Indicate by check mark whether the RegistrantsRegistrant (1) havehas filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrants wereRegistrant was required to file such reports), and (2) havehas been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

CMS Energy Corporation: Yesþ NooConsumers Energy Company: Yesþ Noo

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrants haveRegistrant has submitted electronically and posted on theirits corporate Web sites,site, if any, every Interactive Data file required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrants wereRegistrant was required to submit and post such files).

CMS Energy Corporation: Yesoþ Noo   Consumers Energy Company: Yesoþ Noo

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

CMS Energy Corporation: Yeso Noþ   Consumers Energy Company: Yeso Noþ

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock at April 21,July 16, 2010:

Certain terms used in the text and financial statements are defined below.

This combined Form 10-Q is separately filed by CMS Energy and Consumers. Information in this combined Form 10-Q relating to each individual registrant is filed by such registrant on its own behalf. Consumers makes no representation regarding information relating to any other companies affiliated with CMS Energy other than its own subsidiaries. None of CMS Energy, CMS Enterprises, nor any of CMS Energy’s other subsidiaries (other than Consumers) has any obligation in respect of Consumers’ securities and holders of such securities should not consider the financial resources or results of operations of CMS Energy, CMS Enterprises, nor any of CMS Energy’s other subsidiaries (other than Consumers and its own subsidiaries (in relevant circumstances)) in making a decision with respect to Consumers’ debt securities. Similarly, none of Consumers nor any other subsidiary of CMS Energy has any obligation in respect of debt securities of CMS Energy.

This report should be read in its entirety. No one section of this report deals with all aspects of the subject matter of this report. This report should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes and with MD&A included in CMS Energy’s and Consumers’the 2009 Form 10-K.

This Form 10-Q and other written and oral statements that CMS Energy and Consumers make contain forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The use of “might,” “may,” “could,” “should,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “forecasts,” “predicts,” “assumes,” and other similar words is intended to identify forward-looking statements that involve risk and uncertainty. This discussion of potential risks and uncertainties is designed to highlight important factors that may impact CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ businesses and financial outlook. CMS Energy and Consumers have no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements regardless of whether new information, future events, or any other factors affect the information contained in the statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to various factors that could cause CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ actual results to differ materially from the results anticipated in these statements. These factors include CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ inability to predict or control the following, all of which are potentially significant:

For additional details regarding these and other uncertainties, see the “Outlook” section included in MD&A, Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments, Note 4, Utility Rate Matters, Note 10, Income Taxes, and Part II, Item 1A. Risk Factors.

AnotherConsumers also intends to make a significant planned capital investment is Consumers’in its smart grid program, which will provide enhanced controls over and information about energy usage, as well as timely notification of service interruptions. Consumers is usingplans to follow a phased implementation approach that will allow itand to analyze, test, andconduct an operational pilot of the newsmart grid technology prior to widespread investment and deployment.in 2011.

Regulatory matters are a key aspect of CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ businesses, particularly Consumers’ rate cases and regulatory proceedings withbefore the MPSC. In February 2010, the MPSC issued an order requiring that Consumers refund to customers $86 million collected during a rate freeze from 2001 to 2003; the MPSC determined that these funds should have been placed in a decommissioning trust fund. Consumers has filed an appeal of this order. In November 2009,May 2010, the MPSC issued a gas rate order authorizing Consumers to increase its gas rates by $66 million based on an authorized return on equity of 10.55 percent. The order also adopts a revenue decoupling mechanism. Further, in July 2010, Consumers self-implemented a gasan electric rate increase in the annual amount of $89$150 million, subject to refund with interest. In its July 2010 order allowing Consumers expects to receive a final MPSC rate order in its gas rate case in May 2010. In March 2010, the ALJ issued a PFD that recommended an annualself-implement this increase, in gas rates of $69 million, as well as adoption of a decoupling mechanism. Further, in January 2010, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annualexpressed concern about utilities repeatedly self-implementing rate increases over short time periods, and before the return of previous overcollections of self-implemented rate increases.

The Customer Choice Act allows Consumers’ electric customers to buy electric generation service from Consumers or from alternative electric suppliers. The 2008 Energy Legislation limits alternative electric supply to ten percent of Consumers’ weather-adjusted retail sales of the preceding calendar year. In May 2010, a bill was introduced to the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives that would increase inthe percentage from ten percent to 25 percent. At June 30, 2010, electric revenue of $178 million based on an 11deliveries under the ROA program were at the ten percent authorized return on equity.limit.

Another area of importance for CMS Energy and Consumers is environmental regulation. There is uncertainty associated with federal legislative and regulatory proposals related to the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, particularly associated with fossil-fueled generation. Federal legislation is being considered to establish a cap and trade system, or alternatively, to tax carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, in December 2009, the EPA issued an endangerment finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, contribute to air pollution that may endanger the public health and welfare, thus setting the stage for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in April 2010, indicating that it is considering a variety of regulatory actions with respect to PCBs. In June 2010, the EPA proposed a range of alternatives for regulating coal combustion by-products,CCBs, such as coal ash, as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In July 2010, the EPA released a proposed rule that would replace CAIR. CMS Energy and Consumers are monitoring these developments for potential effects on their plans and operations.

CMS Energy will continue to focus its strategy on:

Power supply costs and related revenue:For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, PSCR revenue decreased $10$1 million compared with 2009, due to a decrease in wholesale fuel recovery revenue.

For the six months ended June 30, 2010, PSCR revenue decreased $11 million compared with 2009, reflecting an order received from the MPSC that disallowed recovery of certain power supply costs in Consumers’ 2007 PSCR reconciliation case.

Other income, net of expenses:For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, other income decreased $3$5 million compared with 2009, and for the six months ended June 30, 2010, other income decreased $8 million compared with 2009. The decrease wasThese decreases were due primarily to a reduction ofin interest income recorded on certain regulatory assets.assets and the absence in 2010 of a gain recognized on a sale of land in 2009.

Maintenance and other operating expenses:For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, maintenance and other operating expenses increased $6$28 million compared with 2009. The increase was due to $6$26 million of higher retirement benefits expenses, which were recovered in revenue in 2010, and an $8 million increase associated with the implementation of the energy optimization program in June 2009, aprogram. Also contributing to the increase was $6 million increase in voluntary separation plan expenses and a $2 million increase in uncollectible accounts expense. These increases were offset partially by an $8a $5 million reduction in expenses for forestry and tree-trimming services and a $7 million decrease in service restoration expenses, health care costs, and other net operating expenses.

For the six months ended June 30, 2010, maintenance and other operating expenses increased $34 million compared with 2009. The increase was due to $26 million of higher retirement benefits expenses, which were recovered in revenue in 2010, a $14 million increase associated with the energy optimization program, and an $8 million increase in uncollectible accounts expense. Also contributing to the increase was $6 million of voluntary separation plan expenses in 2010.  These increases were offset partially by a $7 million reduction in expenses for forestry and tree-trimming services and a $13 million decrease in service restoration expenses, health care costs, and other net operating expenses.

Depreciation and amortization:For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, depreciation and amortization expense increased $1$11 million compared with 2009. The increase was2009, and for the six months ended June 30, 2010, depreciation and amortization expense increased $12 million compared with 2009, due to higher depreciation expense of $2 million from increased plant in service offset partially by lowerand higher amortization expense of $1 million on certain regulatory assets.

General taxes:For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, general taxes decreased $2 million compared with 2009. The decrease resulted from adjustments associated with the State of Michigan’s use tax assessment, discussed in Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments, “Consumers’ Other Contingencies.” This decrease was offset partially by increased $2property taxes, reflecting higher capital spending.

Interest charges:For the three months ended June 30, 2010, interest charges increased $4 million compared with 2009. The increase resulted from higherinterest related to the State of Michigan’s use taxes on electric propertytax assessment, discussed in Note 3, Contingencies and increased property taxes, reflecting higher capital spending.Commitments, “Consumers’ Other Contingencies,” offset partially by lower debt levels in 2010.

For the six months ended June 30, 2010, maintenance and other operating expenses increased $9 million compared with 2009. The increase was due to additional expenses of $13 million related to the energy optimization program, in June 2009, a $4 million increase inof voluntary separation plan expenses, and higher expenses of $3 million associated with retirement benefits, which were recovered in revenue in 2010. These increases were offset partially by lower uncollectible accounts expense of $5$3 million and a decrease of $2an $8 million reduction in health care costs and other net operating expenses.

Depreciation and amortization:For the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, depreciation and amortization expense increased $1 million compared with 2009, due primarily to an increase in plant in service.

General taxes:For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, general taxes increased $1decreased $3 million compared with 2009, due toresulting from adjustments associated with the State of Michigan’s use tax assessment, discussed in Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments, “Consumers’ Other Contingencies.”

For the six months ended June 30, 2010, general taxes decreased $2 million compared with 2009. The decrease resulted from adjustments associated with the State of Michigan’s use tax assessment, discussed in Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments, “Consumers’ Other Contingencies.” This decrease was offset partially by increased property taxes, reflecting higher capital spending.

Interest charges:For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, interest charges increased $2$5 million compared with 2009, and for the six months ended June 30, 2010, interest charges increased $7 million compared with 2009, due primarily to higher debt levelsinterest related to the State of Michigan’s use tax assessment, discussed in 2010.Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments, “Consumers’ Other Contingencies.”

For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, the enterprises segment reported net income of $9$33 million compared with a net incomeloss of $1$13 million for the same period in 2009. The $46 million change reflects after-tax expense reductionsincome of $3$30 million from lower fuel costs,the settlement of an insurance claim related to a previously sold South American investment and the absence of an environmental remediation charge of $22 million recorded in 2009 related to Bay Harbor. These items were offset partially by a net decrease of $6 million due to the absence of a gain recorded in 2009 on the expiration of an indemnity provided in connection with a previous asset sale, and the absence of benefits related to a 2009 legal settlement associated with a gas sales and purchase contract.

For the six months ended June 30, 2010, the enterprises segment reported net income of $42 million compared with a net loss of $12 million for the same period in 2009. The $54 million change reflects after-tax income of $30 million from the settlement of the insurance claim related to the previously sold South American investment and the absence of the environmental remediation charge of $22 million recorded in 2009 related to Bay Harbor. An additional increase of $8 million reflects increased net earningsdemand for power at higher prices, higher income from equity-method investeesinvestments, and a net increase in mark-to-market gains. These items were offset partially by a decrease of $3$6 million due to the absence of a gain recorded in 2009 on the expiration of an indemnity provided in connection with a previous asset sale, and higher net mark-to-market gainsthe absence of $2 million.benefits related to a 2009 legal settlement associated with a gas sales and purchase contract.

For the three months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, corporate interest and other net expenses increased $2$15 million compared with 2009 due to higher fixed charges, reflecting higherthe absence of an $18 million gain recognized in 2009 on the early retirement of CMS Energy’s long-term debt, levels.related parties, offset partially by $3 million of lower professional and administrative expenses.

For each of the three months and six months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, and 2009, net lossearnings from discontinued operations decreased $41 million compared with 2009. The decrease was $1 million. These amounts reflectdue to the operating resultsabsence of Exeter, which is classified as helda $28 million gain recognized in 2009 on the expiration of an indemnity provided in connection with a 2007 asset sale, the recognition in 2010 of $10 million in additional tax expense resulting from an IRS audit adjustment related to a 2003 asset sale, and a $3 million increase in a liability for sale.a 2007 asset sale indemnity.

Components of CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ cash management plan include controlling operating expenses and capital expenditures and evaluating market conditions for financing opportunities, if needed. Recent major financing transactions and commitments are as follows:

Operating Activities:Specific components of net cash provided by operating activities for the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010 and 2009 were:

For the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, net cash provided by operating activities at CMS Energy increased $51$248 million compared with 2009. The increase was due to higher net income, net of non-cash transactions, at the enterprises segment and to changes affecting Consumers’ cash provided by operating activities described in the following paragraph.

For the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, net cash provided by operating activities at Consumers increased $19$130 million compared with 2009. The increase was due primarily to higher accounts receivable collections from customers in 2010, offset largely by lower sales of gas.2010.

Investing Activities:Specific components of cash used in investing activities for the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010 and 2009 were:

For the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, net cash used in investing activities at CMS Energy increased $20$57 million compared with 2009. For the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, net cash used in investing activities at Consumers increased $3$24 million compared with 2009. Both increases reflect higher capital expenditures at Consumers.

Financing Activities:Specific components of net cash (used in) provided by financing activities for the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010 and 2009 were:

For the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, net cash used in financing activities at CMS Energy totaled $111 million, and for the six months ended June 30, 2009, net cash provided by financing activities at CMS Energy increased by $22totaled $445 million. The $556 million compared with 2009. The increasechange was due primarily to an increasea decrease in net proceeds from borrowing.

For the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, net cash used in financing activities at Consumers totaled $258 million, and for the six months ended June 30, 2009, net cash provided by financing activities at Consumers decreased $138totaled $235 million. The $493 million compared with 2009. The decreasechange was due primarily to debt maturities and a decrease in net proceeds from borrowings, offset partially by a stockholder’s contribution from CMS Energy.

For additional details on long-term debt activity, see Note 5, Financings and Capitalization.Financings.

The following table provides the most recent estimates of CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ pension cost, OPEB cost, and cash contributions for the next three years.

Several business trends and uncertainties may affect CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ financial condition and results of operations. These trends and uncertainties could have a material impact on CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ consolidated income, cash flows, or financial position. For additional details regarding these and other uncertainties, see “Forward-Looking Statements and Information,” Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments, and Part II, Item 1A. Risk Factors.

In June 2010, Consumers has also executed agreements with six small-scalefour renewable energy suppliers for the purchase of 9.4243 MW of capacity, which will generate an estimated two20 percent of Consumers’ long-term REC needs. TheIn its July 2010 order, the MPSC has approved these agreements, enabling Consumersgranting Consumers’ request to recover the full costs of these contracts from its customers. Additionally, Consumers is in the processVarious parties have made claims concerning certain aspects of evaluating proposals from severalConsumers’ decision to enter into these renewable energy suppliers for a portion ofcontracts. Consumers plans to defend its capacity needs.actions.

Electric Customer Deliveries and Revenue:Consumers’ electric customer deliveries are largely dependent on Michigan’s economy, which has suffered from economic and financial instability in the automotive and real estate sectors.

Consumers expects weather-adjusted electric deliveries to increase in 2010 by two percent compared with 2009. Consumers’ outlook for 2010 includes continuing growth in deliveries to its largest customer, which produces energy-related components. Consumers has a long-term contract with this customer to provide electricity at a discounted rate for economic development purposes. Excluding this customer’s growth, Consumers expects weather-adjusted electric deliveries in 2010 to remain unchanged frombe at a similar level to 2009. Consumers’ outlook reflects the impact of reduced deliveries associated with its investment in energy efficiency programs included in the 2008 Energy Legislation, as well as recent projections of Michigan’s economic conditions.

Consumers expects economic conditions to stabilize by the end of 2010, resulting in annual electric delivery growth of about one percent on average through 2014. This reflects growth in electric deliveries offset by the predicted effects of energy efficiency programs and appliance efficiency standards. Actual deliveries will depend on:

In its 2009 electric rate case order, the MPSC authorized Consumers to adopt a “pilot” decoupling mechanism. This mechanism, subject to certain conditions, allows Consumers to adjust future rates to collect or refund the change in marginal revenue by class arising from the difference between the level of average sales per customer adopted in the order and actual average sales per customer. The MPSC’s order also adopted an uncollectible expense tracking mechanism, which allows future rates to be adjusted to collect or refund 80 percent of the difference between the level of uncollectible expense included in rates and actual uncollectible expense. Consumers expects these mechanisms to mitigate partially the effectsreduce volatility of weather fluctuations, the economy, and energy efficiency programs on Consumers’ electric revenue in future periods.utility revenue.

Electric ROA:The Customer Choice Act allows Consumers’ electric customers to buy electric generation service from Consumers or from an alternative electric supplier. The 2008 Energy Legislation limitedlimits alternative electric supply to ten percent of Consumers’ weather-adjusted retail sales of the preceding calendar year. At March 31,June 30, 2010, electric deliveries under the ROA program were at the ten percent limit and alternative electric suppliers were providing 777781 MW of generation service to ROA customers.

Electric Environmental Estimates:Consumers’ operations are subject to various state and federal environmental laws and regulations. Consumers continues to focus on complying with the federal Clean

Coal Combustion By-Products:TheIn June 2010, the EPA is consideringproposed rules regulating coal combustion by-products,CCBs, such as coal ash, as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Michigan already regulates coal combustion by-productsCCBs as low-hazard industrial waste. The EPA proposed a range of alternatives for regulating CCBs, including regulation as either a non-hazardous waste or a hazardous waste. If coal ash iswere regulated as a hazardous waste, Consumers would likely cease the beneficial re-use of this product, resulting in significantly more coal ash requiring costly disposal. Additionally, it is possible that existing landfillsash disposal areas could be closed and costly alternative arrangements for ash disposal could be required if the upgrades to hazardous waste landfill standards are economically prohibitive. Costs associated withConsumers is unable to predict accurately the full impacts from this

Gas Environmental Estimates:Consumers expects to incur investigation and remedial action costs at a number of sites, including 23 former MGP sites. For additional details, see Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments, “Consumers’ Gas Utility Contingencies –— Gas Environmental Matters.”

Gas Rate Matters:Rate matters are critical to Consumers’ gas utility business. For details on Consumers’ GCR, gas rate case, and gas depreciation case, see Note 4, Utility Rate Matters, “Consumers’ Gas Utility Rate Matters.”

Health Care Reform:The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the related Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (the Health Care Acts) were enacted in March 2010. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012, the Health Care Acts repeal the tax deduction for the portion of health care costs that are reimbursed by the Medicare Part D subsidy. This legislation resulted in a $3 million increase to CMS Energy’s tax expense for the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2010, and it had no effect on Consumers’ net income. For additional details, see Note 10, Income Taxes.

Union Contract:The present Union agreement expires in June 2010. In April 2010, Consumers reached a tentative agreement with the Union onratified a new five-year contractagreement with Consumers for operating, maintenance, and construction employees. Consumers’ previous Union members. The schedule allows for ratification of the new contract by Mayagreement was to expire in June 2010.

Litigation:CMS Energy, Consumers, and certain of their subsidiaries are named as parties in various litigation matters, as well as in administrative proceedings before various courts and governmental agencies arising in the ordinary course of business. For additional details regarding these and other legal matters, see Note 3, Contingencies and Commitments and Note 4, Utility Rate Matters.

EnerBank:EnerBank, a wholly owned subsidiary of CMS Capital that represents one percent of CMS Energy’s net assets, is a Utah state-chartered, FDIC-insured industrial bank providing unsecured home improvement loans. The carrying value of EnerBank’s loan portfolio was $268$296 million at March 31,June 30, 2010. Its loan portfolio was funded primarily by deposit liabilities of $240 million and borrowings from the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of $14$280 million. Twelve-month rolling average default rates on loans held by EnerBank have declined slightly from 2.1 percent at December 31, 2009 to 2.01.9 percent at March 31,June 30, 2010. EnerBank expects the level of loan defaults to continue to decline in 2010 and return gradually to historical levels.levels of about 1.0 percent.

For details regarding the implementation of new accounting standards and new accounting standards issued that are not yet effective, see Note 1, New Accounting Standards.