In the Financing Order, the MPSC affirmed that it shall not reduce, impair, postpone, terminate or otherwise adjust the Securitization Charges approved in the Financing Order or impair the Securitization

The Financing Order has been filed with the SEC as an exhibit to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part. The statements summarizing the Financing Order in this prospectus are subject to and qualified by reference to the provisions of the Financing Order.

The Financing Order authorizes Consumers Energy to collect Securitization Charges from Customers in amounts sufficient to pay on a timely basis scheduled principal of and interest on the Bonds and all Ongoing Other Qualified Costs. There is no cap on the level of Securitization Charges that may be imposed on Customers to pay on a timely basis scheduled principal of and interest on the Bonds and Ongoing Other Qualified Costs.

In accordance with the Financing Order, Securitization Charges shall be imposed for period not greater than eight years after the beginning of the first complete billing cycle during which the Securitization Charges were initially placed on any Customer’s bill and shall be collected from Customers in amounts sufficient to pay principal and interest on the Bonds and Ongoing Other Qualified Costs. However, Consumers Energy may continue to collect any billed but uncollected Securitization Charges after the close of this eight-year period. Amounts of the Securitization Charges remaining unpaid after the close of this eight-year period may be recovered through use of collection activities.

The Statute provides that the Securitization Charges are Nonbypassable. The Financing Order provides that Securitization Charges are payable by all existing and future customers as described below.

The Securitization Charges are Nonbypassable and will be assessed against and collected from Customers. Customers include all existing and future retail electric distribution customers of Consumers Energy or its successors, excluding:

Under the terms of the Financing Order, responsibility for the payment of the Securitization Charges associated with the Bonds is allocated among retail electric distribution customer classes, referred to in this prospectus as Securitization Rate Classes, based upon the allocation methodology described below.

The Financing Order authorizes adjustments to the Securitization Charges to ensure the expected recovery during the succeeding annual period of amounts required for the timely payment of debt service and other required amounts and charges in connection with the Bonds. There is no cap on the level of Securitization Charges that may be imposed on Customers as a result of the True-Up Mechanism to pay on a timely basis scheduled principal of and interest on the Bonds and Ongoing Other Qualified Costs.

The Statute and the Financing Order mandate that the Securitization Charges on retail electric distribution customers be reviewed and adjusted by the MPSC at least annually to correct any overcollections or undercollections of the preceding 12 months and to ensure the expected recovery during the succeeding annual period of amounts required for the timely payment of debt service and other required amounts and charges in connection with the Bonds. True-Up Adjustments may also be made by the Servicer semi-annually or more frequently at any time, without limits as to frequency, if the Servicer determines that a True-Up Adjustment is necessary to ensure the expected recovery during the succeeding annual period of amounts required for the timely payment of debt service and other required amounts and charges in connection with the Bonds. The Servicing Agreement will require Securitization Charges to be adjusted quarterly following the Scheduled Final Payment Date for each tranche of Bonds if there are any remaining amounts due. The Financing Order provides that semi-annual or more frequent true-ups may be implemented absent an MPSC order, unless contested. Any contest of any True-Up Adjustment shall be subject only to confirmation of the mathematical computations contained in the proposed True-Up Adjustment.

The Statute provides that any successor to an electric utility, whether pursuant to any bankruptcy, reorganization or other insolvency proceeding or pursuant to any merger, acquisition, sale or transfer, by operation of law, as a result of electric utility restructuring or otherwise, shall perform and satisfy all obligations of the electric utility under the Statute in the same manner and to the same extent as the electric utility, including collecting and paying to the person entitled to revenues with respect to the Securitization Property. The Financing Order provides that the Financing Order, together with the Securitization Charges authorized by the Financing Order, shall be binding upon Consumers Energy and any of its successors or affiliates that provide distribution service directly to customers in Consumers Energy’s service area as of the initial date of issuance of the Bonds.

To date, no U.S. federal or Michigan cases addressing the repeal or amendment of securitization provisions analogous to those contained in the Statute have been decided. There have been cases in which U.S. federal courts have applied the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution or Michigan courts have applied the Contract Clause of the Michigan Constitution to strike down legislation regarding similar matters, such as legislation reducing or eliminating taxes, public charges or other sources of revenues servicing other types of bonds issued or contracts entered into by public instrumentalities or private issuers,

Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. expects to deliver an opinion substantially to the same effect under the case law with respect to the Contract Clause of the Michigan Constitution. It may be possible for the Michigan legislature to repeal or amend the Statute or for the MPSC to amend or revoke the Financing Order notwithstanding the pledge of the State of Michigan, if the legislature or the MPSC acts in order to serve a significant and legitimate public purpose, such as protecting the public health and safety or responding to a national or regional catastrophe affecting Consumers Energy’s service territory, or if the legislature otherwise acts in the valid exercise of the State of Michigan’s police power.

In addition, any action of the Michigan legislature adversely affecting the Securitization Property or the ability to collect Securitization Charges may be considered a taking under the United States Constitution or the Michigan Constitution. Each of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. has advised us that they are not aware of any U.S. federal or Michigan court cases addressing the applicability of the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution or Michigan Constitution in a situation analogous to that which would be involved in an amendment or repeal of the Statute. It is possible that a court would decline even to apply a Takings Clause analysis to a claim based on an amendment or repeal of the Statute, since, for example, a court might determine that a Contract Clause analysis rather than a Takings Clause analysis should be applied. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP expects to deliver an opinion, prior to the closing of the offering of the Bonds, to the effect that a court of competent jurisdiction, in a properly prepared and presented case, would hold that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution would require the State of Michigan to pay just compensation to the Holders if the court determines that the State of Michigan’s repeal or amendment of the Statute, or any other action taken by the State of Michigan in contravention of the State of Michigan’s pledge, completely deprived the Holders of all economically beneficial use of the Securitization Property or unduly interfered with the reasonable expectations of the Holders arising from their investment in the Bonds. In determining what is an undue interference, a court would consider the nature of the governmental action, the economic impact of the governmental action on the Holders and the extent to which the governmental action interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations of the Holders. In addition, Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. expects to deliver an opinion substantially to the same effect under the Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution. In examining whether action of the Michigan legislature amounts to a regulatory taking, both U.S. federal and state courts will consider the character of the governmental action and whether such action substantially advances the legitimate governmental interests of the State of Michigan, the economic impact of the governmental action on the Holders and the extent to which the governmental action interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations. There is no assurance, however, that, even if a court were to award just compensation, it would be sufficient for you to recover fully your investment in the Bonds.

In connection with the foregoing, each of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. has advised the Issuing Entity that issues relating to the Contract and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution and Michigan Constitution are decided on a case-by-case basis and that the courts’ decisions in most cases are strongly influenced by the facts and circumstances of the particular cases. Both firms have further advised us that there are no reported controlling judicial precedents

The LLC Agreement and the Indenture do not permit the Issuing Entity to engage in any activities not directly related to these purposes, including issuing securities (other than the Bonds), borrowing money or making loans to other Persons. The list of permitted activities set forth in the LLC Agreement may not be altered, amended or repealed without the affirmative vote of a majority of the Managers of the Issuing Entity, which vote must include the affirmative vote of each independent Manager of the Issuing Entity. The LLC Agreement and the Indenture will prohibit the Issuing Entity from issuing any securitization bonds (as such term is defined in the Statute) other than the Bonds being offered pursuant to this prospectus.

On the issue date for the Bonds, Consumers Energy will sell Securitization Property to the Issuing Entity pursuant to the Sale Agreement between the Issuing Entity and Consumers Energy. Consumers Energy will service such Securitization Property pursuant to the Servicing Agreement between the Issuing Entity and Consumers Energy related to the Bonds. Consumers Energy will provide certain administrative services to the Issuing Entity pursuant to the Administration Agreement between the Issuing Entity and Consumers Energy.

Pursuant to the LLC Agreement, the Issuing Entity’s business and affairs will be managed by or under the direction of four or more Managers designated by its member, of whom at least one will be an independent Manager, in each case appointed from time to time by Consumers Energy or, in the event Consumers Energy transfers its interest in the Issuing Entity, by the owner or owners of the Issuing Entity. Following the initial issuance of Bonds, the Issuing Entity will have at least one independent Manager, who, among other things, is an individual who:

The Issuing Entity will not compensate its Managers, other than each independent Manager, for their services on behalf of the Issuing Entity. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Issuing Entity may reimburse any Manager, directly or indirectly, for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by such Manager in connection with its services rendered to the Issuing Entity. The Issuing Entity will pay the annual fees of each independent Manager from its revenues and will reimburse each independent Manager for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. These expenses include the reasonable compensation, expenses and disbursements of the agents, representatives, experts and counsel that any independent Manager may employ in connection with the exercise and performance of his or her rights and duties under the LLC Agreement.

Consumers Energy will be the Seller and Initial Servicer of the Securitization Property securing the Bonds, and will be the Depositor and Sponsor of the securitization in which Bonds covered by this prospectus are issued.

Consumers Energy’s Customer base consists of four broad Customer rate classes: residential, secondary, primary and streetlighting. The Securitization Rate Classes share this same delineation as reflected in the four different consumption-based securitization rate designs. These designs consider the wide range of load characteristics served under each Customer class.

Consumers Energy’s Michigan credit and collections policies are regulated by the MPSC and must comply with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Under MPSC Regulations, Consumers Energy is obligated to provide electric distribution service to Customers within its Michigan service territory.

On application for service, the identification and credit standing of Customers is verified by previous payment history if available. A new applicant for service will generally be assessed a security deposit if the applicant has a previous bankruptcy, charge-off or poor payment history. If an applicant for residential service refuses to provide a Social Security number, drivers’ license number or some other acceptable form of identification, service will not be provided. If the Customer has been terminated for nonpayment, a security deposit will generally be required. The residential deposit is set at 1/12th of estimated annual usage. A new applicant for nonresidential service will generally be assessed a security deposit if the applicant has a previous bankruptcy, charge-off or poor payment history. This can be done through providing a security deposit (twice the average estimated monthly electricity bill), furnishing a surety bond and/or a bank letter of credit.

According to MPSC Regulations, Consumers Energy may refuse to provide service, at any location, to an applicant who is indebted to it for any service previously furnished to the applicant. Consumers Energy will commence service, however, if a reasonable payment plan for the indebtedness is agreed to by the residential applicant and the company, and it may likewise commence service for an industrial or commercial applicant.

MPSC Regulations and Consumers Energy’s tariff allow certain classes of Customers to elect to be billed on an Equal Payment Plan budget billing program. For Equal Payment Plan Customers, Consumers Energy estimates total service in advance for an equal payment period, typically one year, and bills are rendered monthly on the basis of one eleventh of that estimate (or for payment periods of less than one year, one divided by the number of months in the applicable period). If the charges for actual service during the equal payment period exceed the bills as rendered, the amount of such excess must be paid on or before the due date of the bill covering the last month of the payment period; if the charges for actual service used are less than the amount paid by the Equal Payment Plan Customer, the amount of such overpayment must be refunded to the Customer or credited on the last bill of the equal payment period. For Equal Payment Plan Customers, all refunds and credits will be applied based on the portion of their bills not constituting Securitization Charges, and therefore no payments of Securitization Charges will be refunded or credited to these Customers in the event of overpayment.

Consumers Energy bills its Customers about once every 30 days in 21 billing portions, with approximately an equal number of electricity bills being distributed each Business Day. For the year ended December 31, 2022, Consumers Energy made available an average of 89,386 electricity bills plus notices of disconnection on each Business Day to Customers in various categories.

As of December 31, 2022, approximately 283,397 of Consumers Energy’s residential and small business Customers in Michigan, who constitute approximately 15% of Consumers Energy’s Michigan Customers, had chosen to be billed using the Equal Payment Plan budget billing program described above.

For accounts with potential billing errors, exception alerts and reports are generated for manual review by billing personnel. This review examines accounts that have abnormally high or low electricity bills, potential meter-reading errors and possible meter malfunctions.

Consumers Energy receives, and expects that it will continue to receive, the majority of Customer payments via electronic payments (ACH and credit/debit cards) and the U.S. mail. However, other payment options, such as direct payment offices and authorized pay stations, are also available.

Consumers Energy considers residential Customer electricity bills to be delinquent if they are unpaid five days after the bill due date. Consumers Energy considers nonresidential Customer electricity bills to be delinquent if they are unpaid five days after the bill due date. In general, Consumers Energy’s collection process begins when balances are unpaid for five days or more from the billing date. At that time Consumers Energy begins collection activities, including multiple delinquency notice mailings and telephone calls, and ending with electricity shut-off. Consumers Energy uses collection agencies as needed throughout the collection process.

The Servicer may change its collection policies and procedures, consistent with MPSC guidelines, the Financing Order and applicable laws and regulations, from time to time.

The following table sets forth information relating to the annual net charge-offs for Consumers Energy, including net charge-offs of Customers as part of Consumers Energy’s annual charge-off reconciliation process.

Interest on the Bonds will accrue from and including the issue date to but excluding the first Payment Date, and thereafter from and including the previous Payment Date to but excluding the applicable Payment Date until the Bonds have been paid in full, at the interest rate indicated on the cover of this prospectus and in the table above. We will calculate interest on the Bonds on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months.

On each Payment Date, the Issuing Entity will pay interest on the Bonds equal to the following amounts:

The Issuing Entity will pay interest on the Bonds before it pays principal on the Bonds. Interest payments will be made from collections of Securitization Charges, including amounts available in the Excess Funds Subaccount and, if necessary, the amounts available in the Capital Subaccount.

On each Payment Date, the Issuing Entity will pay principal of the Bonds to the Holders equal to the sum, without duplication, of:

However, on any Payment Date, unless an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing and the Bonds have been declared due and payable, the Indenture Trustee will make principal payments on the Bonds only until the outstanding principal balance of the Bonds has been reduced to the principal balance specified in the expected amortization schedule for that Payment Date. Accordingly, principal of the Bonds may be paid later, but not sooner, than reflected in the expected amortization schedule, except in the case of an acceleration. The entire unpaid principal balance of each tranche of the Bonds will be due and payable on the applicable Final Maturity Date. The failure to make a scheduled payment of principal on the Bonds because there are not sufficient funds in the Collection Account (or the subaccounts thereof) does not

Unless the Bonds have been accelerated following an Event of Default, any excess funds remaining in the Collection Account after payment of principal, interest, investment earnings on deposit in the Capital Subaccount, applicable fees and expenses and payments to the applicable subaccounts of the Collection Account will be retained in the Excess Funds Subaccount until applied on a subsequent Payment Date.

The expected sinking fund schedule below sets forth the corresponding principal payment that is scheduled to be made on each Payment Date for each tranche of the Bonds from the issuance date to the Scheduled Final Payment Date for such tranche. Similarly, the expected amortization schedule below sets forth the principal balance that is scheduled to remain outstanding on each Payment Date for each tranche of the Bonds from the issuance date to the Scheduled Final Payment Date for such tranche.

The Issuing Entity cannot assure you that the principal balance of any tranche of the Bonds will be reduced at the rate indicated in the table above. The actual reduction in principal balance may occur more

The Indenture Trustee will pay on each Payment Date to the Holders of each tranche of the Bonds, to the extent of available funds in the Collection Account (including all subaccounts thereof), all payments of

The Bonds will be available to investors only in the form of book-entry bonds. You may hold your Bonds through DTC in the United States, Clearstream Banking, Luxembourg, S.A., referred to in this prospectus as Clearstream, or Euroclear in Europe. You may hold your Bonds directly with one of these systems if you are a participant in the system or indirectly through organizations that are participants.

Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC, will hold the global bond or bonds representing the Bonds. Clearstream and Euroclear will hold omnibus positions on behalf of the Clearstream consumers and Euroclear participants, respectively, through consumers’ securities accounts in Clearstream’s and Euroclear’s names on the books of their respective depositaries. These depositaries will, in turn, hold these positions in consumers’ securities accounts in the depositaries’ names on the books of DTC.

DTC, the world’s largest securities depository, is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a “banking organization” within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a “clearing corporation” within the meaning of the New York UCC, and a “clearing agency” registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. DTC holds and provides asset servicing for U.S. and non-U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt issues, and money market instruments that DTC’s participants deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post-trade settlement among DTC’s participants of sales and other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book-entry transfers and pledges between DTC’s participants’ accounts, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities certificates. DTC’s participants include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation is the holding company for DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, all of which are registered Clearing Agencies. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation is owned by the users of its regulated subsidiaries. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a DTC participant, either directly or indirectly, referred to in this prospectus as Indirect Participants. The DTC rules applicable to its participants are on file with the SEC. More information about DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com and www.dtc.org. The contents of such websites do not constitute a part of the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part.

Clearstream holds securities for its consumers and facilitates the clearance and settlement of securities transactions between Clearstream consumers through electronic book-entry changes in accounts of

Euroclear holds securities and book-entry interests in securities for Euroclear participants and facilitates the clearance and settlement of securities transactions between Euroclear participants, and between Euroclear participants and participants of certain other securities intermediaries through simultaneous electronic book-entry delivery against payment, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities and any risk from lack of simultaneous transfers of securities and cash. Such transactions may be settled in any of various currencies, including United States dollars. The Euroclear System includes various other services, including, among other things, safekeeping, administration, clearance and settlement, securities lending and borrowing and interfaces with domestic markets in several countries generally similar to the arrangements for cross-market transfers with DTC described below. The Euroclear System is operated by Euroclear Bank SA/NV. Euroclear participants include central banks and other banks, securities brokers and dealers and other professional financial intermediaries and may include the underwriters of the Bonds. Indirect access to the Euroclear System is also available to other firms that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Euroclear participant, either directly or indirectly.

Securities clearance accounts and cash accounts with Euroclear are governed by the Terms and Conditions Governing Use of Euroclear and the related Operating Procedures of the Euroclear System, and applicable Belgian law. The Terms and Conditions Governing Use of Euroclear and the related Operating Procedures of the Euroclear System, and applicable Belgian law, govern transfers of securities and cash within the Euroclear System, withdrawals of securities and cash from the Euroclear System and receipts of payments with respect to securities in the Euroclear System. All securities in Euroclear are held on a fungible basis without attribution of specific securities to specific securities clearance accounts. Euroclear acts under the Terms and Conditions Governing Use of Euroclear and the related Operating Procedures of the Euroclear System, and applicable Belgian law, only on behalf of Euroclear participants and has no record of or relationship with Persons holding through Euroclear participants.

Transfers between DTC participants will occur in accordance with DTC rules. Transfers between Clearstream consumers or Euroclear participants will occur in the ordinary way in accordance with their applicable rules and operating procedures and will be settled using procedures applicable to conventional securities held in registered form.

Cross-market transfers between Persons holding directly or indirectly through DTC, on the one hand, and directly or indirectly through Clearstream consumers or Euroclear participants, on the other, will be effected through DTC in accordance with DTC rules on behalf of the relevant European international clearing system by its depositary; however, those cross-market transactions will require delivery of instructions to the relevant European international clearing system by the counterparty in that system in accordance

Upon written request of any Holder or group of Holders of outstanding Bonds evidencing at least 10% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Bonds, the Indenture Trustee will afford the Holder or Holders making such request a copy of a current list of Holders for purposes of communicating with other Holders with respect to their rights under the Indenture; provided, that the Indenture Trustee gives prior written notice to the Issuing Entity of such request.

On or prior to each Payment Date, Special Payment Date or any other date specified in the Indenture for payments with respect to the Bonds, the Servicer will deliver to the Indenture Trustee, and the Indenture Trustee will make available on its website (currently located at https://gctinvestorreporting.bnymellon.com), a statement prepared by the Servicer with respect to the payment to be made on the Payment Date, Special Payment Date or other date, as the case may be, setting forth the following information:

Unless and until Bonds are no longer issued in book-entry form, the reports will be provided by the Indenture Trustee to the depository for the Bonds, or its nominee, as sole beneficial owner of the Bonds. The reports will be available to Holders upon written request to the Indenture Trustee or the Servicer. Such reports will not constitute financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The financial information provided to Holders will not be examined and reported upon by an independent public accountant. In addition, an independent public accountant will not provide an opinion on the financial information.

It shall not be necessary for any act of Holders under the Indenture to approve the particular form of any proposed supplemental indenture, but it shall be sufficient if such act shall approve the substance thereof.

Promptly after the execution by the Issuing Entity and the Indenture Trustee of any supplemental indenture pursuant to the provisions described above, the Issuing Entity shall mail to the Rating Agencies a copy of such supplemental indenture and to the Holders of the bonds to which such supplemental indenture relates either a copy of such supplemental indenture or a notice setting forth in general terms the substance of such supplemental indenture. Any failure of the Issuing Entity to mail such notice, or any defect therein, shall not, however, in any way impair or affect the validity of any such supplemental indenture.

If the Issuing Entity, Consumers Energy, the Administrator or the Servicer or any other party to the applicable agreement:

With the prior written consent of the Indenture Trustee, the Sale Agreement, the Administration Agreement, the Servicing Agreement and the Intercreditor Agreement may be amended, so long as the Rating Agency Condition is satisfied in connection therewith (where required pursuant to the applicable Basic Document), at any time and from time to time, without the consent of the Holders. However, any such amendment may not materially and adversely affect the interest of any Holders.

In addition, the Sale Agreement, the Administration Agreement and the Servicing Agreement may be amended with ten Business Days’ prior written notice given to the Rating Agencies in accordance with the applicable Basic Document, and, with respect to the Servicing Agreement, the prior written consent of the Indenture Trustee (which consent shall be given in reliance on an opinion of counsel and an officer’s certificate stating that such amendment is permitted or authorized under and adopted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable agreement and that all conditions precedent have been satisfied, upon which the Indenture Trustee may conclusively rely), but without the consent of the Holders: