UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   
þ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20052006
Commission file number 1-11607
DTE ENERGY COMPANY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
   
Michigan
38-3217752
(State or other jurisdiction of
(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)
Identification No.)
2000 2ndAvenue, Detroit, Michigan
48226-1279
(Address of principal executive offices) 38-3217752
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
48226-1279
(Zip Code)
313-235-4000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
   
Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered
   
Common Stock, without par value, with contingent
New York Stock Exchange
preferred stock purchase rights
7.8% Trust Preferred Securities *
New York Stock Exchange
7.50% Trust Originated Preferred Securities** New York and Chicago Stock Exchanges

New York Stock Exchange
New York Stock Exchange
 
* Issued by DTE Energy Trust I. DTE Energy fully and unconditionally guarantees the payments of all amounts due on these securities to the extent DTE Energy Trust I has funds available for payment of such distributions.
 
** Issued by DTE Energy Trust II. DTE Energy fully and unconditionally guarantees the payments of all amounts due on these securities to the extent DTE Energy Trust II has funds available for payment of such distributions.
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yesþ Noo
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15 (d) of the Act. Yeso Noþ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has 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 registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yesþ Noo
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.þo
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filerþ       Accelerated filero       Non-accelerated filero
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yeso Noþ
On June 30, 2005,2006, the aggregate market value of the Registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates was approximately $8.1$7.2 billion (based on the New York Stock Exchange closing price on such date). There were 177,812,509177,123,754 shares of common stock outstanding at January 31, 2006.2007.
Certain information in DTE Energy Company’s definitive Proxy Statement for its 20062007 Annual Meeting of Common Shareholders to be held April 27, 2006,May 3, 2007, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A, not later than 120 days after the end of the Registrant’s fiscal year covered by this report on Form 10-K, is incorporated herein by reference to Part III (Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) of this Form 10-K.
 
 

 


 

DTEEnergy Company
Annual Report on Form 10-K
Year Ended December 31, 20052006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
       
    PAGE 
    1 
    3 
Part I      
Part I
 
 Business, Company Risk Factors, Unresolved Staff Comments and Properties  4 
  
 Legal Proceedings  2527 
  
 Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders  2527 
Part II      
 
 Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities  2627 
  
 Selected Financial Data  2730 
  
 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations  2830 
  
 Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk  6368 
  
 Financial Statements and Supplementary Data  6671 
  
 Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure  121138 
 Item 9A.Controls and Procedures121
Item 9B.Other Information122
Part III      
 Item 10.DirectorsControls and Executive Officers of the RegistrantProcedures  122138 
  
Other Information138
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance138
 Executive Compensation  122138 
  
 Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters  122138 
  
 Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence  122138 
  
 Principal Accountant Fees and Services  122138 
      
  
 Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules  122139 
Signatures    128 
145
First Amendment to Company Deferred Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective January 1, 2001
 Second Amendment to theCompany Deferred Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective January 1, 2005
Third Amendment to Company Deferred Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective January 1, 2006
Third Amendment to Company Executive Supplemental RetirementDeferred Compensation Plan, effective December 31, 2006
 First Amendment to the Executive Deferred CompensationCompany Supplemental Retirement Plan, effective January 1, 2002
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Subsidiaries of the Company
 Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP
 Chief Executive Officer Section 302 Certification
 Chief Financial Officer Section 302 Certification
 Chief Executive Officer Section 906 Certification
 Chief Financial Officer Section 906 Certification

 


definitionsDEFINITIONS
   
Coke and Coke Battery Raw coal is heated to high temperatures in ovens to separate impurities, leaving a carbon residue called coke. Coke is combined with iron ore to create a high metallic iron that is used to produce steel. A series of coke ovens configured in a module is referred to as a battery.
   
Company DTE Energy Company and any subsidiary companies
CTACosts to achieve, consisting of project management, consultant support and employee severance, related to the Performance Excellence Process
   
Customer Choice Statewide initiatives giving customers in Michigan the option to choose alternative suppliers for electricity and gas.
   
Detroit Edison The Detroit Edison Company (a direct wholly owned subsidiary of DTE Energy Company) and subsidiary companies
   
DTE Energy DTE Energy Company, directly or indirectly the parent of Detroit Edison, MichCon and numerous non-utility subsidiaries
   
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
   
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
   
GCR A gas cost recovery mechanism authorized by the MPSC, permitting MichCon to pass the cost of natural gas to its customers.
   
ITC International Transmission Company (until February 28, 2003, a wholly owned subsidiary of DTE Energy Company)
   
MDEQMichigan Department of Environmental Quality
MichCon Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of DTE Energy) and subsidiary companies
   
MDEQMISO Michigan Department of Environmental QualityMidwest Independent System Operator, a Regional Transmission Organization
   
MPSC Michigan Public Service Commission
   
Non-utility An entity that is not a public utility. Its conditions of service, prices of goods and services and other operating related matters are not directly regulated by the MPSC or the FERC.
   
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
   
PSCR A power supply cost recovery mechanism authorized by the MPSC that allows Detroit Edison to recover through rates its fuel, fuel-related and purchased power expenses. The power supply cost recovery mechanism was suspended under Michigan’s restructuring legislation (signed into law June 5, 2000), which lowered and froze electric customer rates and was reinstated by the MPSC effective January 1, 2004.
   
Production tax credits Tax credits as authorized under Section 29 (redesignated by the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 as SectionSections 45K for tax years after 2005) and Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code that are designed to stimulate investment in and development of alternate fuel sources. The amount of a production tax credit can vary each year as determined by the Internal Revenue Service.
   
Proved Reserves Estimated quantities of natural gas, natural gas liquids and crude oil which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reserves under existing economic and operating conditions.

1


   
Securitization Detroit Edison financed specific stranded costs at lower interest rates through the sale of rate reduction bonds by a wholly-owned special purpose entity, the Detroit Edison Securitization Funding LLC.

1


   
SFAS Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
   
Stranded Costs Costs incurred by utilities in order to serve customers in a regulated environment that absent special regulatory approval would not otherwise be recoverable if customers switch to alternative energy suppliers.
SubsidiariesThe direct and indirect subsidiaries of DTE Energy Company
   
Synfuels The fuel produced through a process involving chemically modifying and binding particles of coal. Synfuels are used for power generation and coke production. Synfuel production generates production tax credits.
   
Unconventional Gas Includes those oil and gas deposits that originated and are stored in coal bed, tight sandstone and shale formations.
Units of Measurement
Units of Measurement
   
Bcf Billion cubic feet of gas
   
Bcfe Conversion metric of natural gas, the ratio of 6 Mcf of gas to 1 barrel of oil.
   
kWh Kilowatthour of electricity
   
Mcf Thousand cubic feet of gas
   
MMcf Million cubic feet of gas
   
MW Megawatt of electricity
   
MWh Megawatthour of electricity

2


Forward-Looking Statements
Certain information presented herein includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that may cause actual future results to differ materially from those presently contemplated, projected, estimated or budgeted. Many factors may impact forward-looking statements including, but not limited to, the following:
  the higher price of oil and its impact on the value of production tax credits andor the abilitypotential requirement to utilize and/or sell interests in facilities producing such credits;refund proceeds received from synfuel partners;
 
  the uncertainties of successful exploration of gas shale resources and inability to estimate gas reserves with certainty;
 
  the effects of weather and other natural phenomena on operations and sales to customers, and purchases from suppliers;
 
  economic climate and population growth or decline in the geographic areas where we do business;
 
  environmental issues, laws, regulations, and the cost of remediation and compliance;
 
  nuclear regulations and operations associated with nuclear facilities;
 
  implementation of electric and gas Customer Choice programs;
 
  impact of electric and gas utility restructuring in Michigan, including legislative amendments;
 
  employee relations and the impact of collective bargaining agreements;
 
  unplanned outages;
 
  access to capital markets and capital market conditions and the results of other financing efforts which can be affected by credit agency ratings;
 
  the timing and extent of changes in interest rates;
 
  the level of borrowings;
 
  changes in the cost and availability of coal and other raw materials, purchased power and natural gas;
 
  effects of competition;
 
  impact of regulation by the FERC, MPSC, NRC and other applicable governmental proceedings and regulations;regulations, including any associated impact on rate structures;
 
  contributions to earnings by non-utility subsidiaries;
 
  changes in and application of federal, state and local tax laws and their interpretations, including the Internal Revenue Code, regulations, rulings, court proceedings and audits;
 
  the ability to recover costs through rate increases;
 
  the availability, cost, coverage and terms of insurance;
 
  the cost of protecting assets against, or damage due to, terrorism;
 
  changes in and application of accounting standards and financial reporting regulations;
 
  changes in federal or state laws and their interpretation with respect to regulation, energy policy and other business issues;
 
  uncollectible accounts receivable;
 
  binding arbitration, litigation and related appeals; and
 
  changes in the economic and financial viability of our suppliers, customers and trading counterparties, and the continued ability of such parties to perform their obligations to the Company.Company; and
timing, terms and proceeds from any asset sale or monetization.
New factors emerge from time to time. We cannot predict what factors may arise or how such factors may cause our results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

3


Part I
Items 1., 1A. & and 2. Business Company Risk Factors and Properties
General
In 1995, DTE Energy incorporated in the State of Michigan. Our utility operations consist primarily of Detroit Edison and MichCon. We also have threefive non-utility segments that are engaged in a variety of energy related businesses such as synfuels, energy services, natural gas exploration and production, energy marketing and trading, coal transportation and gas storage and transportation.businesses. In August 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), effective February 8, 2006. As a result of the repeal of PUHCA, DTE Energy no longer has to claim itself as an exempt holding company. A discussion of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of this Form 10-K.
Detroit Edison is a Michigan corporation organized in 1903 and is a public utility subject to regulation by the MPSC and the FERC. Detroit Edison is engaged in the generation, purchase, distribution and sale of electricity to approximately 2.2 million customers in southeastern Michigan.
MichCon is a Michigan corporation organized in 1898 and is a public utility subject to regulation by the MPSC. MichCon is engaged in the purchase, storage, transmission, distribution and sale of natural gas to approximately 1.3 million customers throughout Michigan.
Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to such reports are available free of charge through the Investor Relations page of our website:www.dteenergy.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The information on our website is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this Form 10-K or any other filing we make with the SEC. Our previously filed reports and statements are also available at the SEC’s website:www.sec.gov.
References in this report to “we,” “us,” “our”“our,” “Company” or “Company”“DTE” are to DTE Energy and its subsidiaries, collectively.
Corporate Structure
Through 2004,In the third quarter of 2006, we operated our businesses through three strategicrealigned the non-utility segment Power and Industrial Projects business units (Energy Resources, Energy Distributionunit to separately present the Synthetic Fuel business. The impending expiration of synfuel tax credits as of December 31, 2007, combined with the sustained volatility of oil prices, increased management focus on synfuels, thereby requiring a separate business segment. In the fourth quarter of 2006, we separated the Fuel Transportation and Marketing segment into Coal and Gas Midstream, and Energy Gas). Each business unit had utilityTrading corresponding to additional management focus on the results of these non-utility segments. Based on the following structure, we set strategic goals, allocate resources and non-utility operations. The balance of our business consisted of Corporate & Other.evaluate performance. See Note 1618 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for financial information by segment for the last three years. Beginning in the second quarter of 2005, we realigned our operations into the following business units to strengthen the Company’s focus on customer relationships and growth within our non-utility businesses. Based on this structure, we set strategic goals, allocate resources and evaluate performance.
Electric Utility
Consists of Detroit Edison, the company’s electric utility whose operations include the power generation and electric distribution facilities that service approximately 2.2 million residential, commercial, industrial and wholesale customers throughout southeastern Michigan.
Gas Utility
Consists of the gas distribution services provided by MichCon, a gas utility that purchases, stores and distributes natural gas throughout Michigan to approximately 1.3 million residential, commercial and industrial customers and Citizens Gas Fuel Company (Citizens), a gas utility that distributes natural gas in Adrian, Michigan.
Non-Utility Operations
  PowerCoal and Industrial ProjectsGas Midstream, primarily consisting of synfuel projects, on-site energy services, steel-related energy projects, power generation with services,coal transportation and waste coal recovery operations;marketing, and gas pipelines, processing and storage;

4


  Unconventional Gas Production,primarily consisting of naturalunconventional gas exploration,project development and production;
Power and Industrial Projects, primarily consisting of on-site energy services, steel-related projects and power generation with services;
Energy Trading,primarily consisting of energy marketing and trading operations; and
 
  Synthetic Fuel, Transportation and Marketing, primarily consisting of energy marketing and tradingthe operations coal transportation and marketing, and gas pipelines, processing and storage.of nine synfuel plants.
Corporate & Other, primarily consisting of corporate supportstaff functions and certain energy related investments.
Refer to our Management’s Discussion and Analysis for an in-depth analysis of each segment’s financial results. A description of each business unit follows.
ELECTRIC UTILITY
Description
Our Electric Utility segment consists of Detroit Edison, an electric utility subject to regulation by the MPSC and FERC. Detroit Edison is engaged in the generation, purchase, distribution and sale of electric energy to approximately 2.2 million customers in a 7,600 square mile area in southeastern Michigan.
Our plants are regulated by numerous federal and state governmental agencies, including, but not limited to, the MPSC, the FERC, the NRC, the EPA and the MDEQ. Electricity is generated from our numerous fossil plants, a hydroelectric pumped storage plant and a nuclear plant, and is purchased from electricity generators, suppliers and wholesalers.

5


The electricity we produce and purchase is sold to four major classes of customers: residential, commercial, industrial and wholesale, principally throughout Michigan.

5


Revenue by Service
                        
Revenue by Service       
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Residential $1,517 $1,345 $1,351  $1,671 $1,517 $1,345 
 
Commercial 1,331 1,123 1,308  1,603 1,331 1,123 
 
Industrial 697 557 634  835 697 557 
 
Wholesale 73 65 67  109 73 65 
 
Other 464 234 201  350 464 234 
              
 
Subtotal 4,082 3,324 3,561  4,568 4,082 3,324 
 
Interconnection sales (1) 380 244 134  169 380 244 
       
        
Total Revenue $4,462 $3,568 $3,695  $4,737 $4,462 $3,568 
              
 
(1) Represents power that is not distributed by Detroit Edison.
Weather, economic factors, competition and electricity prices affect sales levels to customers. Our peak load and highest total system sales generally occur during the third quarter of the year, driven by air conditioning and other cooling-related demands.
Our operations are not dependent upon a limited number of customers, and the loss of any one or a few customers would not have a material adverse effect on Detroit Edison.
Fuel Supply and Purchased Power
Our power is generated from a variety of fuels and is supplemented with purchased power. We expect to have an adequate supply of fuel and purchased power to meet our obligation to serve customers. Our generating capability is heavily dependent upon the availability of coal. Coal is purchased from various sources in different geographic areas under agreements that vary in both pricing and terms. We expect to obtain the majority of our coal requirements through long-term contracts with the balance to be obtained through short-term agreements and spot purchases. We have severalsix long-term and two short-term contracts for a total purchase of approximately 2635 million tons of low-sulfur western coal to be delivered from 20062007 to 2008.2010. We also have ten contracts with several suppliers for the purchase of approximately 78 million tons of Appalachian coal to be delivered from 20062007 through 2008. These existing long-term coal2009. All of these contracts have fixed prices except for a single contract that has provisions for price escalation as well as de-escalation.prices. We have approximately 90% of our 20062007 expected coal requirements under contract. Given the geographic diversity of supply, we believe we can meet our expected generation requirements. We lease a fleet of rail cars and have long-term transportation contracts with companies to provide rail and vessel services for delivery of purchased coal to our generating facilities.
Detroit Edison participates in the energy market through the Midwest Independent System Operator, a Regional Transmission Organization.MISO. We offer our generation in the market on a day-ahead and real-time basis and bid for power in the market to serve our load. We are a net purchaser of power which supplements our generation capability to meet customer demand during peak cycles. For example, when high temperatures occur during the summer, we require additional electricity to meet demand. This access to additional power is an efficient and economical way to meet our obligation to customers without increasing capital expenditures to build additional base-load power plants.

6


Properties
Detroit Edison owns generating plants and facilities that are located in the State of Michigan. Substantially all of our property is subject to the lien of a mortgage.
Generating plants owned and in service as of December 31, 20052006 are as follows:

6


                    
 Location by Summer Net   Location by Summer Net  
 Michigan Rated Capability (1) (2)   Michigan Rated Capability (1) (2)  
Plant Name County (MW) (%) Year in Service County (MW) (%) Year in Service
Fossil-fueled Steam-Electric                  
Belle River (3) St. Clair  1,026   9.2% 1984 and 1985 St. Clair 1,026 9.2 1984 and 1985
Conners Creek Wayne  215   1.9  1951 Wayne 215 1.9 1951
Greenwood St. Clair  785   7.1  1979 St. Clair 785 7.1 1979
Harbor Beach Huron  103   0.9  1968 Huron 103 0.9 1968
Marysville St. Clair  84   0.8  1943 and 1947 St. Clair 84 0.8 1943 and 1947
Monroe (4) Monroe  3,115   28.0  1971, 1973 and 1974 Monroe 3,115 28.0 1971, 1973 and 1974
River Rouge Wayne  510   4.6  1957 and 1958 Wayne 510 4.6 1957 and 1958
St. Clair St. Clair  1,415   12.7  1953, 1954, 1959, 1961 and 1969 St. Clair 1,415 12.7 1953, 1954, 1959, 1961 and 1969
Trenton Channel Wayne  730   6.6  1949 and 1968 Wayne 730 6.6 1949 and 1968
               7,983 71.8  
    7,983   71.8   
Oil or Gas-fueled Peaking Units Various  1,102   9.9  1966-1971, 1981 and 1999 Various 1,102 9.9 1966-1971, 1981 and 1999
Nuclear-fueled Steam-Electric Fermi 2 (5) Monroe  1,111   10.0  1988 Monroe 1,111 10.0 1988
Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Ludington (6) Mason  917   8.3  1973 Mason 917 8.3 1973
               11,113 100.0  
    11,113   100.0%  
            
 
(1) Summer net rated capabilities of generating plants in service are based on periodic load tests and are changed depending on operating experience, the physical condition of units, environmental control limitations and customer requirements for steam, which otherwise would be used for electric generation.
 
(2) Excludes one oil-fueled unit, St. Clair Unit No. 5 (250 MW), in cold standby status.
 
(3) The Belle River capability represents Detroit Edison’s entitlement to 81.39% of the capacity and energy of the plant. See Note 6.8.
 
(4) The Monroe Power Plant provided 38% of Detroit Edison’s total 20052006 power plant generation.
 
(5) Fermi 2 has a design electrical rating (net) of 1,150 MW.
 
(6) Represents Detroit Edison’s 49% interest in Ludington with a total capability of 1,872 MW. See Note 6.8.
Detroit Edison owns and operates 670675 distribution substations with a capacity of approximately 32,489,00033,075,000 kilovolt-amperes (kVA) and approximately 421,000426,700 line transformers with a capacity of approximately 25,345,00025,883,000 kVA.
Circuit miles of distribution lines owned and in service as of December 31, 20052006 are as follows:
                
Electric Distribution Circuit Miles Circuit Miles
Operating Voltage-Kilovolts (kV) Overhead Underground Overhead Underground
4.8 kV to 13.2 kV 28,104 13,379  28,155 13,747 
24 kV 101 690  101 690 
40 kV 2,323 327  2,323 332 
120 kV 70 13  70 13 
          
 30,598 14,409  30,649 14,782 
          
There are numerous interconnections that allow the interchange of electricity between Detroit Edison and electricity providers external to our service area. These interconnections are generally owned and operated by ITC Transmission and connect to neighboring energy companies.

7


Regulation
Detroit Edison’s business is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of various agencies, including, but not limited to, the MPSC, the FERC and the NRC. The MPSC issues orders pertaining to rates, recovery of certain costs, including the costs of generating facilities and regulatory assets, conditions of service, accounting and operating-related matters. Detroit Edison’s MPSC-approved rates charged to customers have historically been designed to allow for the recovery of costs, plus an authorized rate of return on our investments. The FERC regulates Detroit Edison with respect to financing authorization and wholesale electric activities.

7


The NRC has regulatory jurisdiction over all phases of the operation, construction, licensing and decommissioning of Detroit Edison’s nuclear plant operations. We are subject to the requirements of other regulatory agencies with respect to safety, the environment and health.
Since 1996, there have been several important acts, orders, court rulings and legislative actions in the State of Michigan that affect Detroit Edison’s operations. In 1996, the MPSC began an initiative designed to give all of Michigan’s electric customer’scustomers access to electricity supplied by other generators and marketers. In 1998, the MPSC authorized the electric Customer Choice program that allowed for a limited number of customers to purchase electricity from suppliers other than their local utility. The local utility continues to transport the electric supply to the customers’ facilities, thereby retaining distribution margins. The electric Customer Choice program was phased in over a three-year period, with all customers having the option to choose their electric supplier by January 2002.
In 2000, the Michigan Legislature enacted legislation that reduced electric rates by 5% and reaffirmed January 2002 as the date for full implementation of the electric Customer Choice program. This legislation also contained provisions freezing rates through 2003 and preventing rate increases for small business customers through 2004 and for residential customers through 2005. The legislation and an MPSC order issued in 2001 established a methodology to enable Detroit Edison to recover stranded costs related to its generation operations that may not otherwise be recoverable due to electric Customer Choice related lost sales and margins. The legislation also provides for the recovery of the costs associated with the implementation of the electric Customer Choice program. The MPSC has determined that these costs will be treated as regulatory assets. Additionally, the legislation provides for recovery of costs incurred as a result of changes in taxes, laws and other governmental actions including the Clean Air Act.
In 2004, the MPSC issued interim and final rate orders that authorized electric rate increases totaling $374 million, and eliminated transition credits and implemented transition charges for electric Customer Choice customers. The increases were applicable to all customers not subject to a rate cap. The interim order affirmed the resumption of the PSCR mechanism for both capped and uncapped customers, which reduced PSCR revenues. The MPSC also authorized the recovery of approximately $385 million in regulatory assets, including stranded costs. As part of the final order Detroit Edison was ordered to file an application to restructure its electric rates.
In February 2005, Detroit Edison filed a rate restructuring proposal with the MPSC to restructure its electric rates and begin phasing out subsidies within the current pricing structure. In December 2005, the MPSC issued an order that provided for initial steps to improve the current competitive imbalance in Michigan’s electric Customer Choice program. The December 2005 order establishes cost-based power supply rates for Detroit Edison’s full service customers. Electric Customer Choice participants will pay cost-based distribution rates while Detroit Edison’s full service commercial and industrial customers will pay cost-based distribution rates that reflect the cost of the residential rate subsidy. Residential customers continue to pay a subsidized below cost rate for distribution service. These revenue neutral revised rates were effective February 1, 2006. Detroit Edison was also ordered to file a general rate case no later than July 1, 2007, based on 2006 actual results.
In March 2006, the MPSC issued an order directing Detroit Edison to show cause by June 1, 2006 why its retail electric rates should not be reduced in 2007. The MPSC cited certain changes that had occurred since the November 2004 order in Detroit Edison’s last general rate case, or were expected to occur. These changes included: declines in electric Customer Choice program participation, expiration of the

8


residential rate caps, and projected reductions in Detroit Edison operating costs. The show cause filing was to reflect sales, costs and financial conditions that were expected to occur by 2007. On June 1, 2006, Detroit Edison filed its response explaining why its electric rates should not be reduced in 2007. Detroit Edison indicated that it will have a revenue deficiency of approximately $45 million beginning in 2007 due to significant capital investments over the next several years for infrastructure improvements to enhance electric service reliability and for mandated environmental expenditures. The impacts of these investments will be partially offset by efficiency and cost-savings measures that have been initiated. Therefore, Detroit Edison requested that the show cause proceeding allow for rate increase adjustments based on the combined effects of investment expenditures and cost-savings programs. The MPSC denied this request and indicated that a full review of rates will be made in Detroit Edison’s next general rate case, which is due to be filed by July 1, 2007. The MPSC issued an order approving a settlement agreement in this proceeding on August 31, 2006. The order provided for an annualized rate reduction of $53 million for 2006, effective September 5, 2006. Beginning January 1, 2007, and continuing until the later of March 31, 2008 or 12 months from the filing date of Detroit Edison’s next main case, rates will be reduced by an additional $26 million, for a total reduction of $79 million. The revenue reduction is net of the recovery of the amortization of the costs associated with the implementation of the Performance Excellence Process, a company wide review of our operations. The settlement agreement provides for some level of realignment of the existing rate structure by allocating a larger percentage share of the rate reduction to the commercial and industrial customer classes than to the residential customer classes. As part of the settlement agreement, a Choice Incentive Mechanism (CIM) was established with a base level of electric choice sales set at 3,400 GWh.
In accordance with the MPSC’s directive in Detroit Edison’s November 2004 rate order, in March 2005, Detroit Edison filed a joint application and testimony in its 2004 PSCR Reconciliation Case and its 2004 Net Stranded Cost Recovery Case. In September 2006, the MPSC issued an order recognizing $19 million of 2004 net stranded costs that required Detroit Edison to write off $112 million of 2004 net stranded costs. The MPSC order resulted in a $39 million reduction in the 2004 PSCR over-collection by allowing Detroit Edison to retain the benefit of third party wholesale sales required to support the electric Customer Choice program and to offset the recognition of the $19 million of 2004 stranded costs. The MPSC order also resulted in reductions to accrued interest on the 2004 and 2005 PSCR amounts of $15 million. The MPSC directed Detroit Edison to include the remaining 2004 PSCR over-collection amount and related interest in the 2005 PSCR Reconciliation which is in an under-collected position. The order resulted in a reduction of pre-tax income of approximately $58 million.
See Note 4.6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Energy Assistance Programs
Energy assistance programs, funded by the federal government and the State of Michigan, remain critical to Detroit Edison’s ability to control its uncollectible accounts receivable and collections expenses. Detroit Edison’s uncollectible accounts receivable expense is directly affected by the level of government funded assistance its qualifying customers receive. We work continuously with the State of Michigan and others to determine whether the share of funding allocated to our customers is representative of the number of low-income individuals in our service territory.

8


Strategy and Competition
We strive to be the preferred supplier of electrical generation in southeast Michigan. We can accomplish this goal by working with our customers, communities and regulatory agencies to be a reliable low cost supplier of electricity. To control expenses, we optimize our fuel blends thereby taking maximum advantage of low cost, environmentally friendly low-sulfur western coals. To ensure generation reliability, we continue to invest in our generating plants, which will improve both plant availability and operating efficiencies. We also are making capital investments in areas that have a positive impact on reliability and environmental compliance with the goal of high customer satisfaction.

9


Our distribution operations focus on improving reliability, restoration time and the quality of customer service. We seek to lower our operating costs by improving operating efficiencies. Revenues from year to year will vary due to weather conditions, economic factors, regulatory events and other risk factors as discussed in the “Risk Factors” section that follows.
Effective January 2002, the electric Customer Choice program expanded in Michigan so that all of the Company’s electric customers can choose to purchase their electricity from alternative electric suppliers of generation services. Detroit Edison lost 12%6% of retail sales in 2006, 12% in 2005 18% in 2004 and 12%18% of such sales in 20032004 as a result of customers choosing to purchase power from alternative electric suppliers. Customers participating in the electric Customer Choice program consist primarily of industrial and commercial customers whose MPSC-authorized full service rates exceed their cost of service. Customers who elect to purchase their electricity from alternative electric suppliers by participating in the electric Customer Choice program have an unfavorable effect on our financial performance. The effect of lost sales due to the electric Customer Choice program has reduced our need for purchased power, and, when market conditions are favorable we sell power into the wholesale market, in order to lower costs to full service customers.
Detroit Edison acquires transmission services from ITC a wholly owned subsidiary of DTE Energy until February 2003.Transmission. By FERC order, rates charged by ITC Transmission to Detroit Edison were frozen through December 2004. Thereafter, rates became subject to normal FERC regulation. With the MPSC’s November 2004 final rate order, transmission costs are recoverable through Detroit Edison’s PSCR mechanism.
We are currently involved in a contract dispute with BNSF Railway Company that has been referred to arbitration. Under this contract, BNSF transports western coal east for Detroit Edison and the Coal Transportation and Marketing business. We have filed a breach of contract claim against BNSF for the failure to provide certain services that we believe are required by the contract. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for mid-2007. While we believe we will prevail on the merits in this matter, a negative decision with respect to the significant issues being heard in the arbitration could have an adverse effect on our business.
Competition in the regulated electric distribution business is primarily from the on-site generation of industrial customers and from distributed generation applications by industrial and commercial customers. We do not expect significant competition for distribution to any group of customers in the near term.
GAS UTILITY
Description
Our Gas Utility segment consists of MichCon and Citizens, natural gas utilities subject to regulation by the MPSC. MichCon is engaged in the purchase, storage, transmission, distribution and sale of natural gas to approximately 1.3 million residential, commercial and industrial customers in the State of Michigan. MichCon also has subsidiaries involved in the gathering and transmission of natural gas in northern Michigan. MichCon operates one of the largest natural gas distribution and transmission systems in the United States. Citizens distributes natural gas in Adrian, Michigan.Michigan to approximately 17,000 customers.

910


Revenue is generated by Serviceproviding the following major classes of service: gas sales, end user transportation, intermediate transportation and gas storage.
                        
Revenue by Service       
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Gas Sales $1,860 $1,435 $1,242 
End User Transportation 134 119 136 
Intermediate Transportation 58 56 51 
Gas sales $1,541 $1,860 $1,435 
End user transportation 135 134 119 
Intermediate transportation 69 58 56 
Other 86 72 69  104 86 72 
              
Total Revenue $2,138 $1,682 $1,498  $1,849 $2,138 $1,682 
              
 Gas Sales —sales –Includes the sale and delivery of natural gas primarily to residential and small-volume commercial and industrial customers.
 
 End User Transportation —user transportation –Gas delivery service provided primarily to large-volume commercial and industrial customers. Additionally, the service is provided to residential customers, and small-volume commercial and industrial customers who have elected to participate in our Customer Choice program. End user transportation customers purchase natural gas directly from producers or brokers and utilize our pipeline network to transport the gas to their facilities or homes.
 
 Intermediate Transportation —transportation –Gas delivery service provided to producers, brokers and other gas companies that own the natural gas, but are not the ultimate consumers. Intermediate transportation customers utilize our gathering and high-pressure transmission system to transport the gas to storage fields, processing plants, pipeline interconnections or other locations.
 
 Other Includes revenues from gas storage, providing appliance maintenance, facility development gas storage and other energy-related services.
Our gas sales, end user transportation and intermediate transportation volumes, revenues and net income are impacted by weather. Given the seasonal nature of our business, revenues and net income are concentrated in the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year. By the end of the first quarter, the heating season is largely over, and we typically realize substantially reduced revenues and earnings in the second quarter and losses in the third quarter.
Our operations are not dependent upon a limited number of customers, and the loss of any one or a few customers would not have a material adverse effect on our Gas Utility segment.
Natural Gas Supply
Our gas distribution system has a planned maximum daily send-out capacity of 2.8 Bcf, with approximately 67%71% of the volume coming from underground storage for 2005.2006. Peak-use requirements are met through utilization of our storage facilities, pipeline transportation capacity, and purchased storage services.gas supplies. Because of our geographic diversity of supply and our pipeline transportation and storage capacity, we are able to reliably meet our supply requirements. We believe natural gas supply and pipeline capacity will be sufficiently available to meet market demands in the foreseeable future.
We purchase natural gas supplies in the open market by contracting with producers and marketers, and we maintain a diversified portfolio of natural gas supply contracts. Supplier, producing region, quantity, and available transportation diversify our natural gas supply base. We obtain our natural gas supply from various sources in different geographic areas (Gulf Coast, Mid-Continent, Canada and Michigan) under agreements

11


that vary in both pricing and terms. Gas supply pricing is generally tied to NYMEX and published price indices to approximate current market prices.

10


Properties
We own distribution, transmission and storage properties that are located in the State of Michigan. Our distribution system includes approximately 18,00019,000 miles of distribution mains, approximately 1,179,0001,188,000 service lines and approximately 1,320,0001,321,000 active meters. We own approximately 2,600 miles of transmission lines that deliver natural gas to the distribution districts and interconnect our storage fields with the sources of supply and the market areas.
We own properties relating to four underground natural gas storage fields with an aggregate working gas storage capacity of approximately 124 Bcf. These facilities are important in providing reliable and cost-effective service to our customers. In addition, we sell storage services to third parties. Most of the company’s distribution and transmission property are located on property owned by others and used by the company through easements, permits or licenses. Substantially all of our property is subject to the lien of a mortgage.
We are directly connected to interstate pipelines, providing access to most of the major natural gas producing regions in the Gulf Coast, Mid-Continent and Canadian regions.
The company’s primary long-term transportation contracts are as follows:
                
 Availability (MMcf/d) Contract expiration Availability (MMcf/d) Contract expiration
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company 75 2009  75 2009 
Trunkline Gas Company 10 2009  10 2009 
Viking Gas Transmission Company 50 2010  50 2010 
TransCanada PipeLines Limited 50 2010  50 2010 
Great Lakes Gas Transmission L.P 30 2011 
Great Lakes Gas Transmission L.P. 30 2011 
ANR Pipeline Company 245 2011  245 2011 
Vector Pipeline L.P 50 2012 
Vector Pipeline L.P. 50 2012 
We own 840 miles of transportation and gathering pipelines in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan. We lease a portion of our pipeline system to the Vector Pipeline Partnership (an affiliate) through a capital lease arrangement. See Note 11. We also own a 2,400 horsepower compressor station located in northern Michigan.13 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Regulation
We are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the MPSC, which issues orders pertaining to rates, recovery of certain costs, including the costs of regulatory assets, conditions of service, accounting and other operating-related matters. We are subject to the requirements of other regulatory agencies with respect to safety, the environment and health.
In the late 1990s, the MPSC began an initiative designed to give all of Michigan’s natural gas customers added choices and the opportunity to benefit from lower gas costs resulting from competition. In 1999, the MPSC approved a comprehensive experimental three-year gas Customer Choice program that allowed an increasing number of customers to purchase natural gas from suppliers other than their local utility. In December 2001, the MPSC issued an order that continued the gas Customer Choice program on a permanent and expanding basis. The permanent gas Customer Choice program was phased in over a three-year period, with all customers having the option to choose their gas supplier by April 2004. Since MichCon continues to transport and deliver the gas to the participating customer premises at prices comparable to margins earned on gas sales, customers switching to other suppliers have little impact on MichCon’s earnings.

12


In April 2005, the MPSC issued a final rate order which increased MichCon’s base rates by $61 million annually effective April 29, 2005.
See Note 4.6 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

11


Energy Assistance Program
Energy assistance programs, funded by the federal government and the State of Michigan, remain critical to MichCon’s ability to control its uncollectible accounts receivable and collections expenses. MichCon’s uncollectible accounts receivable expense is directly affected by the level of government funded assistance its qualifying customers receive. We work continuously with the State of Michigan and others to determine whether the share of funding allocated to our customers is representative of the number of low-income individuals in our service territory.
Strategy and Competition
Our strategy is to expand our role as thebe a preferred provider of natural gas in Michigan. As a result of more efficient furnaces and appliances, and customer conservation due to high natural gas prices, we expect future sales volumes to remain at current levels or slightly decline. We continue to provide energy-related services that capitalize on our expertise, capabilities and efficient systems. We anticipate revenue growth through increased rates authorized by the MPSC in April 2005. See Note 4. We continue to focus on lowering our operating costs by improving operating efficiencies.
Competition in the gas business primarily involves other natural gas providers, as well as providers of alternative fuels and energy sources. The primary focus of competition in thefor end user transportation market is cost and reliability. Some large commercial and industrial customers have the ability to switch to alternative fuel sources such as coal, electricity, oil and steam. If these customers were to choose an alternative fuel source, they would not have a need for our end-user transportation service. In addition, some of these customers could bypass our pipeline system and have their gas delivered directly from an interstate pipeline. We compete against alternative fuel sources by providing competitive pricing and reliable service, supported by our extensive storage capacity.
Our extensive transmission pipeline system has enabled us to develop amarket 500 to 600 to 700 Bcf annual marketannually for intermediate transportation services for Michigan gas producers, marketers, distribution companies and other pipeline companies. We operate in a central geographic location with connections to major Mid-western interstate pipelines that extend throughout the Midwest, eastern United States and eastern Canadian markets.Canada.
NON-UTILITY OPERATIONS
Coal and Gas Midstream
Description
Coal and Gas Midstream primarily consists of the operations of Coal Transportation and Marketing, and the Pipelines, Processing and Storage businesses.
Coal Transportation and Marketing
Coal Transportation and Marketing provides fuel, transportation, and equipment management services tailored to the individual requirements of each customer. We specialize in minimizing fuel costs and maximizing reliability of supply for energy-intensive customers. Our external customers include electric utilities, merchant power producers, integrated steel mills and large industrial companies with significant energy requirements. Additionally, we participate in coal trading, coal-to-power tolling transactions and the purchase and sale of emissions credits. Coal-to-power tolling is another facet of the trading function, where we buy and arrange transportation of coal to a power plant that has excess generating capacity.

13


The plant then burns the coal and produces electricity for a fee and returns it via the grid to DTE Energy Trading, which uses the power to fulfill contracts or meet market needs.
             
(in Millions) 2006 2005 2004
Tons of Coal Shipped (1)  34   42   40 
(1)Includes intercompany transactions of 14 tons, 20 tons, and 18 tons in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively.
Pipelines, Processing and Storage
The Pipelines, Processing and Storage business owns and manages a network of natural gas transmission pipelines, storage facilities and gas processing facilities. We have a partnership interest in Vector Pipeline (Vector), an interstate transmission pipeline, which connects Michigan to Chicago and Ontario. We specialize in providing natural gas storage and transportation services in the Midwest and Northeast. We have interests in six processing plants that extract carbon dioxide from Antrim gas production in northern Michigan, making it suitable for transportation to nearby customers. Additionally, we have storage capacity capable of storing up to 75.7 Bcf in natural gas storage fields located in Michigan. The Washington 10 storage facility is a 66 Bcf high deliverability storage field having bi-directional interconnections with Vector Pipeline and MichCon providing customers access to the Chicago, Michigan and Ontario hubs.
Properties
The Pipelines, Processing and Storage business holds the following property:
Property Classification% OwnedDescriptionLocation
Pipelines
Vector Pipeline40%348-mile pipeline with 1,000 MMcf per day capacityMidwest
Processing Plants90%197 MMcf per day capacityNorthern Michigan

Storage
Washington 2850%9.7 Bcf of storage capacityWashington Twp, MI
Washington 10100%66 Bcf of storage capacityWashington Twp, MI
The assets of these businesses are complementary with other DTE Energy assets. Pursuant to an operating agreement, MichCon provides physical operations, maintenance and technical support for the Washington 28 and Washington 10 storage facilities.
Strategy and Competition
Our Coal Transportation and Marketing business is one of the leading North American coal marketers. We have a reputation as being an efficient manager of transportation assets. Trends such as railroad and mining consolidation and the lack of certainty in developing new mines by many mining firms could have an impact on how we compete in the future. We will continue to work with suppliers and the railroads to promote secure and competitive access to coal to meet the energy requirements of our customers. We will seek to build our capacity to transport greater amounts of western coal and to expand into coal terminals. We are currently involved in a contract dispute with BNSF Railway Company that has been referred to arbitration. Under this contract, BNSF transports western coal east for Detroit Edison and the Coal Transportation and Marketing business. We have filed a breach of contract claim against BNSF for the failure to provide certain services that we believe are required by the contract. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for mid-2007. While we believe we will prevail on the merits in this matter, a negative decision with respect to the significant issues being heard in the arbitration could have an adverse effect on our ability to grow the Coal Transportation and Marketing business as currently contemplated.

14


The Pipelines, Processing and Storage business focuses on asset development opportunities in the Midwest-to-Northeast region to supply natural gas to meet growing demand. We expect much of the growth in the demand for natural gas in the U.S. to occur within the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions. These regions currently lack the pipeline and gas storage infrastructure necessary to deliver gas volumes to meet growing demand. Vector is an interstate pipeline that is filling a large portion of that need, and is complemented by our Michigan storage facilities. Vector received FERC approval in October 2006 for a 200 MMcf per day expansion of long-haul capacity scheduled to be in service by November 2007. In April 2006, the Washington 10 storage facility expanded working capacity from 51.4 to 66 Bcf. In October 2006, we purchased the lessor interest in the 66 Bcf Washington 10 gas storage field. Prior to the purchase, we leased the storage rights. Another opportunity is Millennium Pipeline in New York, in which we have a 26.25% interest. In December 2006, Millennium Pipeline received FERC approval for construction and operation and is expected to be in service in late 2008. The Millennium Pipeline will be able to transport up to 525 MMcf per day. The gas supply for Millennium could be sourced from Michigan storage facilities or from Vector Pipeline for consumption in the Northeast U.S.
Unconventional Gas Production
Description
Our Unconventional Gas Production business is engaged in natural gas exploration, development and production primarily within the Antrim shale in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan and the Barnett shale in north Texas. We are an experienced operator in the Antrim shale where we manage one of the industry’s largest inventories of proved gas shale reserves. We continue to develop properties in both areas as we explore monetization alternatives.
During 2006, we invested $186 million acquiring, testing, developing and producing our Antrim and Barnett shale acreage. In 2006, we added proved reserves of 219 Bcfe in both the Antrim and Barnett shales, resulting in year end total proved reserves of 616 Bcfe. The Barnett and Antrim shale wells yielded 4.1 Bcfe and 21.5 Bcfe of production, respectively, in 2006 for a total of 25.6 Bcfe. Barnett shale leasehold acres increased to 89,808 gross acres (80,530 net of interest of others) after reduction by opportunistic sales of 11,193 acres. We drilled a total of 206 development wells (165.2 net of interest of others) including 64 wells (54.8 net of interest of others) in the Barnett shale acreage with a success rate of 100% in 2006. Included were 4 test wells (3.2 net of interest of others) in unproved areas of the southern portion of our Barnett shale acreage holdings. Production commenced in the Bosque and Hill Counties of Texas in 2006. Testing of Barnett’s southern acreage is ongoing and will continue in 2007.
Properties
Unconventional Gas Production owns interests in the following producing wells and acreage as of December 31:

15


                         
  2006  2005  2004 
  Gross  Net(1)  Gross  Net(1)  Gross  Net (1) 
Producing Wells and Acreage
                        
Producing Wells (2)
                        
Antrim shale  2,148   1,700   2,010   1,630   1,878   1,523 
Barnett shale  123   110   65   55   5   1 
                   
   2,271   1,810   2,075   1,685   1,883   1,524 
                   
                         
Developed Lease Acreage (3)
                        
Antrim shale  283,007   228,232   278,789   217,643   266,064   213,959 
Barnett shale  17,965   16,045   15,524   14,367   1,262   316 
                   
   300,972   244,277   294,313   232,010   267,326   214,275 
                   
                         
Undeveloped Lease Acreage (4)
                        
Antrim shale  80,380   66,184   86,028   73,056   92,328   79,025 
Barnett shale  71,842   64,485   72,280   61,627   54,530   48,541 
                   
   152,222   130,669   158,308   134,683   146,858   127,566 
                   
(1)Excludes the interest of others.
(2)Producing wells is the number of wells that are found to be capable of producing hydrocarbons in sufficient quantities such that proceeds from the sale of the production exceed production expenses and taxes.
(3)Developed lease acreage is the number of acres that are allocated or assignable to productive wells or wells capable of production.
(4)Undeveloped lease acreage is the number of acres on which wells have not been drilled or completed to a point that would permit the production of commercial quantities of natural gas and oil regardless of whether such acreage contains proved reserves.
Strategy and Competition
We manage and operate our Antrim and Barnett shale gas properties to maximize returns on investment and increase earnings with the overriding goal of optimizing the cost of producing reserves and adding additional proved reserves. A long-term fixed price obligation that fixed the price of gas sold at $3.33 for 1.8 Bcf of Antrim shale production expired in 2006. This creates pricing opportunities and we have and will continue to remarket Antrim shale gas production at current higher market rates.
Additional long-term fixed price obligation data for the next five years follows:
                     
  2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Long-term fixed price obligations
                    
                     
Antrim
                    
Volume- Bcf  17.6   16.2   15.0   15.0   11.9 
Price- $/Mcf $3.19  $3.74  $3.48  $3.59  $3.70 
                     
Barnett
                    
Volume- Bcf  1.8   1.3   1.1   0.5    
Price- $/Mcf $8.45  $8.15  $7.73  $7.29  $ 
Current natural gas prices and successes within the Barnett shale are resulting in more capital being invested into the region. This competition for opportunities, goods and services increases costs. However, our experience in the Antrim shale and our experienced Barnett shale personnel provide an advantage in addressing potential cost increases.
In 2007, we expect to drill 130 to 145 wells in the Antrim shale and 50 to 55 wells in the Barnett shale. Combined investment for both areas is expected to be approximately $150 million to $170 million during 2007. Successful testing on unproved acreage may yield additional significant investment opportunities.
We are exploring the sale of a portion of our Unconventional Gas Production assets which will allow us to monetize value from our more mature holdings, while retaining the ability to benefit from the upside of our earlier stage holdings.

16


Power and Industrial Projects
Description
Power and Industrial Projects is comprised primarily of Coal-Based Fuels, On-Site Energy Projects, Non-Utility Power Generation, Landfill Gas Recovery,projects that deliver utility-type services to industrial, commercial and Waste Coal Recovery.
Coal-Based Fuels
Coal-based fuels operationsinstitutional customers, and biomass energy projects. We provided utility-type services using project assets usually located on the customers’ premises in the steel, automotive, pulp and paper, airport and other industries. These services include producing synthetic fuel from our nine synfuelpulverized coal and petroleum coke supply, power generation, steam production, chilled water production, wastewater treatment and compressed air supply. We own and operate three gas-fired peaking electric generating plants and producinga biomass-fired electric generating plant and operate one additional gas-fired power plant under contract. Additionally, we own a gas-fired peaking electric generating plant that was taken out of service in September 2006. We develop, own and operate landfill gas recovery systems throughout the United States. We produce metallurgical coke from two coke battery plants.batteries. The production of synfuel from all of the synfuel plants and the production of coke from one of theour coke battery plants generatebatteries generates production tax credits. credits (assuming no phase-out).
Properties
The following are significant Power and Industrial Projects:
FacilityLocation% OwnedService Type
Steel
PCI Enterprises, Inc.River Rouge, MI100%Pulverized Coal
DTE Sparrows PointSparrows Point, MD100%Pulverized Coal
EES Coke Battery, LLCRiver Rouge, MI100%Metallurgical Coke Supply
Indiana Harbor Coke Co., LPEast Chicago, IN5%Metallurgical Coke Supply
Automotive
DTE Energy CenterVarious sites in MI, IN, OH50%Electric Distribution, Chiller Water, Waste Water, Compressed Air, Mist and Dust Collectors
DTE NorthwindDetroit, MI100%Steam and Chilled Water
DTE MoraineMoraine, OH100%Compressed Air
DTE TonawandaTonawanda, NY100%Chilled and Waste Water
Steam, Cooling Tower Water,
Defiance EnergyDefiance, OH100%Chilled Water, Compressed Air
HeritageDearborn, MI100%Electric Distribution
Lordstown EnergyLordstown, OH100%Steam, Chilled Water, Compressed Air and Reverse Osmosis Water
Pulp and Paper
Mobile Energy ServicesMobile, AL50%Electric Generation and Steam
TembecSt. Francisville, LA100%Electric Generation and Steam
Airport
Metro EnergyRomulus, MI100%Electricity, Hot and Chilled Water
PittsburghPittsburg, PA100%Hot and Chilled Water
Other Industries
DTE PetCokeVicksburg, MS100%Pulverized Petroleum Coke
Pursuant to an operating agreement with PCI Enterprises, Inc., Detroit Edison provides operations and maintenance services for the pulverized coal facility located at Detroit Edison’s River Rouge power plant.
Production tax credits, are designedrelated to stimulate investment in and development of alternate fuel sources. We have private letter rulings from the IRS for all of our synfuel plants. Production tax credits for synfuel-related facilities and one coke battery expirethat expired in 2007. Production tax credits2002, were reinstated for one coke battery for the years 2006 through 2009.
The synthetic fuel process involves chemically modifying and binding particles of coal to produce a fuel that is used for power generation and coke production. Since 2002, we have sold interests in all nine of our synfuel plants, ranging from a 49%-99% share in each, or approximately 91% of our total production

12


capacity. We will continue evaluating opportunities to sell additional interests in our synfuel plants. We consolidate these projects due to our controlling influence and continuing involvement.
The coke battery facilities produce coke that is used in blast furnaces within the steel industry.

17


             
(Dollars in Millions) 2005  2004  2003 
Production Tax Credits Generated
            
Synfuel Plants           
Allocated to DTE Energy $45  $29  $228 
Allocated to partners  562   411   146 
          
  $607  $440  $374 
          
Coke Batteries:            
Allocated to DTE Energy $2  $2  $3 
          
On-Site Energy Projects
We own and/or operate on-site facilities, including pulverized coal injection, power generation, steam production, chilled water, wastewater treatment, pulverized petroleum coke and compressed air. Many of these facilities deliver utility-type services to industrial, commercial and institutional customers. In 2005, we executed an agreement to purchase five on-site energy projects. The purchase of three of the projects closed in 2005. We expect the purchases of the two remaining projects will close early in 2006. We also began commercial operations of a petroleum coke pulverizing facility located in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
             
(Dollars in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Production Tax Credits Generated
            
Coke Batteries:            
Allocated to DTE Energy $6  $2  $2 
          
Non-Utility Power Generation
Description
We operate peaking, gas-fired and biomass-fired electric generating plants. We have four natural gas-fired electric generating plants that
Properties
The following are located in the Great Lakes region, and in 2005 we acquired a 99% interestsignificant properties operated by Non-Utility Power Generation:
           
        Capacity
Facility Location % Owned (in MW)
DTE Georgetown Indianapolis, IN  100%  80 
DTE River Rouge (1) River Rouge, MI  100%  240 
Crete Energy Ventures Crete, IL  50%  320 
DTE East China East China Twp, MI  100%  320 
Woodland Biomass Woodland, CA  99%  25 
           
         985 
           
(1)No longer in service effective September 2006.
Production tax credits are available at one biomass-fired electric generating plant in California.Non-Utility Power Generation facility. The facility produces electricity using renewable resources.
             
(Dollars in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Production Tax Credits Generated
            
Allocated to DTE Energy $1  $  $ 
          
Landfill Gas Recovery
We develop, own and operate landfill gas recovery systems in the U.S. Landfill gas, a byproduct of solid waste decomposition, is composed of approximately equal portions of methane and carbon dioxide. We develop landfill gas recovery systems that capture the gas and use it productively. Landfill gas recovery systems provide local utilities, industry and consumers with an opportunity to use a competitive, renewable source of energy. During 2005, we acquiredenergy, in addition to providing environmental benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We also co-own, with the Coal Transportation and placed in commercial operationMarketing segment, a coal mine methane gathering system and gas processing facility in southern Illinois. This processed methane is sold into the natural gas transmission system. Converting the methane into a renewable energy resource conserves fossil fuels. Many of our facilities generate production tax credits that will expire inat the end of 2007.
Landfill gas recovery has operations in 1312 states.
                        
(Dollars in Millions) 2005 2004 2003 2006 2005 2004
Landfill Sites 32 29 31  26 32 29 
Gas Produced (in Bcf) 20.2 23.2 26.8  22.9 20.2 23.2 
Tax Credits Generated (1) $8.3 $7.7 $10.5  $5 $8 $8 
 
(1) DTE Energy’s portion of total tax credits generated.
Waste Coal Recovery
We own the rights to a proprietary technology that produces high quality coal products from fine coal slurries that are typically discarded from coal mining operations. The technology produces a fine-coal fuel by removing impurities from waste coal material. The fine-coal fuel can be used in power plants, as

1318


a feedstock for synthetic fuel production and for other industrial applications. Our first facility in Ohio became operational in late-2003. Certain problems were encountered in the excavation of the waste material and delivery to the cleaning plant. We are in a testing phase of a proprietary slurry mining system designed to allow us to economically produce a consistent product at a rate of 300,000 tons of fine coal per year.
In late 2005, we completed construction of an “in-line” demonstration waste coal recovery facility at an active coal preparation plant in Virginia. This facility is designed to increase the recovery of high value coal while reducing the amount of discarded waste coal. We are currently conducting preliminary testing. If the demonstration project proves successful, this may lead to additional opportunities for similar projects in 2006.
Properties
The following are significant Coal-Based Fuels properties:
FacilityLocation% OwnedIndustry Served
Synthetic Fuels
DTE Red Mountain, LLCTarrant, AL51%Foundry Coke/Steel
DTE Belews Creek, LLCBelews Creek, NC1%Utility
DTE Utah Synfuels, LLCPrice, UT1%Industrial/Utility
DTE Indy Coke, LLCMoundsville, WV1%Utility
DTE Clover, LLCBledsoe, KY5%Utility
DTE Smith Branch, LLCPineville, WV1%Steel/Export
DTE River Hill, LLCKarthaus, PA51%Utility
DTE Buckeye, LLC (2 plants)Cheshire, OH1%Utility
Coke Battery
EES Coke Battery LLC (1)River Rouge, MI51%Steel
Indiana Harbor Coke Co., LPEast Chicago, IN5%Steel
(1)Effective January 1, 2006, we purchased an additional 49% interest in EES Coke Battery LLC.
The following are significant On-Site Energy Projects:
FacilityLocation% OwnedType
PCI EnterprisesRiver Rouge, MI100%Pulverized Coal
DTE Sparrows PointSparrows Point, MD100%Pulverized Coal
DTE NorthwindDetroit, MI100%Steam and Chilled Water
DTE MoraineMoraine, OH100%Compressed Air
DTE TonawandaTonawanda, NY100%Chilled and Waste Water
Metro EnergyRomulus, MI100%Electricity, Hot and Chilled Water
Lordstown EnergyLordstown, OH100%Steam, Chilled Water, Compressed Air and Reverse Osmosis Water
Defiance EnergyDefiance, OH100%Steam, Cooling Tower Water, Chilled Water, Compressed Air
DTE PetCokeVicksburg, MS100%Pulverized Petroleum Coke
Mobile Energy ServicesMobile, AL50%Electric Generation, Electric Distribution, and Steam
DTE Energy CenterVarious sites inElectric Distribution, Chilled Water, Waste Water,
MI, IN, OH50%Lighting, Compressed Air, Mist and Dust Collectors

14


     The following are significant properties operated by Non-Utility Power Generation:
         
      Capacity
Facility Location % Owned (in MW)
 
DTE Georgetown Indianapolis, IN 100%  80 
DTE River Rouge River Rouge, MI 100%  240 
Crete Energy Ventures Crete, IL 50%  320 
DTE East China East China Twp, MI 100%  320 
Woodland Biomass Woodland, CA 99%  25 
         
       985 
         
Strategy and Competition
Power and Industrial Projects will continue leveraging its extensive energy-related operating experience and project management capability to develop and grow our on-site energy business. We will continue to evaluate opportunities to sell interests in our two remaining majority-owned synfuel plants in 2006. We also will continue to pursue opportunities to provide asset management and operations services to third parties.
We anticipate building around our core strengths in the markets where we operate. In determining the markets in which to compete, we examine closely the regulatory and competitive environment, the number of competitors and our ability to achieve sustainable margins. We plan to maximize the effectiveness of our inter-related businesses as we expand from our current regional focus. As we pursue growth opportunities, our first priority will be to achieve value-added returns.
We intend to focus on the following areas for growth:
  Optimizing our synfuel portfolio;
Providing operating services to owners of industrial and power plants;
 
  Acquiring and developing solid fuel-fired power plants and landfill gas recovery facilities; and
 
  Expanding on-site energy projects; and
Developing new tax advantaged opportunities.projects.
Landfill gas recovery’s strategy capitalizes upon our industry experience of over 15 years. We are evaluatingexploring the combination of a sale of an equity interest in, and recapitalization of, some of the assets of the Power and Industrial Projects business, growth through both developmentincluding the sale or restructuring of the power generation assets. In February 2007, we entered into an agreement to sell our Georgetown peaking electric generating facility. The sale is subject to receipt of regulatory approval and acquisitions. We compete primarily with fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal. However, we believeis expected to close in the environmental benefitssecond half of landfill gas recovery along with reasonable and economic access to landfill sites provide a platform for future growth.
We believe that the waste coal recovery business has the potential to contribute to future earnings and provide significant environmental benefits.2007.
Unconventional Gas ProductionEnergy Trading
Description
Our Unconventional Gas Production business is engaged in natural gas exploration, development and production primarily within the Antrim shale in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan and the Barnett shale in north central Texas. We are experienced in Antrim shale where we manage one of the industry’s largest inventories of proved gas shale reserves. We are developing a significant presence in the emerging Barnett shale.
During 2005, we invested $144 million acquiring, testing, developing and producing our Antrim and Barnett shale acreage. In 2005, we added proved reserves of 76 Bcfe in both the Antrim and Barnett shales, resulting in year end total proved reserves of 397 Bcfe. The Barnett shale wells yielded 0.7 Bcfe of production in 2005. Barnett shale leasehold acres increased to 87,804 gross acres (75,994 net of interest

15


of others) primarily through the acquisition of a 100% interest in 44 wells and 18,000 acres in one transaction. We drilled 17 development wells (11.2 net of interest of others) in the Barnett shale acreage with a success rate of 100% in 2005. We also drilled 3 test wells (100% gross and net of interest of others) in an unproved area of the southern portion of our Barnett shale acreage holdings. Testing of the southern acreage is ongoing and will continue in 2006.
Properties
Unconventional Gas Production owns interests in the following producing wells and acreage as of December 31.
                         
  2005 2004 2003
  Gross Net(1) Gross Net(1) Gross Net (1)
Producing Wells and Acreage Producing Wells
                        
Antrim shale  2,010   1,630   1,878   1,523   1,814   1,471 
Barnett shale  65   55   5   1       
                         
   2,075   1,685   1,883   1,524   1,814   1,471 
                         
Developed Lease Acreage
                        
Antrim shale  278,789   217,643   266,064   213,959   262,321   212,067 
Barnett shale  15,524   14,367   1,262   316       
                         
   294,313   232,010   267,326   214,275   262,321   212,067 
                         
Undeveloped Lease Acreage
                        
Antrim shale  86,028   73,056   92,328   79,025   94,866   81,133 
Barnett shale  72,280   61,627   54,530   48,541   4,034   3,156 
                         
   158,308   134,683   146,858   127,566   98,900   84,289 
                         
(1)Excludes the interest of others.
Strategy and Competition
We manage and operate our Antrim and Barnett shale gas properties to maximize returns on investment and increase earnings with the overriding goal of optimizing the cost of producing reserves and adding additional proved reserves. Some of our long-term contracts that fixed the prices of gas sold from production of Antrim shale gas begin to expire in 2006. This will create opportunities to remarket Antrim shale gas production at current higher market rates.
High natural gas prices and the potential for successes within the Barnett shale are resulting in more capital being invested into the region. This competition for opportunities, goods and services increases costs. However, our experience in the Antrim shale and our experienced Barnett shale personnel provide an advantage in addressing potential cost increases.
In 2006, we expect to drill 130 wells in the Antrim shale and 55 wells in the Barnett shale. Combined investment for both areas is expected to be approximately $100 million to $130 million during 2006. Successful testing on unproved acreage may yield additional significant investment opportunities.
Fuel Transportation and Marketing
Description
Fuel Transportation and Marketing consists of the electric and gas marketing and trading operations of DTE Energy Trading, Coal Transportation and Marketing, and the Pipelines, Processing and Storage businesses.

16


DTE Energy Trading
DTE Energy Trading focuses on physical power and gas marketing and trading, structured transactions, enhancement of returns from DTE Energy’s power plants and the optimization of contracted natural gas pipelines and storage capacity positions. Our customer base is predominantly utilities, local distribution companies, large industrials, and other marketing and trading companies. We enter into derivative financial instruments as part of our marketing and hedging activities. Most of the derivative financial instruments are accounted for under the mark-to-market method, which results in earnings recognition of unrealized gains and losses from changes in the fair value of the derivatives. We utilize forwards, futures, swaps and option contracts to mitigate risk associated with our marketing and trading activity as well as for proprietary trading within defined risk guidelines. DTE Energy Trading is integral in providingprovides commodity risk management services to the other unregulated businesses within DTE Energy.
Coal Transportation and Marketing
Coal Transportation and Marketing provides fuel, transportation, and equipment management services tailored to the individual requirements of each customer. We specialize in minimizing fuel costs and maximizing reliability of supply for energy-intensive customers. Our external customers include electric utilities, merchant power producers, integrated steel mills and large industrial companies with significant energy requirements. Additionally, we participate in coal trading, coal-to-power tolling transactions and the purchase and sale of emissions credits. Coal-to-power tolling is another facet of the trading function, where we buy and arrange transportation of coal to a power plant that has excess generating capacity. The plant then burns the coal and produces electricity for a fee and returns it via the grid to DTE Energy Trading, which uses the power to fulfill contracts or meet market needs.
             
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003
Tons of Coal Shipped (1)  42   40   32 
(1)Includes intercompany transactions of 20 tons, 18 tons and 14 tons in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
We also provide rail car equipment management services tailored to the individual requirements of each customer. We operate a number of railcar maintenance and repair facilities in Nebraska and Indiana serving coal transporters, as well as other industries and rail car types.
Pipelines, Processing and Storage
The Pipelines, Processing and Storage business owns and manages a network of natural gas transmission pipelines, storage facilities and gas processing facilities. We have a partnership interest in Vector Pipeline (Vector), an interstate transmission pipeline, which connects Michigan to Chicago and Ontario market centers. We specialize in providing natural gas storage and transportation services in the Midwest and Northeast markets.
Pipelines, Processing and Storage has interests in seven processing plants that extract carbon dioxide from Antrim gas production in northern Michigan, making it suitable for transportation to nearby markets. Additionally, we have storage capacity rights capable of storing up to 75.7 Bcf in natural gas storage fields located in Michigan. The Washington 10 storage facility is a 66 Bcf high deliverability storage field having bi-directional interconnections with Vector Pipeline and MichCon providing customers access to the Chicago, Michigan and Ontario market hubs.
Properties
The assets of these businesses are complementary with other DTE Energy assets. The Pipelines, Processing and Storage business holds the following property:

17


Property Classification% OwnedDescriptionLocation
Pipelines
Vector Pipeline40%348-mile pipeline with
1,000 MMcf per day capacityMidwest
Processing Plants90%197 MMcf per day capacityNorthern Michigan
Storage
Washington 2850%9.7 Bcf of storage capacityWashington Twp, MI
Washington 10     Leased66 Bcf of storage capacityWashington Twp, MI
Strategy and Competition
DTE Energy Trading focuses on physical gas, power marketing and structured transactions for large customers, as well as the enhancement of returns from other DTE Energy assets including natural gas production, power plants, and pipeline and storage assets.
Our strategy for our trading business is to deliver value-added services to our customers. We seek to manage this business in a manner consistent with and complementary to the growth of our other business segments. We focus on physical marketing and the optimization of our portfolio of energy assets. We compete with electric and gas marketers, traders, utilities and other energy providers. We have risk management and credit processes to monitor and mitigate risk. We are exploring strategic options for the energy trading business.
Our Coal TransportationSynthetic Fuel
Description
Synfuel plants chemically change coal and Marketing business continueswaste coal into a synthetic fuel as determined under the Internal Revenue Code. The synthetic fuel process involves chemically modifying and binding particles of coal to leverage our position as oneproduce a fuel that is used for power generation and coke production. Production tax credits are provided for the production and sale of solid synthetic fuel produced from coal and are available through December 31, 2007. The synthetic fuel plants generate operating losses which we expect to be offset by production tax credits. The value of a production tax credit is adjusted annually by an inflation factor and published annually by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and is reduced, or eliminated, if the Reference Price of a barrel of oil exceeds certain thresholds.
We are the operator of nine synthetic fuel production facilities throughout the United States. On May 12, 2006, we idled production at all nine of the top North American coal marketerssynthetic fuel facilities. The decision to idle synfuel production was driven by the level and volatility of oil prices at that time. During the idle period, we took various steps to reduce our reputation as an efficient manageroil price exposure, including, renegotiation of transportation assets. Trends such as railroada significant number of commercial agreements. Beginning September 5, 2006 through October 4, 2006, we resumed production

19


at each of the nine synfuel facilities due to these amended commercial agreements and mining consolidation and the lack of certainty in developing new mines by many mining firms could have an impact on how we competedeclines in the future.level of oil prices.
Since 2002, we have sold interests in all nine of our synfuel plants, ranging from a 49%-99% share in each, or approximately 91% of our total production capacity. We willconsolidate these projects due to our controlling influence and continuing involvement.
             
(Dollars in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Production Tax Credits Generated
            
Synfuel Plants            
Allocated to DTE Energy $23  $45  $29 
Allocated to partners  260   562   411 
          
  $283  $607  $440 
          
Properties
The following are our synthetic fuels projects:
FacilityLocation% OwnedIndustry Served
DTE Red Mountain, LLCTarrant, AL51%Foundry Coke/Steel
DTE Belews Creek, LLCBelews Creek, NC1%Utility
DTE Utah Synfuels, LLCPrice, UT1%Industrial/Utility
DTE Indy Coke, LLCMoundsville, WV1%Utility
DTE Clover, LLCBledsoe, KY5%Utility
DTE Smith Branch, LLCPineville, WV1%Steel/Export
DTE River Hill, LLCClover, VA51%Utility
DTE Buckeye, LLC (2 plants)Cheshire, OH1%Utility
Strategy and Competition
Due to our hedging strategy implemented in 2006, we expect to continue to work with suppliers andoperate the railroads to promote secure and competitive access to coal to meet the energy requirements of our customers.
Pipelines, Processing and Storage focuses on asset development opportunities in the Midwest-to-Northeast region to supply natural gas to meet growing demand. We expect much of the growth in the demand for natural gas in the U.S. to occur within the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions. These regions currently lack the pipeline and gas storage infrastructure necessary to deliver gas volumes to meet growing demand. Vector is an interstate pipeline that is filling a large portion of that need, and is complemented by our Michigan storage business. Vector is awaiting FERC approval for a 200 MMcf per day expansion of long-haul capacity scheduled to be in service by November 2007. The Washington 10 storage facility received MPSC approval for a project, which expands working capacity from 51.4 to 66 Bcf. This additional working gas capacity, added to the unutilized working gas capacity previously unavailable due to lack of compression, will create additional high deliverability firm storage service which is expected to be in service by April 2006. Another opportunity is Millennium Pipeline, in which we have a 10.5% interest. Upon finalizing market support and receiving required federal and regulatory approvals, the Millennium Pipeline could be in service bysynfuel plants through December 31, 2007, and would be able to transport up to 500 MMcf per day. The gas supply for Millennium could be sourced from Michigan storage facilities or from Vector Pipeline for consumption by the higher value markets in the Northeast U.S.when synfuel-related production tax credits expire.
CORPORATE & OTHER
Description
Corporate & Other includes various corporate support functions such as accounting, legal and information technology.staff functions. Because these functions essentially support the entire Company, their costs are allocated to

18


the various segments based on services utilized. Therefore, the effect of the allocation on each segment can vary from year to year. Additionally, Corporate & Other holds certain non-utility debt, assets held for sale and investments in energy relatedenergy-related companies and funds.

20


Strategy and Competition
Our energy relatedenergy-related investment strategy is to create a profitable portfolio by investing in companies or funds that facilitate the creation of new businesses, expand growth opportunities for existing businesses or enable performance improvements in our existing businesses. We seek to gain early experience in emerging energy sectors where energy trends and technologies may create potentially profitable opportunities. The investment portfolio consists of direct investments in energy related companies and venture funds.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
We are subject to extensive environmental regulation. Additional costs may result as the effects of various substances on the environment are studied and governmental regulations are developed and implemented. We expect to continue recovering environmental costs related to utility operations through rates charged to our customers. The following table summarizes our expectedestimated significant future environmental expenditures:
                
 Non-                   
(in Millions) Electric Gas Utility Total  Electric Gas Non- Utility Total 
Air $2,385 $ $10 $2,395  $2,185 $ $ $2,185 
Water 50  15 65  53  14 67 
MGP Sites 3 35  38  4 41  45 
Other Clean Up Sites 10 1  11  12 1  13 
                  
Estimated total expenditures $2,448 $36 $25 $2,509 
Estimated total future expenditures $2,254 $42 $14 $2,310 
                  
  
Estimated 2006 expenditures $224 $5 $21 $250 
Estimated 2007 expenditures $234 $5 $14 $253 
                  
Air- Detroit Edison is subject to EPA ozone transport and acid rain regulations that limit power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. In March 2005, EPA issued additional emission reduction regulations relating to ozone, fine particulate, regional haze and mercury air pollution. The new rules will lead to additional controls on fossil-fueled power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions. The cost to address environmental air issues is estimated through 2018.
Water-– In response to an EPA regulation, Detroit Edison is required to examine alternatives for reducing the environmental impacts of the cooling water intake structures at several of its facilities. Based on the results of studies to be conducted over the next fourone to sixtwo years, Detroit Edison may be required to installperform some mitigation activities, including, the possible installation of additional control technologies to reduce the environmental impact of the intake structures. However, a recent court decision remanded back to the EPA several provisions of the federal regulation resulting in a delay in complying with the regulation.
MGP Sites- Prior to the construction of major interstate natural gas pipelines, gas for heating and other uses was manufactured locally from processes involving coal, coke or oil. The facilities, which produced gas for heating and other uses, have been designated as MGP sites. Gas Utility owns, or previously owned, fifteen such former MGP sites. In addition to the MGP sites, the company is also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites. As a result of these determinations, we have recorded liabilities related to these sites. Cleanup activities associated with these sites will be conducted over the next several years.
Detroit Edison conducted remedial investigations at contaminated sites, including two MGP sites, the area surrounding an ash landfill and several underground and aboveground storage tank locations. The findings of

19


these investigations indicated that the estimated cost to remediate these sites is expected to be incurred over the next several years. In addition, Detroit Edison will be making capital improvements to the ash landfill in 2007.

21


Non-utility –Our non-utility affiliates are subject to a number of environmental laws and regulations dealing with the protection of the environment from various pollutants. We are in the process of installing new environmental equipment at our coke battery facilitiesfacility in Michigan. We expect the projectsproject to be completed within two years.one year. Our other non-utility affiliates are substantially in compliance with all environmental requirements.
Greater details on environmental issues are provided in the following Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements:
   
Note Title
 
4  6 Regulatory Matters
5  7 Nuclear Operations
EMPLOYEES
The following table shows our employees as of December 31, 2006:
             
  Represented Non-represented Total
Detroit Edison  3,724   3,493   7,217 
MichCon  1,386   707   2,093 
Other  308   909   1,217 
             
Total  5,418   5,109   10,527 
             
There are several bargaining units for our represented employees. Approximately 3,245 of our represented employees are under contracts that expire in June 2007 and 970 employees are under contracts that expire in October 2007. The contracts of the remaining represented employees expire at various dates in 2008 and 2009.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF DTE ENERGY
13 Commitments
Present
Position
NameAge (1)Present PositionHeld Since
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.57Chairman of the Board and ContingenciesChief Executive Officer8-1-98
Gerard M. Anderson48Chief Operating Officer and10-31-05
President6-23-04
Stephen E. Ewing (2)62Vice Chairman, DTE Energy10-31-05
President and Chief Operating Officer, MichCon4-28-05
Robert J. Buckler57President and Chief Operating Officer, Detroit Edison10-31-05
Group President, DTE Energy5-31-05
David E. Meador49Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer6-23-04
Lynne Ellyn55Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer12-31-01
Paul C. Hillegonds57Senior Vice President5-16-05
Ron A. May55Senior Vice President1-22-04
Bruce D. Peterson50Senior Vice President and General Counsel6-25-02
Gerardo Norcia44Executive Vice President, MichCon10-31-05
Larry E. Steward54Vice President1-15-01
Peter B. Oleksiak40Vice President and Controller12-5-05
Sandra K. Ennis50Corporate Secretary8-4-05
(1)As of December 31, 2006
(2)Retired from the company effective December 31, 2006
Under our Bylaws, the officers of DTE Energy are elected annually by the Board of Directors at a meeting held for such purpose, each to serve until the next annual meeting of directors or until their respective successors are chosen and qualified. With the exception of Messrs. Hillegonds, Peterson and

22


Norcia, all of the above officers have been employed by DTE Energy in one or more management capacities during the past five years.
Paul C. Hillegonds was elected Senior Vice President effective May 16, 2005. Mr. Hillegonds was president of Detroit Renaissance for eight years prior to joining DTE Energy.
Bruce D. Peterson was elected Senior Vice President and General Counsel on June 25, 2002. Mr. Peterson was a partner with Hunton & Williams in Washington, D.C. prior to joining DTE Energy.
Gerardo Norcia was elected Executive Vice President, MichCon on October 31, 2005. Mr. Norcia was President, DTE Gas Storage, Pipelines and Processing since joining DTE Energy on November 4, 2002. He was a vice president of Union Gas prior to joining DTE Energy.
Pursuant to Article VI of our Articles of Incorporation, directors of DTE Energy will not be personally liable to the Company or its shareholders in the performance of their duties to the full extent permitted by law.
Article VII of our Articles of Incorporation provides that each current or former director or officer of DTE Energy, or each current and former employee or agent of the Company or a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise (including the heirs, executors, administrators or estate of such person), shall be indemnified by the Company to the full extent permitted by the Michigan Business Corporation Act or any other applicable laws as presently or hereafter in effect. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with all of our officers and directors; these agreements set forth procedures for claims for indemnification as well as contractually obligating us to provide indemnification to the maximum extent permitted by law.
We and our directors and officers in their capacities as such are insured against liability for alleged wrongful acts (to the extent defined) under eight insurance policies providing aggregate coverage in the amount of $185 million.
Item 1A. Company Risk Factors
There are various risks associated with the operations of DTE Energy’s utility and non-utility businesses. To provide a framework to understand the operating environment of DTE Energy, we are providing a brief explanation of the more significant risks associated with our businesses. Although we have tried to identify and discuss key risk factors, others could emerge in the future. Each of the following risks could affect our performance.
Our ability to utilize production tax credits may be limited.To reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, the Internal Revenue Code provides production tax credits as an incentive for taxpayers to produce fuels from alternative sources. We have generated production tax credits from ourthe synfuel, coke battery, landfill gas recovery and gas production operations. We have received favorable private letter rulings on all of ourthe synfuel facilities. All production tax credits taken after 20012003 are subject to audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If our production tax credits were disallowed in whole or in part as a result of an IRS audit, there could be additional tax liabilities owed for previously recognized tax credits that could significantly impact our earnings and cash flows. The value of future credits generated may be affected by new taxpotential legislation. Moreover, the opportunity to earn additional production tax credits related to the generation of synfuels and recovery of landfill gas will expire at the end of 2007. The combination of IRS audits of production tax credits, supply and demand for investment in credit producing activities and new taxpotential legislation could have an impact on our earnings and cash flows. We have also provided certain guarantees and indemnities in conjunction with the sales of interests in ourthe synfuel facilities.
The value of aThis incentive provided by production tax credit can vary each yearcredits is not deemed necessary if the price of oil increases and is adjusted annually by an inflation factor as published byprovides significant market incentives for the IRS in Aprilproduction of these fuels. As such, the following year. Additionally, the value of the production tax credit in a given year is reduced if the Reference Price of oil within thethat year exceeds a threshold price and is eliminated entirely if the Reference Price exceeds a phase-out price. The Reference Price of a barrel of oil is an estimate of the annual average wellhead price per barrel for domestic crude oil. For 2005,We project the monthlyyearly average wellhead prices wereprice per barrel of oil for the year to be approximately $6 lower than the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)NYMEX price for light, sweet crude oil. The threshold price at which the credit begins to

23


be reduced was set in 1980 and is adjusted annually for inflation. For 2006, realizedwe estimate the threshold price at which the tax credit would begin to be reduced is $55 per barrel and unrealizedwould be completely phased out if the Reference Price reached $69 per barrel. As of December 31, 2006, the average NYMEX daily closing price of a barrel of oil was $65.08 as of February 28,approximately $66 for 2006, equating to an estimated Reference Price of $59,$60, which iswe estimate to be within the phase-out range. If duringTo mitigate the effect of a potential phase out and minimize operating losses, on May 12, 2006 or 2007,we idled production at all nine of the annual average wellhead price for a barrelsynfuel facilities. The decision to idle synfuel production was driven by the level and volatility of domestic crude oil exceeds the threshold price, our synthetic fuel business would be adversely affected for those years and, depending on the magnitude of increases in oil prices at that time. Beginning September 5, 2006 through October 4, 2006, we resumed production at each of the adverse effect for that year could be material and could have an impact on our synthetic fuel production plans which,nine synfuel facilities due to declines in turn, may have a material impact on our resultsthe level of operations, cash flow, and financial condition.oil prices.
Our estimates of gas reserves are subject to change.We cannot assure that our estimates of our Antrim and Barnett gas reserves are accurate. Estimates of proved gas reserves and the future net cash flows attributable to those reserves are prepared by independent engineers. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proved gas reserves and cash flows attributable to such reserves, including factors beyond our control and that of our engineers. Reserve engineering is a subjective process of estimating underground accumulations of gas that cannot be measured in an exact manner. The

20


accuracy of an estimate of quantities of reserves, or of cash flows attributable to such reserves, is a function of the available data, assumptions regarding expenditures for future development and exploration activities, and of engineering and geological interpretation and judgment. Additionally, reserves and future cash flows may be subject to material downward or upward revisions, based upon production history, development and exploration activities and prices of gas. Actual future production, revenue, taxes, development expenditures, operating expenses, underlying information, quantities of recoverable reserves and the value of cash flows from such reserves may vary significantly from the assumptions and underlying information we used. In addition, different reserve engineers may make different estimates of reserves and cash flows based on the same available data.
Failure to successfully implement new processes and information systems could interrupt our operations.Our businesses depend on numerous information systems for operations and financial information and billings. DTE2 is a multi-year Company-wide initiative to improve existing processes and implement new core information systems. We launched the first phase of our DTE2 project in 2005. Additional phases of implementation are planned for 2007. Failure to successfully implement new processes and new core information systems could interrupt our operations.
Michigan’s electric Customer Choice program is negatively impacting our financial performance. The electric Customer Choice program, as originally contemplated in Michigan, anticipated an eventual transition to a totally deregulated and competitive environment where customers would be charged market-based rates for their electricity. The State of Michigan currently experiences a hybrid market, where the MPSC has continuedcontinues to regulate electric rates for our customers, while alternative electric suppliers can charge market-based rates. In addition, such regulated electric rates for certain groups of our customers exceed the cost of service to those customers. Due to distorted pricing mechanisms during the initial implementation period of electric Customer Choice, many commercial customers chose alternative electric suppliers. Recent MPSC rate orders in 2004 and 2005 have removed some of the pricing disparity. Recent higher wholesale electric prices have also resulted in some former electric Customer Choice customers migrating back to Detroit Edison for electric generation service. Even with the electric Customer Choice-related rate relief received in Detroit Edison’s 2004 and 2005 orders, there continues to be considerable financial risk associated with the electric Customer Choice program. Electric Customer Choice migration is sensitive to market price and bundled electric service price increases. The hybrid market in Michigan also causes uncertainity as it relates to investment in new generating capacity.
Weather significantly affects operations.Deviations from normal hot and cold weather conditions affect our earnings and cash flow. Mild temperatures can result in decreased utilization of our assets, lowering income and cash flow. Damage due to ice storms, tornadoes, or high winds can damage our infrastructure and require us to perform emergency repairs and incur material unplanned expenses. The expenses of storm restoration efforts may not be recoverable through the regulatory process.
We are subject to rate regulation. Electric and gas rates for our utilities are set by the MPSC and the FERC and cannot be increased without regulatory authorization. We may be impacted by new regulations or interpretations by the MPSC, the FERC or other regulatory bodies. New legislation, regulations or interpretations could change how our business operates, impact our ability to recover costs through rate increases or require us to incur additional expenses.

24


Our non-utility operations may not perform to our expectations.We rely on our non-utility operations for a significant portion of our earnings. If our current and contemplated non-utility investments do not perform at expected levels, we could experience diminished earnings potential and a corresponding decline in our shareholder value.
We rely on cash flows from subsidiaries.Cash flows from our utility and non-utility subsidiaries are required to pay interest expenses and dividends on DTE Energy debt and securities. Should a major subsidiary not be able to pay dividends or transfer cash flows to DTE Energy, our ability to pay interest and dividends would be restricted.
Adverse changes in our credit ratings may negatively affect us.Increased scrutiny of the energy industry and regulatory changes, as well as changes in our economic performance, could result in credit agencies reexamining our credit rating. While credit ratings reflect the opinions of the credit agencies issuing such

21


ratings and may not necessarily reflect actual performance, a downgrade in our credit rating could restrict or discontinue our ability to access capital markets at attractive rates and increase our borrowing costs. In addition, a reduction in credit rating may require us to post collateral related to various trading contracts, which would impact our liquidity.
Our ability to access capital markets at attractive interest rates is important.Our ability to access capital markets is important to operate our businesses. Heightened concerns about the energy industry, the level of borrowing by other energy companies and the market as a whole could limit our access to capital markets. Changes in interest rates could increase our borrowing costs and negatively impact our financial performance.
Regional and national economic conditions can have an unfavorable impact on us.Our businesses follow the economic cycles of the customers we serve. Should national or regional economic conditions decline, reduced volumes of electricity and gas we supply will result in decreased earnings and cash flow. Economic conditions in our service territory also impact our collections of accounts receivable and financial results.
Environmental laws and liability may be costly.We are subject to numerous environmental regulations. These regulations govern air emissions, water quality, wastewater discharge, and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Compliance with these regulations can significantly increase capital spending, operating expenses and plant down times. These laws and regulations require us to seek a variety of environmental licenses, permits, inspections and other regulatory approvals. We may also incur liabilities as a result of potential future requirements to address the climate change issue. The regulatory environment is subject to significant change; therefore, we cannot predict how future issues may impact the company.
Additionally, we may become a responsible party for environmental clean up at sites identified by a regulatory body. We cannot predict with certainty the amount and timing of future expenditures related to environmental matters because of the difficulty of estimating clean up costs. There is also uncertainty in quantifying liabilities under environmental laws that impose joint and several liability on potentially responsible parties.
Since there can be no assurances that environmental costs may be recovered through the regulatory process, our financial performance may be negatively impacted as a result of environmental matters.
Operation of a nuclear facility subjects us to risk.Ownership of an operating nuclear generating plant subjects us to significant additional risks. These risks include among others, plant security, environmental regulation and remediation, and operational factors that can significantly impact the performance and cost of operating a nuclear facility. While we maintain insurance for various nuclear-related risks, there can be no assurances that such insurance will be sufficient to cover our costs in the event of an accident or business interruption at our nuclear generating plant, which may affect our financial performance.

25


The supply and price of fuel and other commodities may impact our financial results.We are dependent on coal for much of our electrical generating capacity. Price fluctuations and fuel supply disruptions could have a negative impact on our ability to profitably generate electricity. Our access to natural gas supplies is critical to ensure reliability of service for our utility gas customers. We have hedging strategies in place to mitigate negative fluctuations in commodity supply prices, but there can be no assurances that our financial performance will not be negatively impacted by price fluctuations. The price of natural gas also impacts the market for otherour non-utility businesses that compete with utilities and alternative electric suppliers.
A work interruption may adversely affect us.Unions represent approximately 5,8005,400 of our employees. A union choosing to strike as a negotiating tactic would have an impact on our business. We are unable to predict the effects a work stoppage would have on our costs of operation and financial performance.
Unplanned power plant outages may be costly.Unforeseen maintenance may be required to safely produce electricity or comply with environmental regulations. As a result of unforeseen maintenance, we may be required to make spot market purchases of electricity that exceed our costs of generation. Our financial performance may be negatively affected if we are unable to recover such increased costs.

22


Our ability to access capital markets at attractive interest rates is important.Our ability to access capital markets is important to operate our businesses. Heightened concerns about the energy industry, the level of borrowing by other energy companies and the market as a whole could limit our access to capital markets. Changes in interest rates could increase our borrowing costs and negatively impact our financial performance.
Michigan tax reform may be costly. The State of Michigan is experiencing a revenue shortfall. We are a significant taxpayer in the State of Michigan. Should theThe legislature is expected to change the tax laws in 2007, and we could face increased taxes.
We may not be fully covered by insurance.While we have a comprehensive insurance program in place to provide coverage for various types of risks, catastrophic damage as a result of acts of God, terrorism, war or a combination of significant unforeseen events could impact our operations and economic losses might not be covered in full by insurance.
Terrorism could affect our business. Damage to downstream infrastructure or our own assets by terrorism would impact our operations. We have increased security as a result of past events and further security increases are possible.
Our participation in energy trading markets subjects us to additional risk.Events in the energy trading industry have increased the level of scrutiny on the energy trading business and the energy industry as a whole. In certain situations we may also be required to post collateral to support trading operations. We have established risk policies to manage the business.
EMPLOYEESFailure to successfully implement new processes and information systems could interrupt our operations.Our businesses depend on numerous information systems for operations and financial information and billings. We are in the midst of a multi-year Company-wide initiative to improve existing processes and implement new core information systems. We launched the first phase of our Enterprise Business Systems project in 2005. Additional phases of implementation are planned for 2007. Failure to successfully implement new processes and new core information systems could interrupt our operations.
Benefits of the Performance Excellence Process to the Company could be less than the Company has projected.In 2005, we initiated a company-wide review of our operations called the Performance Excellence Process with the overarching goal to become more competitive by reducing costs, eliminating waste and optimizing business processes while improving customer service. Actual results achieved through this process could be less than the Company’s expectations.
The following table shows our employees as of December 31, 2005 :
             
  Represented  Non-represented  Total 
Detroit Edison  3,961   4,019   7,980 
MichCon  1,501   797   2,298 
Other  309   823   1,132 
          
Total  5,771   5,639   11,410 
          
There are several bargaining unitsinability to consummate any strategic transactions for our represented employees. Approximately 4,590non-utility operations could affect our expected cash flows.As part of a strategic review of our represented employeesnon-utility operations, we are under three-year contracts that expire in 2007. The contractsconsidering various actions including the sale, restructuring or recapitalization of the remaining represented employees expire in 2008 and 2009.various non-utility businesses. If we are not able to consummate any strategic transactions on favorable terms or timing, our expected cash flows could be lower than anticipated.

2326


EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF DTE ENERGYItem 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
Present
Position
NameAge (1)Present PositionHeld Since
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.56Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer8-1-98
Gerard M. Anderson47Chief Operating Officer and President10-31-05
6-23-04
Stephen E. Ewing61Vice Chairman, DTE Energy10-31-05
President and Chief Operating Officer, MichCon4-28-05
Robert J. Buckler56President and Chief Operating Officer, Detroit Edison10-31-05
Group President, DTE Energy5-31-05
David E. Meador48Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer6-23-04
Lynne Ellyn54Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer12-31-01
Paul C. Hillegonds56Senior Vice President5-16-05
Ron A. May54Senior Vice President1-22-04
Bruce D. Peterson49Senior Vice President and General Counsel6-25-02
Peter B. Oleksiak39Controller12-05-05
Sandra K. Ennis49Corporate Secretary8-4-05
(1)As of December 31, 2005
Under our Bylaws, the officers of DTE Energy are elected annually by the Board of Directors at a meeting held for such purpose, each to serve until the next annual meeting of directors or until their respective successors are chosen and qualified. With the exception of Messrs. Ewing, Hillegonds, Peterson and Ms. Ellyn, all of the above officers have been employed by DTE Energy in one or more management capacities during the past five years.
Stephen E. Ewing was elected Vice Chairman of DTE Energy on October 31, 2005 and President and Chief Operating Officer of MichCon on April 28, 2005. He previously served as group president for DTE Energy Gas since May 31, 2001. He joined DTE Energy having previously served as president and chief operating officer of MCN Energy and president and chief executive officer of MichCon during the previous five years.
Paul C. Hillegonds was elected Senior Vice President effective May 16, 2005. Mr. Hillegonds was president of Detroit Renaissance for eight years prior to joining DTE Energy.
Bruce D. Peterson was elected Senior Vice President and General Counsel on June 25, 2002. Mr. Peterson was a partner with Hunton & Williams in Washington, D.C. prior to joining DTE Energy.
Lynne Ellyn was elected Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer on December 31, 2001. Ms. Ellyn returned to DTE Energy after spending a year serving as chief information officer of the San Francisco-based Organic Online Internet media services company. She originally joined DTE Energy in 1998 as vice president, information systems.
Pursuant to Article VI of our Articles of Incorporation, directors of DTE Energy will not be personally liable to the Company or its shareholders in the performance of their duties to the full extent permitted by law.
Article VII of our Articles of Incorporation provides that each current or former director or officer of DTE Energy, or each current and former employee or agent of the Company or a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise (including the heirs, executors, administrators or estate of such person), shall be indemnified by the Company to the full extent permitted by the Michigan Business Corporation Act or any other applicable laws as presently or hereafter in effect. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with all of our officers and directors; these agreements set forth procedures for claims for indemnification as well as contractually obligating us to provide indemnification to the maximum extent permitted by law.

24


We and our directors and officers in their capacities as such are insured against liability for alleged wrongful acts (to the extent defined) under seven insurance policies providing aggregate coverage in the amount of $165 million.None.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are involved in certain legal, regulatory, administrative and environmental proceedings before various courts, arbitration panels and governmental agencies concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business. These proceedings include certain contract disputes, environmental reviews and investigations, audits, inquiries from various regulators, and pending judicial matters. We cannot predict the final disposition of such proceedings. We regularly review legal matters and record provisions for claims that are considered probable of loss. The resolution of pending proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on our operations or financial statements in the period they are resolved.
In June 2005, Detroit Edison was named as one of approximately 21 defendant utility companies in a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada. Detroit Edison has not been served with this lawsuit. The plaintiffs, a class comprised of current and prior residents living in Ontario (and their respective family members and/or heirs), claim that the defendants emitted and continue to emit pollutants that have harmed the plaintiffs. As a result, the plaintiffs are seeking damages (in Canadian dollars) of approximately $49 billion for alleged negligence, approximately $4 billion per year until the defendants cease emitting pollutants, punitive and exemplary damages of $1 billion, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Detroit Edison is not able to predict or assess the outcome of this lawsuit at this time.
For additional discussion on legal matters, see the following Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements:
   
Note Title
4
    6 Regulatory Matters
5    7 Nuclear Operations
13   15 Commitments and Contingencies
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
We did not submit any matters to a vote of security holders in the fourth quarter of 2005.2006.

25


Part II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, which is the principal market for such stock, and the Chicago Stock Exchange.stock. The following table indicates the reported high and low sales prices of our common stock on the Composite Tape of the New York Stock Exchange and dividends paid per share for each quarterly period during the past two years:
                 
              Dividends
              Paid
Calendar Quarter High Low Per Share
 2005               
    
First
 $46.99  $42.40  $0.515 
    
Second
 $48.31  $44.40  $0.515 
    
Third
 $48.22  $44.11  $0.515 
    
Fourth
 $46.65  $41.39  $0.515 
                 
 2004               
    First $42.29  $37.92  $0.515 
    Second $41.58  $37.88  $0.515 
    Third $42.21  $39.31  $0.515 
    Fourth $45.49  $41.44  $0.515 
               
            Dividends
            Paid
Year Quarter High Low Per Share
2006
 First $44.23  $40.00  $0.515 
  Second $41.91  $38.77  $0.515 
  Third $43.63  $40.26  $0.515 
  Fourth $49.24  $41.37  $0.530 
               
2005 First $46.99  $42.40  $0.515 
  Second $48.31  $44.40  $0.515 
  Third $48.22  $44.11  $0.515 
  Fourth $46.65  $41.39  $0.515 
At December 31, 2005,2006, there were 177,814,429177,138,060 shares of our common stock outstanding. These shares were held by a total of 94,98189,984 shareholders of record.

27


Our Bylaws nullify Chapter 7B of the Michigan Business Corporation Act (Act). This Act regulates shareholder rights when an individual’s stock ownership reaches 20% of a Michigan corporation’s outstanding shares. A shareholder seeking control of the Company cannot require our Board of Directors to call a meeting to vote on issues related to corporate control within 10 days, as stipulated by the Act. See Note 8 – Common Stock and Earnings Per Share10 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information concerning the Shareholders’ Rights Agreement.
We paid cash dividends on our common stock of $365 million in 2006, $360 million in 2005, and $354 million in 2004 and $346 million in 2003.2004. The amount of future dividends will depend on our earnings, cash flows, financial condition and other factors that are periodically reviewed by our Board of Directors. Although there can be no assurances, we anticipate paying dividends at the current rate of $0.515 per quarter for the foreseeable future. In fourth quarter of 2006, we announced a quarterly dividend increase, effective January 15, 2007, from $0.515 per share to $0.53 per share.
All of our equity compensation plans that provide for the annual awarding of stock-based compensation have been approved by shareholders. See Note 15 — Stock Based Compensation17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional detail.
See the following table for information as of December 31, 2005.2006.
             
          Number of
  Number of     securities
  securities to be     remaining available
  issued upon Weighted-average for future issuance
  exercise of exercise price of under equity
  outstanding options outstanding options compensation plans
Plans approved by shareholders  6,236,343  $41.31   6,270,941 
             
  Number of securities     Number of securities
  to be issued upon Weighted-average remaining available for
  exercise of exercise price of future issuance under equity
  outstanding options outstanding options compensation plans
Plans approved by shareholders  5,667,197  $41.60   7,654,802 

2628


UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers
The following table provides information about Company purchases of equity securities that are registered by the Company pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act for the year ended December 31, 2006:
                     
  Total      Total Number of      Maximum Dollar 
  Number of  Average  Shares Purchased  Average  Value that May Yet 
  Shares  Price Paid  as Part of Publicly  Price Paid  Be Purchased 
  Purchased  Per Share  Announced Plans or  Per Share  Under the Plans or 
Period (1)  (1)  Programs (2)  (2)  Programs (2) 
01/01/06 — 01/31/06              $700,000,000 
02/01/06 — 02/28/06               700,000,000 
03/01/06 — 03/31/06  199,555   42.70          700,000,000 
04/01/06 — 04/30/06  37,525   40.65          700,000,000 
05/01/06 — 05/31/06               700,000,000 
06/01/06 — 06/30/06  6,725   41.13          700,000,000 
07/01/06 — 07/31/06  1,000   40.83          700,000,000 
08/01/06 — 08/31/06               700,000,000 
09/01/06 — 09/30/06  1,500   40.71          700,000,000 
10/01/06 — 10/31/06               700,000,000 
11/01/06 — 11/30/06               700,000,000 
12/01/06 — 12/31/06  36,250   49.10   1,000,000   48.47   651,506,040 
                  
Total  282,555   43.19   1,000,000         
                  
(1)Represents shares of common stock purchased on the open market to provide shares to participants under various employee compensation and incentive programs. These purchases were not made pursuant to a publicly announced plan or program.
(2)In January 2005, the DTE Energy Board authorized the repurchase of up to $700 million in common stock through 2008. The authorization provides Company management with flexibility to pursue share repurchases from time to time, and will depend on future asset monetizations, cash flows and other investment opportunities.

29


Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The following selected financial data should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
                                        
(in Millions, except per share amounts) 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001(1)  2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 
 
Operating Revenues
 $9,022 $7,071 $7,005 $6,694 $5,771  $9,022 $9,021 $7,069 $6,999 $6,680 
                      
Net Income (Loss)
  
Total from continuing operations $576 $461 $494 $599 $317  $437 $577 $464 $475 $598 
Discontinued operations  (36)  (30) 54 33 12   (5)  (37)  (33) 73 34 
Cumulative effect of accounting changes  (3)   (27)  3  1  (3)   (27)  
                      
Net Income $537 $431 $521 $632 $332  $433 $537 $431 $521 $632 
           
            
Diluted Earnings Per Share
  
Total from continuing operations $3.27 $2.66 $2.93 $3.63 $2.06  $2.45 $3.28 $2.68 $2.83 $3.62 
Discontinued operations  (.20)  (.17) .32 .20 .08   (.03)  (.21)  (.19) .42 .21 
Cumulative effect of accounting changes  (.02)   (.16)  .02  .01  (.02)   (.16)  
                      
Diluted Earnings Per Share $3.05 $2.49 $3.09 $3.83 $2.16  $2.43 $3.05 $2.49 $3.09 $3.83 
                      
  
Financial Information
  
Dividends declared per share of common stock $2.06 $2.06 $2.06 $2.06 $2.06  $2.075 $2.06 $2.06 $2.06 $2.06 
Total assets $23,335 $21,297 $20,753 $19,985 $19,587  $23,785 $23,335 $21,297 $20,753 $19,985 
Long-term debt, including capital leases $7,080 $7,606 $7,669 $7,803 $7,928  $7,474 $7,080 $7,606 $7,669 $7,803 
Shareholders’ equity $5,769 $5,548 $5,287 $4,565 $4,589  $5,849 $5,769 $5,548 $5,287 $4,565 
(1)Includes the acquisition of the Gas Utility business and other non-utility gas businesses on May 31, 2001.

27


Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
OVERVIEW
DTE Energy is a growing and diversified energy company with 20052006 revenues in excess of $9 billion and approximately $23$24 billion in assets. Since 2003, our asset base has increased by 12% and operating revenues have grown by 29%.
We are the parent company of Detroit Edison and MichCon, regulated electric and gas utilities engaged primarily in the business of providing electricity and natural gas sales, distribution and distributionstorage services throughout southeastern Michigan. We operate threefive energy-related non-utility segments with operations throughout the United States.
In 2005, our utilities and Power and Industrial Projects segment generated most of our earnings. The improvement in earnings was due to rate increases at our Michigan utilities, favorable weather and continued asset gains from the synthetic fuel business. Earnings were also impacted by mark-to-market losses in our Fuel Transportation and Marketing segment and losses from discontinued operations.
Our 2005 financial performance improved over 2004. The following table summarizes our financial results:
             
(in Millions, except Earnings per Share) 2006 2005 2004
Income from Continuing Operations $437  $577  $464 
Earnings per Diluted share $2.45  $3.28  $2.68 
Net Income $433  $537  $431 
Earnings per Diluted Share $2.43  $3.05  $2.49 
The decrease in 2006 net income since 2003:is primarily due to the temporary idling of synfuel plants along with the associated impairments and reserves, and impairments within our Power and Industrial Projects segment. This decrease was partially offset by higher earnings at our electric utility, Detroit Edison, and Energy Trading segment mark-to-market losses in 2005 which did not recur in 2006.

30


             
(in millions, except Earnings per Share)      
  2005 2004 2003
Net Income $537  $431  $521 
Earnings per Diluted Share $3.05  $2.49  $3.09 
Excluding Discontinued Operations and Accounting Changes
            
Income from Continuing Operations $576  $461  $494 
Earnings per Diluted share $3.27  $2.66  $2.93 
The items discussed below influenced our 2005current financial performance and may affect future results:
Effects of weather and accounts receivable on utility operations;
Electric rate orders, electric Customer Choice program, and coal and uranium supply;
Gas rate and gas cost recovery orders and gas supply;
Synfuel-related earnings and the impact of higher oil prices on production credit phase-outs;
Investments in our unconventional gas production business;
Mark-to-market losses in our Fuel Transportation and Marketing business; and
Cost reduction efforts and required capital investment.
Effects of weather and collectibility of accounts receivable on utility operations;
Impact of regulatory decisions on our utility operations;
Investments in our Unconventional Gas Production business;
Results in our Energy Trading business;
Synfuel-related earnings and the impact of temporarily idling synfuel facilities in 2006; and
Cost reduction efforts and required capital investment.
UTILITY OPERATIONS
Weather- Earnings atfrom our utility operations are seasonal and very sensitive to weather. Electric utility earnings are primarily dependent on hot summer weather, while the gas utility’s results are primarily dependent on cold winter weather. The following table explains the impact of weather relative to 30-year historicalDuring 2006, we experienced milder than normal weather temperatures for each utility.

28


                     
  Percentage change from Normal (1) Estimated effect on Net Income
(Dollars in Millions) Electric Gas Electric Gas  
Year Utility Utility Utility Utility Total
2005
  47%  (3)% $63  $(4) $59 
2004  (17)%  (4)% $(40) $(9) $(49)
2003  (13)%  2% $(24) $3  $(21)
conditions.
(1)Electric Utility is based on cooling degree days and the Gas Utility is based on heating degree days.
The positive impact of warmer weather was partially mitigated by the rate cap on residential customers which prevented us from passing through increased generation and purchased power costs incurred to serve the higher demand. Additionally, we occasionally experience various types of storms that damage our electric distribution infrastructure resulting in power outages. Restoration and other costs associated with storm-related power outages lowered pretax earnings by $46 million in 2006, $82 million in 2005 and $48 million in 2004 and $72 million in 2003.2004.
Receivables- Both utilities continue to experience high levels of past due receivables, especially within our Gas Utility operations. The increase is attributable to economic conditions, highhigher natural gas prices and thea lack of adequate levels of assistance for low-income customers.
We have taken aggressive actions to reduce the level of past due receivables including, increased customer disconnections, contracting with collection agencies and working with the State of Michigan and others to increase the share of low-income funding allocated to our customers. In 2005,2006, we sold previously written-off accounts of $187$43 million resulting in a gain and net proceeds of $6$1.9 million. The gain was recorded as a recovery through bad debt expense, which is included within operationOperation and maintenance expense.
As a result of these factors, our allowance for doubtful accounts expense for the two utilities decreasedincreased to $123 million in 2006 from $98 million in 2005 and from $105 million in 2004.
The April 2005 MPSC gas rate order provided for an uncollectible trackingtrue-up mechanism for MichCon. We will filefiled the 2005 annual reconciliation, comparing our actual uncollectible expense to our designated revenue recovery of approximately $37 million on an annual applicationbasis. The MPSC approved the 2005 annual reconciliation on December 21, 2006 allowing MichCon to surcharge the $11 million excess beginning in January 2007.
We expect to file the 2006 annual reconciliation with the MPSC no later than March 31, 2007 comparing our actual 2006 uncollectible expense to our designated revenue recovery of approximately $37 million. Ninety percent of the difference fromfor the date of the orderyear will be refunded orrequested to be surcharged after anas part of the annual reconciliation proceeding before the MPSC.
Electric Utility We have accrued $33 million under the 2006 uncollectible true-up mechanism.
ElectricRegulatory activity- In accordance with the MPSC’s directive in Detroit Edison’s November 2004 rate orders —order, in March 2005, Detroit Edison filed a joint application and testimony in its 2004 PSCR Reconciliation Case and its 2004 Net Stranded Cost Recovery Case. In 2004,September 2006, the MPSC issued interim and final rate ordersan order recognizing $19 million of 2004 net stranded costs that authorized electric rate increases totaling $374required Detroit Edison to write off $112 million eliminated transition credits and implemented transition charges for electric Customer Choice customers. The increases were applicable to all customers not subject to a rate cap.of 2004 net stranded costs. The MPSC also authorizedorder resulted in a $39 million reduction in the recovery2004 PSCR over-collection by allowing Detroit Edison to retain the benefit of approximately $385 million in regulatory assets, including stranded costs. As a result of increased rates, our 2005 pretax margins were higher by $116 million.third party wholesale sales

31


Electric Customer Choice- Our customers have the option of participating in
required to support the electric Customer Choice program where they can select an alternative electric supplier. Dueand to distorted pricing mechanisms duringoffset the initial period of electric Customer Choice, many commercial customers chose alternative electric suppliers. The impactrecognition of the final rate$19 million of 2004 stranded costs. The MPSC order in 2004, that increased base rates including the recovery of lost margins and transition charges, combined with recent higher wholesale electric prices hasalso resulted in many former electric Customer Choice customers migrating back toreductions in accrued interest on the 2004 and 2005 PSCR amounts of $15 million. The MPSC directed Detroit Edison for electrical generation service, partially mitigatingto include the financial impact ofremaining 2004 PSCR over-collection amount and related interest in the electric Customer Choice program.
2005 PSCR Reconciliation which is in an under-collected position. The return of customers from the electric Customer Choice programorder resulted in higher gross margins during 2005. a reduction of pre-tax income of approximately $58 million.
The following graph depicts the total electric Customer Choice volumes:

29


volumes for customers who have purchased power from an alternative electric supplier:
We continue to work with the MPSC to address issues associated with the electricElectric Customer Choice program. Volumes in MWh
In February 2005, we filed a revenue-neutral rate restructuring proposal with the MPSC designed to adjust rates for each customer class to be reflective of the full costs incurred to service such customers. In December 2005,March 2006, the MPSC issued an order that took some initial stepsdirecting Detroit Edison to improveshow cause by June 1, 2006 why its retail electric rates should not be reduced in 2007. The MPSC issued an order approving the current competitive imbalancesettlement agreement in Michigan’s electric Customer Choice program.this proceeding on August 31, 2006. The December 2005 order establishes cost-based power supply ratesprovided for an annualized rate reduction of $53 million for 2006, effective September 5, 2006. Beginning January 1, 2007, and continuing until the later of March 31, 2008 or 12 months from the filing date of Detroit Edison’s full service customers. Electric Customer Choice participantsnext main rate case, rates will pay cost-based distribution rates, whilebe reduced by an additional $26 million, for a total reduction of $79 million. Detroit Edison’s full serviceEdison experienced a rate reduction of approximately $13 million in 2006 as a result of this order. The revenue reduction is net of the recovery of the amortization of the costs associated with the implementation of the Performance Excellence Process. The settlement agreement provides for some level of realignment of the existing rate structure by allocating a larger percentage share of the rate reduction to the commercial and industrial customers will pay cost-based distribution rates that reflect the cost ofcustomer classes than to the residential rate subsidy. Residential customers pay a subsidized below cost rate for distribution service. These revenue neutral revised rates were effective February 1, 2006.customer classes.
Coal Supply Our generating fleet produces in excess ofapproximately 70% of its electricity from coal. Increasing coal demand from domestic and international markets has resulted in significant price increases. In addition, difficulty in recruiting workers, obtaining environmental permits and finding economically recoverable amounts of new coal has resulted in decreasing coal output from the central Appalachian region. Furthermore, as a result of environmental regulation and declining eastern coal stocks, demand for cleaner burning western coal has increased. This increased demand for western coal has also resulted in a corresponding demand for western rail shipping, straining railroad capacity, resulting in longer lead times for western coal shipments.
Uranium SupplyNuclear Fuel- We operate one nuclear facility that undergoes a periodic refueling outage approximately every eighteen months. Uranium prices have been rising due to supply concerns. In the future, there may be additional nuclear facilities constructed in the industry that may place additional pressure on uranium supplies and prices.
Gas Utility
Gas final rate order– In April 2005, We have a contract with the MPSC issued a final rate order authorizing MichCon to earn a rateU.S. Department of return on common equity of 11% based on a 50% debt and 50% equity capital structure. Highlights of the order include:
$61 million increase in annual base rates;
base rate increase includes $25 million to recover safety and training costs;
deferral as a regulatory liability for the non-capitalized portion of negative pension expense; and
adoption of a tracking mechanism for uncollectible accounts receivable.
The final rate order from the MPSC denied recovery or required accounting impairmentEnergy (DOE) for the following items:
$25 million of allocated merger interest from DTE Energy related to the acquisition of MCN Energy;
$6 million of internal labor and legal costs to remediate MGP sites;
$5 million as a result of a change to the allocation of historical MGP insurance proceeds;
future storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel from Fermi 2. We are obligated to pay the DOE a fee of 1 mill per kWh of Fermi 2 electricity generated and sold. The fee is a component of nuclear fuel expense. Delays

3032


$6 million of computer equipment and related depreciation; and
$42 million impairment related to 90% of the cost of a computer billing systemhave occurred in place prior to DTE Energy’s acquisition of MCN Energy. This impairment had a minimal earnings impact on DTE Energy because a valuation allowance was established for this asset at the time of the MCN acquisition in 2001.
Additionally, the rate order adjusted MichCon’s depreciation ratesDOE’s program for the acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel at a permanent repository. Until the related revenueDOE is able to fulfill its obligation under the contract, we are responsible for the spent nuclear fuel storage. We are currently expanding the Fermi 2 spent fuel pool capacity to meet our storage requirements with no resulting impact on net income.
Gas cost recovery order– Based on rate ordersthrough 2009. We are a party in placethe litigation against the DOE for 2001both past and 2002, we filed a gas cost recovery case in 2002 and recorded a $26 million regulatory asset related to unbilled volumes as of December 31, 2001. Over time we recorded $3 million of interestfuture costs associated with this regulatory asset. In its April 28, 2005 order, the MPSC disallowed recovery and we recordedDOE’s failure to accept spent nuclear fuel under the impact of the disallowancetimetable set forth in the first quarterFederal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 2005.
Natural Gas Supply– Increased demand from natural gas power plants, 2005 hurricane related supply disruptions, regulatory constraints and limited exploration have combined to strain existing natural gas supplies and caused substantial increases in prices.1982.
NON-UTILITY OPERATIONS
We anticipatehave made significant investment opportunities within ourinvestments in non-utility asset-intensive businesses. We employ disciplined investment criteria when assessing opportunities that will leverage our existing assets, skill and expertise. Specifically, we invest in targeted energy markets with attractive competitive dynamics where meaningful scale is in alignment with our risk profile. Assuming noA number of factors have impacted our non-utility businesses including the effect of oil prices on the synthetic fuel business, losses from certain power generation assets, losses from our waste coal recovery and landfill gas recovery businesses, and earnings volatility in our energy trading business. As part of a strategic review of our non-utility operations, we are considering various actions including the sale, restructuring or recapitalization of various non-utility businesses which we expect may generate over $800 million in cash proceeds in 2007. We plan to continue to invest in focused areas that have the strongest opportunities.
The primary source of recent investment capital has been cash flow from the synfuel business. We have hedged a portion the risk of an oil price-related phase-out of production tax credits in the sourcesynfuel business. We now anticipate approximately $900 million of investment capital is the estimated cumulative $1.2 billion we anticipatesynfuel-related cash impacts from synfuel cash flow2007 through 2009, which consists of cash from operations asset sales, and theproceeds from option hedges, and approximately $500 million of tax credit carryforward utilization of current and previously earned productionother tax creditsbenefits that are expected to reduce future tax payments. Tax credit carryforward utilization in part could be extended past 2008,2009, if taxable income is reduced from current forecasts. However, if oil prices remain at current levels or continue to increase, the estimated cash flow from the synfuel business would be significantly less
Coal and would adversely impact the success of this strategy, unless we identify alternative sources of cash.
Power and Industrial ProjectsGas Midstream
We anticipate building aroundare continuing to build our core strengthscapacity to transport greater amounts of western coal and to expand into coal terminals to allow for increased coal storage and blending. We are currently involved in a contract dispute with BNSF Railway Company that has been referred to arbitration. Under this contract, BNSF transports western coal east for Detroit Edison and the Coal Transportation and Marketing business. We have filed a breach of contract claim against BNSF for the failure to provide certain services that we believe are required by the contract. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for mid-2007. While we believe we will prevail on the merits in this matter, a negative decision with respect to the significant issues being heard in the markets where we operate. In determining the markets in which to compete, we closely examine the regulatory environment, the number of competitors andarbitration could have an adverse effect on our ability to achieve sustainable margins. Wegrow the Coal Transportation and Marketing business as currently contemplated.
Pipelines, Processing and Storage is continuing its steady growth plan of expansion of storage capacity in Michigan and expanding and building new pipeline capacity to maximize the effectiveness of our inter-related businesses as we expand from our current regional focus. As we pursue growth opportunities, our first priority will be to achieve value-added returns.
We plan to focus on the following areas for growth:
Optimizing the remaining life of our synfuel portfolio;
Providing operating services to owners of industrial and power plants;
Acquiring and developing solid fuel-fired power plants;
Expanding on-site energy projects; and
Developing new tax advantaged opportunities.
Synfuel-related earnings —We operate nine synthetic fuel production plants throughout the United States. Synfuel plants chemically change coal into a synthetic fuel as determined under the Internal Revenue Code. Production tax credits are provided for the production and sale of solid synthetic fuel produced from coal. These tax credits expire on December 31, 2007. Our synthetic fuel plants generate operating losses which are offset by the resulting production tax credits. We have not had sufficient taxable income to fully utilize production tax credits earned in prior periods. As of December 31, 2005, we have $484 million in tax credit carry-forwards.

31


To optimize income and cash flow from our synfuel operations, we have sold interests in all nine of our facilities, representing 91% of our total production capacity as of December 31, 2005. We will continue to evaluate opportunities to sell additional interests in our two remaining majority-owned plants. Proceeds from the sales are contingent upon production levels and the value of such credits. When we sell an interest in a synfuel project, we recognize the gain as the facility produces and sells synfuel and when there is persuasive evidence that the sales proceeds have become fixed or determinable and collectibility is reasonably assured. In substance, we are receiving synfuel gains and reduced operating losses in exchange for tax credits associated with the projects sold. Sales of interests in synfuel projects allow us to accelerate cash flow while maintaining a stable income base.
The value of a production tax credit can vary each year and is adjusted annually by an inflation factor as published by the IRS in April of the following year. The value of the production tax credit in a given year is reduced if the Reference Price of oil within the year exceeds a threshold price and is eliminated entirely if the Reference Price exceeds a phase-out price. The Reference Price of a barrel of oil is an estimate of the annual average wellhead price per barrel for domestic crude oil. During 2005, the monthly average wellhead prices were approximately $6 lower than the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) price for light, sweet crude oil. The actual or estimated Reference Price and beginning and ending phase-out prices per barrel of oil for 2004 through 2007 are as follows:
         
    Beginning Phase-Out Ending Phase-Out
  Reference Price Price Price
2004 (actual) $36.75 $51.35 $64.46
2005 (estimated) $51 $53 $66
2006 (estimated) Not Available $53 $67
2007 (estimated) Not Available $54 $68
Recent events have increased domestic crude oil prices, including hurricane-related supply disruptions and continued worldwide demand. Through December 31, 2005, the NYMEX daily closing price of a barrel of oil for 2005 averaged approximately $57, which due to the uncertainty of the wellhead/NYMEX difference, is comparable to an approximate $51 Reference Price. For the remaining life of the tax credits, if the Reference Price falls within or exceeds the phase-out range, the availability of production tax credits in that year would be reduced or eliminated. Any actual tax credit phase-out for 2006 and available tax credits, if any, will not be certain until published by the IRS in April 2007. As of February 28, 2006, the realized and unrealized NYMEX daily closing price of a barrel of oil was $65.08, equating to an estimated Reference Price of $59, which is within the phase-out range. If prices remain at this level throughout 2006, we would experience a phase-out of the production tax credits and our synthetic fuel business would be adversely affected; this could have an impact on our synthetic fuel production plans which, in turn, may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flow, and financial condition. However, we cannot predict with any certainty the Reference Price for 2006 or beyond.
There is legislation pending in Congress that may impact the potential phase-out of production tax credits for 2006 and 2007. The legislation would use the prior year oil price to determine the current year Reference Price. We are unable to predict the outcome of this legislation.
The gain from the sale of synfuel facilities is comprised of fixed and variable components. The fixed component represents note payments of principal and interest, is not subject to refund, and is recognized as a gain when earned and collectibility is assured. The variable component is based on an estimate of tax credits allocated to our partners, is subject to refund based on the annual oil price phase-out, and is recognized as a gain only when the probability of refund is considered remote and collectibility is assured. Additionally, based on estimates of tax credits allocated, our partners reimburse us (through the project entity) for the operating losses of the synfuel facilities. In the event that the tax credit is phased out, we are contractually obligated to refund to our partners all or a portion of the operating losses funded by our partners. To assess the probability of refund, we use valuation and analysis models that calculate the probability of surpassing the estimated lower band of the phase-out range for the Reference Price of oil for the year. Due to the rise in oil prices, there was a possibility that the 2005 Reference Price of oil could have reached the threshold at which production tax credits would have begun to phase-out. We

32


deferred all variable gains for the first three quarters of 2005. However,serve markets in the fourth quarter of 2005, when there was persuasive evidence that the Reference Price of oil would not surpass the estimated lower band of the phase-out range, we recognized all the variable gains related to 2005, of which $167 million (pre-tax) were attributable to the first three quarters of 2005.
Due to changes in the agreements with certain of our synfuel partnersMidwest and the exercise of existing rights by other of our synfuels partners, a higher percentage of the expected payments in 2006 may be variable note payments. As a result, a larger portion of the 2006 synfuel payments may be subject to refund should a phase-out occur. We will likely defer recognition of the quarterly variable and certain indemnified fixed note payments in 2006 until the probability of refund is remote and collectibility is assured.
As discussed in Note 12, we have entered into derivative and other contracts to economically hedge a portion of our 2006 and 2007 synfuel cash flow exposure related to the risk of oil prices increasing. The derivative contracts are marked to market with changes in fair value recorded as an adjustment to synfuel gains. We recorded a pretax mark to market gain of $48 million during 2005. As part of our synfuel-related risk management strategy, we continue to evaluate alternatives available to mitigate unhedged exposure to oil price volatility. These contracts, and other actions we can take and have taken, will protect approximately 53% of our 2006 cash flow and 31% of our 2007 cash flow. As our risk management position changes due to market volatility or legislative actions, we may adjust our hedging strategy in response to changing conditions.
In addition to entering into economic hedges, we can mitigate our exposure to a tax credit phase-out by shutting down or reducing production at our synfuel facilities, which decreases the amount of operating losses we generate. We regularly monitor oil prices and have created contingency plans to cease synfuel production.
Assuming no synfuel tax credit phase-out, we expect cash flow from our synfuel business will be approximately $1.2 billion from 2006 to 2008. If prices remain at current levels or increase throughout 2006, synfuel production levels may be reduced, which would reduce the income and cash flow from this business. If the Reference Price results in a complete phase out of the synfuel tax credits for 2006, and assuming the previously discussed current level of economic hedges and an early cessation of synfuel production to avoid operating losses, there is a potential negative impact to net income and cash flow of $160 million and $140 million, respectively, before any potential asset impairment and goodwill write-off.northeast United States.
Unconventional Gas Production
During the past year,Current natural gas prices have reached historically high levels. These high prices provide attractive opportunities for our Unconventional Gas Production business segment. We are an experienced operator with more than 15 years of experience in the Antrim shale in northern Michigan, and we recently expandedcontinue to expand our operations in the Barnett shale basin in north central Texas. RecentTexas, where recent leasehold acquisitions have increased our total leasehold acreage to 452,62189,808 acres (366,693(80,530 net of interest of others). Over after reduction by opportunistic sales of 11,193 acres.
We are exploring the next few years,sale of a portion of our goal isUnconventional Gas Production assets which will allow us to expandmonetize value from our existing leasehold acreage position and transform unproved acreage into proved reserves.more mature holdings, while retaining the ability to benefit from the upside of our earlier stage holdings.

33


Antrim shale We plan to grow through the extension of existing producing areas and acquisition of other producer’s properties. Additionally, we intend to develop existing acreage using the latest vertical and horizontal drilling techniques and to continue to search for expansion acreage. Some of ourfracture stimulation techniques. Our long-term fixed-price obligations for production of Antrim gas begincontinue to expire in 2006.2007. This will create opportunities to remarket Antrim production at significantly higher current market rates.

33


                      
Michigan – Antrim Shale 2005 2004 2003      
 2006 2005 2004
Net Producing Wells 1,630 1,523 1,471  1,700 1,630 1,523 
  
Production Volume (Bcfe) 21.5 22.5 23.2  22 22 23 
  
Proved Reserves (Bcfe) 338.4 335.4 351.9  442 338 335 
  
Net Developed Acreage 217,643 213,959 212,067  228,232 217,643 213,959 
 
Net Undeveloped Acreage 73,056 79,025 81,133  66,184 73,056 79,025 
  
Capital Expenditures (in millions) $37 $22 $26 
Future Net Cash Flows (in millions) (1) $1,307 $760 $485 
Capital Expenditures (in Millions) $49 $37 $22 
Future Undiscounted Net Cash Flows (in Millions)(1) $1,636 $1,307 $760 
  
Average gas price with hedges (per Mcf) $3.10 $3.10 $2.97  $3.41 $3.10 $3.10 
Average gas price without hedges(per Mcf) (2) $7.73 $5.57 $4.98 
Average gas price without hedges (per Mcf)(2) $6.61 $7.73 $5.57 
 
(1) Represents the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows as calculated by an independent engineering firm utilizing extensive estimates. The estimated future net cash flow computations should not be considered to represent our estimate of the expected revenues or the current value of existing proved reserves and do not include the impact of hedge contracts.
 
(2) The gas produced in the Antrim shale is subject to hedges that beginbegan to expire in 2006. In 2006, we expect to remarket 2.0 Bcf at current market pricing. For 2007, we anticipate remarketing an additional 1.8 Bcf.
Barnett shale- We anticipate significant opportunities in our existing Barnett shale acreage and expect continued extension of producing areas within the Fort Worth Basin. We are currently in the test and development phase for unproved and recently acquired Barnett shale acreage. We plan to increase our acreage through small negotiated acquisitions to build scale.
                     
Texas – Barnett Shale 2005 2004 2003      
 2006 2005 2004
Net Producing Wells 55 1   110 55 1 
  
Production Volume (Bcfe) 0.7    4 1  
  
Proved Reserves (Bcfe) 58.6 7.9   174 59 8 
  
Net Developed Acreage 14,637 316   16,045 14,637 316 
 
Net Undeveloped Acreage 61,627 48,541 3,156  64,485 61,627 48,541 
  
Capital Expenditures (in millions) $107 $16 $2 
Future Net Cash Flows (in millions) (1) $127 $7  
Capital Expenditures (in Millions) $137 $107 $16 
Future Undiscounted Net Cash Flows (in Millions) (1) $472 $127 $7 
  
Average gas price (per Mcf) $9.01 $5.70   $5.66 $9.01 $5.70 
 
(1) Represents the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows as calculated by an independent engineering firm utilizing extensive estimates. The estimated future net cash flow computations should not be considered to represent our estimate of the expected revenues or the current value of existing proved reserves and do not include the impact of hedge contracts.
Due to highCurrent natural gas prices and the potential for successes within the Barnett shale are resulting in more capital is being invested into the region. The competition for opportunities and goods and services may result in increased operating costs. However, our experience in the Antrim shale and our experienced Barnett shale personnel provide an advantage in addressing potential cost increases. We invested $186 million in

34


2006 and expect to invest a combined amount of approximately $100$150 million to $130$170 million in our unconventional gas business in 2006.2007.
As a component of our risk management strategy for our Barnett shale reserves, we hedged a portion of our proved developed producing reserves to secure an attractive investment return. As of December 31, 2006, we entered into a series of cash flow hedges for 4.7 Bcf of anticipated gas production through 2010 at an average price of $8.08 per Mcf.
Fuel TransportationPower and MarketingIndustrial Projects
Pipelines, ProcessingPower and StorageIndustrial Projects is comprised primarily of projects that deliver utility-type services to industrial, commercial and institutional customers, and biomass energy projects. We provide utility-type services using project assets usually located on the customers’ premises in the processsteel, automotive, pulp and paper, airport and other industries. These services include pulverized coal and petroleum coke supply, power generation, steam production, chilled water production, wastewater treatment and compressed air supply. We own and operate three gas-fired peaking electric generating plants and a biomass-fired electric generating plant and operate one additional gas-fired power plant under contract. Additionally, we own a gas-fired peaking electric generating plant that was taken out of expanding our storage capacityservice in MichiganSeptember 2006. We develop, own and expanding and building new pipeline capacity tooperate landfill gas recovery systems throughout the northeast United States. Our Coal TransportationWe produce coke from two coke batteries. The production of coke from our coke batteries generates production tax credits (assuming no phase-out).

34


We are exploring the combination of a sale of an equity interest in, and Marketingrecapitalization of, some of the assets of the Power and Industrial Projects business, will seekincluding the sale or restructuring of the power generation assets. In February 2007, we entered into an agreement to buildsell our capacityGeorgetown peaking electric generating facility. The sale is subject to transport greater amountsreceipt of western coalregulatory approval and may seekis expected to expand into coal terminals.close in the second half of 2007.
Energy Trading
Significant portions of the electric and gas marketing and trading portfolio are economically hedged. The portfolio includes financial instruments and gas inventory, as well as owned and contracted natural gas pipelines and storage capacity positions. Most financial instruments are deemed derivatives, whereas the gas inventory, pipelines and storage assets are not derivatives. As a result, this segment may experience dramatic earnings volatility as derivatives are marked to market without revaluing the underlying non-derivative contracts and assets. This results in gains and losses that are recognized in different accounting periods. We may incur mark-to-market accounting gains or losses in one period that are subsequently reversedwill reverse in subsequent periods when transactions are settled.
During 2005, our earnings were negatively impacted by the economically favorable decision in early 2005 to delay previously planned withdrawals from gas storage due to a decrease in the current price for natural gas and an increase in the forward price for natural gas. The financial impact of this timing difference has begun to reverse as the gas is withdrawn from storage in the current storage cycle and is sold at prices significantly in excess of the cost of gas in storage. In addition, we entered into forward power contracts to economically hedge certain physical and capacity power contracts. SomeThe financial impacts of these underlying contractstiming differences have begun to reverse and have favorably impacted results during 2006. We are exploring strategic options for the energy trading business.
Synthetic Fuel
Synthetic Fuel Operations
Synfuel plants chemically change coal and waste coal into a synthetic fuel as determined under the Internal Revenue Code. Production tax credits are provided for the production and sale of solid synthetic fuel produced from coal and are available through December 31, 2007. The synthetic fuel plants generate operating losses which we expect to be offset by production tax credits. The value of a production tax credit is adjusted annually by an inflation factor and published annually by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The value is reduced if the Reference Price of a barrel of oil exceeds certain thresholds.

35


We are the operator of nine synthetic fuel production facilities throughout the United States. On May 12, 2006, we idled production at all nine of the synthetic fuel facilities. The decision to idle synfuel production was driven by the level and volatility of oil prices at that time. During the idle period, we took various steps to reduce our oil price exposure, including renegotiation of a significant number of commercial agreements. Beginning September 5, 2006 through October 4, 2006, we resumed production at each of the nine synfuel facilities due to these amended commercial agreements and declines in the level of oil prices.
Recognition of Synfuel Gains
To optimize income and cash flow from the synfuel operations, we sold interests in all nine of the facilities, representing 91% of the total production capacity as of December 31, 2006. Proceeds from the sales are contingent upon production levels and the value of credits generated. Gains from the sale of an interest in a synfuel project are recognized when there is persuasive evidence that the sales proceeds have become fixed or determinable, the probability of refund is considered remote and collectibility is assured. In substance, we receive synfuel gains and reduced operating losses in exchange for tax credits associated with the projects sold.
The gain from the sale of synfuel facilities is generally comprised of fixed and variable components. The fixed component represents note payments, is not derivatives, whilesubject to refund, and is recognized as a gain when earned and collectibility is assured. The variable component is based on an estimate of tax credits allocated to our partners and is subject to refund based on the related economic hedgesannual oil price phase-out. The variable component is recognized as a gain only when the probability of refund is considered remote and collectibility is assured. Additionally, our partners reimburse us (through the project entity) for the operating losses of the synfuel facilities, referred to as capital contributions. In the event that the tax credit is phased out, we are derivatives,contractually obligated to refund an amount equal to all or a portion of the operating losses funded by our partners. To assess the probability and therefore markedestimate the amount of refund, we use valuation and analysis models that calculate the probability of the Reference Price of oil for the year being within or exceeding the phase-out range. Due to market.changes in the agreements with certain of our synfuel partners and the exercise of existing rights by other synfuels partners, a higher percentage of the payments in 2006 were variable payments. As a result, these transactions producea larger portion of the timing related earnings swings from period2006 synfuel payments are subject to period. We expectrefund as a result of the timing difference onphase-out; and therefore reduced the forward power contractsgain associated with the payments.
Crude Oil Prices
The Reference Price of a barrel of oil is an estimate by the IRS of the annual average wellhead price per barrel for domestic crude oil. The value of the production tax credit in a given year is reduced if the Reference Price of oil over the year exceeds a threshold price and is eliminated entirely if that same Reference Price exceeds a phase-out price. During 2006, the annual average wellhead price is projected to be approximately $6 lower than the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) price for light, sweet crude oil. The actual or estimated Reference Price and beginning and ending phase-out prices per barrel of oil for 2005 through 2007 are as follows:
             
      Beginning Phase-Out Ending Phase-Out
  Reference Price Price Price
2005 (actual) $50.26  $53.20  $66.79 
2006 (estimated) $60  $55  $69 
2007 (estimated) Not Available $56  $70 
The NYMEX daily closing price of a barrel of oil for 2006 averaged approximately $66, which is approximately equal to a Reference Price of $60 per barrel, which we estimate to be within the phase-out range. The actual tax credit phase-out for 2006 will not be fully realizedcertain until the Reference Price is published by the IRS in April 2007. There is a risk of at least a partial phase-out of the production tax credits in 2007, which could adversely impact our results of operations, cash flow, and financial condition.

36


Hedging of Synfuel Cash Flows
As discussed in Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, we have entered into derivative and other contracts to economically hedge a portion of our synfuel cash flow exposure to the risk of oil prices increasing. The derivative contracts are marked-to-market with changes in fair value recorded as an adjustment to synfuel gains. To manage our exposure in 2007 to the risk of an increase in oil prices that could substantially reduce or eliminate synfuel sales proceeds, we entered into a series of derivative contracts covering a specified number of barrels of oil. The derivative contracts involve purchased and written call options that provide for net cash settlement at expiration based on the full years’ 2007 average NYMEX trading prices for light, sweet crude oil in relation to the strike prices of each option. If the average NYMEX prices of oil in 2007 are less than approximately $60 per barrel, the derivatives will yield no payment. If the average NYMEX prices of oil exceed approximately $60 per barrel, the derivatives will yield a payment equal to the excess of the average NYMEX price over these initial strike prices, multiplied by the number of barrels covered, up to a maximum price of approximately $76 per barrel. These contracts are based on various terms to take advantage of increases in oil prices. We recorded pretax mark-to-market gains of $60 million during 2006 and $47 million in 2005, and a $12 million loss in 2004. The fair value changes are recorded as adjustments to the gain from selling interests in synfuel facilities and are included in the Asset gains and losses, reserves and impairments, net line item in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. We paid approximately $50 million for 2006 hedges, for which we received payments of approximately $156 million upon settlement of these hedges in January 2007. Through December 31, 2006, we paid approximately $103 million for 2007 hedges which will provide protection for a significant portion of our cash flows related to the synfuel production during 2007. As part of our synfuel- related risk management strategy, we continue to evaluate alternatives available to mitigate unhedged exposure to oil price volatility. As our risk management position changes due to market volatility, we may adjust our hedging strategy in response to changing conditions.
Risks and Exposures
Since there was the likelihood that the Reference Price for a barrel of oil would remain above the threshold at which synfuel-related production tax credits began to phase-out, we deferred gain recognition associated with variable and certain fixed note payments in 2006 until the end of the year when the probability of refund was remote and collectibility was assured. We deferred all variable gains for the first three quarters of 2006 and 2005. We recognized $43 million of fixed gains and $14 million of variable gains in 2006, compared to fixed gains of $132 million and variable gains of $187 million in 2005. All or a portion of the deferred gains will be recognized when and if the gain recognition criteria is met. Additionally, we may establish reserves for potential refunds of amounts related to partners’ capital contributions associated with operating losses allocated to their account. As previously discussed, in the event of a tax credit phase-out, we are contractually obligated to refund to our partners all or a portion of the operating losses funded by our partners.
In 2006, we recorded reserves and impairments of $157 million, consisting of a $79 million reserve for capital contributions related to operating losses and an impairment of $78 million for synfuel-related fixed assets and inventory. The fixed asset impairment was partially offset by $70 million included in the Minority Interest line on our Consolidated Statement of Operations, representing our partners’ share of the asset write down.
Cash from synfuel activity is at risk of a phase-out of the production tax credits. We expect approximately $900 million of synfuel-related cash impacts from 2007 through 2009, which consists of cash from operations, asset sales, and proceeds from option hedges, and approximately $500 million of tax credit carryforward utilization and other tax benefits that are expected to reduce future tax payments. The expected cash flow of approximately $900 million is economically hedged against the movement in oil prices. In addition, a goodwill write-off of up to $4 million will likely be required in 2007 due to the production tax credit phase-out, the inability to generate new production tax credits after 2007 and the resulting discontinuance of synfuel production. We have fixed note receivables associated with the sales of interests in the synfuel facilities. A partial or full phase-out of production tax credits could adversely affect the collectibility of our receivables. The cash flow impact would likely reduce our ability to execute our investment and growth strategy.
OPERATING SYSTEM AND PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE PROCESS
We continuously review and adjust our cost structure and seek improvements in our processes. Beginning in 2002, we adopted the DTE Energy Operating System, which is the application of tools and operating practices that have resulted in operating efficiencies, inventory reductions and improvements in

37


technology systems, among other enhancements. Some of these cost reductions may be returned to our customers in the form of lower PSCR charges and the remaining amounts may impact our profitability.
As an extension of this effort, in mid-2005, we initiated a company-wide review of our operations called the Performance Excellence Process. The overarching goal has been and remains to become more competitive by reducing costs, eliminating waste and optimizing business processes while improving customer service. Many of our customers are under intense economic pressure and will benefit from our efforts to keep down our costs and their rates. Additionally, we will need significant resources in the future to invest in the infrastructure necessary to compete. Specifically, we began a series of focused improvement initiatives within our Electric and Gas Utilities, and our corporate support function.
The process will beis rigorous and challenging and seeks to yield sustainable performance to our customers and shareholders. We have identified the Performance Excellence Process as critical to our long-term growth strategy. We are entering the implementation phaseDetroit Edison’s CTA is estimated to total between $160 million and $190 million. MichCon’s CTA is estimated to total between $55 million and $60 million.We estimate savings of approximately $45 million in operation and maintenance expenses and capital costs were realized in 2006. In 2006, we recorded CTA of approximately $134 million. CTA in 2006 exceeded our savings, but we expect to realize sustained net cost savings beginning in 2007.
In September 2006, the MPSC issued an order approving a settlement agreement that allows Detroit Edison and MichCon, commencing in 2006, to defer the incremental CTA. Further, the order provides for Detroit Edison and MichCon to amortize the CTA deferrals over a ten-year period beginning with the year subsequent to the year the CTA was deferred. Detroit Edison deferred approximately $102 million of CTA in 2006 as a regulatory asset and will begin to realizeamortizing deferred 2006 costs in 2007 as the benefits fromrecovery of these costs was provided for by the effortMPSC in 2006. The cost to execute the Performance Excellence Process could resultorder approving the settlement in non-recurring restructuring charges in 2006.the show cause proceeding. MichCon cannot defer CTA costs at this time because a recovery mechanism has not been established.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
We anticipate significant capital investment across all of our business segments. Most of our capital expenditures will be concentrated within our utility segments. Our electric utility currently expects to invest approximately $4$4.3 billion, due toincluding increased environmental requirements and reliability enhancement projects through 2010.2011. Our gas utility currently expects to invest approximately $900 million$1.0 billion on system expansion, pipeline safety and reliability enhancement projects through the same period. We plan to seek regulatory approval to include these capital expenditures within our regulatory rate base.base consistent with prior treatment.
DuringIn 2005, we beganlaunched the first wavephase of implementation of DTE2,our Enterprise Business Systems project, an enterprise resource planning system initiative to improve existing processes and to implement new core information systems. WeThrough December 2006, we have spent approximately $330 million on this project and we anticipate

35


spending $165an additional $45 million to $190$70 million over the next two yearsyear as the remaining system elements are developed and business segments fully adopt DTE2.implemented.
In the future, we may build a new base-load coal or nuclear electric generating plant. The last base loadbase-load plant constructed within our electric utility service territory was approximately twenty years ago. A recently completed study, sponsored by the MPSC, projected that Michigan may need to install 7,000 MW of additional capacity over the next ten years. We estimate that a new base-load plant will cost between $1 billion and $2 billion.
OUTLOOK
The next few years will be a timeperiod of rapid change for DTE Energy and for the energy industry. Our strong utility base, combined with our integrated non-utility operations, position us well for long-term growth. Due to the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, there are fewer barriers to mergers and acquisitions of utility companies. We anticipate greatercompanies at the federal level. However, the expected industry consolidation, over the next few years resulting in the creation of large regional utility providers.providers, has been recently impacted by actions of regulators in certain states affected by the proposed transactions.

38


Looking forward, we will focus on several pointsareas that we expect will improve future performance:
  continuing to pursue regulatory stability and investment recovery for our utilities;
 
  managing the growth of our utility asset base;
 
  enhancing our cost structure across all business segments;
 
  improving our Electric and Gas Utility customer satisfaction;
increasing the scale in our three non-utility business segments; and
 
  investing in businesses that integrate our assets and leverage our skills and expertise.
Along with pursuing a leaner organization, we expect to receive an estimated $1.2 billion (assuming no phase-out)anticipate approximately $900 million of synfuelsynfuel-related cash flowimpacts from 2007 through 2008,2009, which consists of cash from operations asset sales, and theproceeds from option hedges, and approximately $500 million of tax credit carryforward utilization of productionand other tax creditsbenefits that are expected to reduce future tax payments. Tax credit utilization in part could be extended past 2008, if taxable income is reduced from current forecasts. However, if oil prices remain at current levels or continue to increase, the estimated cash flow from the synfuel business would, as a result of production tax credit phase-out, be significantly less and would adversely impact the success of this strategy, unless we identify alternative sources of cash.
AnticipatedThe redeployment of this expected available cash willrepresents a unique opportunity to increase shareholder value and strengthen our balance sheet. We expect to use any such cash and the potential cash from monetization of certain of our non-utility assets and operations to reduce DTE Energy’s debt and replacerepurchase common stock, and to continue to pursue growth investments that meet our strict risk-return and value creation criteria. Our objectives for cash redeployment are to strengthen the value of synfuel operations inherent in our share price by pursuing investments in targeted energy markets. If adequate investment opportunities are not available, share repurchases may be used to build shareholder value. We remain committed to a strong balance sheet and financial coverage ratios to improve our current credit rating and paying an attractive dividend.outlook, and to have any monetizations be accretive to earnings per share.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Net income in 20052006 was $433 million, or $2.43 per diluted share, compared to net income of $537 million, or $3.05 per diluted share compared toin 2005 and net income of $431 million, or $2.49 per diluted share in 2004 and net income of $521 million, or $3.09 per diluted share in 2003. The comparability of earnings was impacted by our discontinued businesses, DTE Energy Technologies (Dtech), Southern Missouri Gas Company and ITC, and the adoption of a new accounting rule in 2005 and two new accounting rules in 2003.2004. Excluding discontinued operations and the cumulative effect of accounting changes, our income from continuing operations in 20052006 was $576$437 million, or $3.27$2.45 per diluted share, compared to income of $461$577 million, or $2.66$3.28 per diluted share in 20042005 and income of $494$464 million, or $2.93$2.68 per diluted share in 2003.2004. The following sections provide a detailed discussion of our segments,segments’ operating performance and future outlook.
Segments realigned— In the third quarter of 2006, we realigned the non-utility segment Power and Industrial Projects business unit to separately present the Synthetic Fuel business. The impending expiration of synfuel tax credits as of December 31, 2007, combined with the sustained volatility of oil prices, increased management focus on synfuels, thereby requiring a separate business segment. In the fourth quarter of 2006, we separated the Fuel Transportation and Marketing segment into Coal and Gas Midstream, and Energy Trading corresponding to additional management focus on the results of these non-utility segments. Based on the following structure, we set strategic goals, allocate resources and evaluate performance:
Electric Utility, consisting of Detroit Edison;
Gas Utility, primarily consisting of MichCon;
Non-utility Operations
Coal and Gas Midstream, primarily consisting of coal transportation and marketing, gas pipelines and storage;
Unconventional Gas Production,primarily consisting of unconventional gas project development and production;
Power and Industrial Projects, primarily consisting of on-site energy services, steel-related projects and power generation with services;
Energy Trading,consisting of energy marketing and trading operations; and
Synthetic Fuel,consisting of the operations of the nine synfuel plants.

3639


             
(in Millions, except per share data) 2005  2004  2003 
Net Income (Loss)
            
             
Electric Utility $277  $150  $252 
Gas Utility  37   20   29 
Non-utility Operations:            
Power and Industrial Projects  308   179   197 
Unconventional Gas Production  4   6   12 
Fuel Transportation and Marketing  2   118   69 
             
Corporate & Other  (52)  (12)  (65)
             
Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations:            
Utility  314   170   281 
Non-utility  314   303   278 
Corporate & Other  (52)  (12)  (65)
          
   576   461   494 
Discontinued Operations  (36)  (30)  54 
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes  (3)     (27)
          
Net Income $537  $431  $521 
          
             
Diluted Earnings Per Share
            
Total Utility $1.78  $.98  $1.67 
Non-utility Operations  1.78   1.75   1.65 
Corporate & Other  (.29)  (.07)  (.39)
          
Income from Continuing Operations  3.27   2.66   2.93 
Discontinued Operations  (.20)  (.17)  .32 
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes  (.02)     (.16)
          
Net Income $3.05  $2.49  $3.09 
          

The earnings per share of any segment does not represent a direct legal interest in the assets and liabilities allocated to any one segment but rather represents a direct or indirect equity interest in DTE Energy’s assets and liabilities as a whole.
Corporate & Other, primarily consisting of corporate staff functions and certain energy technology investments.
             
(in Millions, except per share data) 2006  2005  2004 
Net Income by Segment:
            
Electric Utility $325  $277  $150 
Gas Utility  50   37   20 
Non-utility Operations:            
Coal and Gas Midstream  50   45   33 
Unconventional Gas Production  9   4   6 
Power and Industrial Projects  (80)  4   (17)
Energy Trading  96   (43)  85 
Synthetic Fuel  48   305   199 
             
Corporate & Other  (61)  (52)  (12)
 
Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations:            
Utility  375   314   170 
Non-utility  123   315   306 
Corporate & Other  (61)  (52)  (12)
          
   437   577   464 
Discontinued Operations  (5)  (37)  (33)
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes  1   (3)   
          
Net Income $433  $537  $431 
          
             
Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share
            
Total Utility $2.10  $1.78  $.98 
Non-utility Operations  .69   1.79   1.77 
Corporate & Other  (.34)  (.29)  (.07)
          
Income from Continuing Operations  2.45   3.28   2.68 
Discontinued Operations  (.03)  (.21)  (.19)
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes  .01   (.02)   
          
Net Income $2.43  $3.05  $2.49 
          
The earnings per share of any segment does not represent a direct legal interest in the assets and liabilities allocated to any one segment but rather represents a direct equity interest in DTE Energy’s assets and liabilities as a whole.
ELECTRIC UTILITY
Our Electric Utility segment consists of Detroit Edison, which is engaged in the generation, purchase, distribution and sale of electricityelectric energy to approximately 2.2 million customers in southeastern Michigan.
Factors impacting income:Our net income increased $48 million and $127 million to $277 million in 2006 and 2005, from $150 million in 2004. 2004 net income decreased $102 million from $252 million in 2003.respectively. These results primarily reflect higher gross margins, partially offset by increased depreciation and amortization expenses. Additionally, 2005 results were affected by higher rates due to the November 2004 MPSC final rate order, return of customers from the electric Customer Choice program, warmer weather and lower operations and maintenance expenses, in 2005, partially offset by a portion of higher fuel and purchased power costs, which were unrecoverable as a result of residential rate caps (which expired January 1, 2006), and increased depreciation and amortization expenses.
             
(in Millions) 2005  2004  2003 
Operating Revenues $4,462  $3,568  $3,695 
Fuel and Purchased Power  1,590   885   939 
          
Gross Margin  2,872   2,683   2,756 
Operation and Maintenance  1,308   1,395   1,332 
Depreciation and Amortization  640   523   473 
Taxes Other Than Income  241   249   257 
Asset (Gains) and Losses, Net  (26)  (1)  20 
          
Operating Income  709   517   674 
Other (Income) and Deductions  283   303   277 
Income Tax Provision  149   64   145 
          
Net Income $277  $150  $252 
          
             
Operating Income as a Percent of Operating Revenues  16%  14%  18%

3740


             
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Operating Revenues $4,737  $4,462  $3,568 
Fuel and Purchased Power  1,566   1,590   885 
          
Gross Margin  3,171   2,872   2,683 
Operation and Maintenance  1,336   1,308   1,395 
Depreciation and Amortization  809   640   523 
Taxes Other Than Income  252   241   249 
Asset (Gains) and Losses, Net  (6)  (26)  (1)
          
Operating Income  780   709   517 
Other (Income) and Deductions  294   283   303 
Income Tax Provision  161   149   64 
          
Net Income $325  $277  $150 
          
             
Operating Income as a Percent of Operating Revenues  16%  16%  14%
Gross marginsmarginincreased $299 million during 2006 and $189 million duringin 2005. The 2006 improvement was primarily due to increased rates due to the expiration of the residential rate cap on January 1, 2006 and returning sales from electric Customer Choice, partially offset by milder weather. The increase in 2005 and declined $73 million in 2004. Operating revenues increasedwas due to higher demand resulting from warmer weather in 2005 and increased rates due to the November 2004 MPSC final rate order, partially offset by unrecovered power supply costs as a result of residential rate caps (which expired January 1, 2006) and a poor Michigan economy in 2005.economy. Gross margins weremargin was favorably impacted by decreased electric Customer Choice penetration, whereby Detroit Edisonwe lost 12%6% of retail sales to electric Customer Choice customers in 20052006 and 18%12% of such sales during 20042005 as retail customers migrated back to Detroit Edisonus as their electric generation provider rather than remaining with alternative suppliers. The following table displays changes in various gross margin components relative to the comparable prior period:
         
Increase (Decrease) in Gross Margin Components Compared to Prior Year 2005  2004 
(in Millions)        
Weather related margin $166  $(25)
MPSC 2004 rate orders  116   22 
Unrecovered power supply costs – residential customers  (73)   
Transmission charges (1)  (93)   
Electric Customer Choice program  79   (82)
Service territory economic performance  (23)  9 
Other, net  17   3 
       
Increase (decrease) in gross margin $189  $(73)
       
(1)Transmission expenses were recorded in operation and maintenance expense in 2004.
Operating revenues and fuel and purchased power costs increased in 2005 reflecting a $8.79 per MWh (58%) increase in fuel and purchased power costs during the year. Fuel and purchased power costs are a pass-through with the reinstatement of the PSCR mechanism, except for residential customers whose rate caps expired in January 2006.
The increase in power supply costs was driven by higher seasonal demand, higher purchased power rates, higher coal prices and increased power purchases due to weather and plant outages. Pursuant to the MPSC final rate order, transmission expense, previously recorded in operation and maintenance expenses in 2004, is now reflected in purchased power expenses. The PSCR mechanism provides related revenues for the transmission expense.
The declinefollowing table displays changes in 2004 revenues was partially offset by increased base rates resulting fromvarious gross margin components relative to the interim and final rate orders. Revenues in 2004 were adversely impacted by reduced cooling demand resulting from mild summer weather. In addition, operating revenues and fuel and purchased power costs decreased in 2004 reflecting a $1.27 per MWh (8%) decline in fuel and purchased power costs. The loss of retail sales under the electric Customer Choice program also resulted in lower purchase power requirements, as well as excess power capacity that was sold in the wholesale market. Under the 2004 interim and final rate orders, revenues from selling excess power reduce the level of recoverable fuel and purchased power costs and, therefore, do not impact margins associated with uncapped customers.comparable prior period:
The rate orders also lowered PSCR revenues, which were partially offset by increased base rate and transition charge revenues. Since fuel and purchased power costs are a pass-through with the reinstatement of the PSCR in 2004, a decrease affects both revenues and fuel and purchased power costs but does not affect margins or earnings associated with uncapped customers. The decrease in fuel and purchased power costs is attributable to lower priced purchases and the use of a more favorable power supply mix driven by higher generation output. The favorable mix is due to lower purchases, driven by lost sales under the electric Customer Choice program.
         
Increase (Decrease) in Gross Margin Components Compared to Prior Year      
(in Millions) 2006  2005 
Weather-related margin impacts $(81) $166 
Removal of residential rate caps effective January 1, 2006  186    
Return of customers from electric Customer Choice  156   79 
Service territory economic performance  (16)  (23)
Impact of MPSC 2004 rate orders  26   116 
Unrecovered power supply costs — residential customers     (73)
Transmission charges     (93)
Other, net  28   17 
       
Increase in gross margin performance $299  $189 
       

3841


                         
Power Generated and Purchased 2005 2004 2003
(in Thousands of MWh)                        
Power Plant Generation                        
Fossil  40,756   73%  39,432   75%  38,052   72%
Nuclear  8,754   16   8,440   16   8,114   16 
       
   49,510   89   47,872   91   46,166   88 
Purchased Power  6,378   11   4,650   9   6,354   12 
       
System Output  55,888   100%  52,522   100%  52,520   100%
Less Line Loss and Internal Use  (3,205)      (3,574)      (3,248)    
                         
Net System Output  52,683       48,948       49,272     
                         
                         
Average Unit Cost ($/MWh)
                        
Generation (1) $15.47      $12.98      $12.89     
                         
Purchased Power $89.37      $37.06      $41.73     
                         
Overall Average Unit Cost $23.90      $15.11      $16.38     
                         
                         
Power Generated and Purchased      
(in Thousands of MWh) 2006 2005 2004
Power Plant Generation                        
Fossil  39,686   70%  40,756   73%  39,432   75%
Nuclear  7,477   13   8,754   16   8,440   16 
       
   47,163   83   49,510   89   47,872   91 
Purchased Power  9,861   17   6,378   11   4,650   9 
       
System Output  57,024   100%  55,888   100%  52,522   100%
Less Line Loss and Internal Use  (3,603)      (3,205)      (3,574)    
                         
Net System Output  53,421       52,683       48,948     
                         
                         
Average Unit Cost ($/MWh)
                        
Generation (1) $15.61      $15.47      $12.98     
                         
Purchased Power (2) $53.71      $89.37      $37.06     
                         
Overall Average Unit Cost $22.20      $23.90      $15.11     
                         
 
(1) Represents fuel costs associated with power plants.
(2)The change in purchased power costs were driven primarily by seasonal demand and coal and gas prices.
                        
(in Thousands of MWh) 2005 2004 2003 2006 2005 2004 
Electric Sales
  
Residential 16,812 15,081 15,074  15,769 16,812 15,081 
Commercial 15,618 13,425 15,942  17,948 15,618 13,425 
Industrial 12,317 11,472 12,254  13,235 12,317 11,472 
Wholesale 2,329 2,197 2,241  2,826 2,329 2,197 
Other 390 401 402  402 390 401 
              
 47,466 42,576 45,913  50,180 47,466 42,576 
Interconnection sales (1) 5,217 6,372 3,359  3,241 5,217 6,372 
              
Total Electric Sales
 52,683 48,948 49,272  53,421 52,683 48,948 
              
  
Electric Deliveries
  
Retail and Wholesale 47,466 42,576 45,913  50,180 47,466 42,576 
Electric Choice 6,760 9,245 6,193 
Electric Choice – Self Generators (2) 518 595 1,088 
Electric Customer Choice 2,694 6,760 9,245 
Electric Customer Choice—Self Generators (2) 909 518 595 
              
Total Electric Sales and Deliveries 54,744 52,416 53,194  53,783 54,744 52,416 
              
 
(1) Represents power that is not distributed by Detroit Edison.
 
(2) Represents deliveries for self generators who have purchased power from alternative energy suppliers to supplement their power requirements.
Operation and maintenanceexpense increased $28 million in 2006 and decreased $87 million in 20052005. The 2006 increase was primarily due to increased distribution system maintenance of $35 million and increased $63plant outages of $33 million which was partially offset by $36 million of lower storm expenses. Pursuant to MPSC authorization, Detroit Edison deferred approximately $102 million of CTA in 2004. As a result2006. The comparability of 2005 to 2004 is affected by the November 2004 MPSC final rate order which required transmission and MISO expenses in 2005 are nowto be included in purchased power expense with related revenues to be recorded through the PSCR mechanism. In addition,Additionally, the DTE Energy parent company no longer allocated merger-related interest as a result of the November 2004 MPSC final rate order, merger interest is no longer allocated from the DTE Energy parent company to Detroit Edison. Partially offsetting the lack of merger interest expense and the transmission expense accounting reclassification werewhich was partially offset by higher 2005 storm expenses.
The 2004 increase reflects costs associated with maintaining our generation fleet, including costs of scheduled and forced plant outages. Additionally, the increase in 2004 is due to incremental costs associated with the implementation of our DTE2 project.

39


Operation and maintenance expense in both years includes higher employee pension and health care benefit costs due to financial market performance, discount rates and health care cost trend rates, and increased reserves for uncollectible accounts receivable, reflecting high past-due amounts attributable to economic conditions. In addition, we accrued a refund due from the Midwest Independent System Operator in 2004 for transmission services.
Depreciation and amortizationexpense increased $169 million and $117 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively. The 2006 increase was due to a $112 million net stranded cost write-off related to the September 2006 MPSC order regarding stranded costs and a $19 million increase in our asset retirement obligation at our Fermi 1 nuclear facility. We also had increased $50amortization of regulatory assets of $19 million in 2004.related to electric Customer Choice and $8 million related to our securitized assets. The increases reflect2005 increase reflects the income effect of recording regulatory assets in 2004, which lowered depreciation and

42


amortization expenses. The regulatory asset deferrals totaled $46 million in 2005 and $107 million in 2004 and $153 million in 2003, representing net stranded costs and other costs we believe are recoverable under Public Act (PA) 141.2004. Additionally, higher 2005 sales volumes compared to 2004 resulted in greater amortization of regulatory assets.
Asset (gains) and losses, netdecreased $20 million in 2006 and increased $25 million in 2005 primarily as a result of our 2005 sale of land near our headquarters.headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.
Other income and deductionsexpense increased $11 million in 2006 and decreased $20 million in 2005 and2005. The 2006 increase is attributable to higher interest expense due to increased $26 million in 2004.long-term debt. The 2005 decrease is due primarily to lower interest expense as a result of lower interest rates and a favorable adjustment related to tax audit settlements. The 2004 increase is primarily due to lower income associated with recording a return on regulatory assets, as well as costs associated with addressing the structural issues of PA 141.
Outlook We continue to improve the operating performance of Detroit Edison. During the past year, we have resolved manya portion of our regulatory issues and continue to pursue additional regulatory and/or legislative solutions for structural problems within our competitive environment, mainlythe Michigan market structure, primarily electric Customer Choice and the need to adjust rates for each customer class to reflect the full cost of service.
Concurrently, we will move forward in our efforts to continue to improve performance. Looking forward, additional issues, such as rising prices for coal, uranium and health care continued under-performanceand higher levels of Michigan’s economy and capital spending, will result in us taking meaningful action to address our costs while continuing to provide quality customer service. We will utilize the DTE Energy Operating System and the Performance Excellence Process to seek opportunities to improve productivity, remove waste and decrease our costs while improving customer satisfaction.
Long term, we will be required to invest an estimated $2.4 billion on emission controls through 2018. Should we be able to recover these costs in future rate cases, we may experience a growth in earnings.
Additionally, our service territory may require additional generation capacity. A new base-load generating plant has not been built within the State of Michigan in the last 20 years. Should our regulatory environment be conducive to such a significant capital expenditure, we may build or expand a new base- load coal or nuclear facility. While we have not decided on construction of a new base-load nuclear facility, with an estimated costin February 2007, we announced that we will prepare a license application for construction and operation of $1 billiona new nuclear power plant on the site of Fermi 2. By completing the license application before the end of 2008, we may qualify for financial incentives under the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005. We are also studying the possible transfer of a gas-fired peaking electric generating plant from our non-utility operations to $2 billion.our electric utility to support future power generation requirements.

40


The following variables, either in combination or acting alone, willcould impact our future results:
  amount and timing of cost recovery allowed as a result of regulatory proceedings, related appeals, or new legislation;
 
  our ability to reduce costs;costs and maximize plant performance;
 
  variations in market prices of power, coal and gas;
 
  plant performance;
economic conditions within the stateState of Michigan;
 
  weather, including the severity and frequency of storms; and
 
  levels of customer participation in the electric Customer Choice program.
We expect cash flows and operating performance will continue to be at risk due to the electric Customer Choice program until the issues associated with this program are adequately addressed. We will accrue as regulatory assets any future unrecovered generation-related fixed costs (stranded costs) due to electric Customer Choice that we believe are recoverable under Michigan legislation and MPSC orders. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters. See Note 4.6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
In January 2007, the MPSC submitted the State of Michigan’s 21st Century Energy Plan to the Governor of Michigan. The plan recommends that Michigan’s future energy needs be met through a combination of

43


renewable resources and cleanest generating technology, with significant energy savings achieved by increased energy efficiency. The plan also recommends:
a requirement that all retail electric suppliers obtain at least 10 percent of their energy supplies from renewable resources by 2015;
an opportunity for utility-built generation, contingent upon the granting of a certificate of need and competitive bidding of engineering, procurement and construction services;
investigating the cost of a requirement to bury certain power lines; and
creation of a Michigan Energy Efficiency Program, administered by a third party under the direction of the MPSC with initial funding estimated at $68 million.
We continue to review the energy plan and are unable to predict the impact on the Company of the implementation of the plan.
GAS UTILITY
Our Gas Utility segment consists of MichCon and Citizens Fuel Gas Company (Citizens), natural gas utilities subject to regulation by the MPSC. MichCon is engaged in the purchase, storage, transmission, distribution and sale of natural gas to approximately 1.3 million residential, commercial and industrial customers in the State of Michigan. MichCon also has subsidiaries involved in the gathering and transmission of natural gas in northern Michigan. MichCon operates one of the largest natural gas distribution and transmission systems in the United States. Citizens distributes natural gas in Adrian, Michigan.Michigan to approximately 17,000 customers.
Factors impacting income:Gas Utility’s net income increased $13 million in 2006 and increased $17 million in 20052005. The variances were primarily attributable to increased rates and declined $9 millionthe impacts in 2004, compared to the prior year, primarily reflecting the impact2005 of the MPSC’s April 2005 gas cost recovery and finalgas rate orders.orders and the effect of milder weather in 2006.
The 2005 MPSC final gas rate order disallowed recovery of 90% of the costs of a computer billing system that was in place prior to DTE Energy’s acquisition of MCN Energy in 2001. MichCon impaired this asset by approximately $42 million in the first quarter of 2005. This disallowance was not reflected at the DTE Energy level since this impairment was previously reserved at the time of the MCN acquisition in 2001.
                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Operating Revenues $2,138 $1,682 $1,498  $1,849 $2,138 $1,682 
Cost of Gas 1,490 1,071 909  1,157 1,490 1,071 
              
Gross Margins 648 611 589 
Gross Margin 692 648 611 
Operation and Maintenance 424 403 371  431 424 403 
Depreciation and Amortization 95 103 101  94 95 103 
Taxes Other Than Income 43 49 52  53 43 49 
Asset (Gains) and Losses, Net 4  (3)    4  (3)
              
Operating Income 82 59 65  114 82 59 
Other (Income) and Deductions 47 48 36  53 47 48 
Income Tax Benefit  (2)  (9)  
Income Tax Provision (Benefit) 11  (2)  (9)
              
Net Income $37 $20 $29  $50 $37 $20 
              
  
Operating Income as a Percent of Operating Revenues  4%  4%  4%  6%  4%  4%
Gross marginsmarginincreased $44 million and $37 million in 2006 and 2005, and increased $22 million in 2004, compared to the prior year.respectively. Gross margins in 2005 were favorably affected by higher base rates as a resultrate revenues of the interim$15 million and final gas rate orders,$42 million in 2006 and revenue2005, respectively. Revenue associated with the uncollectible expense tracking mechanism authorized by the MPSC. InMPSC in the April 2005 gas rate order, increased $22 million and $11 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively. Additionally, 2006 was impacted by a $17 million favorable impact in lost gas recognized and an increase of $24 million in midstream services including storage and transportation. Partially offsetting these increases were declines of $31 million due to warmer than normal weather and $26 million as a result of customer conservation and lower volumes. The comparability of 2006 to 2005 is also affected

44


by an adjustment we recorded in the first quarter of 2005 related to an April 2005 MPSC issued an order in theour 2002 GCR reconciliation case that disallowed $26 million representing unbilled revenues at December 2001. We
             
  2006  2005  2004 
Gas Markets (in Millions)
            
Gas sales $1,541  $1,860  $1,435 
End user transportation  135   134   119 
          
   1,676   1,994   1,554 
Intermediate transportation  69   58   56 
Other  104   86   72 
          
  $1,849  $2,138  $1,682 
          
             
Gas Markets (in Bcf)
            
Gas sales  138   168   173 
End user transportation  136   157   145 
          
   274   325   318 
Intermediate transportation  373   432   536 
          
   647   757   854 
          
The 2005 final rate order provided revenue for an uncollectible expense true-up mechanism (UETM) to mitigate the effect of increasing uncollectible expense. The revenue recorded related to the impact of the disallowance during the first quarter ofUETM was $33 million for 2006 and $11 million for 2005. Operating revenues and cost of gas increased in 2005
Uncollectible Accounts Expense

4145


reflecting higher gas prices which are recoverable from customers through the GCR mechanism. The 2004 gross margin comparison was also affected by a $26.5 million pre-tax reserve recorded in 2003 for the potential disallowance in gas costs pursuant to an MPSC order in MichCon’s 2002 GCR plan case. See Note 4.
             
  2005  2004  2003 
Gas Markets (in Millions)
            
Gas sales $1,860  $1,435  $1,242 
End user transportation  134   119   136 
          
   1,994   1,554   1,378 
Intermediate transportation  58   56   51 
Other  86   72   69 
          
  $2,138  $1,682  $1,498 
          
             
Gas Markets (in Bcf)
            
Gas sales  168   173   181 
End user transportation  157   145   152 
          
   325   318   333 
Intermediate transportation  432   536   576 
          
   757   854   909 
          
Operation and maintenanceexpense increased $7 million and $21 million in 2006 and 2005, and $32 million in 2004.respectively. The 20052006 increase is primarily due to the impact of the MPSC rate order that disallowed certain environmental expenses that had been recorded as a regulatory asset and its requirement to defer negative pension expense as a regulatory liability. For 2005,$14 million increase in uncollectible accounts receivablesreceivable expense, remained consistent with 2004, reflecting higher past due amounts attributable to an increase in gas prices, continued weak economic conditions, and inadequate government-sponsored assistance for low-income customers. In 2006, we recorded $24 million in implementation costs associated with our Performance Excellence Process and we recognized $9 million of lower injuries and damages expenses and lower labor and employee incentives. The comparability of 2006 to 2005 and the comparability of 2005 to 2004 was affected by an adjustment we recorded in the second quarter of 2005 for the disallowance of $11 million in environmental costs due to the April 2005 final gas rate order provided revenue for an uncollectibleand the requirement to defer negative pension expense tracking mechanism to mitigate some ofas a regulatory liability. Additionally, the effect of increasing uncollectible expense. The increase in operation and maintenance expensecomparability was partially offsetimpacted by the DTE Energy parent company no longer allocating $9 million of merger-related interest to MichCon effective in April 2005, as a result of the disallowance of those costs in the April 2005 final rate order. The increase was also partially offset by a decline in accruals for injuries and damages during 2005.
The 2004 period reflects higher reserves for uncollectible accounts receivable and pension and health care costs. The increase in uncollectible accounts expense reflects high past due amounts attributable to an increase in gas prices, continued weak economic conditions and a lack of adequate public assistance for low-income customers.
Asset (gains) and losses, netdeclinedincreased $4 million and decreased $7 million in 2006 and 2005, asrespectively. The 2006 change was due to a $3 million gain on the sale of investment rights related to storage field construction which was offset by a $3 million loss due to a reduction to MichCon’s 2004 GCR underrecovery related to the accounting treatment of the injected base gas remaining in the New Haven storage field when it was sold in early 2004. The $7 million decline in 2005 was primarily the result of a write-off of certain computer equipment and related depreciation resulting from the April 2005 final rate order.

42


Income taxestax provisionincreased by $13 million in 2006 and income tax benefit decreased $7 million in 2005 and decreased by $9 million in 2004primarily due to variations in pre-tax earnings.
Outlook Operating results are expected to vary as a result of factors such asdue to regulatory proceedings, weather, changes in economic conditions, cost containment effortscustomer conservation and process improvements. Higher gas prices and economic conditions have resulted in continued pressure on receivables and working capital requirements that are partially mitigated by the GCR mechanism. We believe our allowance for doubtful accounts is based on reasonable estimates. In the April 2005 final gas rate order, the MPSC adopted MichCon’s proposed tracking mechanism for uncollectible accounts receivable. Each year, MichCon will file an application comparing its actual uncollectible expense for the prior calendar year to its designated revenue recovery of approximately $37 million. Ninety percent of the difference will be refunded or surcharged after an annual reconciliation proceeding before the MPSC.
We will utilize the DTE Energy Operating System and the Performance Excellence Process to seek opportunities to improve productivity, remove waste and decrease our costs while improving customer satisfaction.
NON-UTILITY OPERATIONS
PowerCoal and Industrial ProjectsGas Midstream
PowerCoal and Industrial Projects is comprisedGas Midstream consists of Coal-Based Fuels, On-Site Energy Projects, Non-Utility Power Generation, Landfill Gas RecoveryCoal Transportation and Waste Coal Recovery. Coal-Based Fuels operations include producing synthetic fuel from nine synfuel plants and producing coke from two coke battery plants. The production of synthetic fuel from all of our synfuel plantsMarketing and the productionPipelines, Processing and Storage businesses.
Coal Transportation and Marketing provides fuel, transportation and rail equipment management services. We specialize in minimizing fuel costs and maximizing reliability of cokesupply for energy-intensive customers. Additionally, we participate in coal marketing and coal-to-power tolling transactions, as well as the purchase and sale of emissions credits. We perform coal mine methane extraction, in which we recover methane gas from one of our coke batteries generate production tax credits. On-Site Energy Projects include pulverized coal injection,mine voids for processing and delivery to natural gas pipelines, industrial users, or for small power generation steam production, chilled water production, wastewater treatmentprojects.
Pipelines, Processing and compressed air supply. Non-Utility Power GenerationStorage owns a partnership interest in an interstate transmission pipeline, six carbon dioxide processing facilities and operates four gas-fired peaking electric generating plantstwo natural gas storage fields. The pipeline and managesstorage assets are primarily supported by stable, long-term fixed price revenue contracts. The assets of these businesses are well integrated with other DTE Energy operations. Pursuant to an operating agreement, MichCon provides

46


physical operations, maintenance and operates one additional gas-fired power plant under contract. Landfill Gas Recovery develops, ownstechnical support for the Washington 28 and operates landfill recovery systems throughout the United States. Waste Coal Recovery uses proprietary technology to produce high quality coal products from fine coal slurries typically discarded from coal mining operations.Washington 10 storage facilities.
Factors impacting income: Net income increased $129$5 million and $12 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively.
             
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Operating Revenues $707  $707  $589 
Operation and Maintenance  628   653   542 
Depreciation and Amortization  4   3   3 
Taxes Other Than Income  5   4   4 
          
Operating Income  70   47   40 
Other (Income) and Deductions  (8)  (20)  (12)
Income Tax Provision  28   22   19 
          
Net Income $50  $45  $33 
          
Operating revenuesremained the same in 2006 and increased $118 million in 2005. In 2006 our Coal Transportation and Marketing business experienced lower synfuel related volumes which were offset by an increase in storage revenues in the Pipelines, Processing and Storage business. During 2005, our Coal Transportation and Marketing business experienced higher throughput volumes and increased prices for coal.
Operation and maintenance expensedecreased $25 million in 2006 and increased $111 million in 2005. The 2006 decrease was due to lower synfuel related volumes and decreased expenses at our Coal Transportation and Marketing business due to decreased marketing volume. During 2005, our Coal Transportation and Marketing business experienced higher throughput volumes and increased prices for coal.
Other (income) and deductionsdecreased $12 million in 2006 and increased $8 million in 2005. The 2006 decrease is primarily attributed to higher interest expense as a result of our storage expansion construction.
Income tax provisionincreased $6 million for 2006 and increased $3 million in 2005 and decreased $18 millionreflecting variations in 2004, compared to 2003. These results primarily reflect higher gains recognized from selling interests in our synfuel plants, gains and losses on synfuel hedges, and varying levels of production tax credits.
             
(in Millions) 2005  2004  2003 
Operating Revenues $1,356  $1,100  $938 
Operation and Maintenance  1,497   1,216   1,108 
Depreciation and Amortization  107   89   90 
Taxes other than Income  34   16   18 
Asset (Gains) and Losses, Net  (368)  (215)  (114)
          
Operating Income (Loss)  86   (6)  (164)
Other (Income) and Deductions  (30)  (15)  1 
Minority Interest  (281)  (212)  (91)
Income Taxes            
Provision (Benefit)  144   80   (30)
Production Tax Credits  (55)  (38)  (241)
          
   89   42   (271)
          
Net Income $308  $179  $197 
          
pre-tax income.
Operating revenuesOutlookincreased $256 million— We expect to continue to grow our Coal Transportation and Marketing business in 2005a manner consistent with, and $162 million in 2004 primarily reflecting higher synfuel sales duecomplementary to, increased production,the growth of our other business segments. However, a portion of our Coal Transportation and higher market prices for our coke production. Operating expenses associated with synfuel projects exceed operatingMarketing revenues and therefore generate operating losses, which have been more than offsetnet income are dependent upon our Synfuel operations and were adversely impacted by the resulting production tax credits. When we selltemporary idling of the synfuel facilities in 2006. Coal Transportation and Marketing is involved in a contract dispute with BNSF Railway Company that has been referred to arbitration. See Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Our Pipeline, Processing and Storage business will continue its steady growth plan. In April 2006, Pipelines, Processing and Storage placed into service over 14 Bcf of storage capacity at an existing Michigan storage field and plans to file a MPSC application early in 2007 for a new gas storage reservoir which will increase its overall working gas storage capacity by 8.0 Bcf to a total of 74 Bcf. In December 2006, Washington 28 filed an application with the MPSC requesting an increase in its working gas storage capacity to 16.0 Bcf. Vector Pipeline has secured long-term market commitments to support an expansion project, for approximately 200 MMcf per day, with a projected in-service date of November 2007. Vector Pipeline received FERC approval for this expansion in October 2006. Pipeline, Processing and Storage has a 26.25% ownership interest in a synfuel project,Millennium Pipeline which received FERC approval for construction and operation in December 2006. Millennium Pipeline is scheduled to be in service in late 2008. In October 2006, we recognizepurchased the gain from such sale aslessor interest in the facility produces66 Bcf Washington 10 gas storage field. Prior to the purchase, we leased the storage rights and sells synfuel andlease obligations

4347


when there is persuasive evidence that the sales proceeds have become fixed or determinable and collectibility is reasonably assured.
The improvement in 2004 synfuel revenues results from increased production due to additional sales of project interests in 2004, reflecting our strategy to produce synfuel primarily from plants in which we had sold interests in order to optimize income and cash flow.
Revenues from on-site energy projects increased in 2005, reflecting the addition of new facilities, completion of new long-term utility services contracts with a large automotive company and a large manufacturer of paper products. Revenues in 2004 include a $9 million pre-tax fee generated in conjunction with the development of a related energy project, 50% of which was sold to an unaffiliated partner.
Operation and maintenanceexpense increased $281 million in 2005 and $108 million in 2004, reflecting costs associated with increased synfuel production, 2005 acquisitions of three on-site energy projects and coke operations. Partially offsetting 2004 higher synfuel operating costs was the recording of insurance proceeds associated with an accident at one of our coke batteries.
Asset (gains) and losses, netincreased $153 million in 2005 and $101 million in 2004. The improvements are due to increased production and sales volume from our synfuel projects. To economically hedge our exposure to the risk of an increase in oil prices that could reduce synfuel sales proceeds, we entered into derivative and other contracts. The derivative contracts are marked to market with changes in their fair valuewere recorded as an adjustmentoperating leases. We plan to synfuel gains. We recorded 2005 synfuel hedge mark to market gains of $48 million, compared to 2004 mark to market losses of $12 million. See Note 12.
Minority interestincreased $69 million in 2005expand existing assets and $121 million in 2004, reflecting our partners’ share of operating losses associateddevelop new assets which are typically supported with synfuel operations. The sale of interests in our synfuel facilities during prior periods resulted in allocating a larger percentage of such losses to our partners.
Income taxesincreased $47 million in 2005 and $313 million in 2004. The increase in 2005 reflects higher taxable earnings, partially offset by higher production tax credits. The increase in 2004 reflects higher taxable earnings and a decline in the level of production tax credits due to the sale of interests in synfuel facilities.
Outlook- We may sell additional interests in our synfuel plants and take actions to protect our expected synfuel cash flows from the risk of an oil price-related phase-out. Synfuel-related tax credits expire on December 31, 2007.

44


In the third quarter of 2005, we executed an agreement to purchase five on-site energy projects and closed on three of the projects in 2005.
Power and Industrial Projects will continue leveraging its extensive energy-related operating experience and project management capability to develop and grow the on-site energy business. We expect solid earnings from our on-site energy business in 2006.
Production tax credits generated by our Coal-Based Fuels and Landfill Gas Recovery businesses are subject to the same phase out risk if domestic crude oil prices reach certain levels. See Note 13.long-term customer commitments.
Unconventional Gas Production
Unconventional Gas Production is primarily engaged in natural gas exploration, development and production. Our Unconventional Gas Production business produces gas from the Antrim and Barnett shales and sells most of the gas to the Fuel Transportation and MarketingEnergy Trading segment.
Factors impacting income: Net income increased $5 million in 2006 and decreased $2 million in 20052005. The 2006 results were primarily impacted by an increase in Barnett shale production and decreased $6 millionan increase in 2004.net gas prices for Antrim shale. Partially offsetting these revenue increases were higher operating and depletion expenses associated with increased production and the operation of new wells. The decline in 2005 iswas due to higher operating and Michigan severance tax expenses. The decline in 2004 is due to increased interest costs and a gain that was recognized in 2003 as a result of a sale of a non-core asset.
                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Operating Revenues $74 $71 $70  $99 $74 $71 
Operation and Maintenance 30 27 22  37 30 27 
Depreciation and Amortization 20 18 17 
Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization 27 20 18 
Taxes Other Than Income 11 7 7  11 11 7 
Asset (Gains) and Losses, Net  (3)   
              
Operating Income 13 19 24  27 13 19 
Other (Income) and Deductions 8 10 7  13 8 10 
Income Tax Provision 1 3 5  5 1 3 
              
Net Income $4 $6 $12  $9 $4 $6 
              
Operating revenuesincreased $25 million in 2006 due to increased Barnett shale production and increased $3 million in 2005 and increased $1 million in 2004 due primarily to higher gas prices.
OperationsOperation and maintenance expensesexpense increased $7 million in 2006 and $3 million in 2005 and increased $5 million in 2004.2005. Increases are associated with the addition of approximately 300285 net producing wells during the three yearthree-year period.
Depreciation, depletion and amortizationincreased $7 million in 2006 and $2 million in 2005. The 2004 increase is also due to a $6 million pretax gain on the sale of non-core assets recorded in 2003.year-to-year increases were associated with higher gas production and higher finding costs associated with Barnett shale wells.
Taxes other than incomewere the same in 2006 due to severance taxes that were impacted by lower gas prices, which was offset by higher gas production, and increased $4 million in 2005 due to higher severance taxes associated with gas price increases.increases on relatively flat Antrim gas volumes.
Assets (gains) and losses, netincreased $3 million in 2006 primarily due to the sale of a working interest in unproved property.
Other (income) and deductionsincreased $5 million in 2006 and decreased $2 million in 2005 and increased $3 million in 2004.2005. Interest expense was the primary contributor to the variances. The 2006 increase in interest expense was attributed to higher average affiliate notes payable balances.
Outlook We expect to continue to develop our proved areas and test unproved areas and prudently add new acreage in Michigan and Texas. During 2005 we increased our acreage holdings by 38,437 acres (24,852 netEvaluation of the interest of others) in the Antrim and Barnett shales. Results from the Barnett shale test wells drilled during 2005 are expected duringin up to three new areas is ongoing. During 2007, we expect Barnett Shale production of 8.7 Bcfe of natural gas compared with approximately 4.1 Bcfe in 2006 and Antrim Shale production roughly equivalent to the first half of21.5 Bcfe produced in 2006. We expect to invest a combined amount of approximately $100$150 million to $130$170 million in our unconventional gasUnconventional Gas Production business in 2006.2007. We are exploring the sale of a portion of our Unconventional Gas Production assets

4548


which will allow us to monetize value from our more mature holdings, while retaining the ability to benefit from the upside of our earlier stage holdings.
Fuel TransportationPower and MarketingIndustrial Projects
Fuel TransportationPower and Marketing consistsIndustrial Projects is comprised primarily of DTE projects that deliver utility-type services to industrial, commercial and institutional customers, and biomass energy projects. We provide utility-type services using project assets usually located on the customers’ premises in the steel, automotive, pulp and paper, airport and other industries. These services include pulverized coal and petroleum coke supply, power generation, steam production, chilled water production, wastewater treatment and compressed air supply. We own and operate three gas-fired peaking electric generating plants and a biomass-fired electric generating plant and operate one additional gas-fired power plant under contract. Additionally, we own a gas-fired peaking electric generating plant that was taken out of service in September 2006. We develop, own and operate landfill gas recovery systems throughout the United States. We produce metallurgical coke from two coke batteries. The production of coke from our coke batteries generates production tax credits.
Factors impacting income: Power and Industrial Projects’ reported a net loss of $80 million in 2006 and net income of $4 million in 2005. The 2006 net loss is primarily due to impairments. The 2005 net income is attributed to the acquisitions of four on-site energy projects and coke operations in 2005.
             
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Operating Revenues $409  $428  $448 
Operation and Maintenance  366   329   384 
Depreciation and Amortization  48   48   53 
Taxes other than Income  12   14   8 
Asset (Gains) and Losses, Reserves and Impairments, Net  75   (1)   
          
Operating Income (Loss)  (92)  38   3 
Other (Income) and Deductions  43   4   28 
Minority Interest  1   37   11 
Income Taxes            
Provision (Benefit)  (44)  5   (10)
Production Tax Credits  (12)  (12)  (9)
          
   (56)  (7)  (19)
          
Net Income (Loss) $(80) $4  $(17)
          
Operating revenuesdecreased $19 million in 2006 and $20 million in 2005. The 2006 decrease is primarily due to lower coke prices and lower pulverized coal sales. The 2005 decrease reflects the impact from the sale of our interest in a coke battery in 2005 offset by increases at another owned coke battery due to increased output and increased prices. The 2006 and 2005 decreases were partially offset by increased revenue from our on-site energy projects, reflecting the addition of new facilities, completion of new long-term utility services contracts with a large automotive company and a large manufacturer of paper products.
Operation and maintenanceexpense increased $37 million in 2006 and decreased $55 million in 2005, reflecting the 2005 acquisitions of three on-site energy projects and coke operations. The 2005 decrease reflects the impact from the sale of an interest in a coke battery in 2005 resulting in a decrease in expense offset by increases in costs at another owned coke battery reflecting increased output.
Asset (gains) and losses, reserves and impairments, netincreased $76 million in 2006. In 2006, we recorded a $42 million impairment for one of our 100% owned natural gas-fired generating plants and a $14 million impairment at our landfill gas recovery unit relating to the write-down of long-lived assets at several landfill sites. Also, during 2006, we recorded a pre-tax impairment loss of $19 million for the write down of fixed assets and patents at our waste coal recovery business.

49


Other income and deductionsincreased $39 million in 2006 primarily due to a $32 million impairment of a 50% equity interest in a natural gas-fired generating plant.
Income taxesdeclined $49 million in 2006 and increased $12 million in 2005, reflecting changes in pre-tax income.
Outlook– Power and Industrial Projects will continue leveraging its extensive energy-related operating experience and project management capability to develop and grow the on-site energy business. The coke battery and landfill gas recovery businesses generate production tax credits that are subject to an oil price-related phase-out. Due to the relatively low level of production tax credits generated by our coke battery and landfill gas recovery business, a partial or full phase-out of production tax credits in these two businesses is not expected to have a material adverse impact on our Consolidated Statements of Operations, Cash Flow and Financial Position. We are exploring the combination of a sale of an equity interest in, and recapitalization of, some of the assets of the Power and Industrial Projects business, including the sale or restructuring of the power generation assets. In February 2007, we entered into an agreement to sell our Georgetown peaking electric generating facility. The sale is subject to receipt of regulatory approval and is expected to close in the second half of 2007.
Energy Trading Coal Transportation and Marketing and the Pipelines, Processing and Storage business.
DTE Energy Trading focuses on physical power and gas marketing, structured transactions, enhancement of returns from DTE Energy’s power plants and the optimization of contracted natural gas pipelines and storage capacity positions. Our customer base is predominantly utilities, local distribution companies, large industrials, and other marketing and trading companies. We enter into derivative financial instruments as part of our marketing and hedging activities. Most of the derivative financial instruments are accounted for under the mark-to-market method, which results in earnings recognition of unrealized gains and losses from changes in the fair value of the derivatives. We utilize forwards, futures, swaps and option contracts to mitigate risk associated with our marketing and trading activity as well as for proprietary trading within defined risk guidelines. DTE Energy Trading is integral in providing commodity risk management services to the other unregulated businesses within DTE Energy.
Coal Transportation and Marketing provides fuel, transportation and rail equipment management services. We specialize in minimizing fuel costs and maximizing reliability of supply for energy-intensive customers. Additionally, we participate in coal trading and coal-to-power tolling transactions, as well as the purchase and sale of emissions credits. We recently initiated a new business line, coal mine methane extraction, in which we recover methane gas from mine voids for processing and delivery to natural gas pipelines, industrial users, or for small power generation projects.
Pipelines, Processing and Storage has a partnership interest in an interstate transmission pipeline, seven carbon dioxide processing facilities and a natural gas storage field, as well as lease rights to another natural gas storage field. The assets of these businesses are well integrated with other DTE Energy operations.
Factors impacting income: Net income decreased $116increased $139 million in 2005, consisting primarily of a $131 million decline at DTE Energy Trading associated with mark-to-market losses on gas storage hedges. Net income increased $492006 and decreased $128 million in 2004, consisting primarily of a $47 million improvement at DTE Energy Trading.2005. The comparability of results2006 increase is impacted by a $74 million one-time pretax gainattributed to increased mark-to-market and realized power and gas positions that resulted from a contract modification/termination recorded in the first quarter of 2004 and significant 2005 mark-to-market losses on derivative contracts used to economically hedge our gas in storage and forward power contracts. The 2005 decrease is attributed to decreased mark-to-market and realized power and gas positions.
                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Operating Revenues $1,684 $1,254 $1,061  $830 $977 $665 
Fuel, Purchased Power and Gas 970 473 643  616 984 486 
       
Gross Margin 214  (7) 179 
Operation and Maintenance 710 596 334  65 43 41 
Depreciation and Amortization 7 6 4  6 4 3 
Taxes Other Than Income 3 4 2  1  (1)  
              
Operating Income (Loss)  (6) 175 78  142  (53) 135 
Other (Income) and Deductions  (7)  (7)  (32)  (3) 13 5 
Income Tax Provision (Benefit)  (1) 64 41  49  (23) 45 
              
Net Income $2 $118 $69 
Net Income (Loss) $96 $(43) $85 
              
Operating revenuesGross marginincreased $430$221 million in 20052006 and increased $193decreased $186 million in 2004. Both Coal Transportation2005. The 2006 increase is attributed to a $168 million mark-to-market increase on power and Marketinggas positions and DTE Energy Trading experienced revenue growtha $57 million increase in realized power and gas positions. The 2006 results reflect the timing differences from 2005 that largely reversed and favorably impacted earnings. The 2005 decrease is due to higher demand, higher commodity pricing, the sale of emission credits and increased trading volume. Comparability of 2005 to 2004 is affected because our trading operations recorded an adjustment in 2004 that increased revenue by $86a $121 million related to the modification of a future purchase commitment under a transportation agreement with an interstate pipeline company. See Note 13.
Coal Transportation and Marketing revenues in 2004 were affected by our strategy to produce synfuel primarily from plants in which we had sold interests. This strategy resulted in the reduction of synfuel

46


production levels. We were contractually obligated to supply coal to customers at certain sites that did not produce synfuel as a result of our production strategy. To meet our obligations to provide coal under long-term contracts with customers, we acquired coal that was resold to customers. The coal was sold at prices higher than the prices at which synfuel would have been sold to these customers.
Fuel, purchasedmark-to-market decrease on power and gasincreased $497 positions and a $66 million decrease in realized power and gas positions. The 2005 and decreased $170 million in 2004. During 2005, our earnings have been negatively impacted byresults reflect the economically favorable decision in early 2005 to delay previously planned withdrawals from gas storage due to a decrease in the current price for natural gas and an increase in the forward price for natural gas. We anticipate the financial impact of this timing difference will reverse when the gas is withdrawn from storage in the current storage cycle and is sold at prices significantly in excess of the cost of gas in storage. In addition, we entered into forward power contracts to economically hedge certain physical and capacity power contracts. We expect the timing difference on the forward power contracts will be fully realized by the end of 2007.

50


In 2004, our trading operations recorded a gas inventory adjustment that increased expense by $12 million related to the termination of a long-term gas exchange agreement with an interstate pipeline company. See Note 13. Under the gas exchange agreement, we received gas from the customer during the summer injection period and redelivered the gas during the winter heating season.
Operation and maintenance expensesexpense increased $114$22 million in 20052006 and $2 million in 2005. The 2006 increases were due to higher incentive expenses of $14 million resulting from our strong economic performance and higher corporate allocation charges of $10 million.
Other income and deductionsdecreased $16 million in 2006 and increased $262$8 million in 2004.During 2005, our Coal Transportation2005. The 2006 decrease is attributed to $6 million of lower intercompany interest expense and Marketing business experienced$8 million of higher throughput volumes and increased prices for coal. The increase in 2004 was due primarilyintercompany interest income resulting from favorable operating cash flows to increased coal purchases and increased lease expense.
Other (income) and deductionsfor 2005 remained consistent with 2004, and decreased $25 million in 2004. The decline in 2004 is primarily due to gains recorded in 2003 from selling our 16% pipeline interest in the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.fund intercompany loans.
Income tax provisionincreased $72 million in 2006 and decreased $65$68 million in 2005 and increased $23 million in 2004primarily due to variations in pre-tax earnings.
Outlook– We expect to continue to grow our Coal Services and DTE Energy Trading businesses in a manner consistent with, and complementary to, the growth of our other business segments. Gas storage and transportation capacity enhances our ability to provide reliable and custom-tailored bundled services to large-volume end users and utilities. This capacity, coupled with the synergies from DTE Energy’s other businesses, positions the segment to add value and mitigate risks.
We expect to continue to grow our Pipeline, Processing and Storage business by expanding existing assets and developing new assets. Pipelines, Processing and Storage received MPSC approval in September 2005 and executed long-term contracts for a capacity expansion at one of our Michigan storage fields that will facilitate an additional 14 Bcf of storage service sales starting in April 2006. Vector Pipeline has secured long-term market commitments to support an expansion project, for approximately 200 MMcf per day, with a projected in-service date of November 2007. Vector Pipeline expects to receive FERC approval in the second quarter of 2006. The Millennium Pipeline filed an application for FERC approval in August 2005. In addition, Pipeline, Processing and Storage owns a 10.5% interest in the Millennium Pipeline and is currently negotiating to increase its equity interest.
- Significant portions of the Fuel Transportation and MarketingEnergy Trading portfolio are economically hedged. The portfolio includes financial instruments and gas inventory, as well as capacity positions of natural gas storage and pipelines and power transmission contracts. The financial instruments are deemed derivatives, whereas the owned gas inventory, pipelines and storage assets are not derivatives. As a result, we will experience earnings volatility as derivatives are marked to market without revaluing the underlying non-derivative contracts and assets. The majority of such earnings volatility is associated with the natural gas storage cycle, which does not coincide with the calendar and fiscal year, but runs annually from April of one year to March of the next year. Our strategy is to economically hedgemanage the price risk of storage with over-the-counter forwards and futures. Current accounting rules require the marking to market of forward

47


sales and futures, but do not allow for the marking to market of the related gas inventory. This results in gains and losses that are recognized in different interim and annual accounting periods. We generally anticipateare exploring strategic options for the financial impact of this timing difference will reverse by the end of each storage cycle. energy trading business.
See “Fair Value of Contracts” section that follows.
Synthetic Fuel
Synthetic Fuel is comprised of the nine synfuel plants that we operate and that produce synthetic fuel. The production of synthetic fuel from the synfuel plants generates production tax credits.
Factors impacting income: Synthetic Fuel net income decreased $257 million in 2006 and increased $106 million in 2005. The decline in 2006 was due to higher oil prices resulting in reduced gains from selling interests in our synfuel plants, lower levels of production tax credits and asset impairments and reserves. The increase in 2005 reflects higher gains recognized from selling interests in our synfuel plants, gains on synfuel hedges, and increased levels of production tax credits.
             
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Operating Revenues $863  $927  $650 
Operation and Maintenance  1,019   1,167   832 
Depreciation and Amortization  24   58   33 
Taxes other than Income  12   20   8 
Asset (Gains) and Losses, Reserves and Impairments, Net  40   (367)  (219)
          
Operating Income (Loss)  (232)  49   (4)
Other (Income) and Deductions  (20)  (34)  (43)
Minority Interest  (251)  (318)  (223)
Income Taxes            
Provision (Benefit)  14   139   92 
Production Tax Credits  (23)  (43)  (29)
          
   (9)  96   63 
          
Net Income $48  $305  $199 
          
Operating revenuesdecreased $64 million in 2006 and increased $277 million in 2005. Revenues were lower in 2006 due to our decision to temporarily idle production at all nine of the synfuel facilities. Revenues increased in 2005 primarily reflecting higher synfuel sales due to increased production.
Operation and maintenanceexpense decreased $148 million in 2006 and increased $335 million in 2005. Operation and maintenance expense declined in 2006 due to our decision to temporarily idle production at

51


all nine of the synfuel facilities for a portion of the year. Operating and maintenance expense in 2005 increased reflecting costs associated with increased synthetic fuel production.
Asset (gains) and losses, reserves and impairments, netdecreased $407 million in 2006 and increased $148 million in 2005. In 2006 and 2005, we deferred gains from the sale of the synfuel facilities, including in 2006, a portion of gains related to fixed payments. Due to the increase in oil prices and the resulting decrease in production and sales volumes, we recorded an accrual for contractual partners’ obligations of $79 million pre-tax in 2006 reflecting the possible refund of amounts equal to our partners’ capital contributions or for operating losses that would normally be paid by our partners. We recorded other synfuel-related reserves and impairments in 2006 of $78 million. To economically hedge our exposure to the risk of an increase in oil prices and the resulting reduction in synfuel sales proceeds, we entered into derivative and other contracts. The derivative contracts are marked-to-market with changes in their fair value recorded as an adjustment to synfuel gains. We recorded net 2006 synfuel hedge mark-to-market gains of $60 million compared with net 2005 synfuel hedge mark-to-market gains of $47 million. In 2004, we recorded mark- to-market losses of $12 million. See Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
             
(in Millions)         
Components of Synfuel (Gains) Losses, Reserves and Impairments, Net 2006  2005  2004 
Gains recognized associated with fixed payments $(43) $(132) $(95)
Gains recognized associated with variable payments  (14)  (187)  (136)
 
Reserves recorded for contractual partners’ obligations  79       
Other reserves and impairments, including partners’ share (1)  78       
Hedge (gains) losses (mark-to-market)            
Hedges for 2005 exposure     (2)  12 
Hedges for 2006 exposure  (66)  (40)   
Hedges for 2007 exposure  6   (6)   
          
  $40  $(367) $(219)
          
(1)Includes $70 million in 2006, representing our partners’ share of the asset impairment, included in Minority Interest.
Minority interestdecreased $67 million in 2006 and increased $95 million in 2005, reflecting our partners’ share of operating losses associated with synfuel operations, as well as our partners’ $70 million share of the asset impairment in 2006. The sale of interests in our synfuel facilities during prior periods resulted in allocating a larger percentage of such losses to our partners.
Income taxesdeclined $105 million in 2006 and increased $33 million in 2005, reflecting changes in pre-tax income due to synfuel related loss reserves and the impairment of fixed assets, compared to pre-tax income in 2005.
Outlook– Due to the implementation of our hedging strategy, we expect to continue to operate the synfuel plants through December 31, 2007, when synfuel-related production tax credits expire.
CORPORATE & OTHER
Corporate & Other includes various corporate support functions such as accounting, legal and information technology services.staff functions. As these functions essentially support the entire Company, their costs are fully allocated to the various segments based on services utilized. Therefore the effect of the allocation on each segment can vary from year to year. Additionally, Corporate & Other holds certain non-utility debt, assets held for sale, and energy relatedenergy-related investments.
Factors impacting income: Corporate & Other results declined by $9 million in 2006 and declined $40 million in 2005, compared2005. The 2006 decline was primarily due to a $53 million improvement in 2004.higher Michigan Single Business Taxes. The 2005 decline was primarily a result of the parent company not allocating merger interest to Detroit Edison and MichCon. Partially offsetting 2005 increased expenses were reduced Michigan Single Business Taxes and gains on the sale of non-strategic assets. The 2004 improvement was affected by a $14 million net of tax gain from the sale of 3.5 million shares of Plug Power stock, as well as lower Michigan Single Business Taxes, resulting from tax saving initiatives. Corporate & Other also benefited from lower financing costs.

52


DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
DTE Georgetown (Georgetown) — We own Georgetown, an 80 MW natural gas-fired peaking electric generating plant. In the fourth quarter of 2006, management approved the marketing of Georgetown for sale. In December 2006, Georgetown met the SFAS No. 144 criteria of an asset “held for sale” and we reported its operating results as a discontinued operation. We did not recognize an impairment loss since the carrying value of Georgetown’s assets, less costs to sell approximated its fair value. In February 2007, we entered into an agreement to sell our Georgetown peaking electric generating facility. The sale is subject to receipt of regulatory approval and is expected to close in the second half of 2007.
DTE Energy Technologies (Dtech)- We own Dtech, which assembles, markets, distributesassembled, marketed, distributed and servicesserviced distributed generation products, providesprovided application engineering, and monitorsmonitored and managesmanaged on-site generation system operations. In July 2005, management approved the restructuring of this business resulting in the identification of certain assets and liabilities to be sold or abandoned, primarily associated with standby and continuous duty operations.generation sales and service. We recognized a net of tax restructuring loss of $23 million during the third quarter of 2005 primarily representing the write down to fair value of the assets of Dtech, less costs to sell, and the write-off of goodwill. As we execute the restructuring plan, there may be adjustments to amounts recorded related to the impairment and exit costs. We anticipate completing the restructuring plan by mid-2006.
Southern Missouri Gas Company (SMGC)-We owned Southern Missouri Gas Company (SMGC),SMGC, a public utility engaged in the distribution, transmission and sale of natural gas in southern Missouri. In the first quarter of 2004, management approved the marketing of SMGC for sale. As of March 31, 2004, SMGC met the criteria of an asset “held for sale” and we have reported its operating results as a discontinued operation. We recognized a net of tax impairment loss of approximately $7 million, representing the write-down to fair value of the assets of SMGC, less costs to sell, and the write-off of allocated goodwill. In November 2004, we entered into a definitive agreement providing for the sale of SMGC. Regulatory approval was received in April 2005 and the sale closed in May 2005. During the second quarter of 2005, we recognized a net of tax gain of $2 million.
International Transmission Company (ITC)- In February 2003, we sold International Transmission Company (ITC),ITC, our electric transmission business, to affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Trimaran Capital Partners, LLC. Through December 31, 2004, we recorded a gain of $58 million (net of tax). During the second quarter of 2005, the gain was adjusted to $56 million (net of tax).
See Note 3.4 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ACCOUNTING CHANGES
Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment,using the modified prospective transition method. The cumulative effect of the adoption of SFAS 123(R) was an increase in net income of $1 million as a result of estimating forfeitures for previously granted stock awards and performance shares.
In the fourth quarter of 2005, we adoptedFASB Interpretation FIN No. 47, Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of SFAS No. 143that required additional new accounting rules for asset retirement obligations. The cumulative effect of adopting these new accounting rules reduced 2005 earnings by $3 million.

48


On January 1, 2003, we adopted new accounting rules for asset retirement obligations and energy trading activities. The cumulative effect of adopting these new accounting rules reduced 2003 earnings by $27 million.
See Note 2.
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
DTE Energy and its subsidiaries require cash to operate and is provided by both internally and externally generated sources. We manage our liquidity and capital resources to maintain financial flexibility to meet our current and future cash flow needs.
Cash Requirements
We use cash to maintain and expand our electric and gas utilities and to grow our non-utility businesses, retire and pay interest on long-term debt and pay dividends. Our strategic direction anticipates base level capital investments and expenditures for existing businesses in 20062007 of up to $1.2$1.4 billion. The capital needs

53


of our utilities will increase due primarily to environmental related expenditures. We may spend an additional $200 million to $400$125 million on growth-related projects within our non-regulatednon-utility businesses in 2006.2007.
Capital spending for general corporate purposes will increase in 2006,2007, primarily as a result of DTE2 and environmental spending. During 2005, we began the first wave of implementation of DTE2, an enterprise resource planning system initiative to improve existing processes and to implement new core information systems. We anticipate spending $165 million to $190 million over the next two years as the remaining system elements are developed and business segments fully adopt DTE2.
We anticipate environmental capital expenditures of approximately $250$253 million in 20062007 and up to approximately $2.3 billion of future capital expenditures to satisfy both existing and proposed new requirements.
We expect non-utility capital spending will approximate $200$300 million to $400 million annually for the next several years. Capital spending for growth of existing or new businesses will depend on the existence of opportunities that meet our strict risk-return and value creation criteria.
Debt maturing in 20062007 totals approximately $682$346 million.
We believe that we will have sufficient internal and external capital resources to fund anticipated capital requirements.

49


                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Cash and Cash Equivalents
  
Cash Flow From (Used For)  
Operating activities:  
Net income $537 $431 $521  $433 $537 $431 
Depreciation, depletion and amortization 872 744 691  1,014 872 744 
Deferred income taxes 147 129  (220) 28 147 129 
Gain on sale of ITC, synfuel and other assets, net  (405)  (236)  (228)
Gain on sale of synfuel and other assets, net and synfuel impairment 28  (405)  (236)
Working capital and other  (150)  (73) 186   (47)  (150)  (73)
              
 1,001 995 950  1,456 1,001 995 
              
Investing activities:  
Plant and equipment expenditures – utility  (850)  (815)  (679)  (1,126)  (850)  (815)
Plant and equipment expenditures – non-utility  (215)  (89)  (72)  (277)  (215)  (89)
Business acquisitions, net of cash acquired  (50)   
Proceeds from sale of ITC, synfuels and other assets, net of cash divested 409 325 758 
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired  (42)  (50)  
Proceeds from sale of synfuels and other assets 313 409 325 
Restricted cash and other investments  (96)  (102) 3   (62)  (96)  (102)
              
  (802)  (681) 10   (1,194)  (802)  (681)
              
Financing activities:  
Issuance of long-term debt and common stock 1,041 777 571  629 1,041 777 
Redemption of long-term debt  (1,266)  (759)  (1,208)  (687)  (1,266)  (759)
Short-term borrowings, net 437 33  (44) 291 437 33 
Repurchase of common stock  (13)     (61)  (13)  
Dividends on common stock and other  (366)  (363)  (358)  (375)  (366)  (363)
              
  (167)  (312)  (1,039)  (203)  (167)  (312)
              
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents $32 $2 $(79)
Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents $59 $32 $2 
              
Cash from Operating Activities
A majority of the Company’s operating cash flow is provided by our twoelectric and gas utilities, which are significantly influenced by factors such as weather, electric Customer Choice, regulatory deferrals, regulatory outcomes, economic conditions and operating costs.
Our non-utility businesses also provide sources of cash flow to the enterprise, and reflect a range of operating profiles. The profiles varyprimarily from ourthe synthetic fuels business, which we believe, subject to considerations discussed below, will provide up to approximately $1.2 billion$900 million of cash during 2006-2008 (assuming no phase-out), to new startups. These new start-ups include our unconventional gas and waste coal recovery businesses, which we are growing and, if successful, could require significant investment.2007-2009.
Cash from operations totaling $1.001$1.5 billion in 2006 was up $455 million from the comparable 2005 period. The operating cash flow comparison reflects an increase of $352 million in net income, after adjusting for

54


non-cash items (depreciation, depletion, amortization, deferred taxes and gains), and a $103 million decrease in working capital and other requirements. Most of the improvement was driven by higher net income at Detroit Edison which was the result of improved revenues and gross margin stemming from a full year of higher rates granted in the 2004 rate orders and lower customer choice penetration. The working capital improvement was driven by MichCon which resulted primarily from declining GCR factors which had the effect of lowering customer accounts receivable balances. This improvement was partially offset by working capital requirements at Detroit Edison which resulted from pension and VEBA contributions totaling $271 million in 2006.
Cash from operations totaling $1.0 billion in 2005 was up $6 million from the comparable 2004 period. The operating cash flow comparison reflects an increase of over $83 million in net income, after adjusting for non-cash items (depreciation, depletion, amortization, deferred taxes and gains), substantially offset by a $77 million increase in working capital and other requirements. Most of the improvement was driven by higher net income at Detroit Edison which was the result of improved revenues and gross margin stemming from higher rates granted in the 2004 rate orders, warmer weather, and lower customer choice penetration. The offsetting increase in working capital requirements was driven by a $127 million PSCR under-recovery in 2005 as compared to a $112 million over-recovery in 2004. Working capital requirements also reflect the higher cost of gas at MichCon and our Fuel Transportation and MarketingEnergy Trading segment. MichCon’s working capital and other requirements were $136 million higher in 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to the impact of higher gas costs. This impact was reflected by accounts receivable balances that were $198 million higher at December 31, 2005 than the previous year at MichCon. The increase in working capital requirements was mitigated by lower income tax payments in 2005 and

50


company initiatives to improve cash flow, including better inventory management, cash sales transactions and the utilization of letters of credit.
Our net operating cash flow in 2004 was $995 million, reflecting a $45 million increase from 2003. The operating cash flow comparison reflects an increase of over $300 million in net income, after adjusting for non-cash items (depreciation, depletion, amortization, deferred taxes and gains), substantially offset by a $259 million increase in working capital and other requirements. A portion of this improvement is attributable to the change in our strategy to primarily produce synfuel from plants in which we have sold interests. As previously discussed, synfuel projects generate operating losses, which have been more than offset by tax credits that we have been unable to fully utilize, thereby negatively affecting operating cash flow. Cash for working capital primarily reflects higher income tax payments of $172 million in 2004, reflecting a different payment pattern of taxes in 2004 compared to 2003. The increase in working capital was mitigated by Company initiatives to improve cash flow, including better inventory management, cash sales transactions, deferral of retirement plan contributions and the utilization of letters of credit. Certain cash initiatives in 2003 lowered cash flow in 2004.
Outlook We expect cash flow from operations to increase over the long-term primarily due to improvements from utility rate increases and the sales of interests inhigher earnings at our synfuel projects, partially offset by higher cash requirements on environmental and other utility capital as well as growth investments in our non-utility portfolio.utilities. We are likely to incurincurring costs associated with implementation of our Performance Excellence Process, but we expect to realize long termsustained net cost savings.savings beginning in 2007. We also may be impacted by the delayed collection of underrecoveries of our PSCR and GCR costs and electric and gas accounts receivable as a result of recent MPSC orders. Gas prices are likely to be a source of volatility with regard to working capital requirements for the foreseeable future. We are continuing our efforts to identify opportunities to improve cash flow through working capital improvement initiatives.
OperatingWe anticipate approximately $900 million of synfuel-related cash flowimpacts from our utilities is expected to increase in 2006. Due to the structure2007 through 2009, which consists of the interimcash from operations and final rate orders, we will begin to realize the full benefits of interimproceeds from option hedges, and final rate relief in 2006 when all customer rate caps expire. Improvements in cash flow from our utilities are also expected from better management of our working capital requirements, including the continued focus on reducing past due accounts receivable. Our emphasis in these businesses will continue to be cash generation and conservation.
Assuming no production tax credit phase-out, cash flows from our synfuel business are expected to be approximately $400 million, $500 million and $300 million in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively, including $300 millionof tax credit carryforward utilization by DTE Energy.and other tax benefits that are expected to reduce future tax payments. The redeployment of this cash represents a unique opportunity to increase shareholder value and strengthen our balance sheet. We expect to use thisany such cash and the potential cash from monetization of certain of our non-utility assets and operations to reduce debt and repurchase common stock, and to continue to pursue growth investments that meet our strict risk-return and value creation criteria and to potentially repurchasecriteria. We repurchased one million shares of common stock if adequate investment opportunities are not available.in December 2006. Our objectives for cash redeployment are to strengthen the balance sheet and coverage ratios to improve our current credit rating and outlook, and to replace the value of synfuel operations currently inherent in our share price. However, if oil prices remain at current levels or increase throughout 2006, the expected cash flow from the synfuel business wouldhave any monetization be less and could adversely impact the success of this strategy, unless the Company identifies alternative sources of cash. Synfuel cash flow consists of variable and fixed payments from partners, proceeds from option and other contracts usedaccretive to protect us from risk of loss from a tax credit phase-out and the use of prior years’ tax credit carry-forwards. Since 2004, we have spent approximately $105 million hedging our future synfuel cash flow and may spend up to $50 million in 2006.earnings per share.
Our other operating non-utility businesses are expected to contribute approximately $500 million through 2008. Remaining start-up businesses such as unconventional gas production, waste coal recovery and distributed generation will continue to use cash in excess of their cash generation over the next couple of years while they are being further developed. Certain of the previously discussed cash initiatives resulted in accelerating the receipt of cash in 2005, which will have the impact of lowering cash flow in 2006.

51


Cash from Investing Activities
Cash inflows associated with investing activities are primarily generated from the sale of assets. In any given year, we will look to realize cash from under-performing or non-strategic assets. Capital spending within the utility business is primarily to maintain our generation and distribution infrastructure, comply with environmental regulations and gas pipeline replacements. Capital spending within our non-utility businesses is for ongoing maintenance and expansion. The balance of non-utility spending is for growth, which we manage very carefully. We look to make investments that meet strict criteria in terms of strategy, management skills, risks and returns. All new investments are analyzed for their rates of return and cash payback on a risk adjusted basis. We have been disciplined in how we deploy capital and will not make investments unless they meet our criteria. For new business lines, we invest tentatively based on research and analysis. We start with a limited investment, we evaluate results and either expand or exit the business based on those results. In any given year, the amount of growth capital will be

55


determined by the underlying cash flows of the Company with a clear understanding of any potential impact on our credit ratings.
Net cash outflows relating to investing activities increased $392 million in 2006 compared to 2005. The 2006 change was primarily due to increased capital expenditures. The increase in capital expenditures was driven by environmental, Enterprise Business Systems development and distribution projects at Detroit Edison, pipeline reliability and inventory management projects at MichCon, and growth-oriented projects across our non-utility segments.
Net cash outflows relating to investing activities increased $121 million in 2005 and $691 million in 2004, compared to the prior year.2005. The 2005 changeincrease was primarily due to increased capital expenditures, partially offset by higher synfuel proceeds. Spending on growth project investments increased $123 million in 2005 while spending on environmental projects was $44 million higher than the 2004 period. The 2004 change was primarily due to proceeds received in 2003 totaling $758 million from the sale of ITC, interests in three synfuel projects and non-strategic assets. Additionally, the change was due to variations in cash contractually designated for debt service.
Longer term, with the expected improvement at our utilities and assuming continued cash generation from the synfuel business, cash flows are expected to improve. We will continue to pursue opportunities to grow our businesses in a disciplined fashion if we can find opportunities that meet our strategic, financial and risk criteria.
Cash from Financing Activities
We rely on both short-term borrowing and long-term financing as a source of funding for our capital requirements not satisfied by the Company’s operations. Short-term borrowings, which are mostly in the form of commercial paper borrowings, provide us with the liquidity needed on a daily basis. Our commercial paper program is supported by our unsecured credit facilities.
Our strategy is to have a targeted debt portfolio blend as to fixed and variable interest rates and maturity. We continually evaluate our leverage target, which is currently 50% or lower,to 52%, to ensure it is consistent with our objective to have a strong investment grade debt rating. We have completed a number of refinancings with the effect of extending the average maturity of our long-term debt and strengthening our balance sheet. The extension of the average maturity was accomplished at interest rates that lowered our debt costs.
Net cash used for financing activities increased $36 million during 2006 compared to 2005, due mostly to a decrease in short-term borrowings and issuance of common stock and long-term debt, partially offset by a decrease in debt redemptions.
Net cash used for financing activities improved $145 million in 2005 and improved $727 million in 2004, compareddue primarily to the prior periods. The improvement in 2005 was primarily driven by the issuance of common stock which resulted from the conversion of our equity security units. The change in 2004 was primarily due to higher issuances of long-term debt and levels of short-term debt borrowings which exceeded the requirements of long-term debt redemptions.
See Note 9 – Long-Term DebtNotes 11 and Preferred Securities and Note 10 – Short-Term Credit Arrangements and Borrowings for more information regarding financing activities.12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Amounts available under shelf registrations include $500 million at DTE Energy, $250 million at Detroit Edison and $200 million at MichCon. In August 2006, we plan on filing new shelf registration statements for DTE Energy and Detroit Edison.Edison filed a combined shelf registration statement for the issuance of securities in an unlimited amount for three years from its effective date. MichCon has a separate effective registration statement providing for the issuance of $200 million of securities.

52


Common stock issuances or repurchases can also be a source or use of cash. In January 2005, we announced that the DTE Energy Board of Directors has authorized the repurchase of up to $700 million in common stock through 2008. The authorization provides Company management with flexibility to pursue share repurchases from time to time, and will depend on future cash flows and investment opportunities. No share repurchases were madeWe repurchased one million shares of our common stock in 2005. As of January 1, 2005, we discontinued issuing new DTE Energy shares for our dividend reinvestment plan, which generated approximately $50 million annually.December 2006. We also contributed $170 million of DTE Energy common stock to our pension plan in the first quarter of 2004. In August 2005, we issued 3.7 million shares of common stock in conjunction with the settlement of the stock purchase component of our equity security units.

56


Contractual Obligations
The following table details our contractual obligations for debt redemptions, leases, purchase obligations and other long-term obligations as of December 31, 2005:2006:
                                        
 Less    Less   
(in Millions) Than After  Than After 
Contractual Obligations Total 1 Year 1-3 Years 4-5 Years 5 Years  Total 1 Year 1-3 Years 4-5 Years 5 Years 
Long-term debt:  
 
Mortgage bonds, notes and other $5,821 $577 $634 $1,305 $3,305  $6,163 $236 $1,124 $1,061 $3,742 
Securitization bonds 1,400 105 363 290 642  1,295 111 391 314 479 
Equity-linked securities 175  175   
Trust preferred-linked securities 289    289  289    289 
Capital lease obligations 124 16 43 24 41  120 14 44 21 41 
Interest 6,035 455 1,222 673 3,685  6,433 471 1,298 659 4,005 
Operating leases 536 63 128 61 284  333 53 102 51 127 
Electric, gas, fuel, transportation and storage purchase obligations (1) 6,333 3,718 1,747 188 680  6,249 3,007 2,437 135 670 
Other long-term obligations 337 153 117 21 46  291 157 75 25 34 
                      
 
Total obligations $21,050 $5,087 $4,429 $2,562 $8,972  $21,173 $4,049 $5,471 $2,266 $9,387 
                      
 
(1) Excludes amounts associated with full requirements contracts where no stated minimum purchase volume is required.
Credit Ratings
Credit ratings are intended to provide banks and capital market participants with a framework for comparing the credit quality of securities and are not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities. Management believes that the current credit ratings of the Company provide sufficient access to the capital markets. However, disruptions in the banking and capital markets not specifically related to the company may affect our ability to access these funding sources or cause an increase in the return required by investors.
We have issued guarantees for the benefit of various non-utility subsidiaries. In the event that our credit rating is downgraded to below investment grade, certain of these guarantees would require us to post cash or letters of credit valued at approximately $536$383 million at December 31, 2005.2006. Additionally, upon a downgrade, our trading business could be required to restrict operations and our access to the short-term commercial paper market could be restricted or eliminated. While we currently do not anticipate such a downgrade, we cannot predict the outcome of current or future credit rating agency reviews. The following table shows our credit rating as determined by three nationally respected credit rating agencies. All ratings are considered investment grade and affect the value of the related securities.

53


         
    Credit Rating Agency
    Standard & Moody’s Investors Fitch
Entity Description Poor’s Investors Service Ratings
DTE Energy Senior Unsecured Debt BBB- Baa2 BBB
  Commercial Paper A-2 P-2 F2
Detroit Edison Senior Secured Debt BBB+ A3 A-
  Commercial Paper A-2 P-2 F2
MichCon Senior Secured Debt BBB A3 A-
  Commercial Paper A-2 P-2 F2

57


CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES
There are estimates used in preparing the consolidated financial statements that require considerable judgment. Such estimates relate to regulation, risk management and trading activities, production tax credits, goodwill, pension and postretirement costs, the allowance for doubtful accounts, and legal and tax reserves.
Regulation
A significant portion of our business is subject to regulation. Detroit Edison and MichCon currently meet the criteria of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 71,Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation. Application of this standard results in differences in the application of generally accepted accounting principles between regulated and non-regulated businesses. SFAS No. 71 requires the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities for certain transactions that would have been treated as revenue or expense in non-regulated businesses. Future regulatory changes or changes in the competitive environment could result in discontinuing the application of SFAS No. 71 for some or all of our businesses.
If we were to discontinue the application of SFAS No. 71 on all our operations, we estimate that the extraordinary loss would be as follows:
        
(in Millions)  
Utility  
Detroit Edison (1)  $(154) $(161)
MichCon  (43)  (46)
      
Total $(197) $(207)
      
 
(1) Excludes securitized regulatory assets
Management believes that currently available facts support the continued application of SFAS No. 71 and that all regulatory assets and liabilities are recoverable or refundable in the current rate environment. See Note 4.6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Risk Management and Trading Activities
All derivatives are recorded at fair value and shown as “Assets or 1iabilities from risk management and trading activities” in the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of financial position.Financial Position. Risk management activities are accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 133,Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,as amended. Through December 2002, trading activities were accounted for in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 98-10,Accounting for Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities. Effective January 2003, trading activities are accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 133. See Note 2.
The offsetting entry to “Assets or liabilities from risk management and trading activities” is to other comprehensive income or earnings depending on the use of the derivative, how it is designated and if it qualifies for hedge accounting. The fair values of derivative contracts were adjusted each reporting period for changes using market sources such as:

54


 published exchange traded market data
 
 prices from external sources
 
 price based on valuation models
Market quotes are more readily available for short duration contracts. Derivative contracts are only marked to market to the extent that markets are considered highly liquid where objective, transparent prices can be obtained. Unrealized gains and losses are fully reserved for transactions that do not meet this criterion.

58


Production Tax Credits
We generate production tax credits from our synfuel, coke battery and landfill gas recovery operations. We recognize earnings as tax credits are generated at our facilities in one of two ways. First, to the extent we have sold an interest in our synfuel facilities to third parties, we recognize gains as synfuel is produced and sold, and when there is persuasive evidence that the sales proceeds have become fixed or determinable, when probability of refund is considered remote and collectibility is reasonably assured. Second, to the extent we generate credits to our own account, we recognize earnings through reduced tax expense.
All production tax credits are subject to audit by the IRS. However, all of our synfuel facilities have received favorable private letter rulings from the IRS with respect to their operations. Audits of five of our synfuel facilities were successfully completed in the past two years. If production tax credits were disallowed in whole or in part as a result of an IRS audit, there could be a significant write-off of previously recorded earnings from such tax credits.
Tax credits generated by our facilities were $295 million in 2006 as compared to $617 million in 2005, as compared toand $449 million in 2004 and $387 million in 2003.2004. The portion of tax credits generated for our own account was $35 million in 2006, as compared to $55 million in 2005, as compared toand $38 million in 2004, and $241 million in 2003, with the remaining credits generated allocated to third party partners.
Goodwill
Certain of our business units have goodwill resulting from purchase business combinations. In accordance with SFAS No. 142,Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,each of our reporting units with goodwill is required to perform impairment tests annually or whenever events or circumstances indicate that the value of goodwill may be impaired. In order to perform these impairment tests, we must determine the reporting unit’s fair value using valuation techniques, which use estimates of discounted future cash flows to be generated by the reporting unit. These cash flow valuations involve a number of estimates that require broad assumptions and significant judgment by management regarding future performance. To the extent estimated cash flows are revised downward, the reporting unit may be required to write down all or a portion of its goodwill, which would adversely impact our earnings.
As of December 31, 2005,2006, our goodwill totaled $2.1 billion. The majority of our goodwill is allocated to our utility reporting units, with $772 million allocated to the Gas Utility reporting unit.units. The value of the utility reporting units may be significantly impacted by rate orders and the regulatory environment. The Gas Utility reporting unit is comprised primarily of MichCon. We have made certain assumptions for MichCon that incorporate earnings multiples used in the cash flow valuations. These assumptions may change as regulatory and market conditions change.
We also have $41$4 million of goodwill allocated to the Power and Industrial ProjectsSynthetic Fuel reporting unit. The value of the Power and Industrial ProjectsSynthetic Fuel reporting unit may be significantlyhas been impacted by anythe anticipated phase-out of tax credits related to our synfuel business. Wecredits. As of December 31, 2006, we have assumed there will be noevaluated the impact of a phase-out of synfuel tax credits and will monitor the status of any potential phase-out and its impact on our valuation assumptions. We have determined that the fair value of the Synthetic Fuel reporting unit exceeds the carrying value and no impairment of goodwill exists. These assumptions may change as the value of the synfuel tax credits change.
During 2005 we recorded an impairment of $16 million to goodwill related to discontinuing the operations of Dtech.

55


Based on our 20052006 goodwill impairment test, we determined that the fair value of our remaining operating reporting units exceed their carrying value and no impairment existed. We will continue to monitor our estimates and assumptions regarding future cash flows. While we believe our assumptions are reasonable, actual results may differ from our projections.

59


Pension and Postretirement Costs
Our costs of providing pension and postretirement benefits are dependent upon a number of factors, including rates of return on plan assets, the discount rate, the rate of increase in health care costs and the amount and timing of plan sponsor contributions.
We had pension costs for qualified pension plans of $125 million in 2006 (including Special Termination Benefits of $49 million), $90 million in 2005, and $81 million in 2004, and $47 million in 2003.2004. Postretirement benefits costs for all plans were $197 million in 2006 (including Special Termination Benefits of $8 million), $155 million in 2005, and $125 million in 2004, and $118 million in 2003.2004. Pension and postretirement benefits costs for 20052006 are calculated based upon a number of actuarial assumptions, including an expected long-term rate of return on our plan assets of 9.0%8.75%. In developing our expected long-term rate of return assumption, we evaluated input from our consultants, including their review of asset class risk and return expectations as well as inflation assumptions. Projected returns are based on broad equity and bond markets. Our 20062007 expected long-term rate of return on plan assets is based on an asset allocation assumption utilizing active investment management of 66%65% in equity markets, 25%20% in fixed income markets, and 9%15% invested in other assets. Because of market volatility, we periodically review our asset allocation and rebalance our portfolio when considered appropriate. Given market conditions, we believe that 8.75% is a reasonable long-term rate of return on our plan assets for 2006.2007. We will continue to evaluate our actuarial assumptions, including our expected rate of return, at least annually.
We base our determination of the expected return on qualified plan assets on a market-related valuation of assets, which reduces year-to-year volatility. This market-related valuation recognizes changes in fair value in a systematic manner over a three-year period. Accordingly, the future value of assets will be impacted as previously deferred gains or losses are recorded. We have unrecognized net lossesgains due to the performance of the financial markets. As of December 31, 2005,2006, we had $6$39 million of cumulative lossesgains that remain to be recognized in the calculation of the market-related value of assets.
The discount rate that we utilize for determining future pension and postretirement benefit obligations is based on a yield curve approach and a review of bonds that receive one of the two highest ratings given by a recognized rating agency. The yield curve approach matches projected plan pension and postretirement benefit payment streams with bond portfolios reflecting actual liability duration unique to our plans. The discount rate determined on this basis decreased from 6.0% at December 31, 2004 to 5.9% at December 31, 2005.2005 to 5.7% at December 31, 2006. Due to recent company contributions, financial market performance and lower discount rates and increased health care trend rates, we estimate that our 20062007 pension costs will approximate $80$66 million (excluding Special Termination Benefits) compared to $96$85 million (excluding Special Termination Benefits) in 20052006 and our 20062007 postretirement benefit costs will approximate $192$184 million compared to $155$189 million (excluding Special Termination Benefits of $8 million) in 2005.2006. In the last several years, we have made modifications to the pension and postretirement benefit plans to mitigate the earnings impact of higher costs. Future actual pension and postretirement benefit costs will depend on future investment performance, changes in future discount rates and various other factors related to plan design. Additionally, future pension costs for Detroit Edison will be affected by a pension tracking mechanism, which was authorized by the MPSC in its November 2004 rate order. The tracking mechanism provides for the recovery or refunding of pension costs above or below the amount reflected in Detroit Edison’s base rates. In April 2005, the MPSC approved the deferral of the non-capitalized portion of MichCon’s negative pension expense. MichCon will record a regulatory liability for any negative pension costs, as determined under generally accepted accounting principles.
Lowering the expected long-term rate of return on our plan assets by one-percentage-point would have increased our 20052006 qualified pension costs by approximately $24$22 million. Lowering the discount rate and the salary increase assumptions by one-percentage-point would have increased our 20052006 pension costs by approximately $10 million. Lowering the health care cost trend assumptions by one-percentage-point

56


would have decreased our postretirement benefit service and interest costs for 20052006 by approximately $20$25 million.

60


The market value of our pension and postretirement benefit plan assets has been affected by the financial markets. The value of our plan assets increased from $2.9 billion at December 31, 2003 towas $3.3 billion at December 31, 2004.2004 and November 30, 2005. The value at December 31, 2005November 30, 2006 was $3.3$3.5 billion. The investment performance returns and declining discount rates required us to recognize an additional minimum pension liability, an intangible asset and an entry to other comprehensive loss (shareholders’ equity) in 2003, 2004 and 2005. At December 31, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 158 that required us to recognize the underfunded status of our pension and other postretirement plans. The impact of the adoption of SFAS 158 was an increase in pension and postretirement benefit liabilities of approximately $1.3 billion. We requested and received agreement from the MPSC to record the additional minimum pension liability amounts for the Detroit Edison and related accounting entries will be reversedMichCon benefit plans on the balance sheet in future periods if the fair valueStatement of planFinancial Position as a Regulatory asset. As a result, Regulatory assets exceeds the accumulated pension benefit obligations.were increased by approximately $1.2 billion. The recordingremainder of the minimumincrease in pension liability does not affectand postretirement benefit liabilities is included in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss, net income or cash flow.of tax.
Pension and postretirement costs and pension cash funding requirements may increase in future years without substantial returns in the financial markets. We made a $222 million cash contribution in 2003 and a $170 million contribution to our pension plan in the form of DTE Energy common stock in 2004. We did not make pension contributions in 2005.2005 and made a $180 million cash contribution in 2006. At the discretion of management, we anticipate making up to a $180 million contribution to our qualified pension plans in 2007 and up to $600 million over the next five years. Also, we anticipate making up to a $15 million contribution to our nonqualified benefit plans in 2007 and up to $35 million over the next five years. We contributed $80 million to our postretirement plans in 2004. We did not contribute to our postretirement plans in 20032005 and 2005. We do not anticipate makingmade a $116 million contribution to our qualified pensionpostretirement benefit plans in 2006. At the discretion of management, we may makeanticipate making up to a $120$116 million contribution to our postretirement plans in 2006.2007 and up to $580 million over the next five years.
In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act was signed into law. This Act provides for a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to the benefit established by law. The effects of the subsidy on the measurement of net periodic postretirement benefit costs reduced costs by $17 million in 2006, $20 million in 2005 and $16 million in 2004.
See Note 14.16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
We establish an allowance for doubtful accounts based upon factors surrounding the credit risk of specific customers, historical trends, economic conditions, age of receivables and other information. Higher customer bills due to increased gas prices, the lack of adequate levels of assistance for low-income customers and economic conditions have also contributed to the increase in past due receivables. As a result of these factors, our allowance for doubtful accounts increased in 20042005 and 2005.2006. We believe the allowance for doubtful accounts is based on reasonable estimates. As part of the 2005 rate order for MichCon, the MPSC provided for the establishment of an uncollectible accounts tracking mechanism that partially mitigates the impact associated with MichCon uncollectible expenses. However, failure to make continued progress in collecting our past due receivables in light of rising energy prices would unfavorably affect operating results and cash flow.
Legal and Tax Reserves
We are involved in various legal and tax proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. We regularly assess our liabilities and contingencies in connection with asserted or potential matters, and establish reserves when appropriate. Legal reserves are based upon management’s assessment of pending and threatened legal proceedings and claims against the Company. Tax reserves are based upon management’s assessment of potential adjustments to tax positions taken. We regularly review ongoing tax audits and prior audit experience, in addition to current tax and accounting authority in assessing potential adjustments.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Protecting the environment, as well as correcting past environmental damage, continues to be a focus of state and federal regulators. Legislation and/or rulemaking could further impact the electric utility

5761


industry including Detroit Edison. The EPA and the MDEQ have aggressive programs to clean-up contaminated property.
Electric Utility
Air- Detroit Edison is subject to EPA ozone transport and acid rain regulations that limit power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. In March 2005, EPA issued additional emission reduction regulations relating to ozone, fine particulate, regional haze and mercury air pollution. The new rules will lead to additional controls on fossil-fueled power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions. To comply with these requirements, Detroit Edison has spent approximately $644$875 million through 2005.2006. We estimate Detroit Edison will incur future capital expenditures of up to $218$222 million in 20062007 and up to $2.2$2 billion of additional capital expenditures through 2018 to satisfy both the existing and proposed new control requirements. Under the June 2000 Michigan restructuring legislation, beginning January 1, 2004, annual return of and on this capital expenditure was deferred in ratemaking until December 31, 2005, the expiration of the rate cap period.
The EPA has ongoing enforcement actions against several major electric utilities citing violations of new source provisions of the Clean Air Act. Detroit Edison received and responded to information requests from the EPA on this subject. The EPA has not initiated proceedings against Detroit Edison. In October 2003, the EPA promulgated revised regulations to clarify new source review provisions going forward. Several states and environmental organizations have challenged these regulations and, in December 2003, a stay was issued until the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit renders an opinion in the case. We cannot predict the future impact of this issue upon Detroit Edison.
We may also incur liabilities as a result of potential future requirements to address the climate change issue. There may be legislative action to address the issue of changes in climate that result from the build up of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. We cannot predict the impact any legislative action may have on the Company.
Water-– In response to an EPA regulation, currently under judicial review, Detroit Edison ismay be required to examine alternatives for reducing the environmental impacts of the cooling water intake structures at several of its facilities. Based on the results of the studies to be conducted over the next several years, Detroit Edison may be required to install additional control technologies to reduce the impacts of the intakes. It isInitially, we estimated that we will incur up to $50approximately $53 million over the next fourthree to sixfive years in additional capital expenditures to comply with these requirements. However, a recent court decision remanded back to the EPA several provisions of the federal regulation which may result in a delay in compliance requirements. The court decision also raised the possibility that the Company may have to install cooling towers at some facilities. We cannot predict the effect on Detroit Edison of this court decision or any resulting regulations.
Contaminated Sites- Detroit Edison conducted remedial investigations at contaminated sites, including two former MGP sites, the area surrounding an ash landfill and several underground and aboveground storage tank locations. We have a reserve balance of $13$11 million as of December 31, 20052006 for the remediation of these sites over the next several years. In addition, Detroit Edison expects to make approximately $5 million of capital improvements to the ash landfill in 2007.
Gas Utility
Contaminated Sites- Prior to the construction of major interstate natural gas pipelines, gas for heating and other uses was manufactured locally from processes involving coal, coke or oil. Gas Utility owns, or previously owned, 15 former MGP sites. Investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-productsby–products of gas manufacturing at each site. In addition to the MPG sites, Gas Utility is also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites. Cleanup activities associated with these sites will be conducted over the next several years. As a result of these determinations, we have recorded liabilities of $35$41 million and $1 million for the MGPs and other contaminated sites, respectively. It is estimated that Gas Utility may incur $5 million in expenses related to cleanup costs in 2006. While we cannot make any assurances, we believe that a cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism for the MGP sites, approved by the MPSC, will prevent these costs from having a material adverse impact on our results of operations.2007.

62


In 1993, a cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism was approved by the MPSC for investigation and remediation costs incurred at former MGP sites in excess of this reserve. Gas Utility employed outside consultants to evaluate remediation alternatives for these sites, to assistAfter a study was completed in estimating its potential liabilities and to review its archived insurance policies. As a result of these studies,1995, Gas Utility accrued an additional liability and a corresponding regulatory asset of $35 million during 1995.million. During 2005,2006, we spent approximately $4$2 million investigating and remediating these former MGP sites. In December 2005,2006, we retained multiple environmental consultants to estimate the projectedproject cost to remediate each

58


MGP site. We accrued an additional $9$7 million in remediation liabilities associated with two of ourformer MGP sites,holders and additional cleanup cost, to increase the reserve balance to $35$41 million atas of December 31, 2005.2006.
Any significant change in assumptions, such as remediation techniques, nature and extent of contamination and regulatory requirements, could impact the estimate of remedial action costs for the sites and thereby affect the Company’s financial position and cash flows. However, we anticipate the cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism approved by the MPSC will prevent environmental costs from having a material adverse impact on our results of operations.
Other
Our non-utility affiliates are subject to a number of environmental laws and regulations dealing with the protection of the environment from various pollutants. We are in the process of installing new environmental equipment at our coke battery facilitiesfacility in Michigan. We expect the projectsproject to be completed within two years at a cost of approximately $25 million.one year. Our other non-utility affiliates are substantially in compliance with all environmental requirements.
Various state and federal laws regulate our handling, storage and disposal of waste materials. The EPA and the MDEQ have aggressive programs to manage the clean up of contaminated property. We have extensive land holdings and, from time to time, must investigate claims of improperly disposed contaminants. We anticipate our utility and non-utility companies may periodically be included in various types of environmental proceedings.
DTE2ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
In 2003, we began the development of DTE2,our Enterprise Business Systems (EBS) project, an enterprise resource planning (ERP)  system initiative to improve existing processes and to implement new core information systems, relating to finance, human resources, supply chain and work management. As part of this initiative, we are implementing Enterprise Business SystemsEBS software including, among others, products developed by SAP AG and MRO Software, Inc. The first phase of implementation occurred in 2005 in the regulated electric fossil generation unit. FullAdditional phases of implementation throughout the Company is not anticipated untilare planned for 2007. The conversion of data and the implementation and operation of the ERPEBS will be continuously monitored and reviewed and should ultimately strengthen our internal control structure and lead to increased cost efficiencies. Although our implementation plan includes detailed testing and contingency arrangements to ensure a smooth and successful transition, we can provide no assurance that complications will not arise that could interrupt our operations.
We have spent approximately $210$330 million through the end of 20052006 and expect total spending over the life of the project to be between $375 million and $400 million. We expect the benefits of lower costs, faster business cycles, repeatable and optimized processes, enhanced internal controls, improvements in inventory management and reductions in system support costs to outweigh the expense of our investment in this initiative.
MIDWEST INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR (MISO)MISO
The MISO was formed in 1996 by its member transmission owners and in December 2001 received FERC approval as a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) authorized to provide regional transmission services as prescribed by FERC in its Order 2000. Order 2000 requires an RTO to perform eight functions, including tariff administration, transmission system congestion management, provision of ancillary services to support transmission operations, market monitoring, interregional coordination and

63


the coordination of system planning and expansion. MISO’s independence from ownership of either generation or transmission facilities is intended to enable it to ensure fair access to the transmission grid, and through its congestion management role, MISO is also charged with ensuring grid reliability. MISO’s initial provision of transmission services in December 2001 was known as Day 1 operations.

59


In keeping with Order 2000, which permits RTOs to provide real-time energy imbalance services and a market-based mechanism for congestion management, MISO, on April 1, 2005, launched its Midwest Energy Market, or Day 2 operations, and began regional wholesale electric market operations and transmission service throughout its area. A key feature of the Midwest Energy Market is the establishment of Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) which provide price transparency for the sale and purchase of wholesale electricity at different locations in the market territory. The LMP is the market clearing price at a specific pricing location in the Midwest Energy Market that is equal to the cost of supplying the next increment of load at that location. The value of an LMP is the same whether a purchase or sale is made at that location. Detroit Edison participates in the Midwest Energy Market by offering its generation on a day-ahead and real time basis and by bidding for power in the market to serve its load. The cost of power procured from the market net of any gain realized from generation sold into the market is included and recovered through the PSCR mechanism. In addition, LMPs are expected to encourage new generation to locate where the power produced is of most value to the load and is expected to identify where new transmission facilities are needed to relieve grid congestion.
MISO is compensated for assuring grid reliability and for supporting the energy market through FERC-approved rates charged to load. Detroit Edison became a non-transmission owning member of MISO in compliance with section 10w (1) of PA 141. The MPSC has ordered that MISO costs charged to Detroit Edison should be recovered through the PSCR mechanism.
FEDERAL ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
In August 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Act) was signed into law. Among other provisions, the Energy Act:
 establishes mandatory electric reliability standards;
 
 repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935;
 
 renews the Price Anderson Act for twenty years which provides liability protection for nuclear power plants;
 
 provides financial incentives for nuclear license applications completed by 2008;
increases funding levels for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and
 
 increases FERC oversight responsibilities for the electric utility industry.
The implementation of the Energy Act requires proceedings at the state level and development of regulations by the FERC, as well as other federal agencies. The impact of the Energy Act on our results of operations will depend on the implementation of final rules and cannot be fully determined at this time.
NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
See Note 2— New Accounting Pronouncements for discussion3 of new pronouncements .the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
FAIR VALUE OF CONTRACTS
The following disclosures are voluntary and provide enhanced transparency of the derivative activities and position of our trading businesses and our other businesses.
We use the criteria in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133,Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,as amended and interpreted, to determine if certain contracts must be accounted for as derivative instruments. The rules for determining whether a contract meets the criteria for derivative accounting are numerous and complex. Moreover, significant judgment is required to

64


determine whether a contract requires derivative accounting, and similar contracts can sometimes be accounted for differently. If a contract is accounted for as a derivative instrument, it is recorded in the financial statements as “assets“Assets or liabilitiesLiabilities from risk management and trading activities”, at the fair value of the contract. The recorded fair value of the contract is then adjusted quarterly to reflect any change in the fair value of the contract, a practice known as mark to marketmark-to-market (MTM) accounting.

60


Fair value represents the amount at which willing parties would transact an arms-length transaction. To determine the fair value of contracts accounted for as derivative instruments, we use a combination of quoted market prices and mathematical valuation models. Valuation models require various inputs, including forward prices, volatility, interest rates, and exercise periods.
Contracts we typically classify as derivative instruments are power, gas and oil forwards, futures, options and swaps, as well as foreign currency contracts. Items we do not generally account for as derivatives (and which are therefore excluded from the following tables) include gas inventory, gas storage and transportation arrangements, full-requirements power contracts and gas and oil reserves. As subsequently discussed, we have fully reserved the value of derivative contracts beyond the liquid trading timeframe thereby not impacting income.
The subsequent tables contain the following four categories represented by their operating characteristics and key risks.
 “Proprietary Trading” represents derivative activity transacted with the intent of taking a view, capturing market price changes, or putting capital at risk. This activity is speculative in nature as opposed to hedging an existing exposure.
 
 “Structured Contracts” represents derivative activity transacted with the intent to capture profits by originating substantially hedged positions with wholesale energy marketers, utilities, retail aggregators and alternative energy suppliers. Although transactions are generally executed with a buyer and seller simultaneously, some positions remain open until a suitable offsetting transaction can be executed.
 
 “Economic Hedges” represents derivative activity associated with assets owned and contracted by DTE Energy, including forward sales of gas production and trades associated with owned transportation and storage capacity. Changes in the value of derivatives in this category economically offset changes in the value of underlying non-derivative positions, which do not qualify for fair value accounting. The difference in accounting treatment of derivatives in this category and the underlying non-derivative positions can result in significant earnings volatility as discussed in more detail in the preceding Results of Operations section.
 
 “Other Non-Trading Activities” primarily represent derivative activity associated with our Michigan gas reserves and synfuel operations. A substantial portion of the price risk associated with the gas reserves has been mitigated through 2013. Changes in the value of the hedges are recorded as “assets“Assets or liabilitiesLiabilities from risk management and trading activities”,activities,” with an offset in other comprehensive income to the extent that the hedges are deemed effective. Oil-related derivative contracts have been executed to economically hedge cash flow risks related to underlying, non-derivative synfuel related positions through 2007. The amounts shown in the following tables exclude the value of the underlying gas reserves and synfuel proceeds including changes therein.

6165


Roll-Forward of Mark to MarketMark-to-Market Energy Contract Net Assets
The following tables provide details on changes in our mark to marketmark-to-market net asset or (liability) position during 2005:2006:
                                                
 Other  Other   
 Trading Activities Non-   Trading Activities Non-   
 Proprietary Structured Economic Trading    Proprietary Structured Economic Trading   
(in Millions) Trading Contracts Hedges Total Activities Total  Trading Contracts Hedges Total Activities Total 
MTM at December 31, 2004 $3 $23 $(98) $(72) $(100) $(172)
MTM at December 31, 2005 $(108) $(136) $(110) $(354) $(140) $(494)
                          
Reclassed to realized upon settlement  (2)  (16) 32 14 66 80   (21) 83 57 119 92 211 
Liquidation of in-the-money positions (1)    (123)  (123)   (123)
Changes in fair value recorded to income 6  (91)  (58)  (143) 43  (100)  (5) 35 140 170  (6) 164 
Amortization of option premiums    (3)  (3)  (26)  (29) 114  (2)  112  (40) 72 
                          
Amounts recorded to unrealized income 4  (107)  (29)  (132) 83  (49) 88 116 74 278 46 324 
Amounts recorded in OCI (Note 1)   (54) 17  (37)  (187)  (224)
Amounts recorded in OCI  14  14  (3) 11 
Option premiums paid and other  (115) 2   (113) 64  (49) 11 4  15 73 88 
                          
MTM at December 31, 2005 $(108) $(136) $(110) $(354) $(140) $(494)
MTM at December 31, 2006 $(9) $(2) $(36) $(47) $(24) $(71)
                          
(1)In conjunction with our overall tax planning and cash initiatives, we monetized certain in-the-money contracts while simultaneously entering into at-the-market contracts with various counterparties. This had the impact of optimizing taxable income and cash flow while having minimal impact on earnings.
The following table provides a current and noncurrent analysis of “assets“Assets and liabilitiesLiabilities from risk management and trading activities”, as reflected inon the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of financial positionFinancial Position as of December 31, 2005.2006. Amounts that relate to contracts that become due within twelve months are classified as current and all remaining amounts are classified as noncurrent.
                                                        
 Other    Other   
 Trading Activities Non- Total  Trading Activities Non- Total 
 Proprietary Structured Economic Trading Assets  Proprietary Structured Economic Trading Assets 
(in Millions) Trading Contracts Hedges Eliminations Totals Activities (Liabilities)  Trading Contracts Hedges Eliminations Totals Activities (Liabilities) 
Current assets $295 $161 $205 $(3) $658 $148 $806  $62 $193 $108 $(57) $306 $155 $461 
Noncurrent assets 9 53 186  (6) 242 74 316  7 55 108  (7) 163 1 164 
                              
Total MTM assets 304 214 391  (9) 900 222 1,122  69 248 216  (64) 469 156 625 
                              
  
Current liabilities  (359)  (232)  (301) 3  (889)  (200)  (1,089)  (71)  (189)  (132) 57  (335)  (102)  (437)
Noncurrent liabilities  (53)  (118)  (200) 6  (365)  (162)  (527)  (7)  (61)  (120) 7  (181)  (78)  (259)
                              
Total MTM liabilities  (412)  (350)  (501) 9  (1,254)  (362)  (1,616)  (78)  (250)  (252) 64  (516)  (180)  (696)
                              
  
Total MTM net assets (liabilities) $(108) $(136) $(110) $ $(354) $(140) $(494) $(9) $(2) $(36) $ $(47) $(24) $(71)
                              
Maturity of Fair Value of MTM Energy Contract Net Assets
We fully reserve all unrealized gains and losses related to periods beyond the liquid trading timeframe. Our intent is to recognize MTM activity only when pricing data is obtained from active quotes and published indexes. Actively quoted and published indexes include exchange traded (i.e., NYMEX) and over-the-counter positions for which broker quotes are available. Although the NYMEX has currently quoted prices for the next 72 months, broker quotes for gas and power are generally available for 18 and 24 months into the future, respectively, we fully reserve all unrealized gains and losses related to periods beyond the liquid trading timeframe and which therefore do not impact income.
As a result of adherence to generally accepted accounting principles, the tables above do not include the expected favorable earnings impacts of certain non-derivative gas storage and power contracts. We entered into economically favorable transactions in early 2005 to delay previously planned withdrawals from gas storage due to a decrease in the current price for natural gas and an increase in the forward price

66


for natural gas. We anticipate the financial impact of this timing difference will reverse when the gas is withdrawn from storage in the current storage cycle and is sold at prices significantly in excess of the cost

62


of gas in storage. In addition, we entered into forward power contracts to economically hedge certain physical and capacity power contracts. We expect the timing difference on the forward power contracts will be fully realized by the end of 2007.
The table below shows the maturity of our MTM positions:
                                    
    2010   
(in Millions)
 Total
Fair
  and Total Fair 
Source of Fair Value 2006 2007 2008 Value  2007 2008 2009 Beyond Value 
Proprietary Trading $(64) $(44) $ $(108) $(9) $ $ $ $(9)
Structured Contracts  (71)  (61)  (4)  (136) 4  (6)  (4) 4  (2)
Economic Hedges  (96)  (4)  (10)  (110)  (24)  (8)  (4)   (36)
                    
Total Trading Activities  (231)  (109)  (14)  (354)
Total Energy Trading Activities  (29)  (14)  (8) 4  (47)
Other Non-Trading Activities  (52)  (63)  (25)  (140) 53  (61)  (16)   (24)
                    
Total $(283) $(172) $(39) $(494) $24 $(75) $(24) $4 $(71)
                    

67


Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Commodity Price Risk
DTE Energy has commodity price risk in both utility and non-utility businesses arising from market price fluctuationsfluctuations.
The Electric and Gas utility businesses have risks in conjunction with the anticipated purchases of coal, natural gas, uranium, electricity, and electricitybase metals to meet its obligations during periodstheir service obligations. Further, changes in the price of peak demand. We also are exposed toelectricity can impact the risklevel of marketexposure of Customer Choice programs and uncollectible expenses at the Electric Utility. In addition, changes in the price fluctuations onof natural gas salecan impact the valuation of lost gas, storage sales revenue and purchase contracts, gas production and gas inventories. uncollectible expenses at the Gas Utility.
To limit our exposure to commodity price fluctuations, wethe Utility businesses have entered into a seriesapplied various approaches to manage this risk. The approaches include forward energy, capacity, storage and futures contracts, as well as regulatory rate-recovery mechanisms. Regulatory rate-recovery occurs in the form of electricity and gas futures, forwards, option and swap contracts. Commodity price risk associated with our electric and gas utilities is limited due to the PSCR and GCR mechanisms. Seemechanisms (see Note 1.1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements) and a tracking mechanism to mitigate some losses from customer migration due to electric Customer Choice programs.
The non-utility businesses have risk in conjunction with electricity, natural gas, crude oil and coal.
Our Coal-Based FuelsPower and Landfill Gas Recovery businessesIndustrial Projects and Synthetic Fuel segments are also subject to crude oil, electricity, natural gas and coal based product price risk. As previously discussed, production tax credits generated by DTE Energy’s synfuel, coke battery and landfill gas recovery operations are subject to phase-out if domestic crude oil prices reach certain levels. WeThe benefits associated with tax credits may be subject to changes in federal tax law. Also, we have entered into a series of derivative contracts for 2006 through 2007 to economically hedge the impact of oil prices on a portion of our synfuel cash flow.
See Note 12.14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. To limit our exposure to the other commodities we use forward energy, capacity and futures contracts.
Our Unconventional Gas Production business segment has exposure to natural gas and, to a lesser extent, crude oil price fluctuations. These commodity price fluctuations can impact both current year earnings and reserve valuations. To manage this exposure we use forward energy and futures contracts.
Our Energy Trading business segment has exposure to electricity, natural gas and crude oil price fluctuations. These risks are managed through its energy marketing and trading operations through the use of forward energy, capacity, storage and futures contracts, within pre-determined risk parameters.
Our Coal and Gas Midstream business segment has exposure to natural gas and coal price fluctuations. These coal price risks are managed primarily through its coal transportation and marketing operations through the use of forward coal and futures contracts. The Gas Midstream business unit manages its exposure through the sale of long-term storage and transportation contracts.
Credit Risk
Bankruptcies
We purchase and sell electricity, gas, coal, coke and other energy products from and to numerous companies operating in the steel, automotive, energy, retail and other industries. Certain of our customers have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U. S. Bankruptcy Code. We regularly review contingent matters relating to these customers and our purchase and sale contracts and we record provisions for amounts considered at risk of probable loss. We believe our previously accrued amounts are adequate for probable loss. The final resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material effect on our financial statements.

68


Other
We engage in business with customers that are non-investment grade. We closely monitor the credit ratings of these customers and, when deemed necessary, we request collateral or guarantees from such customers to secure their obligations.

63

Energy Trading


We are exposed to credit risk through trading activities. Credit risk is the potential loss that may result if our trading counterparties fail to meet their contractual obligations. We utilize both external and internally generated credit assessments when determining the credit quality of our trading counterparties. The following table displays the credit quality of our trading counterparties as of December 31, 2005:2006:
                        
 Credit Exposure      Credit Exposure     
 before Cash Cash Net Credit  before Cash Cash Net Credit 
(in Millions) Collateral Collateral Exposure  Collateral Collateral Exposure 
Investment Grade (1)  
A- and Greater $444 $(46) $398  $526 $(126) $400 
BBB+ and BBB 290  (9) 281  111  111 
BBB- 17  17  107  107 
              
Total Investment Grade 751  (55) 696  744  (126) 618 
Non-investment grade (2) 52  (13) 39  68  68 
Internally Rated — investment grade (3) 129  (9) 120  104  104 
Internally Rated — non-investment grade (4) 11  11  9  (4) 5 
              
Total $943 $(77) $866  $925 $(130) $795 
              
 
(1) This category includes counterparties with minimum credit ratings of Baa3 assigned by Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s) and BBB- assigned by Standard & Poor’s Rating Group, a division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (Standard & Poor’s). The five largest counterparty exposures combined for this category represented 29%27% of the total gross credit exposure.
 
(2) This category includes counterparties with credit ratings that are below investment grade. The five largest counterparty exposures combined for this category represented less than 5%7% of the total gross credit exposure.
 
(3) This category includes counterparties that have not been rated by Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, but are considered investment grade based on DTE Energy’s evaluation of the counterparty’s creditworthiness. The five largest counterparty exposures combined for this category represented 7% of the total gross credit exposure.
 
(4) This category includes counterparties that have not been rated by Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, and are considered non-investment grade based on DTE Energy’s evaluation of the counterparty’s creditworthiness. The five largest counterparty exposures combined for this category represented less than 1% of the gross credit exposure.
Interest Rate Risk
DTE Energy is subject to interest rate risk in connection with the issuance of debt and preferred securities. In order to manage interest costs, we may use treasury locks and interest rate swap agreements. Our exposure to interest rate risk arises primarily from changes in U.S. Treasury rates, commercial paper rates and London Inter-Bank Offered Rates (LIBOR). As of December 31, 2005,2006, the Company has a floating rate debt to total debt ratio of approximately 15%18% (excluding securitized debt).
Foreign Currency Risk
DTE Energy has foreign currency exchange risk arising from market price fluctuations associated with fixed priced contracts. These contracts are denominated in Canadian dollars and are primarily for the purchase and sale of power as well as for long-term transportation capacity. To limit our exposure to foreign currency fluctuations, we have entered into a series of currency forward contracts through 2008.January 2011. Additionally, we may enter into fair value currency hedges to mitigate changes in the value of contracts or loans.

69


Summary of Sensitivity Analysis
We performed a sensitivity analysis to calculate the fair values of our commodity contracts, long-term debt instruments and foreign currency forward contracts. The sensitivity analysis involved increasing and decreasing forward rates at December 31, 20052006 by a hypothetical 10% and calculating the resulting change in the fair values.
The results of the sensitivity analysis calculations follow:
             
(in Millions) Assuming a 10% Assuming a 10%  
Activity increase in rates decrease in rates Change in the fair value of
Gas Contracts $(10) $11  Commodity contracts
Power Contracts $(17) $17  Commodity contracts
Oil Contracts $78  $(62) Commodity options
Interest Rate Risk $(314) $339  Long-term debt
Foreign Currency Risk $2  $(2) Forward contracts

6470


           
(in Millions) Assuming a 10% Assuming a 10%  
Activity increase in rates decrease in rates Change in the fair value of
 
Gas Contracts $(9) $7  Commodity contracts and options
Power Contracts $(20) $21  Commodity contracts
Oil Contracts $39  $(40) Commodity options
Interest Rate Risk $(296) $318  Long-term debt
Foreign Currency Risk $3  $(3) Forward contracts
 

65


Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
The following consolidated financial statements and schedules are included herein.
       
 Page Page
Controls and Procedures 6772 
Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  6974 
Consolidated Statement of Operations  7176 
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position  7277 
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows  7479 
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income  7580 
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements    
 Significant Accounting Policies  7681 
 New Accounting PronouncementsSynfuel Operations  8288 
 DispositionsNew Accounting Pronouncements  8490 
 Regulatory MattersDiscontinued Operations  8692 
 Nuclear OperationsOther Impairments and Restructuring  9493 
 Jointly Owned Utility PlantRegulatory Matters  9695 
 Income TaxesNuclear Operations  96104 
 Common Stock and Earnings Per Share98
Note 9Long-Term Debt and Preferred Securities99
Note 10Short-Term Credit Arrangements and Borrowings101
Note 11Capital and Operating Leases103
Note 12Financial and Other Derivative Instruments103
Note 13Commitments and ContingenciesJointly Owned Utility Plant  106 
 Retirement BenefitsIncome Taxes107
Common Stock and Trusteed AssetsEarnings Per Share  109 
 Stock-based CompensationLong-Term Debt and Preferred Securities  116110 
 SegmentShort-Term Credit Arrangements and Related InformationBorrowings113
Capital and Operating Leases114
Financial and Other Derivative Instruments115
Commitments and Contingencies  117 
 Retirement Benefits and Trusteed Assets121
Stock-based Compensation129
Segment and Related Information134
Supplementary Quarterly Financial Information (unaudited)  120137 
 
  Schedule II – Valuation and Qualifying Accounts  127144 

6671


CONTROLS AND PROCEDURESControls and Procedures
(a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures
Management of the Company carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of DTE Energy’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) as of December 31, 2005,2006, which is the end of the period covered by this report. Based on this evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that such controls and procedures are effective in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Due to the inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any disclosure controls and procedures, management cannot provide absolute assurance that the objectives of its disclosure controls and procedures will be attained.
(b) Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting
The management of the Company is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. The Company’s internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to the Company’s management and Board of Directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements.
All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risks that control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
The Company’s management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005.2006. In making this assessment, it used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) inInternal Control—Integrated Framework.Based on our assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 2005,2006, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria.
Management’sOur management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting has been audited by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm,auditors, as stated in their report which is included herein.
(c) Changes in internal control over financial reporting
The Company has established a formal assessment process and related procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting using criteria specified by COSO. The assessment process is comprehensive in scope, utilizes internal and external resources and involves many individuals at various levels of the Company in the design, testing and evaluation of internal control.

67


As part of the evaluation and assessment process, the Company has been improving the design and operating effectiveness of many entity-level and process-level controls. Control testing and remediation activities provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting will be avoided. The inherent limitations of our current internal controls, a portion of which are manual by their nature, contribute to the potential for control deficiencies. Management does not believe any areas requiring further improvement constitute a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005.2006.

72


On October 1, 2005, DTE Energy’s Fuel Transportation and Marketing unit completed its implementation of a deal capture and risk management system which impacted various processes and controls related to transaction capture, confirmation, transaction valuation and risk management. The final implementation of power transactions replaced outdated legacy computer systems. In connection with the implementation of this system, DTE Energy has implemented new processes and modified existing processes to facilitate added efficiencies and system-based controls. The impact of the new system may be considered a material change in internal controls over financial reporting. With the exception of this change, there
There has been no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 20052006 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

6873


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of DTE Energy Company:
We have audited management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting, that DTE Energy Company and subsidiaries (the “Company”) maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, based on criteria established inInternal Control—IntegratedControl-Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company’s board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria established inInternal Control—IntegratedControl-Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, based on the criteria established inInternal Control—IntegratedControl-Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 20052006 and for the year then ended, and the financial statement schedule; and our report dated March 7, 20061, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule.schedule and included an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of new accounting principles related to accounting for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans and share based payments.
/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Detroit, Michigan
March 7, 20061, 2007

6974


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of DTE Energy Company:
We have audited the consolidated statement of financial position of DTE Energy Company and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005.2006. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of DTE Energy Company and subsidiaries at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 20052006 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements of the Company taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.
As discussed in Note 23 to the consolidated financial statements, in connection with the required adoption of certain new accounting principles, in 2006 the Company changed its method of accounting for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans and share based payments. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, in connection with the required adoption of a new accounting principle, in 2005 the Company changed its method of accounting for asset retirement obligations and in 2003 the Company changed its method of accounting for asset retirement obligations, energy trading contracts and gas inventories.obligations.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, based on the criteria established inInternal Control—IntegratedControl-Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated March 7, 20061, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Detroit, Michigan
March 7, 20061, 2007

7075


DTEEnergy Company
Consolidated Statement of Operations
                        
 Year Ended December 31  Year Ended December 31 
(in Millions, Except per Share Amounts) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Operating Revenues
 $9,022 $7,071 $7,005  $9,022 $9,021 $7,069 
              
  
Operating Expenses
  
Fuel, purchased power and gas 3,530 2,007 2,241  3,056 3,530 2,007 
Operation and maintenance 3,793 3,355 3,055  3,696 3,792 3,355 
Depreciation, depletion and amortization 869 742 685  1,014 868 739 
Taxes other than income 274 312 334  321 274 312 
Asset (gains) and losses, net  (390)  (215)  (77)
Asset (gains) and losses, reserves and impairments, net 107  (390)  (219)
              
 8,076 6,201 6,238  8,194 8,074 6,194 
              
  
Operating Income
 946 870 767  828 947 875 
              
  
Other (Income) and Deductions
  
Interest expense 519 516 545  526 519 516 
Interest income  (57)  (55)  (37)  (47)  (57)  (55)
Other income  (68)  (81)  (110)  (61)  (68)  (81)
Other expenses 55 67 82  86 55 67 
              
 449 447 480  504 449 447 
              
  
Income Before Income Taxes and Minority Interest
 497 423 287  324 498 428 
  
Income Tax Provision (Benefit) (Note 7)
 202 174  (116)
Income Tax Provision (Note 9)
 137 202 176 
  
Minority Interest
  (281)  (212)  (91)  (250)  (281)  (212)
              
  
Income from Continuing Operations
 576 461 494  437 577 464 
  
Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations, net of tax (Note 3)
  (36)  (30) 54 
Loss from Discontinued Operations, net of tax (Note 4)
  (5)  (37)  (33)
  
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes, net of tax (Note 2)
  (3)   (27)
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes, net of tax (Notes 1, 3 and 17)
 1  (3)  
              
  
Net Income
 $537 $431 $521  $433 $537 $431 
              
  
Basic Earnings per Common Share (Note 8)
 
Basic Earnings per Common Share (Note 10)
 
Income from continuing operations $3.29 $2.67 $2.95  $2.46 $3.30 $2.69 
Discontinued operations  (.20)  (.17) .33   (.03)  (.21)  (.19)
Cumulative effect of accounting changes  (.02)   (.17) .01  (.02)  
              
Total $3.07 $2.50 $3.11  $2.44 $3.07 $2.50 
              
  
Diluted Earnings per Common Share (Note 8)
 
Diluted Earnings per Common Share (Note 10)
 
Income from continuing operations $3.27 $2.66 $2.93  $2.45 $3.28 $2.68 
Discontinued operations  (.20)  (.17) .32   (.03)  (.21)  (.19)
Cumulative effect of accounting changes  (.02)   (.16) .01  (.02)  
              
Total $3.05 $2.49 $3.09  $2.43 $3.05 $2.49 
              
  
Average Common Shares
  
Basic 175 173 168  177 175 173 
Diluted 176 173 168  178 176 173 
  
Dividends Declared per Common Share
 $2.06 $2.06 $2.06  $2.075 $2.06 $2.06 
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

7176


DTE Energy Company
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position
                
 December 31  December 31 
(in Millions) 2005 2004  2006 2005 
ASSETS
  
Current Assets
  
Cash and cash equivalents $88 $56  $147 $88 
Restricted cash (Note 1) 122 126  146 122 
Accounts receivable 
Customer (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $136 and $129, respectively) 1,288 865 
Accrued unbilled revenues 458 378 
Accounts receivable (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $170 and $136, respectively) 
Customer 1,427 1,746 
Collateral held by others 286 44  68 286 
Other 549 354  442 363 
Accrued power and gas supply cost recovery revenue 117 186 
Inventories  
Fuel and gas 522 509  562 522 
Materials and supplies 146 159  153 146 
Deferred income taxes 257 94  245 257 
Assets from risk management and trading activities 806 296  461 806 
Other 160 115  193 160 
          
 4,682 2,996  3,961 4,682 
          
  
Investments
  
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds 646 590  740 646 
Other 530 558  505 530 
          
 1,176 1,148  1,245 1,176 
          
  
Property
  
Property, plant and equipment 18,660 18,011  19,224 18,660 
Less accumulated depreciation and depletion (Notes 1 and 2)  (7,830)  (7,520)
Less accumulated depreciation and depletion (Note 1)  (7,773)  (7,830)
          
 10,830 10,491  11,451 10,830 
          
  
Other Assets
  
Goodwill 2,057 2,067  2,057 2,057 
Regulatory assets (Note 4) 2,074 2,119 
Securitized regulatory assets (Note 4) 1,340 1,438 
Regulatory assets (Note 6) 3,226 2,074 
Securitized regulatory assets (Note 6) 1,235 1,340 
Intangible assets 72 99 
Notes receivable 409 529  164 409 
Assets from risk management and trading activities 316 125  164 316 
Prepaid pension assets 186 184  71 186 
Other 265 200  139 166 
          
 6,647 6,662  7,128 6,647 
          
  
Total Assets
 $23,335 $21,297  $23,785 $23,335 
          
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

7277


DTE Energy Company
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position
                
 December 31  December 31 
(in Millions, Except Shares) 2005 2004  2006 2005 
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
  
Current Liabilities
  
Accounts payable $1,187 $892  $1,145 $1,187 
Accrued interest 115 111  115 115 
Dividends payable 92 90  94 92 
Accrued payroll 34 33 
Income taxes  16 
Short-term borrowings 943 403  1,131 943 
Current portion long-term debt, including capital leases 691 514  354 691 
Liabilities from risk management and trading activities 1,089 369  437 1,089 
Other 769 581  888 803 
          
 4,920 3,009  4,164 4,920 
          
  
Other Liabilities
  
Deferred income taxes 1,396 1,124  1,465 1,396 
Regulatory liabilities (Notes 2 and 4) 715 817 
Asset retirement obligations (Note 2) 1,091 916 
Regulatory liabilities (Notes 1 and 6) 765 715 
Asset retirement obligations (Notes 1 and 7) 1,221 1,091 
Unamortized investment tax credit 131 143  120 131 
Liabilities from risk management and trading activities 527 224  259 527 
Liabilities from transportation and storage contracts 317 387  157 317 
Accrued pension liability 284 265  388 284 
Accrued postretirement liability 1,414 406 
Deferred gains from asset sales 188 414  36 188 
Minority interest 92 132  42 92 
Nuclear decommissioning (Notes 2 and 5) 85 77 
Nuclear decommissioning (Note 7) 119 85 
Other 740 635  312 334 
          
 5,566 5,134  6,298 5,566 
          
  
Long-Term Debt (net of current portion) (Note 9)
 
Long-Term Debt (net of current portion) (Notes 11 and 13)
 
Mortgage bonds, notes and other 5,234 5,673  5,918 5,234 
Securitization bonds 1,295 1,400  1,185 1,295 
Equity-linked securities 175 178   175 
Trust preferred-linked securities 289 289  289 289 
Capital lease obligations 87 66  82 87 
          
 7,080 7,606  7,474 7,080 
          
  
Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 4, 5 and 13)
 
Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 2, 6, 7 and 15)
 
  
Shareholders’ Equity
  
Common stock, without par value, 400,000,000 shares authorized, 177,814,429 and 174,209,034 shares issued and outstanding, respectively 3,483 3,323 
Common stock, without par value, 400,000,000 shares authorized, 177,138,060 and 177,814,429 shares issued and outstanding, respectively 3,467 3,483 
Retained earnings 2,557 2,383  2,593 2,557 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss  (271)  (158)  (211)  (271)
          
 5,769 5,548  5,849 5,769 
          
  
Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
 $23,335 $21,297  $23,785 $23,335 
          
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

7378


DTEEnergy Company
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
                        
 Year Ended December 31  Year Ended December 31 
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Operating Activities
  
Net income $537 $431 $521  $433 $537 $431 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities:  
Depreciation, depletion and amortization 872 744 691  1,014 872 744 
Deferred income taxes 147 129  (220) 28 147 129 
Gain on sale of assets, net  (11)  (38)  (17)
Gain on sale of interests in synfuel projects  (367)  (219)  (83)  (38)  (367)  (219)
Gain on sale of ITC and other assets, net  (38)  (17)  (145)
Impairment of synfuel projects 77   
Partners’ share of synfuel project losses  (318)  (223)  (78)  (251)  (318)  (223)
Restructuring charges 33   
Contributions from synfuel partners 243 141 65  197 243 141 
Cumulative effect of accounting changes 3  27   (1) 3  
Changes in assets and liabilities, exclusive of changes shown separately (Note 1)  (111) 9 172  8  (78) 9 
              
Net cash from operating activities 1,001 995 950  1,456 1,001 995 
              
  
Investing Activities
  
Plant and equipment expenditures – utility  (850)  (815)  (679)  (1,126)  (850)  (815)
Plant and equipment expenditures – non-utility  (215)  (89)  (72)  (277)  (215)  (89)
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired  (50)     (42)  (50)  
Proceeds from sale of interests in synfuel projects 349 221 89  246 349 221 
Proceeds from sale of ITC and other assets, net of cash divested 60 104 669 
Proceeds from sale of assets, net 67 60 104 
Restricted cash for debt redemptions 4 5 106   (21) 4 5 
Proceeds from sale of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets 201 254 199  253 201 254 
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds  (235)  (287)  (231)  (284)  (235)  (287)
Other investments  (66)  (74)  (71)  (10)  (66)  (74)
              
Net cash from (used for) investing activities  (802)  (681) 10 
Net cash used for investing activities  (1,194)  (802)  (681)
              
  
Financing Activities
  
Issuance of long-term debt 869 736 527  612 869 736 
Redemption of long-term debt  (1,266)  (759)  (1,208)  (687)  (1,266)  (759)
Short-term borrowings, net 437 33  (44) 291 437 33 
Issuance of common stock 172 41 44  17 172 41 
Repurchase of common stock  (13)     (61)  (13)  
Dividends on common stock  (360)  (354)  (346)  (365)  (360)  (354)
Other  (6)  (9)  (12)  (10)  (6)  (9)
              
Net cash used for financing activities  (167)  (312)  (1,039)  (203)  (167)  (312)
              
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
 32 2  (79)
 
Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents
 59 32 2 
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
 56 54 133  88 56 54 
              
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
 $88 $56 $54  $147 $88 $56 
              
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

7479


DTE Energy Company
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity and
Comprehensive Income
                                        
 Accumulated    Accumulated  
 Other    Other  
 Common Stock Retained Comprehensive    Common Stock Retained Comprehensive  
(Dollars in Millions, Shares in Thousands) Shares Amount Earnings Loss Total  Shares Amount Earnings Loss Total
Balance, December 31, 2002 167,462 $3,052 $2,132 $(619) $4,565 
Net income   521  521 
Issuance of new shares 1,225 57   57 
Dividends declared on common stock    (348)   (348)
Repurchase and retirement of common stock  (80)  (1)    (1)
Pension obligations (Note 14)    420 420 
Net change in unrealized losses on derivatives, net of tax    17 17 
Net change in unrealized gains on investments, net of tax    52 52 
Unearned stock compensation and other  1 3  4 
Balance, December 31, 2003 168,607 3,109 2,308  (130) 5,287  168,607 $3,109 $2,308 $(130) $5,287 
Net income   431  431    431  431 
Issuance of new shares 5,671 223   223  5,671 223   223 
Dividends declared on common stock    (357)   (357)    (357)   (357)
Repurchase and retirement of common stock  (69)  (3)    (3)  (69)  (3)    (3)
Pension obligations (Note 14)    7 7 
Pension obligations (Note 16)    7 7 
Net change in unrealized losses on derivatives, net of tax     (15)  (15)     (15)  (15)
Net change in unrealized losses on investments, net of tax     (20)  (20)     (20)  (20)
Unearned stock compensation and other   (6) 1   (5)   (6) 1   (5)
Balance, December 31, 2004 174,209 3,323 2,383  (158) 5,548  174,209 3,323 2,383  (158) 5,548 
Net income   537  537    537  537 
Issuance of new shares 3,686 172   172  3,686 172   172 
Dividends declared on common stock    (363)   (363)    (363)   (363)
Repurchase and retirement of common stock  (288)  (13)  (13)  (288)  (13)    (13)
Pension obligations (Note 14)    4 4 
Pension obligations (Note 16)    4 4 
Net change in unrealized losses on derivatives, net of tax     (106)  (106)     (106)  (106)
Net change in unrealized losses on investments, net of tax     (11)  (11)     (11)  (11)
Unearned stock compensation and other 207 1   1  207 1   1 
Balance, December 31, 2005
 177,814 $3,483 $2,557 $(271) $5,769  177,814 3,483 2,557  (271) 5,769 
Net income   433  433 
Issuance of new shares 411 17   17 
Dividends declared on common stock    (368)   (368)
Repurchase and retirement of common stock  (1,283)  (32)  (29)   (61)
Adjustment to initially apply SFAS No. 158 (net of tax) (Note 16)     (38)  (38)
Pension obligations (Note 16)     3  3
Net change in unrealized losses on derivatives, net of tax    102 102 
Net change in unrealized losses on investments, net of tax     (7)  (7)
Unearned stock compensation and other 196  (1)    (1)
Balance, December 31, 2006 177,138 $3,467 $2,593 $(211) $5,849 
The following table displays comprehensive income (loss):income:
             
(in Millions) 2005  2004  2003 
Net income $537  $431  $521 
          
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:            
Pension obligations, net of taxes of $2, $4 and $226 (Notes 4 and 14)  4   7   420 
          
Net unrealized losses on derivatives:            
Gains (losses) arising during the period, net of taxes of $(78), $(26) and $8  (145)  (49)  16 
Amounts reclassified to income, net of taxes of $21, $18 and $-  39   34   1 
          
   (106)  (15)  17 
          
Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments:            
Gains (losses) arising during the period, net of taxes of $(3), $(3) and $28  (6)  (5)  52 
Amounts reclassified to income, net of taxes of $(2), $(8) and $-  (5)  (15)   
          
   (11)  (20)  52 
          
Comprehensive income $424  $403  $1,010 
          
             
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Net income $433  $537  $431 
          
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:            
Pension obligations, net of taxes of $2, $2 and $4 (Notes 6 and 16)  3  4   7 
          
Net unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives:            
Gains (losses) arising during the period, net of taxes of $3, $(78) and $(26)  6   (145)  (49)
Amounts reclassified to income, net of taxes of $52, $21 and $18  96   39   34 
          
   102   (106)  (15)
          
             
Net unrealized losses on investments:            
Losses arising during the period, net of taxes of $(4), $(3) and $(3)  (7)  (6)  (5)
Amounts reclassified to income, net of taxes of $-, $(2) and $(8)     (5)  (15)
          
   (7)  (11)  (20)
          
Comprehensive income $531  $424  $403 
          
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

7580


DTE Energy Company
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NOTE 1 — SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Corporate Structure
DTE Energy owns the following businesses:
  The Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison), an electric utility engaged in the generation, purchase, distribution and sale of electric energy to approximately 2.2 million customers in southeast Michigan;
 
  Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (MichCon), a natural gas utility engaged in the purchase, storage, transmission and distribution and sale of natural gas to approximately 1.3 million customers throughout Michigan; and
 
  Other non-utility subsidiaries engaged in a variety of energy related businesses such as synfuels, energy services,coal transportation and marketing, and gas storage and transportation, natural gas exploration and production, power and industrial projects, energy marketing and trading coal transportation and gas storage and transportation.synthetic fuel.
Detroit Edison and MichCon are regulated by the MPSC. The FERC regulates certain activities of Detroit Edison’s business as well as various other aspects of businesses under DTE Energy. In addition, we are regulated by other federal and state regulatory agencies including the NRC, the EPA and MDEQ.
References in this report to “we,” “us,” “our”“our,” “Company” or “Company”“DTE” are to DTE Energy and its subsidiaries, collectively.
Principles of Consolidation
We consolidate all majority owned subsidiaries and investments in entities in which we have controlling influence. Non-majority owned investments are accounted for using the equity method when the company is able to influence the operating policies of the investee. Non-majority owned investments include investments in limited liability companies, partnerships or joint ventures. When we do not influence the operating policies of an investee, the cost method is used. We eliminate all intercompany balances and transactions.
For entities that are considered variable interest entities, we apply the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. (FIN) 46-R,Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an Interpretation of ARB No. 51.For a detailed discussion of FIN 46-R, see Note 2.
Basis of Presentation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements are prepared using accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These accounting principles require us to use estimates and assumptions that impact reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results may differ from our estimates.
We reclassified certain prior year balances to match the current year’s financial statement presentation.
Revenues
Revenues from the sale and delivery of electricity, and the sale, delivery and storage of natural gas are recognized as services are provided. Detroit Edison and MichCon record revenues for electric and gas provided but unbilled at the end of each month.
Detroit Edison’s accrued revenues include a component for the cost of power sold that is recoverable through the PSCR mechanism. MichCon’s accrued revenues include a component for the cost of gas sold

81


that is recoverable through the GCR mechanism. Annual PSCR and GCR proceedings before the MPSC permit Detroit Edison and MichCon to recover prudent and reasonable supply costs. Any overcollection or undercollection of costs, including interest, will be reflected in future rates. Prior to 2004, Detroit Edison’s

76


retail rates were frozen under Public Act (PA) 141. Accordingly, Detroit Edison did not accrue revenues under the PSCR mechanism prior to 2004. See Note 4.6.
Non-utility businesses recognize revenues as services are provided and products are delivered. Our Fuel Transportation and MarketingEnergy Trading segment records in revenues net unrealized derivative gains and losses on energy trading contracts, including those to be physically settled.
Gains from Sale of Interests in Synthetic Fuel Facilities
Through December 2005, we have sold interests in all of our synthetic fuel production plants, representing approximately 91% of our total production capacity. Proceeds from the sales are contingent upon production levels, the production qualifying for production tax credits, and the value of such credits. Production tax credits are subject to phase-out if domestic crude oil prices reach certain levels. See Note 13 for further discussion. We recognize gains from the sale of interests in the synfuel facilities as synfuel is produced and sold, and when there is persuasive evidence that the sales proceeds have become fixed or determinable and collectibility is reasonably assured. Until the gain recognition criteria are met, gains from selling interests in synfuel facilities are deferred. It is possible that gains will be deferred in the first, second and/or third quarters of each year until there is persuasive evidence that no tax credit phase out will occur for the applicable calendar year. This could result in shifting earnings from earlier quarters to later quarters of a calendar year. We have recorded pre-tax gains from the sale of interests in synthetic fuel facilities totaling $367 million, $219 million and $83 million during 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
The gain from the sale of synfuel facilities is comprised of fixed and variable components. The fixed component represents note payments of principal and interest, is not subject to refund, and is recognized as a gain when earned and collectibility is assured. The variable component is based on an estimate of tax credits allocated to our partners, is subject to refund based on the annual oil price phase out, and is recognized as a gain only when the probability of refund is considered remote and collectibility is assured. In the event that the tax credit is phased-out, we are contractually obligated to refund to our partners an amount equal to all or a portion of the operating losses funded by our partners. To assess the probability of refund, we use valuation and analyst models that calculate the probability of surpassing the estimated lower band of the phase-out range for the Reference Price of oil for the year. Due to the rise in oil prices, there is a possibility that the Reference Price of oil could reach the threshold at which production tax credits begin to phase out.
Comprehensive Income
Comprehensive income is the change in common shareholders’ equity during a period from transactions and events from non-owner sources, including net income. As shown in the following table, amounts recorded to other comprehensive income at December 31, 20052006 include: unrealized gains and losses from derivatives accounted for as cash flow hedges, unrealized gains and losses on available for sale securities, and, minimum pension liabilities and pension and postretirement costs.As a result of the adoption of SFAS No. 158 effective December 31, 2006, the minimum pension liability is no longer recognized. Pension and postretirement costs consisting of deferred actuarial losses, prior service costs and transition amounts related to the pension and postretirement plans were recorded pursuant to SFAS No. 158.
                                
 Net Net Minimum Accumulated  Net Net  Accumulated 
 Unrealized Unrealized Pension Other  Unrealized Unrealized Pension and Other 
 Losses on Gains on Liability Comprehensive  Losses on Gains on Postretirement Comprehensive 
(in Millions) Derivatives Investments Adjustment Loss  Derivatives Investments Obligations Loss 
         
Beginning balances $(100) $33 $(91) $(158) $(206) $22 $(87) $(271)
Current-period change  (106)  (11) 4  (113) 102  (7)  3 98 
Adjustment to initially apply SFAS No. 158 (net of tax)     (38) (38)
                  
Ending balance $(206) $22 $(87) $(271) $(104) $15 $(122) $(211)
                  
Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash
Cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand, cash in banks and temporary investments purchased with remaining maturities of three months or less. Restricted cash consists of funds held to satisfy requirements of certain debt and partnership operating agreements. Restricted cash is classified as a current asset as all restricted cash is designated for interest and principal payments due within one year.

77


Inventories
We value fuel inventory and materials and supplies at average cost.
Gas inventory at MichCon is determined using the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method. At December 31, 2006, the replacement cost of gas remaining in storage exceeded the $77 million LIFO cost by $236 million. During 2006, MichCon liquidated 5.1 billion cubic feet of prior years’ LIFO layers. The liquidation reduced 2006 cost of gas by approximately $1 million, but had no impact on earnings as a result of the GCR mechanism. At December 31, 2005, the replacement cost of gas remaining in storage exceeded the $119 million LIFO cost by $496 million. At December 31, 2004, the replacement cost of gas remaining in storage exceeded the $89 million LIFO cost by $330 million. During 2004, MichCon liquidated 5.7 billion cubic feet of prior years’ LIFO layers. The liquidation benefitedreduced 2004 cost of gas by approximately $7 million, but had no impact on earnings as a result of the GCR mechanism.
Our Fuel Transportation and MarketingEnergy Trading segment uses the average cost method for its gas in inventory.

82


Property, Retirement and Maintenance, and Depreciation and Depletion
Summary of property by classification as of December 31:
                
(in Millions) 2005 2004  2006 2005 
     
Property, Plant and Equipment
  
Electric Utility  
Generation $7,375 $7,100  $7,667 $7,375 
Distribution 6,041 5,831  6,249 6,041 
          
Total Electric Utility 13,416 12,931  13,916 13,416 
          
  
Gas Utility  
Distribution 2,098 2,020  2,175 2,098 
Storage 237 221  245 237 
Other 929 883  985 929 
          
Total Gas Utility 3,264 3,124  3,405 3,264 
          
  
Other Non-utility and Other 1,980 1,956 
Non-utility and Other 1,903 1,980 
          
Total Property, Plant and Equipment 18,660 18,011  19,224 18,660 
          
  
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Depletion
  
Electric Utility  
Generation  (3,439)  (3,277)  (3,410)  (3,439)
Distribution  (2,156)  (2,077)  (2,170)  (2,156)
          
Total Electric Utility  (5,595)  (5,354)  (5,580)  (5,595)
          
  
Gas Utility  
Distribution  (891)  (845)  (926)  (891)
Storage  (104)  (100)  (108)  (104)
Other  (481)  (448)  (513)  (481)
          
Total Gas Utility  (1,476)  (1,393)  (1,547)  (1,476)
          
  
Other Non-utility and Other  (759)  (773)
Non-utility and Other  (646)  (759)
          
Total Accumulated Depreciation and Depletion  (7,830)  (7,520)  (7,773)  (7,830)
          
Net Property, Plant and Equipment
 $10,830 $10,491  $11,451 $10,830 
          
Property is stated at cost and includes construction-related labor, materials, overheads and an allowance for funds used during construction. The cost of properties retired, less salvage value, at Detroit Edison and MichCon is charged to accumulated depreciation.
Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to expense when incurred, except for Fermi 2. Approximately $25$16 million of expenses related to the anticipated Fermi 2 refueling outage scheduled for 20062007 were accrued at December 31, 2005.2006. Amounts are being accrued on a pro-rata basis over an 18-month period that began in November 2004.May 2006. We have utilized the accrue-in-advance policy for nuclear refueling outage costs since the Fermi 2 plant was placed in service in 1988. This method also matches the regulatory recovery of these costs in rates set by the MPSC. See Note 3.

78


We base depreciation provisions for utility property at Detroit Edison and MichCon on straight-line and units of production rates approved by the MPSC. The composite depreciation rate for Detroit Edison was 3.3% in 2006, 3.4% in 2005 2004 and 2003.2004. The composite depreciation rate for MichCon was 3.2%2.8%, 3.6%,3.2% and 3.5%3.6% in 2006, 2005, and 2004, and 2003, respectively.

83


The average estimated useful life for each major class of utility property, plant and equipment as of December 31, 20052006 follows:
                        
 Estimated Useful Lives in Years 
Estimated Useful Lives in YearsEstimated Useful Lives in Years
Utility Generation Distribution Transmission  Generation Distribution Transmission
Electric 39 37 N/A  40 37 N/A 
Gas N/A 26 30  N/A 37 40 
Non-utility property is depreciated over its estimated useful life using straight-line, declining-balance or units-of-production methods. The estimated useful lives for major classes of non-utility assets and facilities ranges from 20 to 40 years.
We credit depreciation, depletion and amortization expense when we establish regulatory assets for stranded costs related to the electric Customer Choice program and deferred environmental expenditures. We charge depreciation, depletion and amortization expense when we amortize the regulatory assets. We credit interest expense to reflect the accretion income on certain regulatory assets.
Intangible assets relating to capitalized software are classified as Property, Plant and Equipment and the related amortization is included in Accumulated Depreciation and Depletion on the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. We capitalize the costs associated with computer software we develop or obtain for use in our business. We amortize intangible assets on a straight-line basis over the expected period of benefit, ranging from 5 to 20 years. Intangible assets amortization expense was $37 million in 2006, $41 million in 2005 and $43 million in 2004. The gross carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets at December 31, 2006 were $503 million and $108 million, respectively. The gross carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets at December 31, 2005 were $470 million and $168 million, respectively. Amortization expense of intangible assets is estimated to be $46 million annually for 2007 through 2011.
Asset Retirement Obligations
We have recorded asset retirement obligations in accordance with SFAS No. 143,Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligationsand FASB Interpretation FIN No. 47,Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143. We have a legal retirement obligation for the decommissioning costs for our Fermi 1 and Fermi 2 nuclear plants. To a lesser extent, we have legal retirement obligations for the synthetic fuel operations, gas production facilities, gas gathering facilities and various other operations. We have conditional retirement obligations for gas pipeline retirement costs and disposal of asbestos at certain of our power plants. To a lesser extent, we have conditional retirement obligations at certain service centers, compressor and gate stations, and disposal costs for PCB contained within transformers and circuit breakers.
For our regulated operations, the adoptions of SFAS No. 143 and FIN 47 resulted primarily in timing differences in the recognition of legal asset retirement costs that we are currently recovering in rates. We defer such differences under SFAS No. 71,Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation.
As a result of adopting FIN 47 on December 31, 2005, we recorded a plant asset of $26 million with offsetting accumulated depreciation of $14 million, and an asset retirement obligation liability of $124 million. We also recorded a cumulative effect amount related to utility operations as a reduction to a regulatory liability of $108 million and a cumulative effect charge against earnings of $3 million, after-tax in 2005.
No liability has been recorded with respect to lead-based paint, as the quantities of lead-based paint in our facilities are unknown. In addition, there is no incremental cost to demolitions of lead-based paint

84


facilities vs. non-lead based paint facilities and no regulations currently exist requiring any type of special disposal of items containing lead-based paint.
Ludington Hydroelectric Power Plant has an indeterminate life and no legal obligation currently exists to decommission the plant at some future date. Substations, manholes and certain other distribution assets within Detroit Edison have an indeterminate life, therefore, no asset retirement liability has been recorded for these assets.
A reconciliation of the asset retirement obligations for 2006 follows:
     
(in Millions)    
Asset retirement obligations at January 1, 2006 $1,091 
Accretion  72 
Liabilities incurred  6 
Liabilities settled  (7)
Revision in estimated cash flows  59 
    
Asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2006 $1,221 
    
A significant portion of the asset retirement obligations represents nuclear decommissioning liabilities which are funded through a surcharge to electric customers over the life of the Fermi 2 nuclear plant.
Gas Production
We follow the successful efforts method of accounting for investments in gas properties. Under this method of accounting, all property acquisition costs and costs of exploratory and development wells are capitalized when incurred, pending determination of whether the well has found proved reserves. If an exploratory well has not found proved reserves, the costs of drilling the well are expensed. The costs of development wells are capitalized, whether productive or nonproductive. Geological and geophysical costs on exploratory prospects and the costs of carrying and retaining unproved properties are expensed as incurred. An impairment loss is recorded to the extent that capitalized costs of unproved properties, on a property-by-property basis, are considered not to be realizable. An impairment loss is recorded if the net capitalized costs of proved gas properties exceed the aggregate related undiscounted future net revenues. Depreciation, depletion and amortization of proved gas properties are determined using the units-of-production method.
Long-Lived Assets
Our long-lived assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. If the carrying amount of the asset exceeds the expected future cash flows generated by the asset, an impairment loss is recognized resulting in the asset being written down to its estimated fair value. Assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of the carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell.
Intangible Assets Including Software Costs
OurWe have certain intangible assets consist primarily of software. We capitalize the costs associated with computer software we develop or obtain for use in our business.relating to non-utility contracts and emission allowances. We amortize intangible assets on a straight-line basis over the expected period of benefit, ranging from 35 to 3026 years. Intangible assets amortization expense was $41$5 million in 2006, $2 million in 2005 $43and $1 million in 20042004. The gross carrying amount and $40accumulated amortization of intangible assets at December 31, 2006 were $80 million in 2003.and $8 million, respectively. The gross carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets at December 31, 2005 were $531$102 million and $167 million, respectively. The gross carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets at December 31, 2004 were $445 million and $151$3 million, respectively. Amortization expense of intangible assets is estimated to be $46$5 million annually for 20062007 through 2010.2011.

7985


Excise and Sales Taxes
We record the billing of excise and sales taxes as a receivable with an offsetting payable to the applicable taxing authority, with no impact on the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of operations.Operations.
Deferred Debt Costs
The costs related to the issuance of long-term debt are deferred and amortized over the life of each debt issue. In accordance with MPSC regulations applicable to our electric and gas utilities, the unamortized discount, premium and expense related to debt redeemed with a refinancing are amortized over the life of the replacement issue. Discount, premium and expense on early redemptions of debt associated with non-utility operations are charged to earnings.
Insured and Uninsured Risks
Our comprehensive insurance program provides coverage for various types of risks. Our insurance policies cover risk of loss from property damage, general liability, workers’ compensation, auto liability and directors’ and officers’ liability. Under our risk management policy, we self-insure portions of certain risks up to specified limits, depending on the type of exposure. We have an actuarially determined estimate of our incurred but not reported liability prepared annually and adjust our reserves for self-insured risks as appropriate.
Stock-Based Compensation
We have a stock-based employee compensation plan, which is described in Note 15. The plan permits the awarding of various stock awards, including options, restricted stock and performance shares. We account for stock awards under the plan under the recognition and measurement principles of Accounting Principles Board (APB) No. 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and follow the nominal vesting period approach for awards with retirement eligibility provisions. This approach differs from the non-substantive vesting period approach required by SFAS 123-R,Share-Based Payments. Upon adoption of SFAS 123-R, we will apply the non-substantive vesting period approach for recognizing compensation cost for all newly granted awards with retirement eligibility provisions. No compensation cost related to stock options is reflected in earnings, as all options granted had an exercise price equal to the market value of the underlying common stock on the date of grant. The recognition provisions under SFAS No. 123,Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, require the recording of compensation expense for stock options equal to their fair value at date of grant as determined using an option pricing model. The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share if we had recorded compensation expense for options granted under the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123.
             
(in Millions, except per share amounts) 2005  2004  2003 
          
Net Income as Reported $537  $431  $521 
Less: Total Stock-based Expense (1)  (4)  (6)  (7)
          
Pro Forma Net Income $533  $425  $514 
          
             
Income Per Share            
Basic — as reported $3.07  $2.50  $3.11 
          
Basic — pro forma $3.05  $2.46  $3.06 
          
             
Diluted — as reported $3.05  $2.49  $3.09 
          
Diluted — pro forma $3.03  $2.45  $3.05 
          
(1)Expense determined using a Black-Scholes based option pricing model.
Investments in Debt and Equity Securities
We generally classify investments in debt and equity securities as either trading or available-for-sale and have recorded such investments at market value with unrealized gains or losses included in earnings or in other comprehensive income or loss, respectively. Changes in the fair value of nuclear decommissioning-related investments are recorded as adjustments to regulatory assets or liabilities. Our investments are reviewed for impairment each reporting period. If the assessment indicates that the impairment is other than temporary, a loss is recognized resulting in the investment being written down to its estimated fair value. See Note 5.7.

80


Investment in Plug Power
We own 8.8 million shares of Plug Power Inc. We account for our investment under the cost method of accounting. We record our investment at market value and account for unrealized gains and losses in other comprehensive income or loss. In December 2005, we contributed 1.8 million shares of Plug Power to the DTE Energy Foundation that resulted in a gain of approximately $1 million due to related tax effects. In May 2004, we sold 3.5 million shares of Plug Power stock and recorded a gain of approximately $14 million (net of taxes).
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
A detailed analysis of the changes in assets and liabilities that are reported in the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of cash flowsCash Flows follows:

86


                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
       
Changes in Assets and Liabilities, Exclusive of Changes Shown Separately
  
Accounts receivable, net $(553) $73 $(50) $441 $(633) $11 
Accrued unbilled receivable  (80)  (62)  (20)
Accrued GCR revenue  (16)  (35) 29  120  (16)  (35)
Inventories  (6)  (40)  (61)  (49)  (6)  (40)
Recoverable pension and postretirement costs  (1,184) 61  (20)
Accrued/Prepaid pensions 17 88  (196) 218 17 88 
Accounts payable 290 266  (21)  (68) 290 266 
Accrued PSCR refund  (127) 112    (101)  (127) 112 
Exchange gas payable 5  (43) 90   5  (43)
Income taxes payable  (38)  (170) 135  46  (38)  (170)
General taxes  (11)  (14)  (12) 3  (11)  (14)
Risk management and trading activities 353  (64) 127   (518) 353  (64)
Postretirement obligation 132 29 112  1,008 132 29 
Other assets 52 55 67   (134)  (9) 75 
Other liabilities  (129)  (186)  (28) 226  (96)  (186)
              
 $(111) $9 $172  $8 $(78) $9 
              
Supplementary cash and non-cash information for the years ended December 31, were as follows:
                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003 
       
(in Millions) 2006 2005 2004
Cash Paid for:  
Interest (excluding interest capitalized) $516 $517 $552  $526 $516 $517 
Income taxes $80 $203 $31  $89 $80 $203 
Noncash Investing and Financing Activities  
Notes received from sale of synfuel projects $20 $214 $238  $ $20 $214 
Common stock contribution to pension plan $ $170 $  $ $ $170 
Exchange of debt $ $ $100 
Sale of assets  
Note receivable $47 $ $  $ $47 $ 
Other assets $45 $ $  $ $45 $ 
We have entered into a Margin Loan Facility (Facility)margin loan facility with an affiliate of the clearing agent of a commodity exchange in lieu of posting additional cash collateral (a non-cash transaction). The loanamount outstanding under the Facility was $103 million as of December 31, 20052005. In October 2006, we changed our clearing agent and entered into a new demand financing agreement for up to $150 million. The amount outstanding under this new agreement was $23 million at December 31, 2006. See Note 12.
In October 2006, we purchased the lessor interest in the 66 Bcf Washington 10 gas storage field. Prior to the purchase, we leased the storage rights and lease obligations which were recorded as operating leases. The acquisition resulted in a cash payment of approximately $13 million and the assumption of approximately $133 million of project related margin deposit is included in collateral held by othersdebt that was recorded on the consolidated statementour Consolidated Statement of financial position.Financial Position. See Note 10.11.

8187


Asset (gains) and losses, reserves and impairments, net
The following items are included in the Asset (gains) and losses, reserves and impairments, net line in the Consolidated Statement of Operations:
             
(in Millions)         
Description 2006  2005  2004 
Synfuel (Gains) Losses, Reserves and Impairments
            
Gains recognized for fixed payments $(43) $(132) $(95)
Gains recognized for variable payments  (14)  (187)  (136)
Reserves for contractual partners’ obligations  79       
Other reserves and impairments, including partners’ share  78       
Hedges (mark-to-market)  (60)  (48)  12 
          
Synfuels (net)  40   (367)  (219)
             
Other Non-utility impairments:
            
Waste coal recovery  19       
Landfill gas recovery  14       
Power generation  42       
          
   75       
Electric utility sale of land
  (6)  (26)   
Other
  (2)  3    
          
  $107  $(390) $(219)
          
See the following notes for other accounting policies impacting our financial statements:
   
Note Title
 
3 2 New Accounting Pronouncements
 46 Regulatory Matters
 79 Income Taxes
1214 Financial and Other Derivative Instruments
1416 Retirement Benefits and Trusteed Assets
17Stock-based Compensation
NOTE 2 — NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS– SYNFUEL OPERATIONS
Energy Trading ActivitiesSynthetic Fuel Operations
Under Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 98-10,AccountingWe are the operator of nine synthetic fuel production facilities throughout the United States. Synfuel facilities chemically change coal, including waste and marginal coal, into a synthetic fuel as determined under applicable Internal Revenue Service rules. Production tax credits are provided for Contracts Involvedthe production and sale of solid synthetic fuels produced from coal. To qualify for the production tax credits, the synthetic fuel must meet three primary conditions: (1) there must be a significant chemical change in Energy Tradingthe coal feedstock, (2) the product must be sold to an unaffiliated entity, and Risk Management Activities, companies were required(3) the production facility must have been placed in service before July 1, 1998. Through December 31, 2006, we have generated and recorded approximately $580 million in production tax credits.
To reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, the Internal Revenue Code provides production tax credits as an incentive for taxpayers to use mark-to-market accountingproduce fuels from alternative sources. This incentive is not deemed necessary if the price of oil increases and provides significant market incentives for contracts utilizedthe production of these fuels. As such, the tax credit in energy trading activities. EITF Issue No. 98-10 was rescinded in October 2002, and energy trading contracts must now be reviewed to determinea given year is reduced if they meet the definitionReference Price of oil within that year exceeds a threshold price. The Reference Price of a derivative under SFAS No. 133,Accountingbarrel of oil is an estimate of the annual average wellhead price per barrel for domestic crude oil. We project the yearly average wellhead price per barrel

88


of oil for the year to be approximately $6 lower than the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) price for light, sweet crude oil. The threshold price at which the credit begins to be reduced was set in 1980 and is adjusted annually for inflation. For 2006, we estimate the threshold price at which the tax credit would begin to be reduced is $55 per barrel and would be completely phased out if the Reference Price reached $69 per barrel. As of December 31, 2006, the realized NYMEX daily closing price of a barrel of oil was approximately $66 for 2006, equating to an estimated Reference Price of $60, which we estimate to be within the phase-out range.
To mitigate the effect of a potential phase-out and minimize operating losses we idled production at all nine of the synthetic fuel facilities that we operate on May 12, 2006. The decision to idle synfuel production was driven by the level and volatility of oil prices at that time. During the idle period, we took various steps to reduce our oil price exposure, including, renegotiation of a significant number of commercial agreements. Beginning September 5, 2006 through October 4, 2006, we resumed production at each of the nine synfuel facilities due to these amended commercial agreements and declines in the level of oil prices.
Gains (Losses) from Sale of Interests in Synthetic Fuel Facilities
Through December 2006, we have sold interests in all of the synthetic fuel production plants, representing approximately 91% of our total production capacity. Proceeds from the sales are contingent upon production levels, the production qualifying for production tax credits, and the value of such credits. Production tax credits are subject to phase-out if domestic crude oil prices reach certain levels. We recognize gains from the sale of interests in the synfuel facilities as synfuel is produced and sold, and when there is persuasive evidence that the sales proceeds have become fixed or determinable and collectibility is reasonably assured. Until the gain recognition criteria are met, gains from selling interests in synfuel facilities are deferred. It is possible that gains will be deferred in the first, second and/or third quarters of each year until there is persuasive evidence that no tax credit phase-out will occur for the applicable calendar year. This could result in shifting earnings from earlier quarters to later quarters of a calendar year. We have recorded a pre-tax loss of $40 million in 2006 and pre-tax gains of $367 million and $219 million in 2005 and 2004, respectively, from the sale of interests in synthetic fuel facilities, net of reserves and impairments.
The gain from the sale of synfuel facilities is comprised of fixed and variable components. The fixed component represents note payments, is not subject to refund, and is recognized as a gain when earned and collectibility is assured. The variable component is based on an estimate of tax credits allocated to our partners and is subject to refund based on the annual oil price phase-out. The variable component is recognized as a gain only when the probability of refund is considered remote and collectibility is assured. Additionally, our partners reimburse us (through the project entity) for the operating losses of the synfuel facilities, referred to as capital contributions. In the event that the tax credit is phased out, we are contractually obligated to refund an amount equal to all or a portion of the operating losses funded by our partners. To assess the probability and estimate the amount of refund, we use valuation and analysis models that calculate the probability of the Reference Price of oil for the year being within or exceeding the phase-out range. We recorded reserves for contractual partners’ obligations of $79 million in 2006.
Derivative Instruments - Commodity Price Risk
To manage our exposure to the risk of an increase in oil prices that could substantially reduce or eliminate synfuel sales proceeds, we entered into a series of derivative contracts covering a specified number of barrels of oil. The derivative contracts involve purchased and Hedging Activities. SFAS No. 133 requires all derivativeswritten call options that provide for net cash settlement at expiration based on the full years’ average NYMEX trading prices for light, sweet crude oil in relation to be recognized in the statementstrike prices of financial position as either assets or liabilities measured at their fair value. SFAS No. 133 also requires thateach option. These contracts are based on various terms to take advantage of favorable oil price movements. The agreements do not qualify for hedge accounting, therefore, the changes in the fair value of derivatives be recognizedthe options are recorded currently in earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteriaearnings. The fair value changes shown below are met. Energy trading contracts not meeting the definition of a derivative are accounted for under settlement accounting, effective October 25, 2002 for new contracts and effective January 1, 2003 for existing contracts. Derivative contracts are only marked to marketrecorded as adjustments to the extent that marketsgain from selling interests in synfuel facilities and are considered highly liquid where objective, transparent prices can be obtained. Unrealizedincluded in the Asset gains and losses, are fully reserved for transactions that do not meetreserves and impairments, net line item in the criteria.Consolidated Statement of Operations.
Additionally, inventory utilized in energy trading activities accounted for under the fair value method of accounting as prescribed by Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB) No. 43 is no longer permitted. Our Fuel Transportation and Marketing segment uses gas inventory in its trading operations and switched from the fair value method to the average cost method in January 2003.
Effective January 1, 2003, we no longer applied EITF Issue No. 98-10 to energy contracts and ARB No. 43 to gas inventory. As a result of discontinuing the application of these accounting principles, we recorded a cumulative effect of accounting change that reduced net income in 2003 by $16 million after-tax.
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities
In January 2003, FIN 46,Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an Interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB) No. 51,was issued and requires an investor with a majority of the variable interests (primary beneficiary) in a variable interest entity to consolidate the assets, liabilities and results of operations of the entity. A variable interest entity is an entity in which the equity investors do not have controlling interests, the equity investment at risk is insufficient to finance the entity’s activities without receiving additional subordinated financial support from other parties, or equity investors do not share proportionally in gains or losses.
In October 2003 and December 2003, the FASB issued Staff Position No. FIN 46-6 and FIN 46-Revised (FIN 46-R), respectively, which clarified and replaced FIN 46 and also provided for the deferral of the effective date of FIN 46 for certain variable interest entities. We have evaluated all of our equity and non-equity interests and have adopted all current provisions of FIN 46-R. The adoption of FIN 46-R did not have a material effect on our financial statements.
Medicare Act Accounting
In December 2003, theMedicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare Act) was signed into law. The Medicare Act provides for a non-taxable federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree
             
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Hedge (gains) losses (mark-to-market)            
Hedges for 2005 exposure $  $(2) $12 
Hedges for 2006 exposure  (66)  (40)   
Hedges for 2007 exposure  6   (6)   
          
  $(60) $(48) $12 
          

8289


health care benefit plansImpairments and Reserves
In 2006, we determined that provide a benefit that is at least “actuarially equivalent”certain assets related to our synfuel operations were impaired. The decision to record an impairment was based on the benefit established by law. We elected at that time to deferlevel and volatility of oil prices and the provisionsability of the Medicare Act,synfuel operations to generate production tax credits. In 2006, we recorded a pre-tax loss of $157 million within the Asset (gains) and its impactlosses, reserves and impairments, net, line item in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The loss consists of two components; $78 million for synfuel related fixed asset impairment and inventory write-down and $79 million for a reserve for capital contributions related to operating losses. We based the impairment decision on our accumulated postretirement benefit obligation and net periodic postretirement benefit cost, pending the issuance of specific authoritative accounting guidance by the FASB.
In May 2004, FASB Staff Position (FSP) No. 106-2 was issued on accounting for the effectsan analysis of the Medicare Act.undiscounted cash flows from the use and eventual disposition of the assets and determined that the carrying amount of the assets exceeded their expected fair value. The guidance in this FSP is applicable to sponsorsincome impact of single-employer defined benefit postretirement health care plans for which (a) the employer has concluded the prescription drug benefits available under the plan to some or all participants are “actuarially equivalent” to Medicare Part Dfixed asset impairment and thus qualify for the subsidy under the Medicare Act and (b) the expected subsidy willinventory write-down was partially offset or reduce the employer’sby $70 million, representing our partners’ share of the costasset write down, included in the Minority Interest line in the Consolidated Statement of Operations.
Guarantees
We have provided certain guarantees and indemnities in conjunction with the underlying postretirement prescription drug coverage on whichsales of interests in our synfuel facilities. The guarantees cover potential commercial, environmental, oil price and tax-related obligations and will survive until 90 days after expiration of all applicable statute of limitations. We estimate that our maximum potential liability under these guarantees at December 31, 2006 is $2.4 billion. At December 31, 2006, we have reserved $181 million of our maximum potential liability primarily representing the subsidy is based. We believe we qualifypossible refund of certain payments made by our synfuel partners.
NOTE 3 – NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes
In July 2006, the FASB issued Financial Interpretation No. 48 (FIN 48),Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – An Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 – Accounting for Income Taxes.FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise’s financial statements in accordance with FASB Statement No. 109. Additionally, it prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the subsidy underfinancial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in the Medicare Acttax return. FIN 48 provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and the expected subsidy will partially offset our share of the cost of postretirement prescription drug coverage.
In June 2004, we adopted FSP No. 106-2, retroactivepenalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition and is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. We plan to adopt FIN 48 effective January 1, 2004. As a result of2007. We do not expect the adoption our accumulated postretirement benefit obligation forto have a material impact to the subsidy related to benefits attributed to past service was reduced by approximately $95 million and was accounted for as an actuarial gain. The effectsJanuary 1, 2007 balance of the subsidy reduced net postretirement costs by $20 million in 2005 and $16 million in 2004.retained earnings.

90


Stock Based PaymentsFair Value Accounting
In December 2004,September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123-R,157,Stock Based Payments,Fair Value Measurementswhich established. SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. It emphasizes that fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Fair value measurement should be determined based on the accountingassumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. SFAS 157 is effective for transactions in whichfiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We plan to adopt SFAS 157 on January 1, 2008. We are currently assessing the effects of this statement, and have not yet determined the impact on the consolidated financial statements.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 159,The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115. This standard permits an entity exchangesto choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair- value. The fair value option established by SFAS 159 permits all entities to choose to measure eligible items at fair value at specified election dates. An entity will report unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value option has been elected in earnings at each subsequent reporting date. The fair value option: (a) may be applied instrument by instrument, with a few exceptions, such as investments otherwise accounted for by the equity method; (b) is irrevocable (unless a new election date occurs); and (c) is applied only to entire instruments for goods or services.and not to portions of instruments. SFAS No. 123-R was159 is effective for interim or annual periodsas of the beginning after June 15, 2005 with earlier adoption encouraged. In April 2005, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission delayed the effective date by requiring implementation beginning in the nextof an entity's first fiscal year that begins after JuneNovember 15, 2005.2007. We are currently assessing the effects of this statement, and have not yet determined the impact on the consolidated financial statements.
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans — an Amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R).SFAS 158 requires companies to (1) recognize the overfunded or underfunded status of defined benefit pension and defined benefit other postretirement plans in its financial statements, (2) recognize as a component of other comprehensive income, net of tax, the actuarial gains or losses and the prior service costs or credits that arise during the period but are not immediately recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost, (3) recognize adjustments to other comprehensive income when the actuarial gains or losses, prior service costs or credits, and transition assets or obligations are recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost, (4) measure postretirement benefit plan assets and plan obligations as of the date of the employer’s statement of financial position, and (5) disclose additional information in the notes to financial statements about certain effects on net periodic benefit cost in the upcoming fiscal year that arise from delayed recognition of the actuarial gains and losses and the prior service cost and credits.
The requirement to recognize the funded status of a defined benefit pension or defined benefit other postretirement plan and the related disclosure requirements was effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2006, and we adopted this portion of the standard on December 31, 2006. We requested and received agreement from the MPSC to record the additional liability amounts for Detroit Edison and MichCon on the balance sheet as a regulatory asset.
The requirement to measure plan assets and benefit obligations as of the date of the employer’s fiscal year-end statement of financial position is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2008. The Statement provides two options for the transition to a fiscal year end measurement date. We currently use a November 30 measurement date. We have not yet determined which of the available transition measurement options we will use.
See Note 16.
Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance
In September 2006, the FASB issued its Staff Position (FSP), AUG AIR-1,Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities.This FSP prohibits the use of the accrue-in-advance method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities in annual and interim financial reporting periods. We have historically charged expenditures for maintenance and repairs to expense as they were incurred, with the exception of Fermi 2, where we have utilized the accrue-in-advance policy for nuclear refueling outage costs since the plant was placed in service in 1988. We adopted SFAS No. 123-R effective January 1,this FSP on December 31, 2006. Based on historical levelsAlthough this FSP prohibits use of stock based payments,the accrue-in-advance method, we estimate that the new standard will reduce net income by approximately $5 millioncontinue to $10 million per year.
Asset Retirement Obligations
On January 1, 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143,Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, which requires the fair value of an asset retirement obligation be recognized in the period in whichuse it is incurred. We identified a legal retirement obligationto account for the decommissioning costs for our Fermi 1 andcost of Fermi 2 nuclear plants. To a lesser extent, we have retirement obligations for our synthetic fuel operations, gas production facilities, asphalt plant, gas gathering facilitiesrefueling outages because it matches the regulatory recovery of these costs in rates set by the MPSC and, various other operations.
On December 31, 2005, we adopted FASB Interpretation FIN No. 47,Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations,an interpretationtherefore is in compliance with the requirements of FASB Statement No. 143.FIN 47 clarifies that the term conditional asset retirement obligation as used in FASB Statement No. 143, refers to a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement are conditional on a future event. FIN 47 also clarifies that an entity is required to recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation when incurred if fair value can be reasonably estimated. The accounting for FIN 47 uses the same methodology as SFAS 143. When a new liability is recorded, an entity will capitalize the costs of the liability by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. The liability is accreted to its present value each period, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset. Upon settlement of the liability, an entity settles the obligation for its recorded amount or incurs a gain or loss upon settlement.
As to regulated operations, we believe that adoptions of SFAS No. 143 and FIN 47 result primarily in timing differences in the recognition of legal asset retirement costs that we are currently recovering in rates. We will be deferring such differences under SFAS No. 71,Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of RegulationRegulation..The adoption of FSP AUG AIR-1 had no income impact on our financial statements. See Note 6.

8391


AsQuantifying Misstatements
In September 2006, the SEC staff issued Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) Topic 1N,Financial Statements — Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements When Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements(SAB 108). SAB 108 addresses how a resultregistrant should quantify the effect of adopting FIN 47an error on the financial statements. The SEC staff concluded in SAB 108 that a dual approach should be used to compute the amount of a misstatement. Specifically, the amount should be computed using both the “rollover” (current year income statement perspective) and “iron curtain” (year-end balance sheet perspective) methods. We adopted this SAB effective December 31, 2005,2006. Based on our assessment we identified conditionalno errors that would require an adjustment to current or prior financial statements; therefore, the adoption of SAB 108 had no financial statement impact.
Stock Based Compensation
We adopted SFAS No. 123(R),Share Based Paymentseffective January 1, 2006. Previously we had been following the recognition and measurement principles of Accounting Principles Board (APB) No. 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and followed the nominal vesting period approach for awards with retirement obligationseligibility provisions. See Note 17 for gas pipeline retirement costs and disposalthe effects of asbestos at certainthe adoption of our power plants. To a lesser extent, we have conditional retirement obligations at certain service centers, compressor and gate stations, and PCB disposal costs within transformers and circuit breakers. SFAS No. 123(R).
NOTE 4 – DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
DTE Georgetown (Georgetown)
We recorded a plant assetown Georgetown, an 80 MW natural gas-fired peaking electric generating plant. In the fourth quarter of $26 million with offsetting accumulated depreciation2006, management approved the marketing of $14 million, andGeorgetown for sale. In December 2006, Georgetown met the SFAS No. 144 criteria of an asset retirement obligation liability of $124 million. We also recorded a cumulative effect amount related to utility operations“held for sale” and we reported its operating results as a reductiondiscontinued operation. We did not recognize an impairment loss since the net book value of Georgetown’s assets, less costs to a regulatory liability of $108 million and a cumulative effect charge against earnings of $3 million, after-tax in 2005.
If we had applied FIN 47 to prior periods, we would have recorded asset retirement obligations of $123 million and $121 million assell approximated its fair value. As of December 31, 20042006, Georgetown’s assets are $23 million and 2003, respectively, withits liabilities are $1 million. In February 2007, we entered into an immaterial effect on earnings.agreement to sell our Georgetown peaking electric generating facility. The sale is subject to receipt of regulatory approval and is expected to close in the second half of 2007.
No liability has been recorded with respect to lead-based paint,As shown in the following table, we have reported the business activity of Georgetown as the quantities of lead-based paint are unknown. In addition, there is no incremental cost to demolitions of lead-based paint facilities vs. non-lead based paint facilities and no regulations currently exist requiring any type of special disposal of items containing lead-based paint.a discontinued operation. The amounts exclude general corporate overhead costs:
Ludington Hydroelectric Power Plant has an indeterminate life and no legal obligation currently exists to decommission the plant at some future date. Substations, manholes and certain other distribution assets within Detroit Edison have an indeterminate life, therefore, no liability has been recorded for this asset.
             
  Year Ended December 31 
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Revenues (1) $1  $1  $2 
Expenses  3   2   7 
          
Loss before income taxes  (2)  (1)  (5)
Income tax benefit        (2)
          
Loss from discontinued operations $(2) $(1) $(3)
          
A reconciliation of the asset retirement obligation for 2005 follows:
     
(in Millions)    
Asset retirement obligations at January 1, 2005 $916 
Accretion  61 
Liabilities incurred (primarily adoption of FIN 47)  129 
Liabilities settled  (15)
    
Asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2005 $1,091 
    
A significant portion of the asset retirement obligations represents nuclear decommissioning liabilities which are funded through a surcharge to electric customers over the life of the Fermi 2 nuclear plant.
NOTE 3 — DISPOSITIONS
(1)Includes intercompany revenues of $1 million for 2006, 2005 and 2004.
DTE Energy Technologies (Dtech)Discontinued Operation
We own Dtech, which assembles, markets, distributesassembled, marketed, distributed and servicesserviced distributed generation products, providesprovided application engineering, and monitorsmonitored and managesmanaged on-site generation system operations. In July 2005, management approved the restructuring of this business resulting in the identification of certain assets and liabilities to be sold or abandoned, primarily associated with standby and continuous

92


duty operations.generation sales and service. The systems monitoring business and certain other operations areis planned to be retained. We anticipate completingretained by the restructuring plan by mid-2006.Company.
During the third quarter of 2005, the restructuring plan met criteria to classify the assets as “held for sale.” Accordingly, we recognized a net of tax restructuring loss of $23 million during the third quarter of 2005 primarily representing the write down to fair value of the assets of Dtech, less costs to sell, and the write-off of goodwill of $16 million. After the restructuring charge, Dtech assets are $6 million, consisting primarily of receivables and inventory, and liabilities are $6 million atAt December 31, 2005.2006, Dtech had liabilities of $3 million.
As shown in the following table, we have reported the business activity of Dtech as a discontinued operation. The amounts include the impairment loss recorded in the third quarter of 2005 and exclude general corporate overhead costs and operations that are to be retained:retained. We expect continued legal and warranty expenses in 2007 related to Dtech’s operations prior to July 2005.

84

             
  Year Ended December 31 
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Revenues (1) $1  $18  $43 
Expenses  6   67   70 
          
Loss before income taxes  (5)  (49)  (27)
Income tax benefit  (2)  (14)  (9)
          
Loss from discontinued operations $(3) $(35) $(18)
          


             
  Year Ended December 31 
(in millions) 2005  2004  2003 
          
Revenues(1) $18  $43  $36 
Expenses  67   70   57 
          
Loss before taxes  (49)  (27)  (21)
Income tax benefit  (14)  (9)  (7)
          
(Loss) from Discontinued Operations $(35) $(18) $(14)
          
(1) Includes intercompany revenues of $6 million for 2005 and $5 million for 2004.
Southern Missouri Gas Company — Discontinued Operation
We owned Southern Missouri Gas Company (SMGC), a public utility engaged in the distribution, transmission and sale of natural gas in southern Missouri. In the first quarter of 2004, management approved the marketing of SMGC for sale. As of March 31, 2004, SMGC met the SFAS No. 144 criteria of an asset “held for sale” and we reported its operating results as a discontinued operation. We recognized a net of tax impairment loss in 2004 of approximately $7 million, representing the write-down to fair value of the assets of SMGC, less costs to sell, and the write-off of allocated goodwill. In November 2004, we entered into a definitive agreement providing for the sale of SMGC. Regulatory approval was received in April 2005 and the sale was closed in May 2005. During the second quarter of 2005, we recognized a net of tax gain of $2 million.
International Transmission Company — Discontinued OperationNOTE 5 – OTHER IMPAIRMENTS AND RESTRUCTURING
Other Impairments
Waste Coal Recovery
In February 2003,2006, our Power and Industrial Projects segment impaired its investment in proprietary technology used to refine waste coal. The fixed assets at our development operation were impaired due to continued operating losses and negative cash flow. In addition, we sold ITC,impaired all our electric transmission business, for $610 millionpatents related to affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.waste coal technology. We calculated the expected undiscounted cash flows from the use and Trimaran Capital Partners, LLC. The sale generated a preliminary net of tax gain of $63 million in 2003. The gain was net of transaction costs, the portioneventual disposition of the gainassets, which indicated that was refundable to customers and the write off of approximately $44 million of allocated goodwill. The gain was lowered to $58 million in 2004 under the MPSC’s November 2004 final rate order that resulted in a revisioncarrying amount of the applicable transaction costsassets was not recoverable. We determined the fair value of the assets utilizing a discounted cash flow technique. Through December 31, 2006, we have recorded a pre-tax impairment loss of $19 million within the Asset (gains) and customer refund. During 2005, thelosses, reserves and impairments, net of tax gain was adjusted to $56 million.
We have reported the operations of ITC, from January 1, 2003 through February 28, 2003, as a discontinued operation as shownline in the following table:
     
(in Millions) 2003 
    
Revenues (1) $21 
Expenses (2)  13 
    
Operating income  8 
Income taxes  3 
    
Income from discontinued operations $5 
    
(1)Includes intercompany revenues of $18 million.
(2)Excludes general corporate overhead costs that were previously allocated to ITC.
Detroit Edison’s Steam Heating Business
In January 2003, we sold Detroit Edison’s steam heating business to Thermal Ventures II, LP. Due to the continuing involvementConsolidated Statement of Detroit Edison in the steam heating business, including the commitment to purchase steam, fund certain capital improvements and guarantee the buyer’s credit facility, we recorded a net of tax loss of approximately $14 million in 2003. As a result of Detroit Edison’s continuing involvement, this transaction is not considered a sale for accounting purposes. See Note 13.Operations.

8593


Landfill Gas Recovery
In 2006, our Power and Industrial Projects segment recorded a pre-tax impairment loss of $14 million at our landfill gas recovery unit relating to the write-down of assets at several landfill sites. The fixed assets were impaired due to continued operating losses and the oil price-related phase-out of production tax credits. The impairment was recorded within the Asset (gains) and losses, reserves and impairments, net line in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. We calculated the expected undiscounted cash flows from the use and eventual disposition of the assets, which indicated that the carrying amount of certain assets was not recoverable. We determined the fair value of the assets utilizing a discounted cash flow technique.
Non-Utility Power Generation
In 2006, our Power and Industrial Projects segment recorded a pre-tax impairment loss totaling $74 million for its investments in two natural gas-fired electric generating plants.
A loss of $42 million related to a 100% owned plant is recorded within the Asset (gains) and losses, reserves and impairments, net line in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The generating plant was impaired due to continued operating losses and the September 2006 delisting by MISO, resulting in the plant no longer providing capacity for the power grid. We calculated the expected undiscounted cash flows from the use and eventual disposition of the plant, which indicated that the carrying amount of the plant was not recoverable. We determined the fair value of the plant utilizing a discounted cash flow technique.
A loss of $32 million related to a 50% equity interest in a peaking, gas-fired electric generating plant is recorded within the Other (income) and deductions, other expenses line in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The investment was impaired due to continued operating losses and the expected sale of the investment. We determined the fair value of the plant utilizing a discounted cash flow technique, which indicated that the carrying amount of the investment exceeded its fair value.
Restructuring – Performance Excellence Process
In mid-2005, we initiated a company-wide review of our operations called the Performance Excellence Process. Specifically, we began a series of focused improvement initiatives within our Electric and Gas Utilities, and associated corporate support functions. We expect this process will be carried out over a two to three year period beginning in 2005.
We have incurred CTA for employee severance and other costs. Other costs include project management and consultant support. Pursuant to MPSC authorization, in 2006, Detroit Edison deferred approximately $102 million of CTA. Detroit Edison will begin amortizing deferred 2006 costs in 2007 as the recovery of these costs was provided for by the MPSC. MichCon cannot defer CTA costs at this time because a recovery mechanism has not been established. See Note 6.

94


Amounts expensed are recorded in the Operation and maintenance line on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Deferred amounts are recorded in the Regulatory asset line on the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. Expenses incurred in 2006 are as follows:
             
(in Millions) Employee       
Business Segment Severance Costs  Other Costs  Total Costs 
Costs incurred:            
Electric Utility $51  $56  $107 
Gas Utility  17   7   24 
Other  2   1   3 
          
Total costs  70   64   134 
 
Less amounts deferred or capitalized:            
Electric Utility  51   56   107 
          
Amounts expensed $19  $8  $27 
          
A liability for future CTA associated with the Performance Excellence Process has not been recognized because we have not met the recognition criteria of SFAS No. 146,Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities.
NOTE 4 —6 – REGULATORY MATTERS
Regulation
Detroit Edison and MichCon are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the MPSC, which issues orders pertaining to rates, recovery of certain costs, including the costs of generating facilities and regulatory assets, conditions of service, accounting and operating-related matters. Detroit Edison is also regulated by the FERC with respect to financing authorization and wholesale electric activities.
As subsequently discussed in the “Electric Industry Restructuring” section, Detroit Edison’s rates were frozen through 2003 and capped for small business customers through 2004 and for residential customers through 2005 as a result of Public Act (PA) 141. However, Detroit Edison was allowed to defer certain costs to be recovered once rates could be increased, including costs incurred as a result of changes in taxes, laws and other governmental actions.
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
Detroit Edison and MichCon apply the provisions of SFAS No. 71,Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation,to their regulated operations. SFAS No. 71 requires the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities for certain transactions that would have been treated as revenue and expense in non-regulated businesses. Continued applicability of SFAS No. 71 requires that rates be designed to recover specific costs of providing regulated services and be charged to and collected from customers. Future regulatory changes or changes in the competitive environment could result in the Company discontinuing the application of SFAS No. 71 for some or all of its utility businesses and may require the write-off of the portion of any regulatory asset or liability that was no longer probable of recovery through regulated rates. Management believes that currently available facts support the continued application of SFAS No. 71 to Detroit Edison and MichCon.

8695


The following are balances and a brief description of the regulatory assets and liabilities at December 31:
                
(in Millions) 2005 2004  2006 2005 
     
Assets
  
Securitized regulatory assets $1,340 $1,438  $1,235 $1,340 
          
  
Recoverable income taxes related to securitized regulatory assets $734 $788  $677 $734 
Recoverable minimum pension liability 544 605 
Recoverable pension and postretirement costs 1,728 544 
Asset retirement obligation 196 183  236 196 
Other recoverable income taxes 104 109  100 104 
Recoverable costs under PA 141    
Net stranded costs 112 122   112 
Excess capital expenditures 22 7  22 22 
Deferred Clean Air Act expenditures 82 76  67 82 
Midwest Independent System Operator charges 56 27  48 56 
Electric Customer Choice implementation costs 98 95  78 98 
Enhanced security costs 13 8  13 13 
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt 73 63  69 73 
Deferred environmental costs 34 31  40 34 
Accrued GCR revenue 42 55 
Accrued PSCR revenue 144  
Accrued PSCR/GCR revenue 117 186 
Recoverable uncollectibles expense 11   45 11 
Cost to achieve Performance Excellence Process 102  
Enterprise Business Systems costs 9  
Other 6 5  3 6 
          
 2,271 2,174  3,354 2,271 
Less amount included in current assets  (197)  (55)  (128)  (197)
          
 $2,074 $2,119  $3,226 $2,074 
          
  
Liabilities
  
Asset removal costs $567 $679  $576 $567 
Accrued pension 23 1  72 23 
Safety and training cost refund 3  
Accrued PSCR/GCR refund 81 129 
Refundable income taxes 125 135  114 125 
Accrued GCR disallowance  28 
Accrued PSCR refund 129 112 
Fermi 2 refueling outage 16 25 
Other 2 4  2 2 
          
 846 959  864 871 
Less amount included in current liabilities  (131)  (142)  (99)  (156)
          
 $715 $817  $765 $715 
          
ASSETS
 Securitized regulatory assets— The net book balance of the Fermi 2 nuclear plant was written off in 1998 and an equivalent regulatory asset was established. In 2001, the Fermi 2 regulatory asset and certain other regulatory assets were securitized pursuant to PA 142 and an MPSC order. A non-bypassable securitization bond surcharge recovers the securitized regulatory asset over a fourteen-year period ending in 2015.
 
 Recoverable income taxes related to securitized regulatory assets— Receivable for the recovery of income taxes to be paid on the non-bypassable securitization bond surcharge. A non-bypassable securitization tax surcharge recovers the income tax over a fourteen-year period ending 2015.
 
 Recoverable minimum pension liabilityand postretirement costs An additional minimum pension liability was recorded under generally accepted accounting principles due to the current under funded status of certain pension plans. The traditional rate setting process allows for the recovery of pension and postretirement costs as measured by generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, the minimum pension liability associated with utility operations is recoverable.In 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans. See Note 14.16.
 
 Asset retirement obligation— Asset retirement obligations were recorded pursuant to adoption of SFAS No. 143 in 2003 and FIN 47 in 2005. These obligations are primarily for Fermi 2 decommissioning costs that are recovered in rates.

96


 Other recoverable income taxes— Income taxes receivable from Detroit Edison’s customers representing the difference in property-related deferred income taxes receivable and amounts previously reflected in Detroit Edison’s rates.

87


 Net stranded costs— PA 141 permits, after MPSC authorization, the recovery of and a return on fixed cost deficiency associated with the electric Customer Choice program. Net stranded costs occuroccurred when fixed cost related revenues dodid not cover the fixed cost revenue requirements.
 
 Excess capital expenditures— Starting in 2004, PA 141 permits, after MPSC authorization, the recovery of and a return on capital expenditures that exceed a base level of depreciation expense.
 
 Deferred Clean Air Act expenditures— PA 141 permits, after MPSC authorization, the recovery of and a return on Clean Air Act expenditures.
 
 Midwest Independent System Operator charges— PA 141 permits, after MPSC authorization, the recovery of and a return on charges from a regional transmission operator such as the Midwest Independent System Operator.
 
 Electric Customer Choice implementation costs— PA 141 permits, after MPSC authorization, the recovery of and a return on costs incurred associated with the implementation of the electric Customer Choice program.
 
 Enhanced security costs— PA 609 of 2002 permits, after MPSC authorization, the recovery of enhanced security costs for an electric generating facility.
 
 Unamortized loss on reacquired debt— The unamortized discount, premium and expense related to debt redeemed with a refinancing are deferred, amortized and recovered over the life of the replacement issue.
 
 Deferred environmental costs— The MPSC approved the deferral and recovery of investigation and remediation costs associated with Gas Utility’s former MGP sites.
 
 Accrued GCR revenue— Receivable for the temporary under-recovery of and a return on gas costs incurred by MichCon which are recoverable through the GCR mechanism.
 
 Accrued PSCR revenue— Receivable for the temporary under-recovery of and a return on fuel and purchased power costs incurred by Detroit Edison which are recoverable through the PSCR mechanism.
 
 Recoverable uncollectibles expense— MichCon receivable for the MPSC approved uncollectible expense true-up mechanism that tracks the difference in the fluctuation in uncollectible accounts and amounts recognized pursuant to the MPSC authorization. Of the total amount deferred, $11 million represents 2005 expenses and is expected to be recovered during 2007. The remainder relates to 2006 expense, the recovery period of which will be determined upon receipt of an MPSC order.
Cost to achieve Performance Excellence Process (PEP)– The MPSC authorized the deferral of costs to implement the PEP. These costs consist of employee severance, project management and consultant support. These costs will be amortized over a ten-year period beginning with the year subsequent to the year the costs were deferred. See Note 5.
Enterprise Business Systems (EBS) Costs– Starting in 2006, the MPSC approved the deferral of up to $60 million of certain EBS costs that would otherwise be expensed.
LIABILITIES
 Asset removal costs— The amount collected from customers for the funding of future asset removal activities.
 
 Accrued pension— Pension expense refundable to customers representing the difference created from volatility in the pension obligation and amounts recognized pursuant to MPSC authorization.
 
 Refundable income taxesSafety and training cost refund— Income taxes refundable to MichCon’s customers representing– The MPSC ordered the difference in property-related deferred income taxes payable and amounts recognized pursuant to MPSC authorization.
Accrued GCR disallowance— Refund resulting from an MPSC order in MichCon’s 2002 GCR plan case that required MichCon to reduce revenuesrefund of unspent costs which were included in the calculation of its 2002 GCR expense.Company’s rate structure.
 
 Accrued PSCR refund— Payable for the temporary over-recovery of and a return on power supply costs, and beginning with the MPSC’s November 2004 rate order, transmission costs incurred by Detroit Edison which are recoverable through the PSCR mechanism.
Accrued GCR Refund- Liability for the temporary over-recovery of and a return on gas costs incurred by MichCon which are recoverable through the GCR mechanism.

97


Refundable income taxes— Income taxes refundable to MichCon’s customers representing the difference in property-related deferred income taxes payable and amounts recognized pursuant to MPSC authorization.
Fermi 2 refueling outage– Liability for refueling outage at Fermi 2 pursuant to MPSC authorization. See Note 3.
Electric Rate Restructuring Proposal
In February 2005, Detroit Edison filed a rate restructuring proposal with the MPSC to restructure its electric rates and begin phasing out subsidies within the current pricing structure. In December 2005, the MPSC issued an order that did not provide for the comprehensive realignment of the existing rate structure that Detroit Edison requested in its rate restructuring proposal. The MPSC order did take some initial steps to improve the current competitive imbalance in Michigan’s electric Customer Choice program. The December 2005 order establishesestablished cost-based power supply rates for Detroit Edison’s full service customers. Electric Customer Choice participants will pay cost-based distribution rates, while Detroit Edison’s full service commercial and industrial customers will pay cost-based distribution rates that reflect the cost of the residential rate subsidy. Residential customers continue to pay a subsidized below costbelow-cost rate for distribution service. These revenue neutral revised rates were effective February 1, 2006. Detroit Edison was also ordered to file a general rate case by July 1, 2007, based on 2006 actual results.

88


Other Postretirement Benefits Costs Tracker
In February 2005, Detroit Edison filed an application, pursuant to the MPSC’s November 2004 final rate order, requesting MPSC approval of a proposed tracking mechanism for retiree health care costs. This mechanism would recognize differences between cost levels collected in rates and the actual costs under current accounting rules as regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities with an annual reconciliation proceeding before the MPSC. In February 2006, the MPSC denied Detroit Edison’s request and ordered that this issue be addressed in the next general rate case due to be filed by July 1, 2007.
2004 PSCR Reconciliation and 2004 Net Stranded Cost CaseMPSC Show-Cause Order
In accordance withMarch 2006, the MPSC’s directionMPSC issued an order directing Detroit Edison to show cause by June 1, 2006 why its retail electric rates should not be reduced in 2007. The MPSC cited certain changes that had occurred since the November 2004 order in Detroit Edison’s November 2004last general rate order,case, or were expected to occur. These changes included: declines in March 2005,electric Customer Choice program participation, expiration of the residential rate caps, and projected reductions in Detroit Edison operating costs. The show cause filing was to reflect sales, costs and financial conditions that were expected to occur by 2007. On June 1, 2006, Detroit Edison filed a joint application and testimonyits response explaining why its electric rates should not be reduced in its 2004 PSCR Reconciliation Case and its 2004 Net Stranded Cost Recovery Case. The combined proceeding will provide a comprehensive true-up of the 2004 PSCR and production fixed cost stranded cost calculations, including treatment of Detroit Edison’s third party wholesale sales revenues. Under the MPSC’s preferred methodology,2007. Detroit Edison incurredindicated that it will have a revenue deficiency of approximately $112$45 million beginning in stranded costs2007 due to significant capital investments over the next several years for 2004.infrastructure improvements to enhance electric service reliability and for mandated environmental expenditures. The impacts of these investments will be partially offset by efficiency and cost-savings measures that have been initiated. Therefore, Detroit Edison also received approximately $218 million in third party wholesale sales.
Inrequested that the filing, Detroit Edison recommendedshow cause proceeding allow for rate increase adjustments based on the following distributioncombined effects of the $218 million of third party wholesale sale revenues: $91 million to offset PSCR fuel expenseinvestment expenditures and $74 million to offset 2004 production operation and maintenance expense. The remaining $53 million would be allocated between bundled customers and electric Customer Choice customers. This allocation would result in a refund of approximately $8 million to bundled customers and a net stranded cost amount to be collected from electric Customer Choice customers of approximately $99 million.
Included with the application was the filing of a motion for a temporary interim order requesting the continuation of the existing electric Customer Choice transition charges until a final order is issued.cost-savings programs. The MPSC denied this motionrequest and indicated that a full review of rates will be made in Detroit Edison’s next general rate case, which is due to be filed by July 1, 2007.
The MPSC issued an order approving a settlement agreement in this proceeding on August 2005. A final31, 2006. The order provided for an annualized rate reduction of $53 million for 2006, effective September 5, 2006. Beginning January 1, 2007, and continuing until the later of March 31, 2008 or 12 months from the filing date of Detroit Edison’s next general rate case, rates will be reduced by an additional $26 million, for a

98


total reduction of $79 million. The revenue reduction is net of the recovery of the amortization of the costs associated with the implementation of the Performance Excellence Process. The settlement agreement provides for some level of realignment of the existing rate structure by allocating a larger percentage share of the rate reduction to the commercial and industrial customer classes than to the residential customer classes.
As part of the settlement agreement, a Choice Incentive Mechanism (CIM) was established with a base level of electric choice sales set at 3,400 GWh. The CIM prescribes regulatory treatment of changes in non-fuel revenue attributed to increases or decreases in electric Customer Choice sales. The CIM has a deadband of ±200 GWh. If electric Customer Choice sales exceed 3,600 GWh, Detroit Edison will be able to recover 90% of its reduction in non-fuel revenue from full service customers up to $71 million. If electric Customer Choice sales fall below 3,200 GWh, Detroit Edison will credit 100% of the increase in non-fuel revenue to the unrecovered regulatory asset recovery balances.
Regulatory Accounting Treatment for Performance Excellence Process
In May 2006, Detroit Edison and MichCon filed applications with the MPSC to allow deferral of costs associated with the implementation of the Performance Excellence Process, a company-wide cost-savings and performance improvement program. Implementation costs include project management, consultant support and employee severance expenses. Detroit Edison and MichCon sought MPSC authorization to defer and amortize Performance Excellence Process implementation costs for accounting purposes to match the expected savings from the Performance Excellence Process program with the related CTA. Detroit Edison and MichCon anticipate that the Performance Excellence Process will be carried out over a two to three year period beginning in 2006. Detroit Edison’s CTA is estimated to total between $160 million and $190 million. MichCon’s CTA is estimated to total between $55 million and $60 million. In September 2006, the MPSC issued an order approving a settlement agreement that allows Detroit Edison and MichCon, commencing in 2006, to defer the incremental CTA. Further, the order provides for Detroit Edison and MichCon to amortize the CTA deferrals over a ten-year period beginning with the year subsequent to the year the CTA was deferred. Detroit Edison recorded the deferred CTA costs of $102 million as a regulatory asset and will begin amortizing deferred 2006 costs in 2007 as the recovery of these costs was provided for by the MPSC in the first half of 2006.order approving the settlement in the show cause proceeding. MichCon cannot defer CTA costs at this time because a recovery mechanism has not been established.
Electric Industry Restructuring
Electric Rates, Customer Choice and Stranded CostsIn 2000, the Michigan Legislature enacted PA 141 that reduced electric retail rates by 5%, as a result of savings derived from the issuance of securitization bonds. The legislation also contained provisions freezing rates through 2003 and preventing rate increases (i.e., rate caps) for small business customers through 2004 and for residential customers through 2005. The price freeze period expired on February 20, 2004 pursuant to an MPSC order. In addition, PA 141 codified the MPSC’s existing electric Customer Choice program and provided Detroit Edison with the right to recover net stranded costs associated with electric Customer Choice. Detroit Edison was also allowed to defer certain costs to be recovered once rates could be increased, including costs incurred as a result of changes in taxes, laws and other governmental actions.
As required by PA 141, the MPSC conducted a proceeding to develop a methodology for calculating net stranded costs associated with electric Customer Choice. In a December 2001 order, the MPSC determined that Detroit Edison could recover net stranded costs associated with the fixed cost component of its electric generation operations. Specifically, there would be an annual proceeding or true-up before the MPSC reconciling the receipt of revenues associated with the fixed cost component of its generation services to the revenue requirement for the fixed cost component of those services, inclusive of an allowance for the cost of capital. Any resulting shortfall in recovery, net of mitigation, would be

99


considered a net stranded cost. The MPSC authorized Detroit Edison to establish a regulatory asset to defer recovery of its incurred stranded costs, subject to review in a subsequent annual net stranded cost proceeding.
2004 PSCR Reconciliation and 2004 Net Stranded Cost Case
In July 2003,accordance with the MPSC’s directive in Detroit Edison’s November 2004 rate order, in March 2005, Detroit Edison filed a joint application and testimony in its 2004 PSCR Reconciliation Case and its 2004 Net Stranded Cost Recovery Case. In September 2006, the MPSC issued an order finding that Detroit Edison had norecognizing $19 million of 2004 net stranded costs in 2000 and 2001.that required Detroit Edison filed a petition for rehearing of the July 2003 order, which the MPSC denied in December 2003. The MPSC’s November 2004 order authorized recovery of $44to write off $112 million of historical2004 net stranded costs incurredcosts. The MPSC order resulted in 2002, 2003 and January and Februarya $39 million reduction in the 2004 collectible fromPSCR over-collection by allowing Detroit Edison to retain the benefit of third party wholesale sales required to support the electric Customer Choice customers through

89


transition charges. From Marchprogram and to offset the recognition of the $19 million of 2004 throughstranded costs. The MPSC order also resulted in reductions to accrued interest on the first quarter2004 and 2005 PSCR amounts of 2005,$15 million. The MPSC directed Detroit Edison recorded $112 million of additional stranded costs as a regulatory asset asto include the result of rate capsremaining 2004 PSCR over-collection amount and higher electric Customer Choice sales losses than includedrelated interest in the 2004 MPSC interim order. In March2005 PSCR Reconciliation which is in an under-collected position. The order resulted in a reduction of 2005, Detroit Edison filed an application for its 2004 stranded cost recovery case. A final order is expected in the first halfpre-tax income of 2006.approximately $58 million.
Securitization
Detroit Edison formed The Detroit Edison Securitization Funding LLC (Securitization LLC), a wholly owned subsidiary, for the purpose of securitizing its qualified costs, primarily related to the unamortized investment in the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant. In March 2001, the Securitization LLC issued $1.75 billion of securitization bonds, and Detroit Edison sold $1.75 billion of qualified costs to the Securitization LLC. The Securitization LLC is independent of Detroit Edison, as is its ownership of the qualified costs. Due to principles of consolidation, the qualified costs and securitization bonds appear on our consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of financial position.Financial Position. We make no claim to these assets. Ownership of such assets has vested in the Securitization LLC and been assigned to the trustee for the securitization bonds. Neither the qualified costs nor funds from an MPSC approved non-bypassable surcharge collected from Detroit Edison’s customers for the payment of costs related to the Securitization LLC and securitization bonds are available to Detroit Edison’s creditors.
DTE2 Accounting for Costs Related to Enterprise Business Systems (EBS)
In July 2004, Detroit Edison filed an accounting application with the MPSC requesting authority to capitalize and amortize DTE2 costs related to EBS, consisting of computer equipment, software and development costs, as well as related training, maintenance and overhead costs. In April 2005, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement providing for the deferral of up to $60 million of certain DTE2EBS costs that would otherwise be expensed, as a regulatory asset for future rate recovery starting January 1, 2006. At December 31, 2006, approximately $9 million of EBS costs have been deferred as a regulatory asset. In addition, DTE2EBS costs recorded as plant assets will be amortized over a 15-year period.period, pursuant to MPSC authorization.
Power Supply Costs Recovery Proceedings
2005 Plan Year In September 2004, Detroit Edison filed its 2005 PSCR plan case seeking approval of a levelized PSCR factor of 1.82 mills per kWh above the amount included in base rates. In December 2004, Detroit Edison filed revisions to its 2005 PSCR plan case in accordance with the November 2004 MPSC rate order. The revised filing seeks approval of a levelized PSCR factor of up to 0.48 mills per kWh above the new base rates established in the final electric rate order. Included in the factor arewere power supply costs, transmission expenses and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission allowance costs. Detroit Edison self-implemented a factor of negative 2.00 mills per kWh on January 1, 2005. Effective June 1, 2005, Detroit Edison began billing the maximum allowable factor of 0.48 mills per kWh due to increased power supply costs. In September 2005, the MPSC approved Detroit Edison’s 2005 PSCR plan case. At December 31, 2005, Detroit Edison has recorded an under-recovery of approximately $144 million

100


related to the 2005 plan year. In March 2006, Detroit Edison filed its 2005 PSCR reconciliation. The filing sought approval for recovery of approximately $144 million from its commercial and industrial customers. The filing included a motion for entry of an order to implement immediately a reconciliation surcharge of 4.96 mills per kWh on the bills of its commercial and industrial customers. The under-collected PSCR expense allocated to residential customers could not be recovered due to the PA 141 rate cap for residential customers, which expired January 1, 2006. In addition to the 2005 PSCR Plan Year Reconciliation, the filing included a reconciliation for the Pension Equalization Mechanism (PEM) for the periods from November 24, 2004 through December 31, 2004 and from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The PEM reconciliation seeks to allocate and refund approximately $12 million to customers based upon their contributions to pension expense during the subject periods. The September 2006 order in the Company’s 2004 PSCR Reconciliation and Stranded Cost proceeding directed the Company to roll the entire 2004 PSCR over-collection amount to the Company’s 2005 PSCR Reconciliation, thereby reducing the Company’s 2005 PSCR Reconciliation under-collection amount for commercial and industrial customers to $64 million. An order is expected in the first half of 2007.
2006 Plan Year —In September 2005, Detroit Edison filed its 2006 PSCR plan case seeking approval of a levelized PSCR factor of 4.99 mills per kWh above the amount included in base rates for residential customers and 8.29 per kWh above the amount included in base rates for commercial and industrial customers. Included in the factor for all customers are fuel and power supply costs, including transmission expenses, MISOMidwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) market participation costs, and nitrogen oxideNOx emission allowance costs. The Company’s PSCR Plan includes a matrix which provides for different maximum PSCR factors contingent on varying electric Customer Choice sales levels. The plan also includes $97 million for recovery of its projected 2005 PSCR under-collection associated with commercial and industrial customers. Additionally, the PSCR plan requests MPSC approval of expense associated with sulfur dioxide emission allowances, mercury emission allowances, and a fuel additives.additive. In conjunction with DTE Energy’s sale of theits transmission assets ofto ITC Transmission in February 2003, the FERC froze ITC’s transmissionITC Transmission’s rates through December 2004. In approving the sale, FERC authorized ITC Transmission’s recovery of the difference between the revenue it would have collected and the actual revenue ITC did collectcollected during the rate freeze period. At December 31, 2005 thisThis amount is estimated to be $66 million which is to be included in ITC’sITC Transmission’s rates over a five-year period beginning June 1, 2006. It is expected that this amortization will increaseThis increased Detroit Edison’s transmission expense in 2006 by approximately $7 million. As previously discussed,The MPSC authorized Detroit Edison received rate orders in 2004 that allow for the recovery ofto recover transmission expenses through the PSCR mechanism.

90


In December 2005, the MPSC issued a temporary order authorizing the Company to begin implementation of maximum quarterly PSCR factors on January 1, 2006. The quarterly factors reflect a downward adjustment in the Company’s total power supply costs of approximately 2% to reflect the potential variability in cost projections. The quarterly factors will allow the Company to more closely track the costs of providing electric service to our customers and, because the non-summer factors are well below those ordered for the summer months, effectively delay the higher power supply costs to the summer months at which time our customers will not be experiencing large expenditures for home heating. The MPSC did not adopt the Company’s request to recover its projected 2005 PSCR under-collection associated with commercial and industrial customers nor did it adopt the Company’s request to implement contingency factors based upon the Company’s increased costs associated with providing electric service to returning electric Customer Choice customers. The MPSC deferred both of those Company proposals to the final order on the Company’s entire 2006 PSCR Plan.
Administrative and General Expenses Report to the MPSC
In October 2005,September 2006, the MPSC issued an order in this case that approved the inclusion of sulfur dioxide emission allowance expense in the PSCR, determined that fuel additive expense should not be included in the PSCR based upon its impact on maintenance expense, found the Company’s determination of third party sales revenues to be correct, and allowed the Company to increase its PSCR factor for the balance of the year in an effort to reverse the effects of the previously ordered temporary reduction. The MPSC declined to rule on the Company’s requests to include mercury emission allowance expense in the PSCR or its request to include prior PSCR over/(under) recoveries in future year PSCR plans. We have filed a petition for re-hearing. In December 2006, Detroit Edison was granted its request to file a report on whyinclude its administrative and general expenses appear to be higher than levels incurred by Consumers Energy, Michigan’s other major electric utility. On February 1, 2006, a report was filed that explained Detroit Edison’s administrative and general expense differences, as well as its overall cost and rate competitiveness.
Emergency Rules for Electric and Gas Bills
In October 2005, the MPSC established emergency billing practices in effect for electric and gas services rendered November 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006. These emergency rules apply to retail electric and gas customers. The rule changes:
lengthen the period of time before a bill is due once it is transmitted to the customer;
prohibit shut off or late payment fees unless an actual meter read is made;
limit the required monthly payment on a settlement agreement;
increase the income level qualifying for shut-off protection and lower the payment required to remain on shut-off protection; and
lessen or eliminate certain deposit requirements.
Transmission Proceedings
In November 2004, a FERC order approved a transmission pricing structure to facilitate seamless trading of electricity between MISO and the PJM Interconnection. The pricing structure eliminates layers of transmission charges between the two regional transmission organizations. The FERC noted that the new pricing structure may result in transmission owners facing abrupt revenue shifts. To facilitate the transition to the new pricing structure, the FERC authorized a Seams Elimination Cost Adjustment (SECA), effective from December 2004 through March 2006. Under MISO’s filing with the FERC, Detroit Edison’s SECA obligation was approximately $2 million per month from December 2004 through March 2005 and approximately $1 million per month from April 2005 through March 2006. In December 2004, Detroit Edison filed a request for rehearing with the FERC which states, among other things, that SECA is retroactive ratemaking and is unlawful under the Federal Power Act. FERC has not ruled on Detroit Edison’s request for rehearing. However in February 2005, FERC ordered hearings to review the proposed SECA charges. The charges are being collected subject to refund. Hearings on this matter are scheduled to conclude in late 2006. Under the MPSC’s November 2004 final rate order, transmission expenses are recoverable through the PSCR mechanism. Therefore, SECA charges, if ultimately imposed, should not have a financial impact to Detroit Edison.updated projection ($81

91101


million) of its 2006 PSCR undercollection in its 2007 PSCR plan. In addition, Detroit Edison was granted the authority to include all PSCR over/ (under) collections in future PSCR plans, thereby reducing the time between refund or recovery of PSCR reconciliation amounts.
2007 Plan Year —In September 2006, Detroit Edison filed its 2007 PSCR plan case seeking approval of a levelized PSCR factor of 6.98 mills per kWh above the amount included in base rates for all PSCR customers. The Company’s PSCR plan includes $130 million for the recovery of its projected 2006 PSCR under-collection, bringing the total requested PSCR factor to 9.73 mills/kWh. The Company’s application includes a request for an early hearing and temporary order granting such ratemaking authority. The Company’s 2007 PSCR Plan includes fuel and power supply costs, including NOx and sulfur dioxide emission allowance costs, transmission costs and MISO costs. The Company filed supplemental testimony and briefs in December 2006 supporting its updated request to include approximately $81 million for the recovery of its projected 2006 PSCR under-collection. The MPSC issued a temporary order in December 2006 approving the Company’s request. The Company will begin to collect its 2007 power supply costs, including the 2006 rollover amount, through a PSCR factor of 8.69 mills/kWh on January 1, 2007.
Gas Rate Case
On April 28, 2005, the MPSC issued an order for final rate relief. The MPSC determined that the base rate increase granted to MichCon should be $61 million annually effective April 29, 2005. This amount is an increase of $26 million over the $35 million in interim rate relief approved in September 2004. The rate increase was based on a 50% debt and 50% equity capital structure and an 11% rate of return on common equity.
The MPSC adopted MichCon’s proposed tracking mechanism for uncollectible accounts receivable. Each year, MichCon will file an application comparing its actual uncollectible expense to its designated revenue recovery of approximately $37 million. Ninety percent of the difference will be refunded or surcharged after an annual reconciliation proceeding before the MPSC. The MPSC also approved the deferral of the non-capitalized portion of the negative pension expense. MichCon will record a regulatory liability for any negative pension costs as determined under generally accepted accounting principles. Included as part of the base rate increase, the order provided for $25 million in rates to recover safety and training costs. There is a one-way tracking mechanism that provides for refunding the portion of the $25 million not expended on an annual basis.
The MPSC order reduced MichCon’s depreciation rates, and the related revenue requirement associated with depreciation expense by $14.5 million and is designed to have no impact on net income.
The MPSC did not allow the recovery of approximately $25 million of merger interest costs allocated to MichCon that were incurred by DTE Energy as a result of the acquisition of MCN Energy.
The MPSC order also resulted in the disallowance of computer system and equipment costs and adjustments to environmental regulatory assets and liabilities. The MPSC disallowed recovery of ninety percent of the costs of a computer billing system that was in place prior to DTE Energy’s acquisition of MCN Energy in 2001. As a result of the order, MichCon recognized an impairment of this asset of approximately $42 million in the first quarter of 2005. This impairment had a minimal impact on DTE Energy because a valuation allowance was established for this asset at the time of the MCN acquisition in 2001. The MPSC disallowed approximately $6 million of certain computer equipment and related depreciation and the recovery of certain internal labor and legal costs related to remediation of MGP sites of approximately $6 million. The MPSC ordered an additional $5 million charge due to a change in the allocation of historical MGP sites insurance proceeds.

102


Gas Industry RestructuringUncollectible Expense Tracker Mechanism and Report of Safety and Training-Related Expenditures
In December 2001,March 2006, MichCon filed an application with the MPSC for approval of its uncollectible expense tracking mechanism for 2005. This is the first filing MichCon has made under the uncollectible tracking mechanism, which was approved MichCon’s application for a voluntary, expanded permanent gas Customer Choice program, which replacedby the experimental program that expiredMPSC in March 2002. The number of customers eligible to participate in the gas Customer Choice program increased over a three-year period. Effective April 2004, all2005 as part of MichCon’s last general rate case. MichCon’s 2005 base rates included $37 million for anticipated uncollectible expenses. Actual 2005 uncollectible expenses totaled $60 million. The tracker mechanism allows MichCon to recover ninety percent of uncollectibles that exceeded that $37 million base. Under the formula prescribed by the MPSC, MichCon recorded an underrecovery of approximately 1.3$11 million customers could electfor uncollectible expenses from May 2005 (when the mechanism took effect) through the end of 2005. In December 2006, the MPSC issued an order authorizing MichCon to participateimplement the Uncollectible Expense True-up Mechanism (UETM) monthly surcharge for service rendered on and after January 1, 2007. As part of the March 2006 application with the MPSC, MichCon filed a review of the 2005 annual safety and training - related expenditures. MichCon reported that actual safety and training-related expenditures for the initial period exceeded the pro-rata amounts included in base rates and based on the Customer Choice program, thereby purchasing their gas from suppliers other than MichCon. Theunder-recovered position, recommended no refund at this time. In the December 2006 order, the MPSC also approved the useMichCon’s 2005 safety and training report. As of deferred accountingDecember 31, 2006, MichCon is in a $3 million over-recovery position for the recovery of implementation costs of the gas Customer Choice program.safety and training costs.
Gas Cost Recovery Proceedings
2002 Plan Year- In December 2001, the MPSC issued an order that permitted MichCon to implement GCR factors up to $3.62 per Mcf for January 2002 billings and up to $4.38 per Mcf for the remainder of 2002. The order also allowed MichCon to recognize a regulatory asset representing the difference between the $4.38 factor and the $3.62 factor for volumes that were unbilled at December 31, 2001. The regulatory asset was subject to the 2002 GCR reconciliation process. In March 2003, the MPSC issued an order in MichCon’s 2002 GCR plan case. MichCon’s decision during 2001 to utilize storage gas resulted in a gas inventory decrement for the 2001 calendar year. For this reason, the MPSC ordered MichCon to reduce its gas cost recovery expenses by $26.5 million for purposes of calculating the 2002 GCR factor. We recorded a $26.5 million reserve in 2003 to reflect the impact of this order.

92


MichCon’s 2002 GCR reconciliation case was filed with the MPSC in February 2003. The Staff and various intervening parties in this proceeding sought to have the MPSC disallow an additional $26 million, representing unbilled revenues at December 2001. One party also proposed the disallowance of half of an $8 million payment made to settle Enron bankruptcy issues. The other parties to the case recommended that the Enron bankruptcy settlement be addressed in the 2003 GCR reconciliation case. In April 2005, the MPSC issued an order in the 2002 GCR reconciliation case affirming the order in the 2002 GCR plan case disallowing $26.5 million related to the use of storage gas in 2001. The April 2005 order also disallowed the additional $26 million representing unbilled revenues at December 2001. We recorded the impact of the disallowance in the first quarter of 2005. The MPSC agreed that the $8 million related to the Enron issue be addressed in the 2003 GCR reconciliation case.
2003 Plan Year- MichCon’s 2003 GCR reconciliation case was filed with the MPSC in February 2004. In May 2005, the MPSC issued an order in the 2003 GCR reconciliation case approving recovery of the $8 million related to the Enron bankruptcy settlement.
2004 Plan Year -In September 2003, MichCon filed its 2004 GCR plan case proposing a maximum GCR factor of $5.36 per Mcf. MichCon agreed to switch from a calendar year to an operational year as a condition of its settlement in the 2003 GCR plan case. The operational GCR year runs from April to March of the following year. To accomplish the switch, the 2004 GCR plan reflected a 15-month transitional period, January 2004 through March 2005. Under this transition proposal, MichCon filed two reconciliations pertaining to the transition period; one in June 2004 addressing January through March 2004, one filed in June 2005 addressing the remaining April 2004 through March 2005 period and consolidating the two for purposes of the case. The June 2005 filing supported the $46 million under-recovery with interest MichCon had accrued for the period ending March 31, 2005. In March 2006, MPSC Staff filed testimony recommending an adjustment to the accounting treatment of the injected base gas remaining in the New Haven storage field when it was sold in early 2004 that would result in a $3 million reduction to MichCon’s accrued underrecovery. In June 2006, an MPSC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Proposal for Decision (PFD) recommending an approximately $43 million under-recovery. MichCon does not expect a final order beforerecorded the third$3 million reduction to the 2004 underrecovery in the second quarter of 2006. The MPSC issued an order in August 2006 authorizing MichCon to roll a $42 million net underrecovery, including interest, into its 2005 – 2006 GCR reconciliation. This order disallowed $0.3 million related to the sale of storage services and concurrent reduction in gas purchases in February and March of 2005. The MPSC also found that the Staff’s proposed accounting for the sale of the New Haven injected base gas was appropriate.
2005-2006 Plan Year -In December 2004, MichCon filed its 2005-2006 GCR plan case proposing a maximum GCR factor of $7.99 per Mcf. The plan includes quarterly contingent GCR factors. These contingent factors allow MichCon to increase the maximum GCR factor to compensate for increases in gas market prices, thereby reducing the possibility of a GCR under-recovery. In April 2005, the MPSC issued an order recognizing that Michigan law allows MichCon to self-implement its quarterly contingent factors. MichCon self-implemented quarterly contingent GCR factors of $8.54 per Mcf in July 2005 and $10.09 per Mcf in October 2005.
In response to market price increases in the fall of 2005, MichCon filed a petition to reopen the record in the case during September 2005. MichCon proposed a revised maximum GCR factor of $13.10 per Mcf and a revised contingent factor matrix. In its order issued October 6, 2005, the MPSC reopened the record in the case. On October 28, 2005, the MPSC approved an increase in the GCR factor to a cap of $11.3851 per Mcf for the period November 2005 through March 2006. In June 2006, MichCon filed its GCR reconciliation for the 2005-2006 GCR year. The filing supported a total over-recovery, including interest through March 2006, of $13 million. MPSC Staff and other interveners filed testimony regarding the reconciliation in December 2006 in which they recommended disallowances related to MichCon’s implementation of its dollar cost averaging fixed price program and its use of fixed basis in contracting purchases. In January 2007, MichCon filed testimony rebutting these recommendations. The 2005-2006 GCR plan case is in the early stages of the regulatory review and approval process and the final resolution is uncertain. Based on available information, MichCon is unable to assess the range of a reasonably possible loss related to the proposed disallowances. An MPSC order is expected in 2007.

103


2006-2007 Plan Year In December 2005, MichCon filed its 2006-2007 GCR plan case proposing a maximum GCR Factor of $12.15 per Mcf. The plan includesIn July 2006, MichCon and the parties to the case reached a settlement agreement that provides for a maximum GCR factor of $8.95 per Mcf, plus quarterly contingent GCR factors. These contingent factors will allow MichCon to increase the maximum GCR factor to compensate for increases in gas market prices, thereby reducing the possibility of a GCR under-recovery. The MPSC issued an order approving the settlement in August 2006.
2007-2008 Plan Year / Native Base Gas Sale Consolidated– In August 2006, MichCon filed an application with the MPSC requesting permission to sell native base gas that would become accessible with storage facilities upgrades. MichCon estimated sale of this base gas would be worth $34 million. In December 2006, the administrative law judge in the case approved a motion made by the Residential Ratepayer Consortium to consolidate this case with MichCon’s 2007-2008 GCR plan case. In December 2006, MichCon filed its 2007-2008 GCR plan case proposing a maximum GCR factor of $8.49 per Mcf. An MPSC Order in the consolidated cases is expected by the end of 2007.
Minimum Pension Liability
In December 2002, we recorded an additional minimum pension liability as required under SFAS No. 87, with offsetting amounts to an intangible asset and other comprehensive income. During 2003, the MPSC Staff provided an opinion that the MPSC’s traditional rate setting process allowed for the recovery of pension costs as measured by SFAS No. 87. Based on the MPSC Staff opinion, management believes that it will be allowed to recover in rates the minimum pension liability associated with its utility operations and as such the amount was reclassified to a regulatory asset. At December 31, 20052006, we adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit and 2004, we haveOther Postretirement Plansto recognize the obligations of its pension and postretirement plans. Based on approval received from the MPSC, Detroit Edison recorded the charge to a miscellaneous deferred debit included in regulatory assetassets in the Consolidated Statement of approximately $544 million ($354 million net of tax) and $605 million ($393 million net of tax), respectively. See Note 14.Financial Position.

93


Other
We are unable to predict the outcome of the regulatory matters discussed herein. Resolution of these matters is dependent upon future MPSC orders and appeals, which may materially impact the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.
NOTE 5 —7 – NUCLEAR OPERATIONS
General
Fermi 2, our nuclear generating plant, began commercial operation in 1988. Fermi 2 has a design electrical rating (net) of 1,150 megawatts. This plant represents approximately 10% of Detroit Edison’s summer net rated capability. The net book balance of the Fermi 2 plant was written off at December 31, 1998, and an equivalent regulatory asset was established. In 2001, the Fermi 2 regulatory asset was securitized. See Note 4.6. Detroit Edison also owns Fermi 1, a nuclear plant that was shut down in 1972 and is currently being decommissioned. The NRC has jurisdiction over the licensing and operation of Fermi 2 and the decommissioning of Fermi 1.
Property Insurance
Detroit Edison maintains several different types of property insurance policies specifically for the Fermi 2 plant. These policies cover such items as replacement power and property damage. The Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) is the primary supplier of the insurance polices.
Detroit Edison maintains a policy for extra expenses, including replacement power costs necessitated by Fermi 2’s unavailability due to an insured event. These policies have a 12-week waiting period and provide an aggregate $490 million of coverage over a three-year period.

104


Detroit Edison has $500 million in primary coverage and $2.25 billion of excess coverage for stabilization, decontamination, debris removal, repair and/or replacement of property and decommissioning. The combined coverage limit for total property damage is $2.75 billion.
For multiple terrorism losses caused by acts of terrorism not covered under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (TRIA) occurring within one year after the first loss from terrorism, the NEIL policies would make available to all insured entities up to $3.2 billion, plus any amounts recovered from reinsurance, government indemnity, or other sources to cover losses.
Under the NEIL policies, Detroit Edison could be liable for maximum assessments of up to approximately $30$29 million per event if the loss associated with any one event at any nuclear plant in the United States should exceed the accumulated funds available to NEIL.
Public Liability Insurance
As required by federal law, Detroit Edison maintains $300 million of public liability insurance for a nuclear incident. For liabilities arising from a terrorist act outside the scope of TRIA, the policy is subject to one industry aggregate limit of $300 million. Further, under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, deferred premium charges up to $101 million could be levied against each licensed nuclear facility, but not more than $15 million per year per facility. Thus, deferred premium charges could be levied against all owners of licensed nuclear facilities in the event of a nuclear incident at any of these facilities.
Decommissioning
Detroit Edison has a legal obligation to decommission its nuclear power plants following the expiration of their operating licenses. This obligation is reflected as an asset retirement obligation, which is classified as a noncurrent regulatory liability. Based on the actual or anticipated extended life of the nuclear plant,

94


decommissioning expenditures for Fermi 2 are expected to be incurred primarily during the period 2025 through 2041.2050. It is estimated that the cost of decommissioning Fermi 2, when its license expires in 2025, will be $1.1$1.2 billion in 20052006 dollars and $3.4 billion in 2025 dollars, using a 6% inflation rate. In 2001, Detroit Edison began the decommissioning of Fermi 1, with the goal of removing the radioactive material and terminating the Fermi 1 license. The decommissioning of Fermi 1 is expected to be complete by 2010.
Detroit Edison currently recovers funds for Fermi 2 decommissioning and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste through a revenue surcharge. The decommissioning of Fermi 1 is funded by Detroit Edison. The amounts recovered from customers are deposited in the restricted external trust accounts to fund decommissioning.
                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004
Revenue $40 $38 $36  $39 $40 $38 
Net unrealized investment gains  17 62  42  17 

105


The nuclear decommissioning cost will be funded by investments held in trust funds that have been established for each nuclear station. Nuclear decommissioning trust funds arestation as follows:
                
 As of December 31  As of December 31 
(in Millions) 2005 2004  2006 2005 
     
Fermi 2 $601 $546  $694 $601 
Fermi 1 18 18  15 18 
Low level radioactive waste 27 26  31 27 
          
Total $646 $590  $740 $646 
          
At December 31, 2005,2006, investments in the external nuclear decommissioning trust funds consisted of approximately 49%50% in publicly traded equity securities, 44%43% in fixed debt instruments and 7% in cash equivalents.
The NRC has jurisdiction over the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and requires decommissioning funding based upon a formula. The MPSC and FERC regulate the recovery of costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants and both require the use of external trust funds to finance the decommissioning of Fermi 2. Rates approved by the MPSC provide for the recovery of decommissioning costs of Fermi 2. Detroit Edison is continuing to fund FERC jurisdictional amounts for decommissioning even though explicit provisions are not included in FERC rates. We believe the MPSC and FERC collections will be adequate to fund the estimated cost of decommissioning using the NRC formula. The decommissioning assets, anticipated earnings thereon and future revenues from decommissioning collections will be used to decommission the nuclear facilities. We expect the regulatory liabilities to be reduced to zero at the conclusion of the decommissioning activities. If amounts remain in the trust funds for these units following the completion of the decommissioning activities, those amounts will be returned to the ratepayers.
A portion of funds recovered through the Fermi 2 decommissioning surcharge and deposited in external trust accounts is designated for the removal of non-radioactive assets and the clean-up of the Fermi site. This removal and clean-up is not considered a legal liability. Therefore, it is not included in the asset retirement obligation, but is included in the nuclear decommissioning regulatory liability.
Nuclear Fuel Disposal Costs
In accordance with the Federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Detroit Edison has a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the future storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel from Fermi 2. Detroit Edison is obligated to pay the DOE a fee of 1 mill per kWh of Fermi 2 electricity generated and sold. The fee is a component of nuclear fuel expense. Delays have occurred in the DOE’s program for the acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel at a permanent repository. Until the DOE is able to fulfill its obligation under the contract, Detroit Edison is responsible for the spent nuclear fuel storage. Detroit Edison estimates that existing storage capacity will be sufficient until 2007. We plan expansion of ouris currently expanding the Fermi 2 spent fuel storagepool capacity that willto meet our storage requirements through 2010.2009. Detroit Edison is a party in the litigation against the DOE for

95


both past and future costs associated with the DOE’s failure to accept spent nuclear fuel under the timetable set forth in the Federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
NOTE 68 — JOINTLY OWNED UTILITY PLANT
Detroit Edison has joint ownership interest in two power plants, Belle River and Ludington Hydroelectric Pumped Storage. Ownership information of the two utility plants as of December 31, 20052006 was as follows:

106


                
 Ludington  Ludington
 Hydroelectric  Hydroelectric
 Belle River Pumped Storage  Belle River Pumped Storage
In-service date 1984-1985 1973  1984-1985 1973 
Total plant capacity 1,026 MW 1,872 MW 1,026MW 1,872MW
Ownership interest *  49% *  49%
Investment (in Millions) $1,571 $167  $1,578 $164 
Accumulated depreciation (in Millions) $778 $92  $815 $97 
 
* Detroit Edison’s ownership interest is 63% in Unit No. 1, 81% of the facilities applicable to Belle River used jointly by the Belle River and St. Clair Power Plants and 75% in common facilities used at Unit No. 2.
Belle River
The Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA) has an ownership interest in Belle River Unit No. 1 and other related facilities. The MPPA is entitled to 19% of the total capacity and energy of the plant and is responsible for the same percentage of the plant’s operation, maintenance and capital improvement costs.
Ludington Hydroelectric Pumped Storage
Consumers Energy Company has an ownership interest in the Ludington Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Plant. Consumers Energy is entitled to 51% of the total capacity and energy of the plant and is responsible for the same percentage of the plant’s operation, maintenance and capital improvement costs.
NOTE 7 —9 - - INCOME TAXES
We file a consolidated federal income tax return.
Total income tax expense (benefit) varied from the statutory federal income tax rate for the following reasons:
                        
(Dollars in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Income before income taxes and minority interest $497 $423 $287  $324 $498 $428 
Less minority interest  (281)  (212)  (91)  (250)  (281)  (212)
              
Income from continuing operations before tax $778 $635 $378  $574 $779 $640 
              
  
Income tax expense at 35% statutory rate $272 $222 $132  $201 $272 $224 
Production tax credits  (55)  (38)  (241)  (35)  (55)  (38)
Investment tax credits  (8)  (8)  (8)  (8)  (8)  (8)
Depreciation  (4)  (4)  (4)  (4)  (4)  (4)
Employee Stock Ownership Plan dividends  (5)  (5)  (5)  (5)  (5)  (5)
Medicare part D exempt income  (7)  (5)  
Medicare part D subsidy  (6)  (7)  (5)
Other, net 9 12 10   (6) 9 12 
              
Income tax expense (benefit) from continuing operations $202 $174 $(116) $137 $202 $176 
              
Effective federal income tax rate  25.9%  27.4%  (30.7)%  23.9%  25.9%  27.5%
              
The minority interest allocation reflects the adjustment to earnings to allocate partnership losses to third party owners. The tax impact of partnership earnings and losses are attributable to the partners instead of the partnerships. The minority interest allocation is therefore removed in computing income taxes associated with continuing operations.

96107


Components of income tax expense (benefit) were as follows:
                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Continuing Operations  
Current federal and other income tax expense $57 $40 $21  $109 $57 $42 
Deferred federal income tax expense (benefit) 145 134  (137) 28 145 134 
              
 202 174  (116) 137 202 176 
Discontinued operations  (13)  (13) 54   (2)  (13)  (15)
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes  (2)   (15) 1  (2)  
              
Total $187 $161 $(77) $136 $187 $161 
              
Production tax credits are provided for qualified fuels produced and sold by a taxpayer to an unrelated party during the taxable year. Production tax credits earned but not utilized totaled $484$438 million and are carried forward indefinitely as alternative minimum tax credits. The majority of the production tax credits earned, including all of those from our synfuel projects, were generated from projects that have received a private letter ruling (PLR) from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). These PLRs provide assurance as to the appropriateness of using these credits to offset taxable income, however, these tax credits are subject to IRS audit and adjustment.
We have a net operating loss carry-forward of $160$90 million that expires in years 2019 through 2020. We do not believe that a valuation allowance is required, as we expect to utilize the loss carry-forward prior to its expiration.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax effect of temporary differences between the tax basis of assets or liabilities and the reported amounts in the financial statements. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are classified as current or noncurrent according to the classification of the related assets or liabilities. Deferred tax assets and liabilities not related to assets or liabilities are classified according to the expected reversal date of the temporary differences.
Deferred tax assets (liabilities) were comprised of the following at December 31:
                
(in Millions) 2005 2004  2006 2005 
Property $(1,234) $(1,193)
Property, plant and equipment $(1,358) $(1,325)
Securitized regulatory assets  (723)  (778)  (670)  (723)
Alternative minimum tax credit carryforward 484 483  438 484 
Merger basis differences 115 125  60 115 
Pension and benefits 15  (56) 16  (2)
Other Comprehensive Income 113 146 
Net operating loss 56 71  31 56 
Other 148 317  150 110 
          
 $(1,139) $(1,031) $(1,220) $(1,139)
          
 
Deferred income tax liabilities $(2,635) $(2,527) $(3,054) $(2,820)
Deferred income tax assets 1,496 1,496  1,834 1,681 
          
 $(1,139) $(1,031) $(1,220) $(1,139)
          
 
Current deferred income tax assets $245 $257 
Long-term deferred income tax liabilities  (1,465)  (1,396)
     
 $(1,220) $(1,139)
     
The above table excludes deferred tax liabilities associated with unamortized investment tax credits which are shown separately on the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of financial position.Financial Position.
During 2005,In January 2007, we signed an agreement with the IRS completedacknowledging our acceptance of the results of the 2002 and closed its2003 audits of our federal income tax returns for the years 1998 through 2001. The IRS is currently conducting audits of our federal income tax returns for the years 2002 and 2003. The Company accruesreturns. We accrue tax and interest related to tax

108


uncertainties that arise due to actual or potential disagreements with governmental agencies about the tax treatment of specific items. At December 31, 2005,2006, the Company had accrued approximately $38$32 million for such uncertainties. We believe that our accrued tax liabilities are adequate for all years. See Note 3 for information regarding the planned January 1, 2007 adoption of FIN 48.

97


NOTE 8 —10 – COMMON STOCK AND EARNINGS PER SHARE
Common Stock
In December 2006, we repurchased one million shares of DTE Energy common stock for approximately $48.5 million.
In August 2005, we successfully remarketed the senior notes comprising part of our Equity Security Units that were issued in June 2002. We also settled the stock purchase contract component of the Equity Security Units by issuing 3.7 million shares of common stock to holders of these units in August 2005 at an issue price of $46.79. The issue price was calculated by using the average closing price per share of our common stock during a 20 trading-day period ending August 11, 2005.
In March 2004, we issued 4,344,492 shares of DTE Energy common stock, valued at $170 million. The common stock was contributed to a defined benefit retirement plan.
Under the DTE Energy Company Long-Term Incentive Plan, we grant non-vested stock awards to key employees, primarily management. AtAs a result of a stock award, a settlement of an award of performance shares, or by exercise of a participant’s stock option, we may deliver common stock from the time of grant, we record the fair valueCompany’s authorized but unissued common stock and/or from outstanding common stock acquired by or on behalf of the non-vested awards as unearned compensation, which is reflected as a reductionCompany in common stock.the name of the participant. The number of non-vested restricted stock awards is included in the number of common shares outstanding; however, for purposes of computing basic earnings per share, non-vested restricted stock awards are excluded.
Shareholders’ Rights Agreement
We have a Shareholders’ Rights Agreement designed to maximize shareholder value should DTE Energy be acquired. Under certain triggering events, each right entitles the holder to purchase from DTE Energy one one-hundredth of a share of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock of DTE Energy at a price of $90, subject to adjustment as provided for in the Shareholders’ Rights Agreement. The rights expire in October 2007.
Earnings per Share
We report both basic and diluted earnings per share. Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing income from continuing operations by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share assumes the issuance of potentially dilutive common shares outstanding during the period and the repurchase of common shares that would have occurred with proceeds from the assumed issuance. Diluted earnings per share assume the exercise of stock options, vesting of non-vested stock awards, and the issuance of performance share awards. options.

109


A reconciliation of both calculations is presented in the following table:
                        
(in Millions, except per share amounts) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
       
Basic Earnings per Share
  
Income from continuing operations $576.5 $460.5 $494.0  $437 $577 $464 
              
Average number of common shares outstanding 175.0 172.6 167.7  177 175 173 
              
Income per share of common stock based on average number of shares outstanding $3.29 $2.67 $2.95 
Income per share of common stock based on weighted average number of shares outstanding $2.46 $3.30 $2.69 
       
        
Diluted Earnings per Share
  
Income from continuing operations $576.5 $460.5 $494.0  $437 $577 $464 
              
Average number of common shares outstanding 175.0 172.6 167.7  177 175 173 
Incremental shares from stock-based awards 1.1 .7 .6  1 1  
              
Average number of dilutive shares outstanding 176.1 173.3 168.3  178 176 173 
              
Income per share of common stock assuming issuance of incremental shares $3.27 $2.66 $2.93  $2.45 $3.28 $2.68 
              

98


Options to purchase approximately 100,000 shares of common stock in 2006,two million shares of common stock in 2005, and one million shares in 2004 and five million shares in 2003 were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the options’ exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares, thus making these options anti-dilutive.
NOTE 911 — LONG-TERM DEBT AND PREFERRED SECURITIES
Long-Term Debt
Our long-term debt outstanding and weighted average interest ratesrates(1) of debt outstanding at December 31 were:
                
(in Millions) 2005 (1) 2004  2006 2005 
DTE Energy Debt, Unsecured
  
6.7% due 2006 to 2033 $1,696 $1,945 
6.6% due 2007 to 2033 $1,669 $1,696 
Detroit Edison Taxable Debt, Principally Secured
  
5.8% due 2010 to 2037 2,030 1,672 
5.9% due 2010 to 2037 2,267 2,030 
Detroit Edison Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds (2)
  
5.3% due 2008 to 2032 1,145 1,145 
5.2% due 2008 to 2036 1,213 1,145 
MichCon Taxable Debt, Principally Secured
      
6.2% due 2006 to 2033 785 785 
Quarterly Income Debt Securities (QUIDS)
  385 
6.2% due 2007 to 2033 745 785 
Other Long-Term Debt, Including Non-Recourse Debt
 155 151  259 155 
          
 5,811 6,083  6,153 5,811 
Less amount due within one year  (577)  (410)  (235)  (577)
          
 $5,234 $5,673  $5,918 $5,234 
          
  
Securitization Bonds
 $1,400 $1,496  $1,295 $1,400 
Less amount due within one year  (105)  (96)  (110)  (105)
          
 $1,295 $1,400  $1,185 $1,295 
          
  
Equity-Linked Securities
 $175 $178  $ $175 
          
  
Trust Preferred — Linked Securities
  
7.8% due 2032 $186 $186  $186 $186 
7.5% due 2044 103 103  103 103 
          
 $289 $289  $289 $289 
          
 
(1) Weighted average interest rates as of December 31, 20052006 are shown below the description of each debt issue.
 
(2) Detroit Edison Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds are issued by a public body that loans the proceeds to Detroit Edison on terms substantially mirroring the Revenue Bonds

110


Debt Issuances
In 2005,2006, we issued the following long-term debt:
              
 (in Millions)            
 Month         Month (in Millions) 
Company Issued Type Interest Rate Maturity Amount Issued Type Interest Rate Maturity Amount 
Detroit Edison      February Senior Notes (1)  4.80% February 2015 $200  May Senior Notes (1) 6.625% June 2036 $250 
Detroit Edison      February Senior Notes (1)  5.45% February 2035  200 
DTE Energy May Senior Notes (2) 6.35% June 2016  300 
   Tax-Exempt        
Detroit Edison August Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds (2) variable August 2029  119 
DTE PetCoke      September Taxable Bonds variable January 2025  10 
Detroit Edison      September Senior Notes (3)  5.19% October 2023  100 
Detroit Edison October Senior Notes (4)  5.70% October 2037  250  December Revenue Bonds (3) Variable December 2036  69 
                         
         Total Issuances $879        Total Issuances $619 
                         
 
(1) The proceeds from the issuance were used to redeem QUIDSrepay short-term borrowings of Detroit Edison and for general corporate purposes.
 
(2) The proceeds from the issuance were used to refinance Tax Exempt Revenue Bondsrepay a portion of Detroit EdisonDTE Energy’s 6.45% Senior Notes due 2006 and for general corporate purposes.
 
(3) The proceeds from the issuance wereto be used to redeem Senior Notesfinance the construction, acquisition, improvement and installation of certain solid waste disposal facilities at Detroit Edison
(4)The proceeds from the issuance were used to repay short term borrowings of Detroit EdisonEdison’s Monroe Power Plant.

99


We acquired $15In October 2006, we purchased the lessor interest in the 66 Bcf Washington 10 gas storage field. Prior to the purchase, we leased the storage rights and lease obligations which were recorded as operating leases. The acquisition resulted in a cash payment of approximately $13 million in various notes in connection with acquisitions during 2005.and the assumption of approximately $133 million of project related debt that was recorded on our statement of financial position.
Debt Retirements and Redemptions
The following debt was retired, through optional redemption or payment at maturity, during 2005.2006.
               
            (in Millions)
  Month        
Company Retired Type Interest Rate Maturity Amount
 
Detroit Edison February Senior Notes  7.500% February 2005 $76 
Detroit Edison February Remarketed Senior Notes  7.000% August 2034  100 
Detroit Edison March QUIDS (1)  7.625% March 2026  185 
Detroit Edison March QUIDS (1)  7.540% June 2028  100 
Detroit Edison March QUIDS (1)  7.375% December 2028  100 
Detroit Edison September Tax Exempt Revenue Bond (2)  6.400% September 2025  97 
Detroit Edison September Tax Exempt Revenue Bond (2)  6.200% August 2025  22 
DTE Energy September Senior Notes Variable June 2007  250 
Detroit Edison October Senior Notes (3)  5.050% October 2005  200 
               
      Total Retirements   $1,130 
               
             
  Month       (in Millions) 
Company Retired Type Interest Rate Maturity Amount 
 
MichCon May First Mortgage Bonds 7.15% May 2006 $40 
DTE Energy June Senior Notes (1) 6.45% June 2006  500 
EES Coke Battery December Senior Notes (2) 9.38% April 2007  18 
            
      Total Retirements   $558 
            
 
(1)The QUIDS were redeemed with the proceeds from issuance of Senior Notes by Detroit Edison
(2)These Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds were redeemed with the proceeds from issuance of new Detroit Edison Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds
(3) These Senior Notes were paid at maturity with the proceeds from the issuance of Senior Notes by Detroit EdisonDTE Energy and short-term borrowingsborrowings.
(2)In addition to its regular payments in 2006, EES Coke Battery Company Senior Notes were paid in full in December.
The following table shows the scheduled debt maturities, excluding any unamortized discount or premium on debt:
                                                        
 2011 and    2012 and  
(in millions) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 thereafter Total 
(in Millions) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 thereafter Total
    
Amount to mature $682 $352 $457 $363 $681 $5,150 $7,685  $346 $462 $368 $686 $922 $4,962 $7,746 
Remarketable Securities
At December 31, 2004, $1752006, $75 million of notes of Detroit Edison and MichCon were subject to periodic remarketings. The $100 million scheduled to remarket in February 2005 was optionally redeemed by Detroit Edison, and weWe do not expect any remarketings to take place in 2006.2007. We direct the remarketing agents to remarket these securities at the lowest interest rate necessary to produce a par bid. In the event that a remarketing fails, we would be required to purchase the securities.

111


Quarterly Income Debt Securities (QUIDS)
Detroit Edison had three series of QUIDS outstanding at December 31, 2004. Detroit Edison redeemed all of its outstanding QUIDS on March 4, 2005.
Equity-Linked Securities
In June 2002, DTE Energy issued $173 million of 8.75% Equity Security Units, with each unit consisting of a stock purchase contract and a senior note of DTE Energy. In August 2005, DTE Energy successfully remarketed $172 million aggregate principal amount of its 5.63% Senior Notes due August 16, 2007 that were originally issued as a component of the 8.75% Equity Security Units. Additionally, in August 2005, DTE Energy settled the stock purchase contract component of its Equity Security Units by issuing common stock

100


to holders of these units. The issue price determined by the average closing price per share of our common stock during a 20 trading-day period ending August 11, 2005 was $46.79 per share. Settlement of the purchase contracts resulted in DTE Energy issuing approximately 3.7 million shares of common stock in exchange for approximately $172 million.
Trust Preferred-Linked Securities
DTE Energy has interests in various unconsolidated trusts that were formed for the sole purpose of issuing preferred securities and lending the gross proceeds to us. The sole assets of the trusts are debt securities of DTE Energy with terms similar to those of the related preferred securities. Payments we make are used by the trusts to make cash distributions on the preferred securities it has issued.
We have the right to extend interest payment periods on the debt securities. Should we exercise this right, we cannot declare or pay dividends on, or redeem, purchase or acquire, any of our capital stock during the deferral period.
DTE Energy has issued certain guarantees with respect to payments on the preferred securities. These guarantees, when taken together with our obligations under the debt securities and related indenture, provide full and unconditional guarantees of the trusts’ obligations under the preferred securities.
Financing costs for these issuances were paid for and deferred by DTE Energy. These costs are being amortized using the straight-line method over the estimated lives of the related securities.
Cross Default Provisions
Substantially all of the net utility properties of Detroit Edison and MichCon are subject to the lien of mortgages. Should Detroit Edison or MichCon fail to timely pay their indebtedness under these mortgages, such failure may create cross defaults in the indebtedness of DTE Energy.
Preferred and Preference Securities - Authorized and Unissued
As of December 31, 2005,2006, the amount of authorized and unissued stock is as follows:
                      
Company Type of Stock Par Value Shares Authorized Type of Stock Par Value Shares Authorized
DTE Energy Preferred (1) None 5,000,000  Preferred (1) None 5,000,000 
    
Detroit Edison Preferred $100 6,750,000  Preferred $100 6,747,484 
Detroit Edison Preference $1 30,000,000  Preference $1 30,000,000 
    
MichCon Preferred $1 7,000,000  Preferred $1 7,000,000 
MichCon Preference $1 4,000,000  Preference $1 4,000,000 
 
(1) 1.5 million shares are reserved for issuance under the Shareholder’s Rights Agreement

112


NOTE 10 —12 - SHORT-TERM CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS AND BORROWINGS
DTE Energy and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Detroit Edison and MichCon, have entered into revolving credit facilities with similar terms. The five-year credit facilities are with a syndicate of banks and may be used for general corporate borrowings, but are intended to provide liquidity support for each of the Companies’companies’ commercial paper programs.
In October 2005, DTE Energy, Detroit Edison and MichCon entered into new five-year revolving credit agreements with an aggregate capacity of $925 million. Simultaneously, we amended our existingthe October 2004 $975

101


million, five-year revolving credit facilities to provide for the substitution of some of the participating lenders, as well as modifications to pricing, conditions to borrowing, covenants, events of default and other miscellaneous provisions to conform to the terms of the new agreements.
The aggregate availability under these combined facilities is $1.9 billion as shown in the following table:
                 
(in Millions) DTE Energy  Detroit Edison  MichCon  Total 
             
Five-year unsecured revolving facility, dated October 2005 $675  $69  $181  $925 
Five-year unsecured revolving facility, dated October 2004  525   206   244   975 
             
Aggregate availability $1,200  $275  $425  $1,900 
             
Borrowings under the facilities are available at prevailing short-term interest rates. The agreements require each of the companiesus to maintain a debt to total capitalization ratio of no more than .65 to l. Should either Detroit Edison or MichConwe have delinquent debt obligations of at least $50 million to any creditor, such delinquency will be considered a default under DTE Energy’sour credit agreements. DTE Energy,At December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively, we had approximately $123 million and $284 million of letters of credit outstanding against these facilities.
Effective December 31, 2006, the credit agreements were amended to, among other things, exclude MichCon’s short-term debt from the debt/capital ratio in the first, third and fourth quarter reporting periods, exclude the effects of SFAS No. 158 in the compliance calculation, and exclude un-drawn letters of credit and guarantees (except for guaranteed debt of non-consolidated third parties) from the debt calculations under these credit agreements.
MichCon, Detroit Edison and MichConDTE Energy are currently in compliance with these financial covenants. As
At December 31, 2006, we had outstanding commercial paper of $1.031 billion and other short-term borrowings of $100 million. At December 31, 2005, we had outstanding commercial paper of $841 million. In addition, we had approximately $284 million and other short-term borrowings of letters of credit outstanding against these facilities$103 million.
The weighted average interest rates for short-term borrowings were 5.4% and 4.4% at December 31, 2005.2006 and 2005, respectively.
In December 2005, DTE Energy entered into a new $150 million letter of credit and reimbursement agreement. The reimbursement agreement hashad a one-year term with a variable interest rate. Provisions for an automatic one-year extension and conversion to a two-year term loan are available as long as certain conditions are met. We hadIn December 2006, the agreement was extended for a one-year term and the amount of the facility was reduced to $40 million, reflective of the letters of credit outstanding versus approximately $80 million of letters of credit outstanding against this agreement atas of December 31, 2005. At the same time, the agreement was amended to exclude MichCon’s short-term debt from the debt/capital ratio in the first, third and fourth quarter reporting periods, exclude the effects of SFAS No. 158 in the compliance

113


calculation, and exclude un-drawn letters of credit and guarantees (except for guaranteed debt of non-consolidated third parties) from the debt calculations under these credit agreements.
In conjunction with maintaining certain exchange traded risk management positions, we may be required to post cash collateral with our clearing agent. We have entered into a Margin Loan Facility (Facility)margin loan facility with an affiliate of the clearing agent of up to $103 million as of December 31, 2005. We entered into this facility2005 in lieu of posting cash. This facilityarrangement was backed by a letter of credit issued by DTE Energy in the amount of $100 million. Any margin requirement in excess of the Facility is funded in cash by DTE Energy. The amount outstanding under the Facility is subject to an interest rate at a per annum rate of interest equal to the LIBOR rate, plus 0.75%, calculated daily. The amount outstanding under the Facilitythis facility was $103 million and $23 million as of December 31, 20052005. In October 2006, we changed our clearing agent and 2004, respectively.entered into a new demand financing agreement for up to $150 million. The amount outstanding under this new agreement was $23 million at December 31, 2006.
Detroit Edison has a $200 million short-term financing agreement secured by customer accounts receivable. This agreement contains certain covenants related to the delinquency of accounts receivable. Detroit Edison is currently in compliance with these covenants. We had no balancesan outstanding under this financing agreementbalance of $100 million at December 31, 20052006 and 2004.
The weighted average interest rates for short-term borrowings were 4.4% and 2.4%no outstanding balance at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.2005.

102


NOTE 11 –13 - CAPITAL AND OPERATING LEASES
Lessee We lease various assets under capital and operating leases, including coal cars, a gas storage field, office buildings, a warehouse, computers, vehicles and other equipment. The lease arrangements expire at various dates through 2029.2031.
Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable leases at December 31, 20052006 were:
        
 Capital Operating         
 Leases Leases  Capital Operating 
(in Millions)  Leases Leases 
2006 $16 $63 
2007 13 51  $14 53 
2008 15 42  15 41 
2009 15 35  15 34 
2010 13 29  14 27 
2011 12 24 
Thereafter 52 316  50 154 
          
Total minimum lease payments 124 $536  120 $333 
        
Less imputed interest  (26)   (30) 
        
Present value of net minimum lease payments 98  90 
Less current portion  (11)   (8) 
        
Non-current portion $87  $82 
        
Rental expense for operating leases was $77$72 million in 2006, $68 million in 2005, $75and $66 million in 2004 and $73 million in 2003.
2004.
Lessor– MichCon leases a portion of its pipeline system to the Vector Pipeline Partnership through a capital lease contract that expires in 2020, with renewal options extending for five years.

114


The components of the net investment in the capital lease at December 31, 2005,2006, were as follows:
        
(in Millions)  
2006 $9 
2007 9  $9 
2008 9  9 
2009 9  9 
2010 9  9 
2011 9 
Thereafter 89  80 
      
Total minimum future lease receipts 134  125 
Residual value of leased pipeline 40  40 
Less unearned income (93)  (86)
      
Net investment in capital lease 81  79 
Less current portion (1)  (1)
      
 $80  $78 
      
NOTE 1214 – FINANCIAL AND OTHER DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS
We comply with SFAS No. 133,Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended by SFAS No. 138 and SFAS No. 149.amended. Listed below are important SFAS No. 133 requirements:
Derivative instruments must be recognized as assets or liabilities and measured at fair value, unless they meet the normal purchases and sales exemption.
Accounting for changes in fair value depends on the purpose of the derivative instrument and whether it is designated as a hedge and qualifies for hedge accounting.
Special accounting is allowed for a derivative instrument qualifying as a hedge and designated as a hedge for the variability of cash flow associated with a forecasted transaction. Gain or loss associated with the

103


effective portion of the hedge is recorded in other comprehensive income. The ineffective portion is recorded to earnings. Amounts recorded in other comprehensive income will be reclassified to net income when the forecasted transaction affects earnings. If a cash flow hedge is discontinued because it is likely the forecasted transaction will not occur, net gains or losses are immediately recorded to earnings.
Special accounting is allowed for derivative instruments that qualifying as a hedge and designated as a hedge of the changes in fair value of an existing asset, liability or firm commitment. Gain or loss on the hedging instrument is recorded into earnings. An offsetting loss or gain on the underlying asset, liability or firm commitment is also recorded to earnings.
Accounting for changes in fair value depends on the purpose of the derivative instrument and whether it is designated as a hedge and qualifies for hedge accounting.
Special accounting is allowed for a derivative instrument qualifying as a hedge and designated as a hedge for the variability of cash flow associated with a forecasted transaction. Gain or loss associated with the effective portion of the hedge is recorded in other comprehensive income. The ineffective portion is recorded to earnings. Amounts recorded in other comprehensive income will be reclassified to net income when the forecasted transaction affects earnings. If a cash flow hedge is discontinued because it is likely the forecasted transaction will not occur, net gains or losses are immediately recorded to earnings.
Special accounting is allowed for derivative instruments that qualify as a hedge and are designated as a hedge of the changes in fair value of an existing asset, liability or firm commitment. Gain or loss on the hedging instrument is recorded into earnings. An offsetting loss or gain on the underlying asset, liability or firm commitment is also recorded to earnings.
Our primary market risk exposure is associated with commodity prices, credit, interest rates and foreign currency. We have risk management policies to monitor and decrease market risks. We use derivative instruments to manage some of the exposure. Except for the activities of the Fuel Transportation and MarketingEnergy Trading segment, we do not hold or issue derivative instruments for trading purposes. The fair value of all derivatives is shown as “assetsincluded in “Assets or liabilities from risk management and trading activities” inon the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of financial position.Financial Position.
Commodity Price Risk
Utility Operations
Detroit Edison– Detroit Edison generates, purchases, distributes and sells electricity. Detroit Edison uses forward energy, capacity, and futures contracts to manage changes in the price of electricity and fuel. These derivatives are designated as cash flow hedges or meet the normal purchases and sales exemption

115


and are therefore accounted for under the accrual method. There were no commodity price risk cash flow hedges for electric utility operations at December 31, 2005.2006.
MichCon– MichCon purchases, stores, transmits and distributes natural gas and sells natural gas.storage and transportation capacity. MichCon has fixed-priced contracts for portions of its expected gas supply requirements through 2008.2010. MichCon may also sell forward storage and transportation capacity contracts. These gas supply, and firm transportation and storage contracts are designated and qualify for the normal purchases and sales exemption and are therefore accounted for under the accrual method.
Commodity price risk associated with our utilities is limited due to the PSCR and GCR mechanisms. See Note 1.
Non-Utility Operations
Fuel Transportation and Marketing –DTE Energy Trading markets and trades wholesale electricity and natural gas physical products, trades financial instruments, and provides risk management services utilizing energy commodity derivative instruments. Forwards, futures, options and swap agreements are used to manage exposure to the risk of market price and volume fluctuations on its operations. These derivatives are accounted for by recording changes in fair value to earnings, usually as adjustments to operating revenues or fuel, purchased power and gas expense. This fair value accounting better aligns financial reporting with the way the business is managed and its performance measured.
Fuel Transportation and Marketing experiences earnings volatility as a result of its gas inventory and other non-derivative assets that do not qualify for fair value accounting under accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. Although the risks associated with these asset positions are substantially offset, requirements to fair value the underlying derivatives result in unrealized gains and losses being recorded to earnings that eventually reverse upon settlement.
Power and Industrial Projects– These business segments manage and operate on-site energy and steel related projects, landfill gas recovery and power generation assets. These businesses utilize fixed-priced contracts in their marketing and management of their assets. These contracts are not derivatives and are therefore accounted for under the accrual method.
Synthetic FuelThe Coal-Based Fuels and Landfill Gas Recovery businesses generate production tax credits. We have sold interests in all nine of our synthetic fuel production plants. Proceeds from the sales are contingent upon production levels, the production qualifying for production tax credits, and the value of such credits. Production tax credits are subject to phase out if domestic crude oil prices reach certain levels. See Note 13.2.

104


To manage our exposure in 2006 and 2007 to the risk of an increase in oil prices that could reduce or eliminate synfuel sales proceeds, we entered into a series of derivative contracts covering a specified number of barrels of oil. The derivative contracts involve purchased and written call options that provide for net cash settlement at expiration based on the full years’ 2006 andyears 2007 average New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) trading prices for light, sweet crude oil in relation to the strike prices of each option. If the average NYMEX prices of oil in 2006 and 2007 are less than approximately $58, and $60 per barrel, respectively,then the derivatives will yield no payment. If the average NYMEX prices of oilprice per barrel begins to exceed approximately $58, andthe base $60 per barrel respectively,figure, then the derivatives will begin to yield a payment equal to the excess of the average NYMEX price over these initial strike prices, multiplied by the number of barrels covered, up to a maximum price of approximately $73, and $71 per barrel, respectively. Thepayment. These agreements do not qualify for hedge accounting. Consequently, changes in the fair value of the options are recorded currently in earnings. For all synfuel hedge contracts, including 2005 hedges, we recorded total pretax mark to market gains of $48 million in 2005. The fair value changes are recorded as adjustments to the gain from selling interests in synfuel facilities and therefore included in the “Asset gains and losses, net” item line item inon the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of operations.Operations.
Unconventional Gas Production– Our Unconventional Gas business is engaged in natural gas exploration, development and production. We use derivative contracts to manage changes in the price of natural gas. These derivatives are designated as cash flow hedges and are primarily legacy transactions.hedges. Amounts recorded in other comprehensive loss will be reclassified to earnings, specifically as a component of Operating revenues, as the related production affects earnings through 2013. In 2006 and 2005, $86 million and $35 million, respectively, of after-tax losses were reclassified to earnings. In 2007, we estimate reclassifying an after-tax loss of approximately $28 million to earnings.
Energy Trading –Energy Trading markets and trades wholesale electricity and natural gas physical products, energy financial instruments, and provides risk management services utilizing energy commodity derivative instruments. Forwards, futures, options and swap agreements are used to manage exposure to the risk of market price and volume fluctuations on its operations. These derivatives are accounted for by recording changes in fair value to earnings, specifically as a component of Operating revenues, unless certain hedge accounting criteria are met. This fair value accounting better aligns financial reporting with the way the business is managed and its performance measured. Energy Trading experiences earnings volatility as a result of its gas inventory and other non-derivative assets that do not qualify for fair value accounting under accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. Although the risks associated with these asset positions are substantially offset, requirements to fair value the related derivatives result in unrealized gains and losses being recorded to earnings that eventually reverse upon settlement. For derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, amounts recorded in Other Comprehensive Income will be reclassified to earnings, specifically as a component of Operating revenues, as the related forecasted transaction affects earnings through 2008. In 2007, we estimate reclassifying an after-tax loss of approximately $7 million to earnings.
Coal and Gas Midstream –These business units are primarily engaged in services related to marketing and transportation of coal as well as the transportation, processing and storage of natural gas. These

116


businesses utilize fixed-priced contracts in their marketing and management of their businesses. These contracts are not derivatives and are therefore accounted for under the accrual method.
Credit Risk
Our utility and non-utility businesses are exposed to credit risk if customers or counterparties do not comply with their contractual obligations. We maintain credit policies that significantly minimize overall credit risk. These policies include an evaluation of potential customers’ and counterparties’ financial condition, credit rating, collateral requirements or other credit enhancements such as letters of credit or guarantees. We generally use standardized agreements that allow the netting of positive and negative transactions associated with a single counterparty.
Interest Rate Risk
We use interest rate swaps, treasury locks and other derivatives to hedge the risk associated with interest rate market volatility. In 2004 and 2000, we entered into a series of interest rate derivatives to limit our sensitivity to market interest rate risk associated with the issuance of long-term debt. Such instruments were designated as cash flow hedges. We subsequently issued long-term debt and terminated these hedges at a cost that is included in other comprehensive loss. Amounts recorded in other comprehensive loss will be reclassified to interest expense as the related interest affects earnings through 2030. In 2006,2007, we estimate reclassifying $4 million of losses to earnings.
Foreign Currency Risk
DTE Energy Trading has foreign currency forward contracts to hedge fixed Canadian dollar commitments existing under power purchase and sale contracts and gas transportation contracts. We entered into these contracts to mitigate any price volatility with respect to fluctuations of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar. Certain of these contracts were designated as cash flow hedges with changes in fair value recorded to other comprehensive income. Amounts recorded to other comprehensive income are classified to operating revenues or fuel, purchased power and gas expense when the related hedged item affectsimpacts earnings.
Fair Value of Other Financial Instruments
The fair value of financial instruments is determined by using various market data and other valuation techniques. The table below shows the fair value relative to the carrying value for long-term debt securities. The carrying value of certain other financial instruments, such as notes payable, customer deposits and notes receivable approximate fair value and are not shown.

105


                 
  2005  2004 
  Fair Value  Carrying Value  Fair Value  Carrying Value 
Long-Term Debt $7.9 billion $7.7 billion $8.5 billion $8.0 billion
                 
  2006  2005 
  Fair Value  Carrying Value  Fair Value  Carrying Value 
Long-Term Debt $8.0 billion $7.7 billion $7.9 billion $7.7 billion
NOTE 13 —15 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Synthetic Fuel Operations
We partially own nine synthetic fuel production facilities. Synfuel facilities chemically change coal, including waste and marginal coal, into a synthetic fuel as determined under applicable Internal Revenue Service rules. Production tax credits are provided for the production and sale of solid synthetic fuels produced from coal. To qualify for the production tax credits, the synthetic fuel must meet three primary conditions: (1) there must be a significant chemical change in the coal feedstock, (2) the product must be sold to an unaffiliated entity, and (3) the production facility must have been placed in service before July 1, 1998. In addition to meeting the qualifying conditions for years through 2005, a taxpayer must have sufficient taxable income to earn the production tax credits.
To reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, the Internal Revenue Code provides production tax credits as an incentive for taxpayers to produce fuels from alternative sources. This incentive is not deemed necessary if the price of oil increases and provides a natural market for these fuels. As such, the tax credit in a given year is reduced if the Reference Price of oil within that year exceeds a threshold price. The Reference Price of a barrel of oil is an estimate of the annual average wellhead price per barrel for domestic crude oil. During 2005 the monthly average wellhead price per barrel of oil for the year was approximately $6 lower than the NYMEX price for light, sweet crude oil. The threshold price at which the credit begins to be reduced was set in 1980 and is adjusted annually for inflation. For 2006, we estimate the threshold price at which the tax credit would begin to be reduced is $53 per barrel and would be completely phased out if the Reference Price reached $67 per barrel. As of February 28, 2006, the realized and unrealized NYMEX daily closing price of a barrel of oil was $65.08, equating to an estimated Reference Price of $59, which is within the phase-out range. We cannot predict with any accuracy the future price of a barrel of oil. If, however, the Reference Price remained at this level throughout the remainder of 2006, we would experience a partial phase out of production tax credits.
Numerous events have increased domestic crude oil prices, including terrorism, storm-related supply disruptions and worldwide demand. If the credit is reduced or eliminated in future years, our financial statements may be negatively impacted. We continue to evaluate the current volatility in oil prices and alternatives available to mitigate our exposure to oil prices. To manage our exposure to oil prices in 2006 and 2007, we entered into oil-related derivative contracts for a portion of our exposure. See Note 12.
Through December 31, 2005 we have generated and recorded approximately $557 million in synfuel tax credits.
Environmental
Electric Utility
Air- Detroit Edison is subject to EPA ozone transport and acid rain regulations that limit power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. In March 2005, EPA issued additional emission reduction regulations relating to ozone, fine particulate, regional haze and mercury air pollution. The new

117


rules will lead to additional controls on fossil-fueled power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions. To comply with these requirements, Detroit Edison has spent approximately $644$875 million through 2005.2006. We estimate Detroit Edison future capital expenditures at up to $218$222 million in 20062007 and up to $2.2$2 billion of additional capital expenditures through 2018 to satisfy both the existing and proposed new control requirements. Under the June 2000 Michigan restructuring legislation, beginning January 1, 2004, annual

106


return of and on this capital expenditure could be deferred in ratemaking, until December 31, 2005, the expiration of the rate cap period.
Water-– In response to an EPA regulation, Detroit Edison is required to examine alternatives for reducing the environmental impacts of the cooling water intake structures at several of its facilities. Based on the results of the studies to be conducted over the next several years, Detroit Edison may be required to install additional control technologies to reduce the impacts of the intakes. It isInitially, it was estimated that we willthe Company could incur up to $50approximately $53 million over the next fourthree to sixfive years in additional capital expenditures to comply with these requirements. However, a recent court decision remanded back to the EPA several provisions of the federal regulation resulting in a delay in complying with the regulation. The decision also raised the possibility that the Company may have to install cooling towers at some facilities at a cost substantially greater than was initially estimated for Detroit Edison.other mitigative technologies.
Contaminated Sites- Detroit Edison conducted remedial investigations at contaminated sites, including two former MGP sites, the area surrounding an ash landfill and several underground and aboveground storage tank locations. The findings of these investigations indicated that the estimated cost to remediate these sites is approximately $13$11 million which was accrued in 20052006 and is expected to be incurred over the next several years. In addition, Detroit Edison expects to make approximately $5 million of capital improvements to the ash landfill in 2007.
Gas Utility
Contaminated Sites- Prior to the construction of major interstate natural gas pipelines, gas for heating and other uses was manufactured locally from processes involving coal, coke or oil. Gas Utility owns, or previously owned, 15 such former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing at each site. In addition to the MGP sites, we are also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites. Cleanup activities associated with these sites will be conducted over the next several years.
In 1993, a cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism was approved by the MPSC for investigation and remediation costs incurred at former MGP sites in excess of this reserve. Gas Utility employed outside consultants to evaluate remediation alternatives for these sites, to assist in estimating its potential liabilities and to review its archived insurance policies.sites. As a result of these studies,a study completed in 1995, Gas Utility accrued an additional liability and a corresponding regulatory asset of $35 million during 1995.million. During 2005,2006, we spent approximately $4$2 million investigating and remediating these former MGP sites. In December 2005,2006, we retained multiple environmental consultants to estimate the projected cost to remediate each MGP site. We accrued an additional $9$7 million in remediation liabilities associated with two of ourformer MGP sites,holders and additional cleanup cost, to increase the reserve balance to $35$41 million atas of December 31, 2005.2006, with a corresponding increase in the regulatory asset.
Any significant change in assumptions, such as remediation techniques, nature and extent of contamination and regulatory requirements, could impact the estimate of remedial action costs for the sites and affect the Company’s financial position and cash flows. However, we anticipate the cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism approved by the MPSC will prevent environmental costs from having a material adverse impact on our results of operations.
Other
Our non-utility affiliates are subject to a number of environmental laws and regulations dealing with the protection of the environment from various pollutants. We are in the process of installing new environmental equipment at our coke battery facilities in Michigan. We expect the projects to be

118


completed within two yearsone year at a cost of approximately $25$14 million. Our other non-utility affiliates are substantially in compliance with all environmental requirements.
Guarantees
In certain limited circumstances, we enter into contractual guarantees. We may guarantee another entity’s obligation in the event it fails to perform. We may provide guarantees in certain indemnification agreements. Finally, we may provide indirect guarantees for the indebtedness of others. Below are the details of specific material guarantees we currently provide. Our other guarantees are not individually material and total approximately $36$22 million at December 31, 2005.

107


Sale of Interests in Synfuel Facilities
We have provided certain guarantees and indemnities in conjunction with the sales of interests in our synfuel facilities. The guarantees cover general commercial, environmental, oil price and tax-related exposure and will survive until 90 days after expiration of all applicable statute of limitations, or indefinitely, depending on the nature of the guarantee. We estimate that our maximum liability under these guarantees at December 31, 2005 is $1.8 billion.2006.
Parent Company Guarantee of Subsidiary Obligations
We have issued guarantees for the benefit of various non-utility subsidiary transactions. In the event that DTE Energy’s credit rating is downgraded below investment grade, certain of these guarantees would require us to post cash or letters of credit valued at approximately $536$383 million at December 31, 2005.2006. This estimated amount fluctuates based upon commodity prices (primarily power and gas) and the provisions and maturities of the underlying agreements.
Personal Property Taxes
Detroit Edison, MichCon and other Michigan utilities have asserted that Michigan’s valuation tables result in the substantial overvaluation of utility personal property. Valuation tables established by the Michigan State Tax Commission (STC) are used to determine the taxable value of personal property based on the property’s age. In November 1999, the STC approved new valuation tables that more accurately recognize the value of a utility’s personal property. The new tables became effective in 2000 and are currently used to calculate property tax expense. However, several local taxing jurisdictions have takentook legal action attempting to prevent the STC from implementing the new valuation tables and have continued to prepare assessments based on the superseded tables. The legal actions regarding the appropriateness of the new tables were before the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) which, in April 2002, issued
In December 2005, a decision essentially affirming the validity of the STC’s new tables. In June 2002, petitioners in the case filed an appeal of the MTT’s decision with the Michigan Court of Appeals. In January 2004, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the new tables. With no further appeal by the petitioners available, the MTT began to schedule utility personal property valuation cases for Prehearing General Calls. After a period of abeyance the MTT issued a scheduling order in a significant number of Detroit Edisonsettlement agreement was reached and MichCon appeals that set litigation calendars for these cases extending into mid-2006. After an extended period of settlement discussions, a Memorandum of Understanding has been reached with six principals in the litigation and the Michigan Department of Treasury that is expected to lead to settlement of all outstanding property tax disputes on a global basis.
On December 8, 2005 executed Stipulations for Consent Judgment, Consent Judgments, and Schedules to Consent Judgment were filed with the MTTMichigan Tax Tribunal on behalf of Detroit Edison, MichCon and a significant number of the largest jurisdictions, in terms of tax dollars, involved in the litigation. The filing of these documents fulfilled the requirements of the global settlement agreement and resolves a number of claims by the litigants against each other including both property and non-property issues. The global settlement agreement resultsresulted in ana pre-tax economic benefit to DTE Energy of $43 million in 2005 that includesincluded the release of a litigation reserve.
Labor Contracts
There are several bargaining units for our represented employees. Approximately 3,245 of our represented employees are under contracts that expire in June 2007 and 970 employees are under contracts that expire in October 2007. The contracts of the remaining represented employees expire at various dates in 2008 and 2009.
Other Commitments
Detroit Edison has an Energy Purchase Agreement to purchase steam and electricity from the Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Authority (GDRRA). Under the Agreement, Detroit Edison will purchase steam through 2008 and electricity through June 2024. In 1996, a special charge to income was recorded that included a reserve for steam purchase commitments in excess of replacement costs from 1997 through 2008. The reserve for steam purchase commitments is being amortized to fuel, purchased power and gas expense with non-cash accretion expense being recorded through 2008. We purchased approximately $42 million of steam and electricity in 2006, 2005 and 2004 and $39 million in 2003.2004. We estimate steam and

119


electric purchase commitments through 2024 will not exceed $427$386 million. As discussed in Note 3, inIn January 2003, we sold the steam heating business of Detroit Edison to Thermal Ventures II, LP. Due to terms of the sale, Detroit Edison remains contractually obligated to buy steam from GDRRA until 2008 and recorded an additional liability of $20

108


$63 million for future commitments. Also, we have guaranteed bank loans that Thermal Ventures II, LP may use for capital improvements to the steam heating system.
In 2004, we modified our future purchase commitments under a transportation agreement with an interstate pipeline company and terminated a related long-term gas exchange (storage) agreement. Under the gas exchange agreement, we received gas from the customer during the summer injection period and redelivered the gas during the winter heating season. The agreements were at rates that were not reflective of current market conditions and had been fair valued under accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. In 2002, the fair value of the transportation agreement was frozen when it no longer met the definition of a derivative as a result of FERC Order 637. The fair value amounts were being amortized to income over the life of the related agreements, representing a net liability of approximately $75 million as of December 31, 2003. As a result of the contract modification and termination, we recorded an adjustment to the net liability increasing 2004 earnings by $48 million, net of taxes.
As of December 31, 2005,2006, we were party to numerous long-term purchase commitments relating to a variety of goods and services required for our business. These agreements primarily consist of fuel supply commitments and energy trading contracts. We estimate that these commitments will be approximately $6.7$6.5 billion through 2051. We also estimate that 2006 base level2007 capital expenditures will be $1.2$1.5 billion. We have made certain commitments in connection with expected capital expenditures.
Bankruptcies
We purchase and sell electricity, gas, coal, coke and other energy products from and to numerous companies operating in the steel, automotive, energy, retail and other industries. Certain of our customers have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We regularly review contingent matters relating to these customers and our purchase and sale contracts and we record provisions for amounts considered at risk of probable loss. We believe our previously accrued amounts are adequate for probable losses. The final resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material effect on our financial statements.
Other
Detroit Edison and DTE Coal Services Inc. are involved in a contract dispute with BNSF Railway Company that has been referred to arbitration. Under this contract, BNSF transports western coals east for Detroit Edison and DTE Coal Services. We have filed a breach of contract claim against BNSF for the failure to provide certain services that we believe are required by the contract. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for mid-2007. While we believe we will prevail on the merits in this matter, a negative decision with respect to the significant issues being heard in the arbitration could have an adverse effect on our ability to grow the Coal and Gas Midstream business segment as currently contemplated.
We are involved in certain legal, regulatory, administrative and environmental proceedings before various courts, arbitration panels and governmental agencies concerning claims arising in the ordinary course of business. These proceedings include certain contract disputes, environmental reviews and investigations, audits, inquiries from various regulators, and pending judicial matters. We cannot predict the final disposition of such proceedings. We regularly review legal matters and record provisions for claims that are considered probable of loss. The resolution of pending proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on our operations or financial statements in the period they are resolved.
See Notes 46 and 57 for a discussion of contingencies related to Regulatory Matters and Nuclear Operations.

120


NOTE 14 —16 - RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND TRUSTEED ASSETS
Adoption of SFAS No. 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans — an Amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R). SFAS 158 requires companies to (1) recognize the overfunded or underfunded status of defined benefit pension and defined benefit other postretirement plans in its financial statements, (2) recognize as a component of other comprehensive income, net of tax, the actuarial gains or losses and the prior service costs or credits that arise during the period but are not immediately recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost, (3) recognize adjustments to other comprehensive income when the actuarial gains or losses, prior service costs or credits, and transition assets or obligations are recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost, (4) measure postretirement benefit plan assets and plan obligations as of the date of the employer’s statement of financial position, and (5) disclose additional information in the notes to financial statements about certain effects on net periodic benefit cost in the upcoming fiscal year that arise from delayed recognition of the actuarial gains and losses and the prior service cost and credits.
The requirement to recognize the funded status of a postretirement benefit plan and the related disclosure requirements is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2006. We adopted this requirement as of December 31, 2006. The requirement to measure plan assets and benefit obligations as of the date of the employer’s fiscal year-end statement of financial position is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2008. We plan to adopt this requirement as of December 31, 2008.
Detroit Edison received approval from the MPSC to record the charge related to the additional liability as a miscellaneous deferred debit in the regulatory asset line on the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position since the traditional rate setting process allows for the recovery of pension and other postretirement plan costs. Retrospective application of the changes required by SFAS No. 158 is prohibited; therefore certain disclosures below are not comparable.
Measurement Date
In the fourth quarter of 2004, we changed the date for actuarial measurement of our obligations for benefit programs from December 31 to November 30. We believe the one-month change of the measurement date is a preferable change as it allows time for management to plan and execute its review of the completeness and accuracy of its benefit programs results and to fully reflect the impact on its financial results. The change did not have a material effect on retained earnings as of January 1, 2004, and income from continuing operations, net income and related per share amounts for any interim period in 2004. Accordingly, all amounts reported in the following tables for balances as of December 31, 20052006 and December 31, 20042005 are based on measurement dates of November 30, 20052006 and November 30, 2004,2005, respectively. Amounts reported in tables for the year ended December 31, 2006 are based on a measurement date of November 30, 2005. Amounts reported in tables for the year ended December 31, 2005 are based on a measurement date of November 30, 2004. Amounts reported in tables for the year ended December 31, 2004 are based on a measurement date of December 31,

109


2003. Amounts reported in tables for the year ended December 31, 2003 are based on a measurement date of December 31, 2002.
Qualified and Nonqualified Pension Plan Benefits
We have qualified defined benefit retirement plans for eligible represented and nonrepresented employees. The plans are noncontributory and cover substantially all employees andemployees. The plans provide traditional retirement benefits based on the employees’ years of benefit service, average final compensation and age at retirement. CertainIn addition, certain represented and nonrepresented employees are

121


covered under cash balance provisions that base benefits based on annual employer contributions and interest credits. Our policy is to fund pension costs by contributing the minimum amount required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and additional amounts when we deem appropriate. We do not anticipate making a contribution to our qualified pension plans in 2006.
We also maintain supplemental nonqualified, noncontributory, retirement benefit plans for selected management employees. These plans provide for benefits that supplement those provided by DTE Energy’s other retirement plans.
Our policy is to fund qualified pension costs by contributing amounts consistent with the Pension Protection Act of 2006 provisions and additional amounts when we deem appropriate. In December 2006, we contributed $180 million to the qualified pension plans and $15 million to the nonqualified pension plans. We anticipate making up to a $180 million contribution to our qualified pension plans in 2007 and a $15 million contribution to our nonqualified pension plans in 2007.
Net pension cost includes the following components:
                         
 Qualified Pension Plans Nonqualified Pension Plans  Qualified Pension Plans Nonqualified Pension Plans 
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 2006 2005 2004 
Service Cost $64 $58 $48 $2 $2 $2  $62 $64 $58 $2 $2 $2 
Interest Cost 169 168 164 3 3 4  172 169 168 4 3 3 
Expected Return on Plan Assets (218) (216) (211) - - -   (222)  (218)  (216)    
Amortization of              
Net loss 67 63 38 1 1 1 
Net actuarial loss 57 67 63 2 1 1 
Prior service cost 8 8 8 - - -  7 8 8 1   
Special Termination Benefits 49      
                            
Net Pension Cost $90 $81 $47 $6 $6 $7  $125 $90 $81 $9 $6 $6 
                            
Amounts in accumulated other comprehensive loss and regulatory assets expected to be recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost during 2007 are comprised of $56 million of net actuarial loss and $5 million of prior service cost relating to qualified pension plans and $2 million of net actuarial loss and $1 million of prior service cost relating to nonqualified pension plans. We recorded a $49 million pension cost associated with our Performance Excellence Process in 2006.

122


The following table reconciles the obligations, assets and funded status of the plans as well as the amounts recognized as prepaid pension cost or pension liability in the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of financial positionFinancial Position at December 3131:
                 
  Qualified Pension Plans  Nonqualified Pension Plans 
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2006  2005 
Accumulated Benefit Obligation-End of Period $2,934  $2,741  $73  $61 
             
                 
Projected Benefit Obligation-Beginning of Period $3,013  $2,899  $67  $56 
Service Cost  62   64   2   2 
Interest Cost  172   169   4   3 
Actuarial Loss  78   49   7   10 
Benefits Paid  (197)  (168)  (5)  (4)
Special Termination Benefits  49          
Plan Amendments  (6)         
             
Projected Benefit Obligation-End of Period $3,171  $3,013  $75  $67 
             
                 
Plan Assets at Fair Value-Beginning of Period $2,617  $2,565  $  $ 
Actual Return on Plan Assets  324   220       
Company Contributions        5   4 
Benefits Paid  (197)  (168)  (5)  (4)
             
Plan Assets at Fair Value-End of Period $2,744  $2,617  $  $ 
             
                 
Funded Status of the Plans $(427) $(396) $(75) $(67)
December Contribution  180         1 
             
Funded Status, End of Year $(247) $(396) $(75) $(66)
               
Unrecognized (a)                
Net Actuarial loss (a)      1,023       23 
Prior service cost (a)      27       2 
               
Net Amount Recognized-End of Period (a)     $654      $(41)
               
 
Amount Recorded as (a)                
Prepaid pension assets (a)      186        
Accrued pension liability (a)      (224)      (60)
Regulatory asset (a)      532       12 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (a)      129       5 
Intangible Asset (a)      31       2 
               
      $654      $(41)
               
Noncurrent Assets (b) $71      $     
Current Liabilities (b)        $(5)    
Noncurrent Liabilities (b ) $(318)     $(70)    
               
  $(247)      (75)    
               
                 
Amounts Recognized in                
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (b)                
Net Actuarial loss (b) $186      $7     
Prior service (credit) (b)  (10)           
Regulatory Assets (b)                
Net Actuarial loss (b)  756       21     
Prior service cost (b)  24       1     
(a)- Disclosure no longer required by FAS 158, adopted in 2006, retroactive adoption not permitted.
(b)- New disclosure required by FAS 158, adopted in 2006, retroactive adoption not permitted.

110123


                 
  Qualified Pension Plans  Nonqualified Pension Plans 
  2005  2004  2005  2004 
(in Millions)                
Accumulated Benefit Obligation-End of Period $2,741  $2,689  $61  $54 
             
                 
Projected Benefit Obligation-Beginning of Period $2,899  $2,745  $56  $59 
Service Cost  64   58   2   2 
Interest Cost  169   168   3   3 
Actuarial Loss (Gain)  49   76   10   (4)
Benefits Paid  (168)  (149)  (4)  (4)
Plan Amendments     1       
             
Projected Benefit Obligation-End of Period $3,013  $2,899  $67  $56 
             
                 
Plan Assets at Fair Value-Beginning of Period $2,565  $2,348  $  $ 
Actual Return on Plan Assets  220   196       
Company Contributions     170   4   4 
Benefits Paid  (168)  (149)  (4)  (4)
             
Plan Assets at Fair Value-End of Period $2,617  $2,565  $  $ 
             
                 
Funded Status of the Plans $(396) $(334) $(67) $(56)
Unrecognized                
Net loss  1,023   1,043   23   15 
Prior service cost  27   34   2   1 
             
Net Amount Recognized at Measurement Date  654   743   (42)  (40)
December Adjustments        1   1 
             
Net Amount Recognized-End of Period $654  $743  $(41) $(39)
             
                 
Amount Recorded as                
Prepaid pension assets $186  $184  $  $ 
Accrued pension liability  (224)  (212)  (60)  (53)
Regulatory asset  532   594   12   11 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss  129   139   5   2 
Intangible asset  31   38   2   1 
             
  $654  $743  $(41) $(39)
             
Assumptions used in determining the projected benefit obligation and net pension costs are listed below:
                        
 2005 2004 2003 2006 2005 2004
Projected Benefit Obligation  
Discount rate  5.90%  6.00%  6.25%  5.70%  5.90%  6.00%
Annual increase in future compensation levels  4.0%  4.0%  4.0%  4.0%  4.0%  4.0%
 
Net Pension Costs  
Discount rate  6.00%  6.25%  6.75%  5.90%  6.00% 6.25%
Annual increase in future compensation levels  4.0%  4.0%  4.0%  4.0%  4.0%  4.0%
Expected long-term rate of return on Plan assets  9.0%  9.0%  9.0%  8.75%  9.0%  9.0%
At December 31, 2005,2006, the benefits related to our qualified and nonqualified plans expected to be paid in each of the next five years and in the aggregate for the five fiscal years thereafter are as follows:

111


        
(in Millions)  
2006 $174 
2007 177  $179 
2008 183  183 
2009 188  190 
2010 193  199 
2011 - 2015 1,046 
2011 204 
2012 - 2016 1,157 
      
Total $1,961  $2,112 
      
We employ a consistent formal process in determining the long-term rate of return for various asset classes. We evaluate input from our consultants, including their review of historic financial market risks and returns and long-term historic relationships between the asset classes of equities, fixed income and other assets, consistent with the widely accepted capital market principle that asset classes with higher volatility generate a greater return over the long-term. Current market factors such as inflation, interest rates, asset class risks and asset class returns are evaluated and considered before long-term capital market assumptions are determined. The long-term portfolio return is also established employing a consistent formal process, with due consideration of diversification, active investment management and rebalancing. Peer data is reviewed to check for reasonableness .reasonableness.
We employ a total return investment approach whereby a mix of equities, fixed income and other investments are used to maximize the long-term return ofon plan assets consistent with prudent levels of risk. The intent of this strategy is to minimize plan expenses over the long-term. Risk tolerance is established through consideration of future plan cash flows, plan funded status, and corporate financial considerations. The investment portfolio contains a diversified blend of equity, fixed income and other investments. Furthermore, equity investments are diversified across U.S. and non-U.S. stocks, growth and value investment styles, and large and small market capitalizations. Other assets such as private equity and absolute return funds are used judiciously to enhance long-term returns while improving portfolio diversification. Derivatives may be usedutilized in a risk controlled manner, to gain market exposure in an efficient and timely manner; however, derivatives may not be used to leveragepotentially increase the portfolio beyond the market value of the underlying investments.invested assets and reduce portfolio investment risk. Investment risk is measured and monitored on an ongoing basis through annual liability measurements, periodic asset/liability studies, and quarterly investment portfolio reviews.

124


Our plans’ weighted-average asset allocations by asset category at December 31 were as follows:
                
 2005 2004 2006 2005
Equity Securities  68%  69%  68%  68%
Debt Securities 27 26  23 27 
Other 5 5  9 5 
          
  100%  100%  100%  100%
          
Our plans’ weighted-average asset target allocations by asset category at December 31, 20052006 were as follows:
     
Equity Securities  65%
Debt Securities  2820 
Other  715 
     
   100%
     
In December 2002, we recognized an additional minimum pension liability as required under SFAS No. 87,Employers’ Accounting for Pensions.An additional pension liability may be required when the accumulated benefit obligation of the plan exceeds the fair value of plan assets. Under SFAS No. 87, we recorded an additional minimum pension liability, an intangible asset and other comprehensive loss. In 2003, we

112


reclassified $572 million of other comprehensive loss related to Detroit Edison’s minimum pension liability to a regulatory asset after the MPSC Staff provided an opinion that the MPSC’s traditional rate setting process allowed for the recovery of pension costs as measured by SFAS No. 87. The additional minimum pension liability, regulatory asset, intangible asset and other comprehensive loss are adjusted in December of each year based on the plans’ funded status.
We also sponsor defined contribution retirement savings plans. Participation in one of these plans is available to substantially all represented and nonrepresented employees. We match employee contributions up to certain predefined limits based upon eligible compensation, the employee’s contribution rate and, in some cases, years of credited service. The cost of these plans was $29 million in 2006, $29 million in 2005, and $28 million in 2004 and $26 million in 2003.2004.
Other Postretirement Benefits
We provide certain postretirement health care and life insurance benefits for employees who are eligible for these benefits. Our policy is to fund certain trusts to meet our postretirement benefit obligations. Separate qualified Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trusts exist for represented and nonrepresented employees. In 2006, we made cash contributions of $116 million to our postretirement benefit plans. At the discretion of management, we may make up to a $120$116 million contribution to our VEBA trusts in 2006.2007.
Net postretirement cost includes the following components:
                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Service Cost $55 $41 $37  $59 $55 $41 
Interest Cost 105 92 87  115 105 92 
Expected Return on Plan Assets  (70)  (56)  (47)  (61)  (70)  (56)
Amortization of 
Net loss 60 43 31 
Prior service cost  (2)  (3)  (3)
Amortization of Net loss 72 60 43 
Prior service (credit)  (3)  (2)  (3)
Net transition obligation  7  8  13  7 7 8 
Special Termination Benefits 8   
       
Net Postretirement Cost $155 $125 $118  $197 $155 $125 
              
Amounts in accumulated other comprehensive loss or regulatory assets expected to be recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost during 2007 are comprised of $66 million of net actuarial loss, $2 million gain of prior service cost and $7 million of net transition obligation. We recorded an $8 million postretirement benefit cost associated with our Performance Excellence Process in 2006.

125


The following table reconciles the obligations, assets and funded status of the plans including amounts recorded as accrued postretirement cost in the consolidated statementConsolidated Statement of financial positionFinancial Position at December 31:
         
(in Millions) 2006  2005 
Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation-Beginning of Period $1,991  $1,793 
Service Cost  59   55 
Interest Cost  115   105 
Actuarial Loss  101   136 
Plan Amendments  2   (10)
Medicare Part D Subsidy  1    
Special Termination Benefits  8    
Benefits Paid  (93)  (88)
       
Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation-End of Period $2,184  $1,991 
       
         
Plan Assets at Fair Value-Beginning of Period $713  $679 
Actual Return on Plan Assets  86   61 
Company Contributions  60   40 
Benefits Paid  (65)  (67)
       
Plan Assets at Fair Value-End of Period $794  $713 
       
         
Funded Status of the Plans $(1,390) $(1,278)
December Adjustment  (24)  (58)
       
Funded Status, as of December 31 $(1,414) $(1,336)
        
Unrecognized (a)        
Net Actuarial loss (a)      896 
Prior service (credit) (a)      (12)
Net transition obligation (a)      46 
        
Liability-End of Period (a)     $(406)
        
         
Noncurrent Assets (b ) $     
Current Liabilities (b) $     
Noncurrent Liabilities (b) $(1,414)    
         
Amounts Recognized in        
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (b)        
Net Actuarial loss (b) $85     
Prior service (credit) (b) $(44)    
Net transition obligation (b) $(35)    
Regulatory Assets (b)        
Net Actuarial loss (b)  816     
Prior service cost (b)  36     
Net transition obligation (b)  74     
(a)- Disclosure no longer required by FAS 158, adopted in 2006, retroactive adoption not permitted.
(b)- New disclosure required by FAS 158, adopted in 2006, retroactive adoption not permitted.

113126


         
(in Millions) 2005  2004 
Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation-Beginning of Period $1,793  $1,582 
Service Cost  55   41 
Interest Cost  105   92 
Actuarial Loss  136   146 
Plan Amendments  (10)  7 
Benefits Paid  (88)  (75)
       
Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation-End of Period $1,991  $1,793 
       
         
Plan Assets at Fair Value-Beginning of Period $679  $586 
Actual Return on Plan Assets  61   53 
Company Contributions  40   40 
Benefits Paid  (67)   
       
Plan Assets at Fair Value-End of Period $713  $679 
       
         
Funded Status of the Plans $(1,278) $(1,114)
Unrecognized        
Net loss  896   811 
Prior service cost  (12)  (8)
Net transition obligation  46   58 
       
Accrued Postretirement Liability at Measurement Date  (348)  (253)
December Adjustments  (58)  (20)
       
Accrued Postretirement Liability-End of Period $(406) $(273)
       
Assumptions used in determining the projected benefit obligation and net benefit costs are listed below:
                        
 2005 2004 2003 2006 2005 2004
Projected Benefit Obligation  
Discount rate  5.90%  6.00%  6.25%  5.70%  5.90%  6.00%
 
Net Benefit Costs  
Discount rate  6.00%  6.25%  6.75%  5.90%  6.00%  6.25%
Expected long-term rate of return on Plan assets  9.0%  9.0%  9.0%  8.75%  9.00%  9.00%
Benefit costs were calculated assuming health care cost trend rates beginning at 9%9 % for 2006 and decreasing to 5% in 2011 and thereafter for persons under age 65 and decreasing from 8% to 5% for persons age 65 and over. A one-percentage-point increase in health care cost trend rates would have increased the total service cost and interest cost components of benefit costs by $32$30 million and increased the accumulated benefit obligation by $244$272 million at December 31, 2005.2006. A one-percentage-point decrease in the health care cost trend rates would have decreased the total service and interest cost components of benefit costs by $20$25 million and would have decreased the accumulated benefit obligation by $203$230 million at December 31, 2005.2006.
At December 31, 2005,2006, the benefits expected to be paid, including prescription drug benefits, in each of the next five years and in the aggregate for the five fiscal years thereafter are as follows:

114


     
(in Millions)    
2006 $111 
2007  116 
2008  120 
2009  125 
2010  128 
2011 - 2015  670 
    
Total $1,270 
    
The process used in determining the long-term rate of return for assets and the investment approach for our other postretirement benefits plans is similar to those previously described for our qualified pension plans.
Our plans’ weighted-average asset allocations by asset category at December 31 were as follows:
         
  2005 2004
Equity Securities  68%  68%
Debt Securities  28   28 
Other  4   4 
         
   100%  100%
         
     Our plans’ weighted-average asset target allocations by asset category at December 31, 2005 were as follows:
Equity Securities65%
Debt Securities28
Other7
100%
     
(in Millions)    
2007 $122 
2008  127 
2009  131 
2010  135 
2011  139 
2012 - 2016  726 
    
Total $1,380 
    
In December 2003, the Medicare Act was signed into law which provides for a non-taxable federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least “actuarially equivalent” to the benefit established by law. As discussed in Note 2,3, we adopted FSP No. 106-2 in 2004, which provides guidance on the accounting for the Medicare Act. As a result of the adoption, our accumulated postretirement benefit obligation for the subsidy related to benefits attributed to past service was reduced by approximately $95 million at January 1, 2004 and was accounted for as an actuarial gain. The effects of the subsidy reduced net periodic postretirement benefit costs by $17 million in 2006, $20 million in 2005 and $16 million in 2004.

127


At December 31, 2005,2006, the gross amount of federal subsidies expected to be received in each of the next five years and in the aggregate for the five fiscal years thereafter was as follows:
        
(in Millions)  
2006 $6 
2007  4  $5 
2008  5  5 
2009  6  5 
2010  5  7 
2011 - 2015  35 
2011 7 
2012 - 2016 35 
      
Total $61  $64 
      
The process used in determining the long-term rate of return for assets and the investment approach for our other postretirement benefits plans is similar to those previously described for our qualified pension plans.
Our plans’ weighted-average asset allocations by asset category at December 31 were as follows:
         
  2006 2005
Equity Securities  68%  68%
Debt Securities  25   28 
Other  7   4 
         
   100%  100%
         
Our plans’ weighted-average asset target allocations by asset category at December 31, 2006 were as follows:
Equity Securities65%
Debt Securities20
Other15
100%

128


The adoption of SFAS No. 158 had the following incremental effect on the financial statement line items shown below:
                 
      Non-Qualified Postretirement Total Benefit
(in Millions) Qualified Plans Plans Plans Plans
Increase (Decrease) in Assets and Liabilities                
 
Prepaid pension assets $(180) $  $  $(180)
 
Accrued pension liability $133  $3  $  $136 
 
Accrued postretirement liability        933   933 
 
Intangible assets $(17) $(1) $  $(18)
Deferred income taxes asset $19  $  $2  $21 
Regulatory assets $277  $4  $927  $1,208 
Accumulated other                
comprehensive loss $34  $  $4  $38 
Grantor Trust
MichCon maintains a Grantor Trust that invests in life insurance contracts and income securities. Employees and retirees have no right, title or interest in the assets of the Grantor Trust, and MichCon can revoke the trust subject to providing the MPSC with prior notification. We account for our investment at fair value with unrealized gains and losses recorded to earnings.

115


NOTE 15 —17 – STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
The DTE Energy Stock Incentive Plan permits the grant of incentive stock options, non-qualifying stock options, stock awards, performance shares and performance units. A maximum of 18 million shares of common stock may be issued under the plan. Participants in the plan include our employees and members of our Board of Directors. In the second quarter of 2006, we adopted a new Long-Term Incentive Program (LTIP).
The following are the key points of the newly adopted LTIP:
Authorized limit is 9,000,000 shares of common stock;
Prohibits the grant of a stock option with an exercise price that is less than the fair market value of the Company’s stock on the date of the grant; and
Imposes the following award limits to a single participant in a single calendar year, (1) options for more than 500,000 shares of common stock; (2) stock awards for more than 150,000 shares of common stock; (3) performance share awards for more than 300,000 shares of common stock (based on the maximum payout under the award); or (4) more than 1,000,000 performance units, which have a face amount of $1.00 each.
As of December 31, 2005,2006, no performance units have been granted under either the LTIP or the previous stock incentive plan.
Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment,using the modified prospective transition method. Under this method, we record compensation expense at fair value over the vesting period for all awards we grant after the date we adopted the standard. In addition, we are required to record compensation expense at fair value (as previous awards continue to vest) for the unvested

129


portion of previously granted stock option awards that were outstanding as of the date of adoption. Pre-adoption awards of stock awards and performance shares will continue to be expensed. DTE did not make the one-time election to adopt the alternative transition method described in FSP SFAS 123(R)-3,Transition Election Related to Accounting for the Tax Effect of Share-Based Payment Awards,but has chosen instead to follow the original guidance provided by SFAS 123(R) in accounting for the tax effects of stock based compensation awards.
The adoption of SFAS 123(R) in 2006 resulted in the following:
Income from continuing operations was reduced by $2 million;
Net income was reduced by $1 million;
Operating and financing cash flows were not materially impacted; and
Had no material effect on basic or diluted earnings per share.
Stock-based compensation for the reporting periods is as follows:
             
 2006 2005 2004
Stock-based compensation expense $24  $13  $12 
Tax benefit of compensation expense $8  $5  $4 
The cumulative effect of the adoption of SFAS 123(R) was an increase in net income of $1 million as a result of estimating forfeitures for previously granted stock awards and performance shares. We have not restated any prior periods as a result of the adoption of SFAS 123(R). We generally purchase shares on the open market for options that are exercised or we may settle in cash other stock based compensation.
Options
Options are exercisable according to the terms of the individual stock option award agreements and expire 10 years after the date of the grant. The option exercise price equals the fair value of the stock on the date that the option was granted.
Stock option activity was as follows:
         
      Weighted
  Number of Average
  Options Exercise Price
Outstanding at December 31, 2002 (2,285,323 exercisable)  5,480,595  $39.87 
Granted  1,654,879  $40.56 
Exercised  (329,528) $35.88 
Canceled  (152,824) $42.67 
         
Outstanding at December 31, 2003 (3,506,038 exercisable)  6,653,122  $40.18 
Granted  1,300,900  $39.41 
Exercised  (891,353) $34.94 
Canceled  (356,000) $43.06 
         
Outstanding at December 31, 2004 (3,939,939 exercisable)  6,706,669  $40.57 
Granted  955,899  $44.79 
Exercised  (1,291,645) $39.92 
Canceled  (134,580) $42.33 
         
Outstanding at December 31, 2005 (4,029,444 exercisable at a weighted average exercise price of $40.88)  6,236,343  $41.31 
         
             
          (in Millions) 
      Weighted  Aggregate 
  Number of  Average  Intrinsic 
 Options  Exercise Price  Value 
          
Options outstanding at January 1, 2006  6,236,343  $41.31     
Granted  621,720  $43.39     
Exercised  (1,009,126) $40.63     
Forfeited or Expired  (181,740) $43.20     
           
 
Options outstanding at December 31, 2006  5,667,197  $41.60  $26 
           
 
Options exercisable at December 31, 2006  4,104,375  $41.09  $21 
           
(1)The weighted average remaining contractual life for the exercisable shares is 5.25 years.
(2)As of December 31, 2006 1,562,822 options were nonvested.
(3)During 2006 1,169,744 options vested in this period.

130


The weighted average grant date fair value of options granted during 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $6.12, $5.89, $4.46, respectively. The intrinsic value of options exercised for both the year ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $6 million, $8 million, and $7 million, respectively. Total option expense recognized during 2006 was $6 million.
The number, weighted average exercise price and weighted average remaining contractual life of options outstanding were as follows:
                        
 Weighted Weighted
 Weighted Average Weighted Average
Range of Number of Average Remaining Number of Average Remaining
Exercise Prices Options Exercise Price Contractual Life Options Exercise Price Contractual Life (years)
$27.62 - $38.04 423,473 $31.34 3.97 years  337,395  $31.09   2.90 
$38.60 - $42.44 3,728,512 $40.64 6.76 years  2,961,657  $40.63   5.79 
$42.60 - $44.54 482,110 $42.65 5.35 years
$42.60 - $44.50  948,390  $43.13   7.39 
$44.56 - $48.00 1,602,248 $45.09 7.47 years  1,419,755  $45.08   6.59 
 6,236,343 $41.31 6.64 years          
     5,667,197  $41.60   6.09 
          
We account for option awards under APB Opinion 25. Accordingly, no compensation expense has been recorded for options granted. As required by SFAS No. 123, we have determineddetermine the fair value for these options at the date of grant using a Black-Scholes based option pricing model and the following assumptions:
             
  December 31 December 31 December 31
  2006 2005 2004
Risk-free interest rate  4.58%  3.93%  3.55%
Dividend yield  4.75%  4.60%  5.23%
 
Expected volatility  19.79%  19.56%  20.00%
 
Expected life 6years 6years 6years
In connection with the adoption of SFAS 123(R) we reviewed and updated our forfeiture, expected term and volatility assumptions. We modified option volatility to include both historical and implied share-price volatility. Implied volatility is derived from exchange traded options on DTE Energy common stock. Volatility for 2006 was estimated based solely upon historical share-price volatility. Our expected term is based on industry standards.

116131


             
  2005 2004 2003
Risk-free interest rate  3.93%  3.55%  2.93%
Dividend yield  4.60%  5.23%  4.97%
Expected volatility  19.56%  20.00%  20.89%
             
Expected life 6 years 6 years 6 years
             
Fair value per option $5.89  $4.46  $4.78 
Pro forma information for the periods ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 is provided to show what our net income and earnings per share would have been if compensation costs had been determined as prescribed by SFAS 123(R):
         
(in Millions, except per share amounts) December 31, 2005  December 31, 2004 
Net Income As Reported $537  $431 
Less: Total stock-based expense  (4  (6
       
Pro Forma Net Income $533  $425 
       
         
Earnings per share        
Basic – as reported $3.07  $2.50 
       
Basic – pro forma $3.05  $2.46 
       
         
Diluted – as reported $3.05  $2.49 
       
Diluted – pro forma $3.03  $2.45 
       
Stock Awards
Stock awards granted under the plan are restricted for varying periods, which are generally for three years. Participants have all rights of a shareholder with respect to a stock award, including the right to receive dividends and vote the shares. Prior to vesting in stock awards, the participant: (i) may not sell, transfer, pledge, exchange or otherwise dispose of shares; (ii) shall not retain custody of the share certificates; and (iii) will deliver to us a stock power with respect to each stock award.
The stock awards are recorded at cost that approximates fair value on the date of grant. We account for stock awards as unearned compensation, which is recorded as a reduction to common stock. The cost is amortized to compensation expense over the vesting period.
Stock award activity for the yearsperiods ended December 31 was:
                        
 2005 2004 2003 2006 2005 2004 
Fair value of awards vested (in Millions) $5 $4 $6 
Restricted common shares awarded 288,360 209,650 102,060  282,555 288,360 209,650 
Weighted average market price of shares awarded $44.95 $39.95 $41.39  $43.64 $44.95 $39.95 
Compensation cost charged against income (in thousands) $7,747 $5,616 $6,366 
Compensation cost charged against income (in Millions) $10 $8 $6 

132


     The following table summarizes our stock awards activity for the period ended December 31, 2006:
         
  Restricted  Weighted Average Grant Date 
  Stock  Fair Value 
Balance at December 31, 2005  544,087   $42.68 
Grants  282,555   $43.64 
Forfeitures  (45,561)  $43.03 
Vested  (114,945)  $41.86 
        
Balance at December 31, 2006  666,136   $43.20 
        
Performance Share Awards
Performance shares awarded under the plan are for a specified number of shares of common stock that entitles the holder to receive a cash payment, shares of common stock or a combination thereof. The final value of the award is determined by the achievement of certain performance objectives.objectives and market conditions. The awards vest at the end of a specified period, usually three years. We account for performance share awards by accruing compensation expense over the vesting period based on: (i) the number of shares expected to be paid which is based on the probable achievement of performance objectives; and (ii) the fair value of the shares. For 2005, 2004 and 2003, we
We recorded compensation expense totaling $5 million, $6 million and $6 million, respectively.as follows:
             
(in Millions) 2006 2005 2004
Compensation expense $8  $5  $6 
Cash settlements (1) $4  $5  $6 
(1)approximates the intrinsic value of the liability.
During the vesting period, the recipient of a performance share award has no shareholder rights. However, recipients will be paid an amount equal to the dividend equivalent on such shares. Performance share awards are nontransferable and are subject to risk of forfeiture. As of December 31, 2005,2006, there were 803,0711,035,696 performance share awards outstanding.
The following table summarizes our performance share activity for the period ended December 31, 2006:
Performance Shares
Balance at December 31, 2005803,071
Grants520,395
Forfeitures(132,545)
Payouts(155,225)
Balance at December 31, 20061,035,696
Unrecognized Compensation Costs
As of December 31, 2006, there was $26 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock incentive plan arrangements. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.35 years.

133


         
  (In Millions)    
  Unrecognized  (in years) 
           Type Compensation cost  Weighted Average to be recognized 
Stock Awards $11   1.19 
Performance Shares  11   1.56 
Options  4   1.26 
        
  $26   1.35 
        
The tax benefit realized for tax deductions related to our stock incentive plan totaled $8 million for the period ended December 31, 2006. Approximately $1.6 million of compensation cost was capitalized as a part of fixed assets during 2006.
NOTE 16 —18 - SEGMENT AND RELATED INFORMATION
We operate our businesses through three strategicIn the third quarter of 2006, we realigned the non-utility segment Power and Industrial Projects business units, Electric Utility,unit to separately present the Synthetic Fuel business. The impending expiration of synfuel tax credits as of December 31, 2007, combined with the sustained volatility of oil prices, increased management focus on synfuels, thereby requiring a separate business segment. In the fourth quarter of 2006, we separated the Fuel Transportation and Marketing segment into Coal and Gas UtilityMidstream, and Non-Utility Operations. The balanceEnergy Trading corresponding to additional management focus on the results of our business consists of Corporate & Other.these non-utility segments. Based on thisthe following structure, we set strategic goals, allocate resources and evaluate performance. This results in the following reportable segments:performance:
Electric Utility
Consists of Detroit Edison, the company’s electric utility whose operations include the power generation and electric distribution facilities that service approximately 2.2 million residential, commercial and industrial customers throughout southeastern Michigan.

117


Gas Utility
Consists of the gas distribution services provided by MichCon, a gas utility that purchases, stores and distributes natural gas throughout Michigan to approximately 1.3 million residential, commercial and industrial customers and Citizens Gas Fuel Company, a gas utility that distributes natural gas in Adrian, Michigan.
Non-utilityNon-Utility Operations
  PowerCoal and Industrial ProjectsGas Midstream, primarily consisting of synfuel projects, on-site energy services, steel-related projects, power generation with services,coal transportation and waste coal recovery operations;marketing, and gas pipelines, processing and storage;
 
  Unconventional Gas Production,primarily consisting of naturalunconventional gas exploration,project development and production;
Power and Industrial Projects, primarily consisting of on-site energy services, steel-related projects and power generation with services;
Energy Trading,primarily consisting of energy marketing and trading operations; and
 
  Synthetic Fuel, Transportation and Marketing, primarily consisting of energy marketing and tradingthe operations coal transportation and marketing, and gas pipelines, processing and storage.of nine synfuel plants.
Corporate & Other, primarily consisting of corporate supportstaff functions and certain energy related investments.
Prior year segment information has been reclassified to conform to the current year’s segment structure.

134


The income tax provisions or benefits of DTE Energy’s subsidiaries are determined on an individual company basis and recognize the tax benefit of production tax credits and net operating losses. The subsidiaries record income tax payable to or receivable from DTE Energy resulting from the inclusion of its taxable income or loss in DTE Energy’s consolidated federal tax return.
Inter-segment billing for goods and services exchanged between segments is based upon tariffed or market-based prices of the provider and primarily consists of power sales, gas sales and coal transportation services in the following segments:
                        
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Electric Utility $207 $218 $69  $59 $207 $218 
Coal and Gas Midstream 180 152 180 
Unconventional Gas Production 154 121 114  134 154 121 
Fuel Transportation and Marketing 268 253 66 
Energy Trading 75 116 73 
              
 $629 $592 $249  $448 $629 $592 
              
Financial data of the business segments follows:
                            
                          Depreciation,            
 Depreciation,             Operating Depletion & Interest Interest Income Net Total Capital
(in Millions) Operating Depletion & Interest Interest Income Net Total Capital Revenue Amortization Income Expense Taxes Income Assets Goodwill Expenditures
2005 Revenue Amortization Income Expense Taxes Income Assets Goodwill Expenditures
    
2006
 
Electric Utility $4,462 $640 $(3) $267 $149 $277 $13,112 $1,207 $722  $4,737 $809 $(4) $278 $161 $325 $14,540 $1,206 $972 
Gas Utility 2,138 95  (10) 58  (2) 37 3,101 772 128  1,849 94  (9) 67 11 50 3,123 773 155 
Non-utility Operations:  
Coal and Gas Midstream 707 4  (3) 10 28 50 435 13 53 
Unconventional Gas Production. 99 27  13 5 9 611 8 186 
Power and Industrial Projects 1,356 107  (41) 21 89 308 2,117 41 31  409 48  (8) 29  (56)  (80) 864 36 35 
Unconventional Gas Production 74 20  8 1 4 434 8 144 
Fuel Transportation and Marketing 1,684 7  (6) 21  (1) 2 2,207 29 36 
Energy Trading 830 6  (12) 15 49 96 1,220 17 2 
Synthetic Fuel 863 24  (21) 1  (9) 48 662 4  
    
 3,114 134  (47) 50 89 314 4,758 78 211  2,908 109  (44) 68 17 123 3,792 78 276 
  
Corporate & Other 10   (40) 187  (34)  (52) 2,358  4  5 2  (52) 174  (52)  (61) 2,307   
Reconciliation and Eliminations  (702)  43  (43)        (477)  62  (61)      
    
Total from Continuing Operations $9,022 $869 $(57) $519 $202 576 23,329 2,057 1,065  $9,022 $1,014 $(47) $526 $137 437 23,762 2,057 1,403 
      
  
Discontinued Operations (Note 3)  (36) 6   
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change (Note 2)  (3)    
Discontinued Operations (Note 4)  (5) 23   
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change (Notes 3 and 17) 1    
    
Total $537 $23,335 $2,057 $1,065  $433 $23,785 $2,057 $1,403 
    

118135


                            
                          Depreciation,            
 Depreciation,             Operating Depletion & Interest Interest Income Net Total Capital
(in Millions) Operating Depletion & Interest Interest Income Net Total Capital Revenue Amortization Income Expense Taxes Income Assets Goodwill Expenditures
2004 Revenue Amortization Income Expense Taxes Income Assets Goodwill Expenditures
    
2005
 
Electric Utility $3,568 $523 $ $280 $64 $150 $12,708 $1,202 $702  $4,462 $640 $(3) $267 $149 $277 $13,112 $1,207 $722 
Gas Utility 1,682 103  (9) 58  (9) 20 2,816 772 113  2,138 95  (10) 58  (2) 37 3,101 772 128 
Non-utility Operations:  
Coal and Gas Midstream 707 3  (3) 4 22 45 373 12 28 
Unconventional Gas Production 74 20  8 1 4 434 8 144 
Power and Industrial Projects 1,100 89  (43) 35 42 179 1,841 41 24  428 48  (5) 20  (7) 4 1,043 37 29 
Unconventional Gas Production 71 18  10 3 6 301 8 38 
Fuel Transportation and Marketing 1,254 6  (4) 8 64 118 1,280 28 24 
Energy Trading 977 4  (3) 17  (23)  (43) 1,834 17 8 
Synthetic Fuel 927 58  (36) 1 96 305 1,049 4 2 
    
 2,425 113  (47) 53 109 303 3,422 77 86  3,113 133  (47) 50 89 315 4,733 78 211 
  
Corporate & Other 17 3  (48) 174 10  (12) 2,284  2  10   (40) 187  (34)  (52) 2,358  4 
Reconciliation and Eliminations  (621)  49  (49)        (702)  43  (43)      
    
Total from Continuing Operations $7,071 $742 $(55) $516 $174 461 21,230 2,051 903  $9,021 $868 $(57) $519 $202 577 23,304 2,057 1,065 
      
 
Discontinued Operations (Note 3)  (30) 67 16 1 
Discontinued Operations (Note 4)  (37) 31   
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change (Note 1)  (3)    
    
Total $431 $21,297 $2,067 $904  $537 $23,335 $2,057 $1,065 
    
                            
                          Depreciation,            
 Depreciation,             Operating Depletion & Interest Interest Income Net Total Capital
(in Millions) Operating Depletion &InterestInterest Income Net Total Capital Revenue Amortization Income Expense Taxes Income Assets Goodwill Expenditures
2003 Revenue Amortization Income Expense Taxes Income Assets Goodwill Expenditures
    
2004
 
Electric Utility $3,695 $473 $(7) $284 $145 $252 $12,502 $1,202 $580  $3,568 $523 $ $280 $64 $150 $12,708 $1,202 $702 
Gas Utility 1,498 101  (10) 58  29 2,719 776 99  1,682 103  (9) 58  (9) 20 2,816 772 113 
Non-utility Operations:  
Coal and Gas Midstream 589 3  (3) 3 19 33 328 11 16 
Unconventional Gas Production 71 18  10 3 6 301 8 38 
Power and Industrial Projects 938 90  (16) 21  (271) 197 1,690 41 26  448 53  (1) 35  (19)  (17) 940 37 24 
Unconventional Gas Production 70 17  7 5 12 282 8 28 
Fuel Transportation and Marketing 1,061 4  (3) 6 41 69 1,089 28 13 
Energy Trading 665 3  (1) 5 45 85 952 17 8 
Synthetic Fuel 650 33  (42)  63 199 875 4  
    
 2,069 111  (19) 34  (225) 278 3,061 77 67  2,423 110  (47) 53 111 306 3,396 77 86 
  
Corporate & Other 16   (33) 201  (36)  (65) 2,400  4  17 3  (48) 174 10  (12) 2,284  2 
Reconciliation and Eliminations  (273)  32  (32)      
Reconciliation and Eliminations.  (621)  49  (49)      
    
Total from Continuing Operations $7,005 $685 $(37) $545 $(116) 494 20,682 2,055 750  $7,069 $739 $(55) $516 $176 464 21,204 2,051 903 
      
  
Discontinued Operations (Note 3) 54 71 12 1 
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change (Note 2)  (27)    
Discontinued Operations (Note 4)  (33) 93 16 1 
    
Total $521 $20,753 $2,067 $751  $431 $21,297 $2,067 $904 
    

119136


NOTE 1719 — SUPPLEMENTARY QUARTERLY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
Quarterly earnings per share may not total for the years, since quarterly computations are based on weighted average common shares outstanding during each quarter. DtechGeorgetown was reported as a discontinued operation beginning in the thirdfourth quarter 2005,2006, resulting in the adjustment of prior quarterly results. See Note 3.4.
                                        
 First Second Third Fourth    First Second Third Fourth 
(in Millions, except per share amounts) Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Year  Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Year 
2005
 
2006
 
Operating Revenues $2,309 $1,941 $2,060 $2,712 $9,022  $2,635 $1,895 $2,196 $2,296 $9,022 
Operating Income $224 $90 $51 $581 $946 
Operating Income (Loss) $242 $(30) $373 $243 $828 
Net Income (Loss)  
From continuing operations $126 $33 $29 $388 $576  $136 $(32) $189 $144 $437 
Discontinued operations  (4)  (4)  (25)  (3)  (36)  (1)  (1)  (1)  (2)  (5)
Cumulative effect of accounting change     (3)  (3) 1    1 
                      
Total $122 $29 $4 $382 $537  $136 $(33) $188 $142 $433 
           
            
Basic Earnings (Loss) per Share  
From continuing operations $.72 $.19 $.17 $2.19 $3.29  $.76 $(.18) $1.07 $.81 $2.46 
Discontinued operations  (.02)  (.02)  (.15)  (.01)  (.20)   (.01)  (.01)  (.01)  (.03)
Cumulative effect of accounting change     (.02)  (.02) .01    .01 
                      
Total $.70 $.17 $.02 $2.16 $3.07  $.77 $(.19) $1.06 $.80 $2.44 
                      
  
Diluted Earnings (Loss) per Share  
From continuing operations $.72 $.19 $.17 $2.18 $3.27  $.76 $(.18) $1.07 $.81 $2.45 
Discontinued operations  (.02)  (.02)  (.15)  (.02)  (.20)   (.01)  (.01)  (.01)  (.03)
Cumulative effect of accounting change     (.02)  (.02)     .01 
                      
Total $.70 $.17 $.02 $2.14 $3.05  $.76 $(.19) $1.06 $.80 $2.43 
                      
  
2004
 
2005
 
Operating Revenues $2,082 $1,490 $1,586 $1,913 $7,071  $2,309 $1,941 $2,059 $2,712 $9,021 
Operating Income $372 $106 $177 $215 $870  $224 $90 $52 $581 $947 
Net Income (Loss)  
From continuing operations $200 $43 $97 $121 $461  $126 $33 $30 $388 $577 
Discontinued operations  (10)  (8)  (4)  (8)  (30)  (4)  (4)  (26)  (3)  (37)
Cumulative effect of accounting change     (3)  (3)
                      
Total $190 $35 $93 $113 $431  $122 $29 $4 $382 $537 
           
            
Basic Earnings (Loss) per Share  
From continuing operations $1.18 $.25 $.56 $.69 $2.67  $.72 $.19 $.17 $2.19 $3.30 
Discontinued operations  (.06)  (.05)  (.02)  (.04)  (.17)  (.02)  (.02)  (.15)  (.01)  (.21)
Cumulative effect of accounting change     (.02)  (.02)
                      
Total $1.12 $.20 $.54 $.65 $2.50  $.70 $.17 $.02 $2.16 $3.07 
                      
  
Diluted Earnings (Loss) per Share  
From continuing operations $1.17 $.25 $.56 $.69 $2.66  $.72 $.19 $.17 $2.18 $3.28 
Discontinued operations  (.06)  (.05)  (.02)  (.04)  (.17)  (.02)  (.02)  (.15)  (.02)  (.21)
Cumulative effect of accounting change     (.02)  (.02)
                      
Total $1.11 $.20 $.54 $.65 $2.49  $.70 $.17 $.02 $2.14 $3.05 
                      

120137


Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
See Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data for management’s evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures, its report on internal control over financial reporting, and its conclusion on changes in internal control over financial reporting.

121


Item 9B. Other Information
None.Executive Deferred Compensation Plan
On October 30, 2006, the DTE Energy Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan was amended so that no eligible employee under the plan may elect to defer any Performance Shares or Annual Cash Bonus payable after December 31, 2006, as those terms are defined in the plan.
Annual Incentive Plan
On February 23, 2007 the Organization and Compensation Committee of DTE Energy Company (“Company”) Board of Directors approved 2007 performance measures and targets for Anthony F. Earley Jr., Gerard Anderson and David Meador under the Company's Annual Incentive Plan (“AIP”). These named executive officers and other executives may receive cash awards under the AIP. For 2007, the AIP has ten annual measures for Mr. Earley, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Meador weighted as follows in determining the total annual incentive award: enterprise earnings per share (20%), enterprise cash flow (20%), amount of monetization proceeds (10%), monetization timing (10%), utility customer satisfaction (10%), MPSC complaint reduction improvement (5%) minority diversity (3.75%), women diversity (3.75%), safety (7.5%) and Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (’INPO’) Index (10%).

On February 23, 2007 the Organization and Compensation Committee also approved modifications to Mr. Buckler’s 2007 AIP to align the customer satisfaction and MPSC goals with those of the Messrs. Earley, Anderson and Meador. For 2007 Mr. Buckler’s AIP has annual measures weighted as follows in determining the total annual incentive award: enterprise earnings per share (7.5%), enterprise cash (7.5%), Detroit Edison earnings per share (15%), Detroit Edison cash (10%), success of the SAP installation project (10%), minority diversity (3.75%), women diversity (3.75%) safety (7.5%), performance excellence process success (15%), utility customer satisfaction (7.5%), MPSC complaint reduction improvement (7.5%), and random outage rate (5.0%).

The Company must attain minimum threshold levels for a given performance measure before any compensation becomes payable on account of the measure. Based on market comparisons, each officer position is assigned a target award expressed as a percentage of base salary. Targets for these officers range from 55% to 100%, including the Chief Executive Officer. Award amounts paid to each officer are determined as follows: (i) performance for each measure is combined for an overall corporate performance factor that ranges from 0% to 175% of target; (ii) this weighted average factor is multiplied by each officer's target award to arrive at an initial calculation; and (iii) the initial calculation is adjusted based on individual performance modifier that may range from 0% to 150%.

Long-Term Incentive Plan
On January 17, 2007 the Organization and Compensation Committee of DTE Energy Company (“Company”) Board of Directors approved 2007 performance measures and targets for executive officers under the DTE Energy Company 2007 Long Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”). The LTIP, which was approved by our shareholders, rewards long-term growth and profitability by providing a vehicle through which officers, other key employees and outside directors may receive stock-based compensation. Stock-based compensation directly links individual performance with shareholder interests. The level of awards is determined by reference to executive level, responsibility, retention issues, market competitiveness and contributions to the overall success of the Company. Mr. Earley, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Meador and Mr. Buckler are eligible for awards equal to 140% of their base salary which are delivered in the form of restricted stock, options and performance shares.

Performance shares: Performance shares entitle the executive to receive a specified number of shares, or a cash payment equal to the fair market value of the shares, or a combination thereof, depending on the level of achievement of performance measures. The performance measurement period for the 2007 award is January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009. Payments earned under the 2007 award can range from 0% to 200% of target, based upon achievement of three corporate performance measures weighted as follows: (i) balance sheet health (15%), (ii) total shareholder return vs. shareholder return of the companies currently in the Standard & Poor’s Utility Index (70%), and (iii) employee engagement (15%).
Part III
Item 10. Directors, and Executive Officers of the Registrantand Corporate Governance
Item 11. Executive Compensation
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services
Information required by Part III (Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) of this Form 10-K is incorporated by reference from DTE Energy’s definitive Proxy Statement for its 20062007 Annual Meeting of Common Shareholders to be held April 27, 2006.May 3, 2007. The Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Regulation 14A, not later than 120 days after the end of our fiscal year covered by this report on Form 10-K, all of which information is hereby incorporated by reference in, and made part of, this Form 10-K, except that the information required by Item 10 with respect to executive officers of the Registrant is included in Part I of this report.

138


PartIV
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
  (a) 
(a)The following documents are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 (1) Consolidated financial statements. See “Item 8 – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

122


 (2) Financial statement schedule. See “Item 8 – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
 
 (3) Exhibits.
   
(i)
 Exhibits filed herewith.
   
10-6010-66First Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Deferred Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective January 1, 2001.
10-67 Second Amendment to the DTE Energy Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan.Company Deferred Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective January 1, 2005.
   
10-6110-68 FirstThird Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Deferred Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective January 1, 2006.
10-69Third Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of October 1, 2003.December 31, 2006.
   
12-3610-70First Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Supplemental Retirement Plan, effective January 1, 2002.
12-39 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.
   
21-121-2 Subsidiaries of the Company.Company
   
23-1823-19 Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP.
   
31-2131-29 Chief Executive Officer Section 302 Form 10-K Certification of Periodic Report.
   
31-2231-30 Chief Financial Officer Section 302 Form 10-K Certification of Periodic Report.
   
(ii)
 Exhibits incorporated herein by reference.
   
3(a) Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of DTE Energy Company, dated December 13, 1995 (Exhibit 3-5 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1997).
   
3(b) Certificate of Designation of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock of DTE Energy Company, dated September 23, 1997 (Exhibit 3-6 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1997).
   
3(c) Rights Agreement, dated September 23, 1997, by and between DTE Energy Company and The Detroit Edison Company, as Rights Agent (Exhibit 4-1 to Form 8-K dated September 22, 1997).
   
3(d) Bylaws of DTE Energy Company, as amended through February 24, 2005 (Exhibit 3.1 to Form 8-K dated February 24, 2005).
   
4(a) Amended and Restated Indenture, dated as of April 9, 2001, between DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York,BNY Midwest Trust Company, as successor trustee (Exhibit 4-14.1 to Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-58834)).
   
4(b)Amended and Restated First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 9, 2001, between DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York, as trustee, creating Remarketed Notes, Series A due 2038 (Exhibit 4-223 to Form 10-Q for quarter ended March 31, 2001).
4(c)Amended and Restated Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 9, 2001, between DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York, as trustee, creating Remarketed Notes, 1998 Series B (Exhibit 4-224 to Form 10-Q for quarter ended March 31, 2001).
4(d) Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 9, 2001, among DTE Capital Corporation, DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York,BNY Midwest Trust Company, as successor trustee (Exhibit 4-225 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001).
   
4(e)4(c) Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 30, 2001, between DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York,BNY

139


Midwest Trust Company as successor trustee creating 6% Senior Notes due 2004, 6.45%(Exhibit 4-226 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001). (6.45% Senior Notes due 2006 and 7.05% Senior Notes due 2011 (Exhibit 4-226 to Form 10-Q for quarter ended June 30, 2001)2011).
   
4(f)Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 15, 2002, between DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York, as trustee, creating 7.8% Junior Subordinated Debentures due 2032 (Exhibit 4-228 to Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2001).
4(g)4(d) Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 5, 2002 between DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York,BNY Midwest Trust Company, as successor trustee creating 2002(Exhibit 4-230 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2002). (2002 Series A 6.65% Senior Notes due 2009 (Exhibit 4-230 to Form 10-Q for quarter ended March 31, 2002)2009).
   
4(h)4(e) Sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 25, 2002, between DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York,BNY Midwest Trust Company, as successor trustee creating 4.60% Senior Notes due 2007 (Exhibit 4-233 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002). (4.60% Senior Notes due 2007).

123


   
4(i)4(f) Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 1, 2003, between DTE Energy Company and The Bank of New York,BNY Midwest Trust Company, as successor trustee, creating 2003 Series A 6 3/8% Senior Notes due 2033 (Exhibit 4(o) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003). (2003 Series A 6 3/8% Senior Notes due 2033).
   
4(j)4(g) Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2004,May 15, 2006, between DTE Energy Company and BNY Midwest Trust Company, (successor to The Bank of New York), creating 2004 Series C Floating Rate Notes due 2007as successor trustee (Exhibit 4(p)4-239 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004)2006). (2006 Series B 6.35% Senior Notes due 2016).
   
4(k)Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2004, between DTE Energy Company and BNY Midwest Trust Company (successor to The Bank of New York), creating 7.50% Junior Subordinated Debentures due 2044 (Exhibit 4(r) to Form 10-Q for quarter ended June 30, 2004).
4(l)4(h) Amended and Restated Trust Agreement of DTE Energy Trust I, dated as of January 15, 2002 (Exhibit 4-229 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001).
   
4(m)4(i) Amended and Restated Trust Agreement of DTE Energy Trust II, dated as of June 1, 2004 (Exhibit 4(q) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004).
   
4(n)4(j) Trust Agreement of DTE Energy Trust III (Exhibit 4-21 to Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-99955).
   
10(a) Form of 1995 Indemnification Agreement between DTE Energy Company and its directors and officers (Exhibit 3L (10-1) to Form 8-B dated January 2, 1996)).
   
10(b) Form of Indemnification Agreement between The Detroit Edison Company and its officers (Exhibit 10-40 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).
   
10(c) Certain arrangements pertaining to the employment of Anthony F. Earley, Jr. with The Detroit Edison Company, dated April 25, 1994 (Exhibit 10-53 to The Detroit Edison Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1994).
   
10(d) Certain arrangements pertaining to the employment of Gerard M. Anderson with The Detroit Edison Company, dated October 6, 1993 (Exhibit 10-48 to The Detroit Edison Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1993).
   
10(e) Certain arrangements pertaining to the employment of David E. Meador with The Detroit Edison Company, dated January 14, 1997 (Exhibit 10-5 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996).
   
10(f) Certain arrangements pertaining to the employment of Bruce D. Peterson, dated May 22, 2002 (Exhibit 10-48 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002).
   
10(g) Termination and Consulting Agreement, dated as of October 4, 1999, among DTE Energy Company, MCN Energy Group Inc., DTE Enterprises Inc. and A.R. Glancy, III (Exhibit 10-41 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001).
   
10(h) Amended and Restated Post-Employment Income Agreement, dated March 23, 1998, between The Detroit Edison Company and Anthony F. Earley, Jr. (Exhibit 10-21 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998).
   
10(i) Executive Post-Employment Income Arrangement, dated March 27, 1989, between The Detroit Edison Company and S. Martin Taylor (Exhibit 10-22 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998).
   
10(j) Amended and Restated Executive Incentive Plan of DTE Energy Company dated February 23, 2000Annual Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10-3510-44 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended MarchMaech 31, 2000)2001).

140


   
10(k) DTE Energy Company Annual2001 Stock Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10-4410-43 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001).
   
10(l) DTE Energy Company 2001 Stock2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10-43(Annex A to Form 10-Q for quarter endedDTE Energy’s Definitive Proxy Statement dated March 31, 2001)24, 2006).

124


   
10(m) DTE Energy Company Deferred Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 19991999) (Exhibit 10-30 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998).
   
10(n) DTE Energy Company Retirement Plan for Non-Employee DirectorsDirectors’ Fees (as amended and restated effective as of December 31, 1998) (Exhibit 10-31 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998).
   
10(o) DTE Energy Company Plan for Deferring the Payment of Directors’Director’s Fees (as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 1999) (Exhibit 10-29 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998).
   
10(p) DTE Energy Company Supplemental Savings Plan, effective as of December 6, 2001 (Exhibit 10-44 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002).
   
10(q) Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Supplemental Savings Plan (Exhibit 10-54 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
   
10(r) DTE Energy Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of January 1, 2002 (Exhibit 10-45 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002).
   
10(s)First Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10-61 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005).
10(t) Second Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10-55 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
   
10(t)10(u) DTE Energy Company Supplemental Retirement Plan, effective as of January 1, 2002 (Exhibit 10-46 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002).
   
10(u)10(v) Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Supplemental Retirement Plan (Exhibit 10-53 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
   
10(v)10(w) DTE Energy Company Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan, effective as of January 1, 2001 (Exhibit 10-51 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
   
10(w)10(x) First Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan (Exhibit 10-52 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
   
10(x)10(y)Second Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan (Exhibit 10-60 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005).
10(z)Third Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan (Exhibit 10-65 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006).
10(aa) The Detroit Edison Company Supplemental Long-Term Disability Plan, dated January 27, 1997 (Exhibit 10-4 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996).
   
10(y)10(bb) Description of Executive Life Insurance Plan (Exhibit 10-47 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002).
   
10(z)10(cc) Executive Vehicle Plan of The Detroit Edison Company, dated as of September 1, 1999 (Exhibit 10-41 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001).
   
10(aa)10(dd) DTE Energy Affiliates Nonqualified Plans Master Trust, effective as of May 1, 2003 (Exhibit 10-49 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003).

141


   
10(bb)10(ee) Form of Change-in-Control Severance Agreement, dated as of March 11, 2005, between DTE Energy Company and each of Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Gerard M. Anderson, Robert J. Buckler, Stephen E. Ewing and David E. Meador (Exhibit 10-56 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
10(cc)10(ff) Form of DTE Energy Five-Year Credit Agreement, dated as of October 17, 2005, by and among DTE Energy, the lenders party thereto, Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Barclays Bank PLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. as Co-Syndication Agents (Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K dated October 17, 2005).
   
10(dd)10(gg)Amendment No. 1 to Five-Year Credit Agreement, dated as of January 10, 2007, by and among, DTE Energy Company, the lenders party thereto, Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Barclays Bank PLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Co-Syndication Agents (Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K dated January 10, 2007).
10(hh) Form of Second Amended and Restated Five-Year Credit Agreement, dated as of October 17, 2005, by and among DTE Energy, the lenders party thereto, Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Barclays Bank PLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Co-Syndication Agents (Exhibit 10.2 to Form 8-K dated October 17, 2005).
   
10(ee)10(ii) Form of Letter ofAmendment No. 1 to Second Amended and Restated Five-Year Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2005,January 10, 2007 by and

125


among DTE Energy Company, the lenders party thereto, and The Bank of Nova Scotia,Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agents.Agent and Barclays Bank PLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Co-Syndication Agents (Exhibit 10.110.2 to Form 8-K dated December 16, 2005)January 10, 2007).
   
10(ff)10(jj) Form of Director Restricted Stock Agreement (Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K dated June 23, 2005).
   
10 kk)Form of Director Restricted Stock Agreement pursuant to the DTE Energy Company Long-Term Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K dated June 29, 2006).
99(a) Master Trust Agreement (“Master Trust”), dated as of June 30, 1994, between The Detroit EdisonDTE Energy Company, as successor, and Fidelity Management Trust Company relating to the Savings and Investment Plans (Exhibit 4-167 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1994).
   
99(b) First Amendment, dated as of February 1, 1995, to Master Trust (Exhibit 4-10 to Registration No. 333-00023).
   
99(c) Second Amendment, dated as of February 1, 1995, to Master Trust (Exhibit 4-11 to Registration No. 333-00023).
   
99(d) Third Amendment, effective January 1, 1996, to Master Trust (Exhibit 4-12 to Registration No. 333-00023).
   
99(e) Fourth Amendment, dated as of August 1, 1996, to Master Trust (Exhibit 4-185 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997).
   
99(f) Fifth Amendment, dated as of January 1, 1998, to Master Trust (Exhibit 4-186 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997).
   
99(g) Sixth Amendment, dated as of September 1, 1998, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-15 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
99(h) Seventh Amendment, dated as of December 15, 1999, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-16 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
99(i) Eighth Amendment, dated as of February 1, 2000, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-17 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
99(j) Ninth Amendment, dated as of April 1, 2000, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-18 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).

142


   
99(k) Tenth Amendment, dated as of May 1, 2000, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-19 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
99(l) Eleventh Amendment, dated as of July 1, 2000, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-20 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
99(m) Twelfth Amendment, dated as of August 1, 2000, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-21 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
99(n) Thirteenth Amendment, dated as of December 21, 2001, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-22 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
99(o) Fourteenth Amendment, dated as of March 1, 2002, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-23 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
99(p) Fifteenth Amendment, dated as of January 1, 2002, to Master Trust (Exhibit 99-24 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004).
   
(iii)
 Exhibits furnished herewith.
   
32-2132-29 Chief Executive Officer Section 906 Form 10-K Certification of Periodic Report.
   
32-2232-30 Chief Financial Officer Section 906 Form 10-K Certification of Periodic Report.

126143


DTE Energy Company
Schedule II – Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
                        
 Year Ending December 31,  Year Ending December 31, 
(in Millions) 2005 2004 2003  2006 2005 2004 
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts (shown as deduction from accounts receivable in the consolidated statement of financial position)
 
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts (shown as deduction from Accounts Receivable in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position)
 
Balance at Beginning of Period $129 $99 $82  $136 $129 $99 
Additions:  
Charged to costs and expenses 106 108 80  120 106 108 
Charged to other accounts (1) 9 9 4  7 9 9 
Deductions (2)  (108)  (87)  (67)  (93)  (108)  (87)
              
Balance At End of Period $136 $129 $99  $170 $136 $129 
              
 
(1) Collection of accounts previously written off.
 
(2) Uncollectible accounts written off.
UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
             
  Year Ending December 31, 
(in Millions) 2006  2005  2004 
Note Receivable Reserve
            
Balance at Beginning of Period $  $  $ 
Additions:            
Charged to costs and expenses — shown as deduction in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position from:            
Other Current Assets  50       
Notes Receivable  15       
Deductions           
          
Balance At End of Period $65  $  $ 
          
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers
The following table provides information about Company purchases of equity securities that are registered by the Company pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act for the year ended December 31, 2005:
                 
  Total      Total Number of  Maximum Dollar 
  Number      Shares Purchased  Value that May Yet 
  of Shares  Average  as Part of Publicly  Be Purchased Under 
  Purchased  Price Paid  Announced Plans  the Plans or 
Period (1)  Per Share  or Programs  Programs (2) 
01/01/05 - 01/31/05          $700,000,000 
02/01/05 - 02/28/05  205,940  $43.75      700,000,000 
03/01/05 - 03/31/05  1,000  45.26      700,000,000 
04/01/05 – 04/30/05  15,500  45.67      700,000,000 
05/01/05 – 05/31/05  16,400  46.07      700,000,000 
06/01/05 – 06/30/05  1,320  47.55      700,000,000 
07/01/05 – 07/31/05  5,500  47.80      700,000,000 
08/01/05 – 08/31/05  34,500  45.42      700,000,000 
09/01/05 – 09/30/05           700,000,000 
10/01/05 – 10/31/05  1,200  44.36      700,000,000 
11/01/05 – 11/30/05  2,500  43.58      700,000,000 
12/01/05 – 12/31/05  4,500  43.98     700,000,000 
               
Total  288,360  44.23        
               
(1)Represents shares of common stock purchased on the open market to provide shares to participants under various employee compensation and incentive programs. These purchases were not made pursuant to a publicly announced plan or program.
(2)In January 2005, the DTE Energy Board authorized the repurchase of up to $700 million in common stock through 2008. The authorization provides Company management with flexibility to pursue share repurchase from time to time, and will depend on future cash flows and investment opportunities.

127144


Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
       
    DTE ENERGY COMPANY
(Registrant)  
       
Date: March 7, 20061, 2007 By /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.  
    Chairman of the Board and  
    Chief Executive Officer  
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.
           
By /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
   By /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.David E. Meador  
  Chairman of the Board and     Executive Vice President and Chief  
  Chief Executive Officer     Chief Financial Officer  
           
By /s/ PETER B. OLEKSIAK   By /s/JOHN E. LOBBIA GAIL J. McGOVERN  
           
  Peter B. Oleksiak     John E. Lobbia,Gail J. McGovern, Director  
  Vice President and Controller, and        
  Chief Accounting Officer        
           
By/s/ GAIL J. McGOVERN
By /s/ LILLIAN BAUDER   By Gail J. McGovern, Director/s/ EUGENE A. MILLER  
           
  Lillian Bauder, Director     
By/s/ EUGENEEugene A. MILLERMiller, Director  
           
By /s/ ALLAN D. GILMOUR   By Eugene A. Miller, Director/s/ CHARLES W. PRYOR, JR.  
           
  Allan D. Gilmour, Director     
By/s/ CHARLESCharles W. PRYOR, JR.Pryor, Jr., Director  
           
By /s/ ALFRED R. GLANCY III   By Charles W. Pryor, Jr., Director/s/ JOSUE ROBLES, JR.  
           
  Alfred R. Glancy III, Director     
By/s/ JOSUE ROBLES, JR.Josue Robles, Jr., Director  
           
By /s/ FRANK M. HENNESSEY   By Josue Robles, Jr., Director/s/ HOWARD F. SIMS  
           
  Frank M. Hennessey, Director     
By/s/ HOWARDHoward F. SIMSSims, Director  
           
By /s/ JOE W. LAYMONJOHN E. LOBBIA   By Howard F. Sims, Director/s/ JAMES H. VANDENBERGHE  
           
  Joe W. Laymon,John E. Lobbia, DirectorJames H. Vandenberghe, Director
Date: March 1, 2007        
Date: March 7, 2006

128145


Exhibit Index
Exhibit NumberDescription
(i)
Exhibits filed herewith.
10-60Second Amendment to the DTE Energy Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan.
10-61First Amendment to the DTE Energy Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan effective as of October 1, 2003.
12-36Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.
21-1Subsidiaries of the Company.
23-18Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP.
31-21Chief Executive Officer Section 302 Form 10-K Certification of Periodic Report.
31-22Chief Financial Officer Section 302 Form 10-K Certification of Periodic Report.
(iii)
Exhibits furnished herewith.
32-21Chief Executive Officer Section 906 Form 10-K Certification of Periodic Report.
32-22Chief Financial Officer Section 906 Form 10-K Certification of Periodic Report.

129