COMMISSIONERSCONTACTS
John G. Strand, Chairman Dorothy Wideman
John C. Shea Mary Jo Kunkle
David A. Svanda (517)334-6983

     LANSING, October 29.  The Michigan Public Service Commission
today issued orders in six contested cases to continue the process for
introducing competition into the Michigan electric market.   The
Commission approved the orders by a 2-1 vote, with Commissioner John
Shea dissenting.   On June 5, 1997, the Commission determined that
customers of electric utilities in the state should be allowed to choose
from among competing power suppliers and that competition should be
phased in initially at the rate of 2-1/2 percent of each utility's customer
load per year.  In 2002, all remaining customers would have the right to
choose from among competing suppliers if they wished to do so.  Today's
orders determine the rates and conditions of service for those customers
choosing direct access.

     "Today, we have completed an ambitious undertaking to ensure that
all Michigan citizens share in the benefits of competition," said
Commission Chairman John Strand.  "During the last two years,
numerous interested parties have participated in the Commission's
ongoing proceedings.  Today's orders put in place the final elements
needed for competition to begin."

     Today's orders cover six cases involving Consumers Energy
Company and The Detroit Edison Company.  They were issued as a
result of contested case hearings held over the last four months. 
Twenty-seven parties participated in the hearings, including: MPSC staff, 
Attorney General Frank Kelley, the Association of Businesses
Advocating Tariff Equity, Energy Michigan, the Residential Ratepayer
Consortium, Competitive Utility Tariffs, the Michigan Association of
School Boards, and the Michigan School Business Officials.

     A summary highlighting the Commission's action in the six cases is
attached.  The entire text of the six orders is available on the Commission
Web Site.

     The MPSC is an agency within the Department of Consumer and
Industry Services.

Cases Nos. U-11290, U-11449, U-11451, U-11452, U-11453, U-11454,
U-11456
October 29, 1997
(Electric Restructuring Orders)

SUMMARY OF ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING ORDERS
ISSUED OCTOBER 29, 1997


Tariffs: The Commission adjusted both Consumers Energy's and Detroit
Edison's filed tariffs to eliminate conflicts with the Commission's June 5,
1997 order on restructuring and with the requirements of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission for electric transmission.  The Commission
scheduled further hearings on the rates for standby service.  In the
interim, the Commission adopted the utilities' proposed rates in instances
where the need for standby arises due to the fault of the customer or its
power supplier and the rates proposed by the Association of Businesses
Advocating Tariff Equity when the customer or the supplier is not at
fault.  Finally, the Commission adopted a minimum bid of 0.5 per
kilowatt-hour for allocating the annual 2 percent blocks of direct
access.


Stranded Cost True-up: The Commission's June 5, 1997 order on electric
restructuring determined that an annual true-up mechanism would be
used to adjust stranded costs for variations in the market price of power. 
Detroit Edison proposed that the market price of power would
initially be determined from marginal prices for the Michigan Electric
Coordinated System plus 0.5 per kilowatt-hour.  At  some point in the
future, a regional index would be used, adjusted for a differential
between the basing point and Detroit Edison's system.  Consumers
Energy proposed using an annual auction of portions of its capacity under
its existing power purchase agreements.

The Commission determined that during its annual review of stranded
costs that the stranded costs should be calculated using the actual contract
prices that direct access customers pay for power rather than either of the
proxies for the market price proposed by the utilities.  The Commission
also adopted Consumers Energy's proposal that stranded costs be adjusted
for actual sales volumes experienced by the utilities rather than Detroit
Edison's proposal to rely on sales estimates.


Performance-Based Ratemaking: Consumers Energy Company asked to
have its distribution and customer charges adjusted annually for changes
in the Consumers Price Index less 1%.  The Commission Staff
recommended an alternative index based on changes in the producer
price indexes for capital investment, electrical equipment, and
compensation for utility employees.  The Commission  determined that
some index should be implemented but only after 5% of the utility's
customer load is taking service under direct access.  The Commission
scheduled an additional hearing to determine what index should be used.


Power Supply Cost Reviews: Consumers Energy Company and Detroit
Edison Company asked to suspend the current Power Supply Cost
Review (PSCR) process, which provides for an annual review of each
utility's fuel and power purchasing practices.  The PSCR process would
be replaced by a fixed charge for the transition period through 2001.  The
Commission determined that it would be appropriate to suspend the
PSCR during the transition period, but only after 5% of the utility's
customer load is taking service under direct access.