In recent years, the Michigan legislature has conducted hearings on the subject of energy competition.
If the ROA limit were increased or if electric generation service in Michigan were deregulated, Consumers’ financial results and operations could be materially adversely affected.
Electric Transmission: In 2012, ReliabilityFirst Corporation informed Consumers that Consumers may not be properly registered to meet certain NERC electric reliability standards.
Consumers assessed its registration status, taking into consideration FERC’s December 2012 order on the definition of a bulk electric system, and in 2013 notified ReliabilityFirst Corporation that it was preparing to register as a transmission owner, transmission planner, and transmission operator.
In light of this order, Consumers reviewed the classification of certain electric distribution assets and, in April 2014, filed an application for reclassification with the MPSC.
In October 2014, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement that will allow Consumers to reclassify $34 million of net plant assets from distribution to transmission, subject to FERC approval.
In January 2015, Consumers filed an application for reclassification with FERC.
Electric Rate Matters: Rate matters are critical to Consumers’ electric utility business.
For additional details on rate matters, see Note 3, Regulatory Matters.
Electric Rate Design: In June 2014, Michigan’s governor signed legislation requiring the MPSC to explore alternative cost allocation and rate design methods that would promote affordable and competitive rates for all electric customers.
In conjunction with this legislation, Consumers submitted to the MPSC a proposal for a new electric rate design in October 2014.
This proposed new design will better ensure that rates are equal to the cost of service and will have the effect of making rates for energyintensive industrial customers more competitive, while keeping residential bills affordable.
Consumers incorporated its proposed new rate design into the rate case it filed in December 2014.
Electric Rate Case: In December 2014, Consumers filed an application with the MPSC seeking an annual rate increase of $163 million, based on a 10.7 percent authorized return on equity.
The filing requested authority to recover new investment in system reliability, environmental compliance, and technology enhancements.
Presented in the following table are the components of the requested increase in revenue:
## Table 0 ##
The filing also seeks approval of an investment recovery mechanism that would allow recovery of an additional $163 million in total for incremental investments that Consumers plans to make in 2016 and 2017 and $78 million for incremental investments planned in 2018, subject to reconciliation.
Depreciation Rate Case: In June 2014, Consumers filed a depreciation case related to its electric and common utility property.
In this case, Consumers requested an increase in depreciation expense, and its recovery of that expense, of $28 million annually.
PSCR Plan: Consumers submitted its 2015 PSCR plan to the MPSC in September 2014 and, in accordance with its proposed plan, self-implemented the 2015 PSCR charge beginning in January 2015.
In 2013, the U. S.  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision.
The appellate court found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases.
The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims.
The matter was appealed to the U. S.  Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
The cases were remanded back to the federal district court.
In May 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar allegations and reinstated CMS Energy as a defendant in one of the class action lawsuits.
The order of summary judgment has been appealed.
In December 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs in the three Kansas and Missouri cases for an amount that was not material to CMS Energy.
Notice of the tentative settlement has been filed in the federal district court.
The settlement will be subject to court approval.
Other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants in the two Wisconsin class action lawsuits.
These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple jurisdictions.
Presently, any estimate of liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy’s reasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested in this context.
If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy’s liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations.
Bay Harbor: CMS Land retained environmental remediation obligations for the collection and treatment of leachate, a liquid consisting of water and other substances, at Bay Harbor after selling its interests in the development in 2002.
Leachate is produced when water enters into cement kiln dust piles left over from former cement plant operations at the site.
In 2012, CMS Land and the MDEQ finalized an agreement that established the final remedies and the future water quality criteria at the site.
CMS Land completed all construction necessary to implement the remedies required by the agreement and will continue to maintain and operate a system to discharge treated leachate into Little Traverse Bay under an NPDES permit issued in 2010 and renewed in October 2016.
The renewed NPDES permit is valid through September 2020.
Various claims have been brought against CMS Land or its affiliates, including CMS Energy, alleging environmental damage to property, loss of property value, insufficient disclosure of environmental matters, breach of agreement relating to access, or other matters.
CMS Land and other parties have received a demand for payment from the EPA in the amount of $8 million, plus interest.
The EPA is seeking recovery under CERCLA of response costs allegedly incurred at Bay Harbor.
These costs exceed what was agreed to in a 2005 order between CMS Land and the EPA, and CMS Land has communicated to the EPA that it does not believe that this is a valid claim.
The EPA has filed a lawsuit to collect these costs.
At December 31, 2016, CMS Energy had a recorded liability of $51 million for its remaining obligations for environmental remediation.
CMS Energy calculated this liability based on discounted projected costs, using a discount rate of 4.34 percent and an inflation rate of one percent on annual operating and maintenance costs.
The undiscounted amount of the remaining obligation is $65 million.
CMS Energy expects to pay the following amounts for long-term liquid disposal and operating and maintenance in each of the next five years:
## Table 1 ##
CMS Energy’s estimate of response activity costs and the timing of expenditures could change if there are changes in circumstances or assumptions used in calculating the liability.
Although a liability for its present estimate of remaining response activity costs has been recorded, CMS Energy cannot predict the ultimate financial impact or outcome of this matter.
CMS Energy and Consumers also have recognized non-current liabilities for which the timing of payments cannot be reasonably estimated.
These items, which are excluded from the table above, include regulatory liabilities, deferred income taxes, workers compensation liabilities, accrued liabilities under renewable energy programs, and other liabilities.
Retirement benefits are also excluded from the table above.
For details related to benefit payments, see Note 12, Retirement Benefits.
Off-Balance-Sheet Arrangements: CMS Energy, Consumers, and certain of their subsidiaries enter into various arrangements in the normal course of business to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties.
These arrangements include indemnities, surety bonds, letters of credit, and financial and performance guarantees.
Indemnities are usually agreements to reimburse a counterparty that may incur losses due to outside claims or breach of contract terms.
The maximum payment that could be required under a number of these indemnity obligations is not estimable; the maximum obligation under indemnities for which such amounts were estimable was $153 million at December 31, 2016.
While CMS Energy and Consumers believe it is unlikely that they will incur any material losses related to indemnities they have not recorded as liabilities, they cannot predict the impact of these contingent obligations on their liquidity and financial condition.
For additional details on these and other guarantee arrangements, see Note 4, Contingencies and Commitments—Guarantees.
For additional details on operating leases, see Note 10, Leases and Palisades Financing.
Capital Expenditures: Over the next five years, CMS Energy and Consumers expect to make substantial capital investments.
CMS Energy and Consumers may revise their forecasts of capital expenditures periodically due to a number of factors, including environmental regulations, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, and the ability to access capital.
Presented in the following table are CMS Energy’s and Consumers’ estimated capital expenditures, including lease commitments, for 2017 through 2021:
## Table 2 ##
OUTLOOK 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; Item 1A.
Risk Factors; Note 3, Regulatory Matters; and Note 4, Contingencies and Commitments.
Table of Contents The following table discloses purchases of shares of our common stock made by us or on our behalf during the fourth quarter of 2017.
## Table 3 ##
(a) The shares reported in this column represent purchases settled in the fourth quarter of 2017 relating to (i) our purchases of shares in open-market transactions to meet our obligations under stock-based compensation plans, and (ii) our purchases of shares from our employees and non-employee directors in connection with the exercise of stock options, the vesting of restricted stock, and other stock compensation transactions in accordance with the terms of our stock-based compensation plans.
(b) On September 21, 2016, we announced that our board of directors authorized our purchase of up to $2.5 billion of our outstanding common stock (the 2016 program) with no expiration date.
As of December 31, 2017, we had $1.2 billion remaining available for purchase under the 2016 program.
On January 23, 2018, we announced that our board of directors authorized our purchase of up to an additional $2.5 billion of our outstanding common stock with no expiration date.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>In Millions</td></tr><tr><td>Components of the rate increase</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Investment in rate base</td><td>$ 185</td></tr><tr><td>Addition of new gas plant</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Operating and maintenance costs</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Cost of capital</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Working capital</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Cost-reduction initiatives</td><td>-80</td></tr><tr><td>Gross margin</td><td>-30</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$ 163</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="2"><i>In Millions</i></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2017</td><td>2018</td><td>2019</td><td>2020</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td> CMS Energy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long-term liquid disposal and operating and maintenance costs</td><td>$5</td><td>$4</td><td>$4</td><td>$4</td><td>$4</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>2017</td><td>2018</td><td>2019</td><td>2020</td><td>2021</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> CMS Energy, including Consumers</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Consumers</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Enterprises</td><td>-</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Total CMS Energy</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.9</td><td>$1.9</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$9.2</td></tr><tr><td> Consumers</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Electric utility operations</td><td>$1.0</td><td>$0.8</td><td>$1.1</td><td>$1.1</td><td>$1.0</td><td>$5.0</td></tr><tr><td>Gas utility operations</td><td>0.8</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.8</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total Consumers</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$1.8</td><td>$9.0</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Period</td><td>Total Numberof SharesPurchased</td><td>AveragePrice Paidper Share</td><td>Total Number ofShares NotPurchased as Part ofPublicly AnnouncedPlans or Programs (a)</td><td>Total Number ofShares Purchased asPart of PubliclyAnnounced Plans orPrograms</td><td>Approximate DollarValue of Shares thatMay Yet Be PurchasedUnder the Plans orPrograms (b)</td></tr><tr><td>October 2017</td><td>515,762</td><td>$77.15</td><td>292,145</td><td>223,617</td><td>$1.6 billion</td></tr><tr><td>November 2017</td><td>2,186,889</td><td>$81.21</td><td>216,415</td><td>1,970,474</td><td>$1.4 billion</td></tr><tr><td>December 2017</td><td>2,330,263</td><td>$87.76</td><td>798</td><td>2,329,465</td><td>$1.2 billion</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>5,032,914</td><td>$83.83</td><td>509,358</td><td>4,523,556</td><td>$1.2 billion</td></tr></table>

Question: as of december 31 , 2017 , what was the percent of the 2016 program remaining available for purchase
Answer: 0.48
Reasoning program: divide(1.2,2.5)