Back to GetFilings.com



Table of Contents

 
 

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

FOR ANNUAL REPORT AND TRANSITION REPORTS PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE 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, 2004

Commission file number 1-11607

DTE ENERGY COMPANY

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
     
Michigan
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, Michigan
(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
preferred stock purchase rights
  New York and Chicago Stock Exchanges
     
8.75% Equity Security Units
7.8% Trust Preferred Securities *
7.50% Trust Originated Preferred Securities**
  New York Stock Exchange
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 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. Yes þ No o

     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. Yes þ No o

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes þ No o

     On June 30, 2004, the aggregate market value of the Registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates was approximately $7.0 billion (based on the New York Stock Exchange closing price on such date). There were 174,209,034 shares of common stock outstanding at January 31, 2005.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain information in DTE Energy Company’s definitive Proxy Statement for its 2005 Annual Meeting of Common Shareholders to be held April 28, 2005, 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.

 
 

 


DTE Energy Company
Annual Report on Form 10-K
Year Ended December 31, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

         
    PAGE  
    2  
 
       
    4  
 
       
     
    5  
 
       
    27  
 
       
    27  
 
       
     
    27  
 
       
    29  
 
       
    30  
 
       
    61  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    124  
 
       
    124  
 
       
    125  
 
       
     
    126  
 
       
    126  
 
       
    126  
 
       
    126  
 
       
    126  
 
       
       
    126  
 
       
    132  
 Form of Change-In Control Severance Agreement
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Letter Regarding Change in Accouting Principles
 Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP
 Chief Executive Officer Section 302 Form 10-K Certification
 Chief Financial Officer Section 302 Form 10-K Certification
 Chief Executive Officer Section 906 Form 10-K Certification
 Chief Financial Officer Section 906 Form 10-K Certification
 Sixth Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Seventh Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Eighth Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Ninth Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Tenth Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Eleventh Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Twelfth Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Thirteenth Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Fourteenth Amendment to Trust Agreement
 Fifteenth Amendment to Trust Agreement

1


Table of Contents

Definitions

     
Coke and Coke Battery
 
Raw coal is heated to high temperatures in ovens to drive off 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 subsidiary companies
 
   
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
 
   
Distributed Generation
 
Electric energy produced at or close to the point of use, in contrast to central station generation that generally produces electricity at large power plants and transmits and distributes power over long distances. Distributed generation includes fuel cells, small gas turbine engines called micro- and mini-turbines, and other devices capable of producing up to two megawatts of power.
 
   
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)
 
   
MichCon
 
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of DTE Energy) and subsidiary companies
 
   
MDEQ
  Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
 
   
MPSC
  Michigan Public Service Commission
 
   
Non-utility subsidiary
 
A subsidiary that is not a public utility. Its conditions of service, prices of goods and services and other operating related matters are not 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 clause was suspended under Michigan’s restructuring legislation (signed into law June 5, 2000), which lowered and froze electric customer rates. The clause was reinstated by the MPSC effective January 1, 2004.
 
   
Section 29 tax credits
 
Tax credits as authorized under Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code that are designed to stimulate investment in and development of alternate fuel sources. The amount of a Section 29 tax credit can vary each year as determined by the Internal Revenue Service (Note 13).

2


Table of Contents

     
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.
 
   
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 expect to be recoverable if customers switch to alternative energy suppliers.
 
   
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 Section 29 tax credits.

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.
 
   
gWh
  Gigawatthour of electricity
 
   
kWh
  Kilowatthour of electricity
 
   
Mcf
  Thousand cubic feet of gas
 
   
MMcf
  Million cubic feet of gas
 
   
MW
  Megawatt of electricity
 
   
MWh
  Megawatthour of electricity

3


Table of Contents

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 contemplated, projected, estimated or budgeted in such forward-looking statements. There are many factors that may impact forward-looking statements including, but not limited to, the following:

•   the effects of weather and other natural phenomena on operations and sales to customers, and purchases from suppliers;

•   economic climate and growth or decline in the geographic areas where we do business;

•   environmental issues, laws and regulations, and the cost of remediation and compliance associated therewith;

•   nuclear regulations and operations associated with nuclear facilities;

•   the higher price of oil and its impact on the value of Section 29 tax credits, and the ability to utilize and/or sell interests in facilities producing such credits;

•   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 FERC, MPSC, NRC and other applicable governmental proceedings and regulations;

•   contributions to earnings by non-utility businesses;

•   changes in 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 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; 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.

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.

4


Table of Contents

Part I

Items 1. & 2. Business 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 numerous non-utility subsidiaries engaged in energy marketing and trading, energy services, and various other electricity, coal and gas related businesses. DTE Energy is an exempt holding company under the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935, except Section 9(a)(2) that relates to the acquisition of securities of public utility companies and Section 33 that relates to the acquisition of foreign (non-U.S.) utility companies.

Detroit Edison is a Michigan corporation organized in 1903 and is a public utility subject to regulation by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Detroit Edison is engaged in the generation, purchase, distribution and sale of electricity to 2.1 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 1.2 million customers throughout Michigan.

In February 2003, we sold the International Transmission Company (ITC), a FERC regulated transmission company. See Note 3 for a further discussion of the ITC sale and its presentation as a discontinued operation.

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.

We have a code of ethics that applies to our chief executive officer and all senior financial officers, including our chief financial officer, controller, assistant controllers, treasurer and assistant treasurers. Our code of ethics is available in the corporate governance section of the investor relations webpage of our website located at www.dteenergy.com. Should we make changes in, or provide waivers from, the provisions of the code of ethics that the SEC requires us to disclose, we intend to disclose these events in the governance section of our investor relations website.

References in this report to “we,” “us,” “our” or “Company” are to DTE Energy and its subsidiaries, collectively.

Corporate Structure

Through 2004, we operated our businesses through three strategic business units (Energy Resources, Energy Distribution and Energy Gas). Each business unit had utility and non-utility operations. The balance of our business consisted of Corporate & Other. See Note 16 — Segment and Related Information, for financial information by segment for the last three years. In 2005, we expect to realign our business

5


Table of Contents

units to strengthen the Company’s focus on customer relationships and growth within our non-utility businesses. Based on this structure, we will set strategic goals, allocate resources and evaluate performance. Beginning with the first quarter of 2005, we expect to report our segment information based on a new structure as described in Note 1. A discussion of each business unit based on the structure in effect over the past three years follows.

(CORPORATE STRUCTURE FLOW CHART)

ENERGY RESOURCES

Utility – Power Generation

Description

Power Generation comprises our utility power generation business and plants within Detroit Edison. These plants are regulated by numerous federal and state governmental agencies, including the MPSC, the FERC, the NRC, the EPA and the MDEQ. Electricity is generated from Detroit Edison’s numerous fossil plants, its hydroelectric pumped storage plant and its nuclear plant, and is purchased from electricity generators, suppliers and wholesalers. The electricity we produce and purchase is sold to four major classes of customers: residential, commercial, industrial and wholesale, principally throughout Michigan, the Midwest and Ontario, Canada.

Weather, economic factors 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. Power generation sales are made to a diverse base of customers in both type and number; sales levels are not dependent on any small market segment. Customers who elect to purchase their electricity from alternative energy suppliers by participating in the electric Customer Choice program have an unfavorable effect on our financial performance.

6


Table of Contents

Our power is generated from a variety of fuels and is supplemented with market purchases. The following table details our energy supply mix and average cost per unit:

     
 
   
 
                                                 
    2004             2003             2002          
(in Thousands of MWh)                                                
Power Generated and Purchased
                                               
Power Plant Generation
                                               
Fossil
    39,432       75 %     38,052       72 %     39,017       67 %
Nuclear (Fermi 2)
    8,440       16       8,114       16       9,301       16  
 
                                   
 
    47,872       91       46,166       88       48,318       83  
Purchased Power
    4,650       9       6,354       12       9,807       17  
 
                                   
System Output
    52,522       100 %     52,520       100 %     58,125       100 %
 
                                   
 
                                               
Average Unit Cost ($/MWh)
                                               
 
                                               
Generation (1)
  $ 12.98             $ 12.89             $ 12.53          
 
                                         
Purchased Power (2)
  $ 37.06             $ 41.73             $ 39.16          
 
                                         
Overall Average Unit Cost
  $ 15.11             $ 16.38             $ 17.02          
 
                                         
 
                                               
 


(1) Represents fuel costs associated with power plants.

(2) Includes amounts associated with hedging activities.

We expect an adequate supply of fuel and purchased power to meet our obligation to serve customers. The effect of lost sales due to the electric Customer Choice program has reduced our need for purchased power and increased our ability to sell power in the wholesale market. We have short and long-term supply contracts for expected fuel and purchased power requirements as detailed in the following table:

     
 
   
 
                 
    2005  
Expected Supply   Contracted     Open  
Coal
    84 %     16 %
Natural Gas
    26 %     74 %
Oil
    20 %     80 %
Purchased Power
    75 %     25 %
 
               
 

Power Generation’s 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. Detroit Edison expects to obtain the majority of its coal requirements through long-term contracts with the balance to be obtained through short-term agreements and spot purchases. Detroit Edison has contracts with five coal suppliers and several over-the-counter brokers for a total purchase of up to 35 million tons of low-sulfur western coal to be delivered through 2008. Detroit Edison also has contracts with four suppliers for the purchase of approximately 6 million tons of Appalachian coal to be delivered through 2006. These existing long-term coal contracts either have fixed prices or include provisions for price escalation as well as de-escalation. Given the geographic diversity of supply, Detroit Edison believes it can meet the expected generation requirements. We own and 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.

We purchase power from other electricity generators, suppliers and wholesalers. These purchases supplement 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 power facilities.

7


Table of Contents

Regulation

Detroit Edison’s Power Generation business is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of various agencies, including 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. The NRC has regulatory jurisdiction over all phases of the operation, construction, licensing and decommissioning of Detroit Edison’s Fermi 2 nuclear plant.

Since 1996 there have been several important acts, orders, court rulings and legislative actions in the State of Michigan that affect our Power Generation operations. In 1996, the MPSC began an initiative designed to give all of Michigan’s electric customers 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 would continue 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 Power Supply Cost Recovery (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. The final order addressed numerous issues relating to regulatory assets, including the actual amounts recoverable and the recovery mechanism.

See Note 4 – Regulatory Matters for additional information regarding the 2004 rate orders and our regulatory environment.

Properties

Detroit Edison owns generating properties and facilities that are primarily located in the State of Michigan. Substantially all the net utility properties of Detroit Edison are subject to the lien of its mortgage. Power Generation plants owned and in service as of December 31, 2004 are as follows:

8


Table of Contents

     
 
   
 
                         
    Location by   Summer Net      
    Michigan   Rated Capability (1) (2)      
Plant Name   County   (MW)     (%)     Year in Service
Fossil-fueled Steam-Electric
                       
Belle River (3)
  St. Clair     1,026       9.3 %   1984 and 1985
Conners Creek
  Wayne     215       1.9     1951
Greenwood
  St. Clair     785       7.1     1979
Harbor Beach
  Huron     103       0.9     1968
Marysville
  St. Clair     84       0.7     1943 and 1947
Monroe (4)
  Monroe     3,080       27.8     1971, 1973 and 1974
River Rouge
  Wayne     510       4.6     1957 and 1958
St. Clair
  St. Clair     1,415       12.8     1953, 1954, 1959, 1961 and 1969
Trenton Channel
  Wayne     730       6.6     1949 and 1968
 
                   
 
        7,948       71.7      
Oil or Gas-fueled Peaking Units
  Various     1,102       10.0     1966-1971, 1981 and 1999
Nuclear-fueled Steam-Electric Fermi 2 (5)
  Monroe     1,111       10.0     1988
Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Ludington (6)
  Mason     917       8.3     1973
 
                   
 
        11,078       100.0 %    
 
                   
 
                       
 


(1)   Summer net rated capabilities of generating units 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 — Jointly Owned Utility Plant.
 
(4)   The Monroe Power Plant provided 35% of Detroit Edison’s total 2004 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.

Strategy and Competition

We strive to be the preferred electricity supplier in southeast Michigan. We believe that we can accomplish our 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 will continue to make investments in our generating plants that will improve both plant availability and 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 whereby all of the Company’s electric customers can choose to purchase their electricity from alternative suppliers of generation services. Detroit Edison lost 18% of retail sales in 2004, 12% in 2003 and 5% of such sales in 2002 as a result of customers choosing to purchase power from alternative suppliers. Customers participating in the electric Customer Choice program consist primarily of industrial and commercial customers whose MPSC-authorized full service rates exceed the cost of service. We will continue to utilize the wholesale market to sell the generation made available by the electric Customer Choice program, in order to lower costs for full service customers.

9


Table of Contents

Energy Services

Description

Energy Services has three business lines: Coal-Based Fuels, On-Site Energy Projects and Power Generation.

Coal-Based Fuels

Energy Services’ Coal-Based Fuels operations include producing synthetic fuel from nine synfuel plants and producing coke from three coke battery plants. The production of synfuel from all of the synfuel plants and the production of coke from one of the coke battery plants generate tax credits under Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 29 is designed to stimulate investment in and development of alternate fuel sources. We have private letter rulings from the IRS for all of our synfuel plants. Synfuel-related Section 29 tax credits expire in 2007. Section 29 tax credits for two of our three coke batteries expired at the end of 2002 with the third expiring in 2007.

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. The modification involves a three-step process that produces a solid synthetic fuel product. Since 2002, we have sold majority interests in eight of our nine synfuel plants, representing approximately 92 percent of our total production capacity. We anticipate selling a majority interest in our remaining 100% owned synfuel plant in 2005. We continue to consolidate these projects due to our controlling influence.

The coke battery facilities produce coke that is used in blast furnaces within the steel industry. DTE Energy is one of the largest independent producers in the U.S. of coke for the steel industry.

     
 
   
 
                         
(Dollars in Millions)   2004     2003     2002  
Coal-Based Fuels – Tax Credits Generated
                       
Synfuel Plants
                       
Allocated to DTE Energy
  $ 29     $ 228     $ 180  
Allocated to partners
    411       146       66  
 
                 
 
  $ 440     $ 374     $ 246  
 
                 
 
                       
Coke Battery Plants:
                       
Allocated to DTE Energy
  $ 2     $ 3     $ 57  
Allocated to partners
                35  
 
                 
 
  $ 2     $ 3     $ 92  
 
                 
 
                       
 

On-Site Energy Projects

Energy Services owns and/or operates on-site facilities, including pulverized coal injection, power generation, steam production, chilled water, wastewater treatment and compressed air. Many of these facilities deliver utility-type services to industrial, commercial and institutional customers. In 2004, we formed a utility services company that acquired utility-related assets from a large automotive company and entered into long-term agreements to provide utility and energy conservation services to the company. We then sold a 50% interest in the project to an unaffiliated partner. Also in 2004, we

10


Table of Contents

purchased a 50% interest in a company that owns and operates a cogeneration facility serving a tissue mill located in Mobile, Alabama.

Power Generation – Non-Utility

Energy Services operates peaking and gas-fired electric generating plants. We have four electric generating plants in operation, all located in the Great Lakes region. In 2004, we sold two of the three units at our Georgetown plant. We have contracts for the sale of approximately 42% of the 2005 and 2006 output of the remaining units.

Properties

As of December 31, 2004, Coal-Based Fuels owns interests in and operates nine synfuel plants at eight production sites. Additionally, we have interests in three coke battery facilities in the United States, two of which we operate.

     
 
   
 

Coal-Based Fuels

             
Facility   Location   % Owned   Industry Served
 
Synthetic Fuels
           
DTE Red Mountain, LLC *
  Tarrant, AL   1%   Foundry Coke/Steel
DTE Belews Creek, LLC
  Belews Creek, NC   1%   Utility
DTE Utah Synfuels, LLC
  Price, UT   1%   Industrial/Utility
DTE Indy Coke, LLC
  Moundsville, WV   1%   Utility
DTE Clover, LLC
  Bledsoe, KY   5%   Utility
DTE Smith Branch, LLC
  Pineville, WV   1%   Steel/Export
DTE River Hill, LLC
  Karthaus, PA   100%   Utility
DTE Buckeye, LLC (2 plants)
  Cheshire, OH   1%   Utility
Coke Battery
           
EES Coke Battery Co.
  River Rouge, MI   51%   Steel
Indiana Harbor Coke Co., LP
  East Chicago, IN   5%   Steel
DTE Burns Harbor LLC
  Burns Harbor, IN   51%   Steel
 
           
 


* Under the terms of a prior sale agreement, DTE Energy’s ownership interest increases to 51% in 2005.

The following are significant properties owned by On-Site Energy Projects:

     
 
   
 

On-Site Energy Projects

             
Facility   Location   % Owned   Type
 
PCI Enterprises
  River Rouge, MI   100%   Pulverized Coal
DTE Sparrows Point
  Sparrows Point, MD   100%   Pulverized Coal
DTE Northwind
  Detroit, MI   100%   Steam & Chilled Water
DTE Moraine
  Moraine, OH   100%   Compressed Air
DTE Tonawanda
  Tonawanda, NY   100%   Chilled & Waste Water
Metro Energy
  Romulus, MI   50%   Electricity, Hot and Chilled Water
Mobile Energy Services
  Mobile, AL   50%   Electric Generation, Electric Distribution, and Steam
DTE Energy Center
  Various sites in   50%   Electric Distribution, Chilled Water, Waste Water,
 
  MI, IN, OH       Lighting, Compressed Air, Mist & Dust Collectors
 
           
 

The Power Generation fleet consists of four natural gas-fired electric generating plants that are all located in the Great Lakes region.

11


Table of Contents

     
 
   
 

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  
 
                 
 
                960  
 
                 
 
                   
 

Strategy and Competition

Our strategy for Energy Services is to continue leveraging our extensive energy-related operating experience and project management capability to develop and grow the on-site energy business. We will continue to evaluate opportunities to sell a majority interest in our remaining synfuel plant in 2005. 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 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 plan to focus on the following areas for growth:

  •   Optimizing of our synfuel portfolio;
 
  •   Providing operating services to owners of power plants;
 
  •   Acquiring and developing solid fuel fired power plants;
 
  •   Expanding on-site energy projects; and
 
  •   Developing new tax advantaged opportunities.

Energy Marketing & Trading

Description

Energy Marketing & Trading consists of the wholesale electric and gas marketing and trading operations of DTE Energy Trading, Inc. and DTE-CoEnergy L.L.C. (CoEnergy). Energy Marketing & Trading focuses on physical power marketing and structured transactions for large customers, as well as the enhancement of returns from DTE Energy’s power plants, pipeline and storage assets. In pursuing these goals, Energy Marketing & Trading may enter into forwards, futures, swaps and option contracts.

Strategy and Competition

Our strategy for Energy Marketing & Trading 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 plan to 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 minimize risk.

12


Table of Contents

Coal Services

Description

Coal Services 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. We also operate a number of railcar maintenance and repair facilities serving coal transporters, as well as other industries and rail car types. We participate in the trading of coal and emissions credits as well as coal-to-power tolling transactions. In 2003, we entered into the waste coal recovery business by purchasing a patented technology and constructing our first commercial facility.

     
 
   
 
                         
Coal Services   2004     2003     2002  
Tons of Coal Shipped (in Millions) *
    39.9       32.0       28.5  
 
                       
 


* Includes intercompany transactions

Properties

We lease approximately 2,600 rail cars. We own fixed and mobile rail car maintenance and repair facilities in Nebraska and Indiana. We completed construction of a waste coal recovery facility on the site of a former operating coal mine in Ohio.

Strategy and Competition

We continue to leverage our position as one of the top North American coal marketers and our reputation as an efficient manager of transportation assets. Trends such as railroad and mining consolidation and the financial uncertainty of 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 acquired the rights to a proprietary technology that produces high quality coal products from fine coal slurries that are typically discarded from coal mining operations (waste coal recovery). The technology has the additional benefit of improving the environment by allowing us to restore the land in accordance with reclamation requirements of each state. The technology produces a fine-coal fuel by removing mineral matter, clay-like impurities and oxides from waste material. The fine-coal fuel can be used in power plants, as a feedstock for synthetic fuel production and for other industrial applications. Our first facility in Ohio became operational in late-2003. We have experienced certain complications with our feedstock excavating process. We are working to resolve these complications and increase our production capacity to more than 500,000 tons of fine coal per year. We believe that the waste coal recovery business has the potential to contribute significantly to future earnings and provide significant environmental benefits.

Biomass

Description

Biomass develops, owns and operates 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. Converting the methane into a renewable energy resource conserves fossil fuels. Some Biomass operations generate Section 29 tax credits that will expire in 2007.

13


Table of Contents

Biomass helps limit potential greenhouse gas emissions by developing and implementing landfill gas recovery systems that capture the gas and use it productively. Such a recovery system eliminates detrimental air emissions by preventing methane from escaping into the atmosphere or migrating off-site and becoming a safety hazard. Landfill gas recovery systems also provide local utilities, industry and consumers with an opportunity to use a competitive, renewable source of energy. Applications for this form of energy include steam and electricity generation, fueling of asphalt plants and brick kilns and for processing into pipeline quality gas. In 2004, Biomass entered into a joint venture with Coal Services to acquire facilities that produce coal mine methane gas.

     
 
   
 
                         
(Dollars in Millions)                  
Biomass   2004     2003     2002  
Landfill Sites
    29       31       30  
Gas Produced (in Bcf)
    23.2       26.8       27.5  
Tax Credits Generated*
  $ 7.7     $ 10.5     $ 12.9  
 
                       
 


*DTE Energy’s portion of total tax credits generated.

Properties

Biomass operates 29 sites located in 12 states and other projects are under development.

Strategy and Competition

Biomass’ strategy capitalizes upon our industry experience of over 20 years. We are evaluating business growth through both development and acquisitions. We compete primarily with fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal. However, we believe the environmental benefits of biomass along with reasonable and economic access to landfill sites provide a platform for future growth.

ENERGY DISTRIBUTION

Utility – Power Distribution

Description

The electric distribution services of Detroit Edison comprise our utility Power Distribution business. This business distributes electricity generated by Energy Resources’ Power Generation business and alternative energy suppliers to Detroit Edison’s 2.1 million customers in southeastern Michigan. This business also shares, with the Gas Distribution segment, the customer service and regulated marketing functions for our utilities. Accordingly, costs associated with these functions, including collections and customer service activities, are shared between Power Distribution and Gas Distribution.

In January 2003, we sold the steam heating business of Detroit Edison to Thermal Ventures II, LP. In February 2003, we sold ITC to an affiliate of Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Trimaran Capital Partners, LLC. ITC will continue to provide transmission services to the Energy Distribution business at rates that will be recovered from Detroit Edison’s utility customers.

Weather and economic factors affect our sales and revenues. Similar to the Power Generation business, 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. Power Distribution’s sales are not dependent upon a limited number of customers. Although customers participating in the electric Customer Choice program do not impact the total number of Power Distribution customers, they do impact operating revenues. Electric Choice customers currently pay a lower distribution rate than full service customers. Accordingly, customers participating in the electric Customer Choice program unfavorably affect revenues. Detroit Edison filed a

14


Table of Contents

rate restructuring proposal in February 2005 to eliminate this intra class rate subsidy (Note 4). The loss of any one or a few customers is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Power Distribution.

     
 
   
 
                         
(in thousands of MWh)   2004     2003     2002  
Electric Deliveries
                       
Residential
    15,081       15,074       15,958  
Commercial
    13,425       15,942       18,395  
Industrial
    11,472       12,254       13,590  
Wholesale
    2,197       2,241       2,249  
Other
    401       402       403  
 
                 
 
    42,576       45,913       50,595  
Electric Choice
    9,245       6,193       2,967  
Electric Choice – Self Generators*
    595       1,088       543  
 
                 
Total Electric Deliveries
    52,416       53,194       54,105  
 
                 
 
                       
 


* Represents deliveries for self generators who have purchased power from alternative energy suppliers to supplement their power requirements.

Regulation

Detroit Edison’s Power Distribution is subject to the jurisdiction of the MPSC, which has regulatory authority over rates, conditions of service and other operating-related matters. As previously discussed, Michigan legislation prevents Detroit Edison from increasing rates to residential customers through 2005 and prevented rate increases for small business customers through 2004.

In January 2004, the MPSC issued an order adopting rules governing service quality and reliability standards for electric distribution systems. The reliability standards establish performance levels for service restoration, wire-down relief requests, customer call answer time, customer complaint response, meter reading and new service installations. The order also establishes penalties for delays in service restoration during normal conditions, catastrophic storms and repetitive outages. Detroit Edison is required to file an annual report providing information regarding performance against the measures provided and any penalties incurred.

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 MPSC also authorized the recovery of approximately $385 million in regulatory assets, including stranded costs. The final order addressed numerous issues relating to regulatory assets, including the actual amounts recoverable and the recovery mechanism.

See Note 4 – Regulatory Matters for additional information regarding the 2004 rate orders and our regulatory environment.

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 are working with the State of Michigan and others to increase the share of funding allocated to our customers to be representative of the number of low-income individuals in our service territory.

15


Table of Contents

Properties

Detroit Edison owns and operates 667 distribution substations with a capacity of approximately 31,381,500 kilovolt-amperes (kVA) and approximately 415,000 line transformers with a capacity of approximately 24,792,000 kVA. Substantially all of the net utility properties of Detroit Edison are subject to the lien of its mortgage. Circuit miles of distribution lines owned and in service as of December 31, 2004 are as follows:

     
 
   
 
                 
Electric Distribution      
    Circuit Miles  
Operating Voltage-Kilovolts (kV)   Overhead     Underground  
4.8 kV to 13.2 kV
    28,060       12,929  
24 kV
    101       690  
40 kV
    2,322       326  
120 kV
    70       13  
 
           
 
    30,553       13,958  
 
           
 
               
 

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 and connect to neighboring energy companies.

Strategy and Competition

Our strategy focuses on improving reliability, restoration time and the quality of customer service and lowering operating costs by improving operating efficiencies. We also are targeting capital investments in areas that have the greatest impact on reliability improvements with the goal of managing distribution rates charged to utility customers.

The decision to sell ITC was consistent with our strategic view that maximization of shareholder value and high levels of customer service are best achieved with assets that we own, operate and over which we exercise significant control. By FERC order, rates charged by ITC 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.

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.

Distributed Generation

Description

Distributed Generation, primarily consisting of DTE Energy Technologies (Dtech), invests in emerging technologies that complement our existing businesses. We currently have businesses that develop, assemble, market, distribute and service distributed generation products, provide application engineering, and monitor and manage system operations.

In 2004, Dtech revised its strategy to reduce the losses that occurred in the development phase of the business over the past four years. As a result, we closed most of our sales offices and created two regional selling offices, located in Southern California and in Michigan. These offices will concentrate on higher-margin sales. Additionally, Dtech’s organization was reduced and realigned to be more efficient.

16


Table of Contents

Also in 2004, Dtech purchased the assets of the developer and assembler of its continuous duty products ranging from 75kW to 150kW.

The above changes, along with reduction of Dtech’s operating expenses, are expected to improve the financial performance of this business.

Strategy and Competition

Our goal is to become a profitable participant in the emerging distributed generation market, providing one-stop shopping that meets customers’ total energy needs. Our strategy is to increase focus on our proprietary pre-engineered and packaged continuous duty generation products.

Competition in the distributed generation business comes from distributors and manufacturers of stand-by and continuous duty generators. The success of this business depends on the continued development of new products, refinement of existing products, the expansion of customer acceptance of continuous duty distributed generation, and our ability to execute our plans.

ENERGY GAS

Utility – Gas Distribution

Description

Gas Distribution operations primarily consist of MichCon, our gas utility. Gas Distribution provides gas sales and transportation delivery services to 1.2 million residential, commercial and industrial customers located throughout Michigan.

Gas Distribution makes gas sales primarily to residential and small-volume commercial and industrial customers. It provides end user transportation to large-volume commercial and industrial customers and gas Customer Choice customers who purchase natural gas directly from other suppliers and utilize MichCon’s pipeline network to transport the gas to the customers’ facilities. Gas Distribution provides intermediate transportation to producers, brokers and other gas companies that own the natural gas transported, but are not the ultimate consumers. MichCon’s revenues and net income are impacted by weather and are concentrated in the first and fourth quarters of the year due to heating-related demand. MichCon’s operations are not dependent upon a limited number of customers, and the loss of any one or a few customers is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on MichCon.

The following table details sales and deliveries to these customers.

     
 
   
 
                         
(in Millions)   2004     2003     2002  
Gas Revenues
                       
Gas Sales
  $ 1,435     $ 1,242     $ 1,135  
End-user Transportation
    119       136       122  
Intermediate Transportation
    56       51       48  
Other
    72       69       64  
 
                 
 
  $ 1,682     $ 1,498     $ 1,369  
 
                 
(in Bcf)
                       
Gas Deliveries
                       
Gas Sales
    173       181       174  
End-user Transportation
    145       152       171  
Intermediate Transportation
    536       576       492  
 
                 
 
    854       909       837  
 
                 
 

17


Table of Contents

We obtain our natural gas supply from various sources in different geographic areas under agreements that vary in both pricing and terms. Supply under contract represents approximately 58% of the expected 188 Bcf of supply requirements in 2005. We expect to meet the balance of gas supply requirements through open market purchases. We expect that 20% of our 2005 purchases will be under fixed-price contracts, with the remaining 80% acquired at prevailing market prices. As a result of varying demand primarily due to weather, MichCon may use existing gas in inventory to meet unanticipated customer obligations. Given the geographic diversity of supply, coupled with its 124 Bcf of storage capacity, MichCon believes it can meet the supply requirements for customers. MichCon has long-term firm transportation agreements expiring on various dates through 2011 for delivery of purchased natural gas to our distribution system.

Regulation

MichCon is 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 operating-related matters. MichCon is 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.

Under the December 2001 MPSC order, MichCon returned to a gas cost recovery (GCR) mechanism, effective January 2002. Under this mechanism, MichCon’s gas sales rates include a gas commodity component designed to recover its actual gas costs and therefore does not have a commodity price risk for prudently incurred gas costs.

In September 2003, MichCon filed an application with the MPSC for an increase in service and distribution charges (base rates) for its gas sales and transportation customers. The filing requests an overall increase in base rates of $194 million per year (approximately 7% increase, inclusive of gas costs), beginning January 1, 2005. In September 2004, the MPSC issued an order granting interim rate relief of $35 million annually to MichCon. A final order is expected in the first quarter of 2005.

See Note 4 - Regulatory Matters, for additional information regarding the September 2004 interim rate order and our regulatory environment.

Energy Assistance Programs

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 expenses.

As previously discussed, we are working with the State of Michigan and others to increase the share of funding allocated to our customers to be representative of the number of low-income individuals in our service territory.

18


Table of Contents

Properties

MichCon owns distribution, transmission and storage properties and facilities that are all located in the State of Michigan. At December 31, 2004, MichCon’s distribution system included approximately 18,000 miles of distribution mains, approximately 1,164,000 service lines and approximately 1,275,000 active meters. MichCon owns approximately 2,600 miles of transmission lines that deliver natural gas to the distribution districts and interconnect its storage fields with the sources of supply and the market areas. MichCon owns properties relating to four underground natural gas storage fields with an aggregate working gas storage capacity of approximately 124 Bcf. Substantially all of the net utility properties of MichCon are subject to the lien of its mortgage.

Strategy and Competition

The strategy of the Gas Distribution business is to expand our role as the preferred provider of natural gas in Michigan. As a result of more efficient furnaces and appliances, we expect future sales volumes to remain at current levels or slightly decline. To offset these factors, we plan to expand our gas markets and to continue providing energy-related services that capitalize on our expertise, capabilities and efficient systems.

Competition in the gas business primarily involves other natural gas providers, alternate fuels and energy sources. Natural gas continues to be the preferred space and water-heating fuel. Developers select natural gas in new construction because of the convenience, cleanliness and relative price advantage compared to propane, fuel oil and other alternative fuels.

Gas Production

Description

The Gas Production business is engaged in natural gas exploration, development and production. Gas Production owns one of the industry’s largest Antrim gas reserve bases predominantly located in the northern portion of the lower peninsula of Michigan. Our emphasis is on developing and producing the 335.4 Bcfe of proven reserves we owned as of December 31, 2004. We drilled 79 wells (67.3 net of interest of others) in 2004 with a success rate of 99%. Wells drilled in the Antrim shale have high success rates and low drilling costs, and are therefore considered low risk.

Gas Production is also involved in unconventional drilling opportunities outside of the State of Michigan that leverage our gas production capabilities and the skills and the experience of our other non-utility businesses. During 2004, Gas Production acquired 55,792 leasehold acres (48,857 net of interest of others) in the southern region of the Barnett shale in Texas, an area of increasing production. We currently have 7.9 Bcfe of proven reserves in the Barnett shale as of December 31, 2004. We began drilling 3 new wells (1.7 net of interest of others) in December 2004 and anticipate drilling additional wells, including test wells, in the first half of 2005. Initial results from the test wells are expected in mid-2005. If the results are successful, we could commit from $250 million to $500 million of capital over the next several years to develop these properties.

19


Table of Contents

Properties

Gas Production owns interests in the following producing wells and acreage as of December 31.

     
 
   
 
                                                 
    2004     2003     2002  
    Gross     Net*     Gross     Net*     Gross     Net*  
Producing Wells and Acreage
                                               
Producing Wells
                                               
Antrim shale
    1,878       1,523       1,814       1,471       1,728       1,388  
Barnett shale
    5       1                          
 
                                   
 
    1,883       1,524       1,814       1,471       1,728       1,388  
 
                                   
 
                                               
Developed Lease Acreage
                                               
Antrim shale
    266,064       213,959       262,321       212,067       261,823       219,675  
Barnett shale
    1,262       316                          
 
                                   
 
    267,326       214,275       262,321       212,067       261,823       219,675  
 
                                   
 
                                               
Undeveloped Lease Acreage
                                               
Antrim shale
    92,328       79,025       94,866       81,133       86,050       69,977  
Barnett shale
    54,530       48,541                          
 
                                   
 
    146,858       127,566       94,866       81,133       86,050       69,977  
 
                                   
 
                                               
 


* Excludes the interest of others.

The Antrim shale properties had 22.5 Bcfe of production in 2004. Gas Production expects to maintain its 335.4 Bcfe of proven reserves at December 31, 2004 by developing its acreage, thereby adding new reserves in low risk areas.

If Barnett shale test wells prove successful, Gas Production expects to substantially increase its proven reserves by investing a significant level of capital through 2008 to develop these properties.

Strategy

The Gas Production business is aggressively managing its Michigan gas producing assets to maximize returns on investment and increase earnings. We have operator responsibilities for our Michigan properties with the goal of optimizing the cost of producing reserves and adding additional reserves. During 2005, Gas Production plans to further develop and produce its Antrim shale acreage and wells.

In order to leverage our gas production capabilities and the skills and experience of other non-utility businesses, we plan to continue investing in unconventional drilling opportunities outside of Michigan such as the Barnett shale.

Gas Storage, Pipelines & Processing

Description

The Gas Storage, Pipelines & Processing business has partnership interests in an interstate transmission pipeline, Vector Pipeline (Vector), seven carbon dioxide processing facilities and a 9.7 Bcf natural gas storage field. Additionally, we lease through 2029 a 60.5 Bcf natural gas storage field located in Michigan.

20


Table of Contents

Properties

     
 
   
 
                 
Gas Storage,Pipelines & Processing              
Property Classification   % Owned     Description   Location
Pipelines
               
Vector Pipeline
    40 %   348-mile pipeline with 1,000 MMcf per day capacity   Midwest
 
               
Processing Plants
    90 %   197 MMcf per day capacity   Northern Michigan
 
               
Storage
               
Washington 28
    50 %   9.7 Bcf of storage capacity   Washington Twp, MI
Washington 10
  Leased   60.5 Bcf of storage capacity   Washington Twp, MI
 
 

Strategy and Competition

Gas Storage, Pipelines & Processing focuses on opportunities in the Midwest-to-Northeast region that 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 capacity and gas storage 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 Energy Gas’ significant storage capacity. Gas Storage, Pipelines & Processing has interests in seven processing plants that extract carbon dioxide from Antrim gas production making it suitable for transportation to nearby markets. Additionally, we have contract rights in natural gas storage fields, capable of storing up to 70.2 Bcf. We plan to continue identifying asset opportunities related to natural gas storage and transmission and working with other DTE Energy affiliates to secure the market required to support asset investment. One of those opportunities is Millennium Pipeline, which we have a 10.5% interest in. Upon securing market support, the Millennium Pipeline could be in-service in the 2006-2007 timeframe and would be able to transport up to 500 MMcf per day of gas originating from our Michigan storage facilities to the higher value markets in New York.

CORPORATE & OTHER

Description

Corporate & Other includes various corporate support functions such as accounting, legal and information technology. These functions essentially support the entire company and the related costs are fully allocated to the various segments based on services utilized. Additionally, Corporate & Other holds certain non-utility debt and investments in emerging energy technologies, including assets held for sale.

Strategy and Competition

Our energy technology venture fund strategy is to invest in a profitable portfolio of energy technology companies that facilitate the creation of new businesses, and expand growth opportunities for existing DTE Energy 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 technology companies and venture funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

We are subject to extensive environmental regulation. Additional costs may result as the effects of various chemicals on the environment are studied and governmental regulations are developed and implemented. We expect to continue recovering environmental costs related to utility operations through

21


Table of Contents

rates charged to our customers. Greater details on environmental issues are provided in the following Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements:

     
Note   Title
 
4
  Regulatory Matters
5
  Nuclear Operations
13
  Commitments and Contingencies

Detroit Edison

Detroit Edison is subject to applicable permit requirements, and to potentially increased stringent federal, state and local standards covering, among other things, particulate and gaseous stack emission limitations, the discharge of wastewater into lakes and streams and the handling and disposal of waste material.

Air - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ozone transport and acid rain regulations and, in December 2003, proposed additional emission regulations relating to ozone, fine particulate and mercury air pollution. The new rules would lead to additional controls on fossil-fueled power plants to reduce nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions. To comply with existing requirements, Detroit Edison has spent approximately $580 million through December 2004 and estimates that it will spend up to $100 million in 2005. Detroit Edison will incur from $700 million to $1.3 billion of additional future capital expenditures over the next five to eight years to satisfy both the existing and proposed new control requirements.

The EPA initiated 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, the Court stayed the implementation of the regulations 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.

Water - 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 several years, Detroit Edison may be required to install additional control technologies to reduce the environmental impact of the intakes. Detroit Edison estimates that it will incur up to $50 million over the next five to seven years in additional capital expenditures to comply with these requirements.

Contaminated Sites - Detroit Edison conducted remedial investigations at contaminated sites, including two former manufactured gas plant (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 $8 million, which is expected to be incurred over the next several years. As a result of the investigation, Detroit Edison accrued an $8 million liability during 2004.

MichCon and Citizens

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. DTE Enterprises (MichCon and Citizens, a wholly owned gas utility located in Adrian, Michigan) owns, or previously owned, 18 such former MGP sites. Investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing at each site. Enterprises is remediating eight of the former MGP sites and conducting more extensive investigations at five other former MGP sites. Enterprises received Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) closure of one site and a determination that it is not a

22


Table of Contents

responsible party for three other sites. Enterprises also received a closure from the EPA in 2002 for one site. While we cannot make any assurances, we believe that a cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism approved by the MPSC will prevent these 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. Our 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.

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.

Michigan’s electric Customer Choice program is negatively impacting our financial performance. Even with the Customer Choice-related rate relief received in Detroit Edison’s 2004 rate orders, there continues to be considerable financial risk associated with the Customer Choice program. Choice migration is sensitive to market price, transition charges and electric bundled price increases.

Weather significantly affects our utility 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.

Our electric utility continues to be negatively affected by competition. Deregulation and restructuring in the electric industry has resulted in increased competition and unrecovered costs that have affected and may continue to affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We are a regulated public utility, and this regulation has hindered our ability to retain customers in a competitive marketplace.

We are subject to rate regulation. We operate in a regulated industry. Our electric and gas rates 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.

Our ability to utilize Section 29 tax credits may be limited. We have generated Section 29 tax credits from our synfuel, coke battery, biomass and gas production operations. We have received favorable private letter rulings on all of our synfuel facilities. All Section 29 tax credits taken after 1997 are subject to audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If our Section 29 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

23


Table of Contents

generated may be affected by new tax legislation. Moreover, Section 29 tax credits related to generation of synfuels expire at the end of 2007. The combination of overall industry audits of Section 29 tax credits, supply and demand for investment in credit producing activities and new tax 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 our synfuel facilities.

In addition, the value of a Section 29 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, which in recent years has been $3 - - $4 lower than the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) price for light, sweet crude oil.

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. A credit agency currently has a “negative outlook” on our ratings. While credit ratings reflect the opinions of the credit agencies issuing such 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.

Regional and national economic conditions may unfavorably impact 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 because of our emission of gases that may cause changes in the climate. The regulatory environment is subject to significant change and, therefore, we cannot predict future issues.

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 all 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 Detroit Edison to significant additional risks. These risks among others, include plant security, environmental regulation and remediation, and operational factors that can significantly impact the performance and cost of operating a nuclear facility. While Detroit Edison maintains 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.

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 fluctuation and coal and other fuel supply disruptions could have a negative impact on our ability to profitably generate electricity. Our

24


Table of Contents

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 distributed generation products and other non-utility businesses that compete with utilities and alternative energy suppliers.

A work interruption may adversely affect us. Unions represent a majority of our employees. A union choosing to strike as a negotiating tactic would have an impact on our business.

Unplanned power plant outages may be costly. Unforeseen maintenance may be required to safely produce electricity or comply with environmental regulations. Our financial performance may be negatively affected if we are unable to recover such increased costs.

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.

We rely on cash flows from subsidiaries. Cash flows from 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 dividends and interest would be restricted.

Property tax reform may be costly. We are one of the largest payers of property taxes in the State of Michigan. Should the legislature change how schools are financed, we could face increased property taxes on our Michigan facilities.

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 terrorist groups would impact our operations. We have increased security as a result of recent events and further security increases are expected.

Failure to successfully implement new information systems could interrupt our operations. Our businesses depend on numerous information systems for operations and financial information and billings. We are in the process of launching the first phase of our DTE2 project, a multiyear Company-wide initiative to improve existing processes and implement new core information systems. Failure to successfully implement DTE2 and other new systems could interrupt our operations.

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. A decline in the confidence in the energy trading market along with stricter credit requirements has led to a decrease in the number of trading entities resulting in decreased liquidity in the energy trading market. Also, in certain situations we may be required to post collateral to support trading operations.

25


Table of Contents

EMPLOYEES

The table below shows our employees as of December 31, 2004:

     
 
   
 
                         
    Represented     Non-represented     Total  
Detroit Edison
    3,918       3,920       7,838  
MichCon
    1,479       797       2,276  
Other
    264       829       1,093  
 
                 
Total
    5,661       5,546       11,207  
 
                 
 
                       
 

There are several bargaining units for our represented employees. Approximately 4,500, or approximately 79% of our represented employees are under three year contracts that were ratified in 2004. The contracts of the remaining represented employees expire in 2005.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF DTE ENERGY

     
 
   
 
                 
                Present
                Position
Name   Age (1)   Present Position   Held Since
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
    55     Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive   8-1-98
                    Officer, Chief Operating Officer    
Gerard M. Anderson
    46     President, DTE Energy   6-23-04
          Group President, Energy Resources   5-31-01
Robert J. Buckler
    55     Group President, Energy Distribution   5-31-01
Stephen E. Ewing
    60     Group President, Energy Gas   5-31-01
David E. Meador
    47     Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   6-23-04
S. Martin Taylor
    64     Executive Vice President   6-23-04
Ron A. May
    53     Senior Vice President   1-22-04
Bruce D. Peterson
    48     Senior Vice President and General Counsel   6-25-02
Susan M. Beale
    56     Vice President and Corporate Secretary   12-11-95
Daniel G. Brudzynski
    44     Vice President and Controller   2-8-01
 
               
 


(1)   As of December 31, 2004

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 and Peterson, 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 group president for DTE Energy Gas on 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.

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.

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

26


Table of Contents

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 seven insurance policies providing aggregate coverage in the amount of $165 million.

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.

For additional discussion on legal matters, see the following Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements:

     
Note   Title
4
  Regulatory Matters
5
  Nuclear Operations
13
  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 2004.

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. 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:

27


Table of Contents

     
 
   
 
                                 
                            Dividends  
                            Paid  
Calendar   Quarter   High     Low     Per Share  
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  
 
                               
2003
                               
 
  First   $ 49.50     $ 38.51     $ 0.515  
 
  Second   $ 44.95     $ 38.52     $ 0.515  
 
  Third   $ 38.98     $ 34.00     $ 0.515  
 
  Fourth   $ 39.76     $ 35.12     $ 0.515  
 
                               
 

At December 31, 2004, there were 174,209,034 shares of our common stock outstanding. These shares were held by a total of 99,832 shareholders of record.

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 Share for information concerning the Shareholders’ Rights Agreement.

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. See Note 9 – Long-Term Debt and Preferred Securities for possible restrictions on the payment of dividends.

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 Compensation for additional detail. See below for information as of December 31, 2004.

     
 
   
 
                         
                    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
    6,706,669     $ 40.57       7,518,702  
 
                       
 

28


Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following selected financial data should be read with the accompanying Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Notes.

     
 
   
 
                                         
    2004     2003     2002     2001 (1)     2000  
(in Millions, except per share amounts)                                        
Operating Revenues
  $ 7,114     $ 7,041     $ 6,729     $ 5,787     $ 4,638  
Net Income
                                       
Utility operations
  $ 170     $ 281     $ 418     $ 198     $ 427  
Non-utility operations
    283       256       224       166       77  
Corporate & Other
    (10 )     (57 )     (56 )     (55 )     (36 )
 
                             
Total from continuing operations
    443       480       586       309       468  
Discontinued operations (2)
    (12 )     68       46       20        
Cumulative effect of accounting changes (3)
          (27 )           3        
 
                             
Net Income
  $ 431     $ 521     $ 632     $ 332     $ 468  
 
                             
Diluted Earnings Per Share
                                       
Utility operations
  $ 0.98     $ 1.67     $ 2.53     $ 1.29     $ 2.99  
Non-utility operations
    1.63       1.52       1.36       1.08       .53  
Corporate & Other
    (.06 )     (.34 )     (.34 )     (.36 )     (.25 )
 
                             
Total from continuing operations
    2.55       2.85       3.55       2.01       3.27  
Discontinued operations (2)
    (.06 )     .40       .28       .13        
Cumulative effect of accounting changes (3)
          (.16 )           .02        
 
                             
Diluted Earnings Per Share
  $ 2.49     $ 3.09     $ 3.83     $ 2.16     $ 3.27  
 
                             
 
                                       
Financial Information
                                       
Dividends declared per share of common stock
  $ 2.06     $ 2.06     $ 2.06     $ 2.06     $ 2.06  
Total assets
  $ 21,297     $ 20,753     $ 19,985     $ 19,587     $ 13,350  
Long-term debt, including capital leases
  $ 7,606     $ 7,669     $ 7,803     $ 7,928     $ 4,039  
Shareholders’ equity
  $ 5,548     $ 5,287     $ 4,565     $ 4,589     $ 4,009  
 
                                       
 


(1)   Includes the acquisition of the Gas Utility business and other non-utility gas businesses on May 31, 2001.
(2)   Includes discontinued operations associated with International Transmission Company and Southern Missouri Gas Company. See Note 3.
(3)   Includes the changes in accounting for energy trading activities and asset retirement obligations in 2003, and derivative instruments and hedging activities in 2001. See Notes 2 and 12.

29


Table of Contents

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

OVERVIEW

DTE Energy is a diversified energy company with approximately $7 billion in revenues in 2004 and approximately $21 billion in assets at December 31, 2004. 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 and distribution services throughout southeastern Michigan. Additionally, we have numerous non-utility subsidiaries involved in energy-related businesses predominantly in the Midwest and eastern U.S.

A significant portion of our earnings is derived from our utility operations, synthetic fuel business, and energy marketing and trading operations. Earnings in 2004 were $431 million, or $2.49 per diluted share, down from 2003 earnings of $521 million, or $3.09 per diluted share. As discussed in the “RESULTS OF OPERATIONS” section that follows, the comparability of earnings was impacted by discontinued businesses and the adoption of new accounting rules. Excluding discontinued operations and the cumulative effect of accounting changes, earnings from continuing operations in 2004 were $443 million, or $2.55 per diluted share, compared to earnings of $480 million, or $2.85 per diluted share for the same 2003 period. Income reflects reduced contributions from our utility operations, partially offset by increased contributions from our non-utility businesses and Corporate & Other. Significant items that influenced our 2004 financial performance and/or may affect future results are:

•   Electric Customer Choice penetration;

•   Electric and gas rate orders;

•   Higher operating costs;

•   Weather;

•   Synfuel-related earnings and the risk of higher oil prices; and

•   Growth of non-utility businesses.

Electric Customer Choice Program - Since 2002, Michigan residents and businesses have had the option of participating in the electric Customer Choice program. This program is designed to give all customers added choices and the opportunity to benefit from lower power costs resulting from competition. However, Detroit Edison’s rates are regulated by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), while alternative suppliers can charge market-based rates. This regulation has hindered Detroit Edison’s ability to retain customers. In addition, the MPSC has maintained regulated rates for certain groups of customers that exceed the cost of service to those customers. This has resulted in high levels of participation in the electric Customer Choice program by those customers that have the highest rates relative to their cost of service, primarily commercial and industrial businesses. As a result, our margins continue to be affected. To address this issue, we filed a revenue neutral rate restructuring proposal in February 2005 designed to adjust rates for each customer class to be reflective of the full costs incurred to service such customers. Under the proposal, Detroit Edison’s commercial and industrial rates would be lowered in 2006, but residential rates would increase over a five-year period beginning in 2007. The number and mix of customers participating in the electric Customer Choice program could be impacted under the rate restructuring.

Lost margins and electricity volumes associated with electric Customer Choice were approximately $237 million and 9,245 gigawatthours (gWh) in 2004. This compares with lost electric Customer Choice margins and volumes of approximately $120 million and 6,193 gWh in 2003. The financial impact of electric Customer Choice was affected by the issuance of electric interim and final rate orders that increased base rates, authorized transition charges and reaffirmed the resumption of the Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) mechanism, as subsequently discussed. Partially offsetting the impact of lost margins on income, we recorded regulatory assets representing stranded costs that we believe are

30


Table of Contents

recoverable under existing Michigan legislation and MPSC orders. There are a number of variables and estimates that impact the level of recoverable stranded costs, including weather, sales mix and transition charges. As a result, our estimate of stranded costs could increase or decrease. As subsequently discussed, the MPSC authorized the recovery of $44 million in stranded costs for the period of January 2002 through February 2004.

Detroit Edison rate orders, along with the rate restructuring proposal, address certain issues with the electric Customer Choice program. However, current regulation continues to hinder our ability to retain certain customers. Accordingly, we will continue working with the MPSC and Michigan legislature to address other issues associated with the electric Customer Choice program.

Electric Rate Orders - In 2000, Public Act (PA) 141 froze electric rates for all residential, commercial and industrial customers through 2003. The legislation also prevented rate increases (or capped rates) for small commercial and industrial customers through 2004 and for residential customers through 2005. The rate freeze and caps apply to base rates as well as rates designed to recover fuel and purchased power costs which has traditionally been a cost pass-through under the power supply cost recovery (PSCR) mechanism.

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 by $115 million in 2004. However, the order allowed Detroit Edison to increase base rates for customers still subject to a cap in an equal and offsetting amount to the change in the PSCR factor to maintain the total capped rate levels in effect for these customers. The MPSC also authorized the recovery of approximately $385 million in regulatory assets, including stranded costs.

As a result of rate caps, regulatory asset adjustments and other factors, the rate orders decreased 2004 earnings by $15 million. The impact of the rate orders is expected to increase earnings in 2005 and 2006 as rate caps expire.

     
 
   
 
         
Effect of Interim and Final Rate Orders      
(in Millions)   2004  
Base Rate Increase and Transition Charges
  $ 154  
PSCR Reduction
    (115 )
 
       
Regulatory Assets
       
Stranded costs adjustment
    (33 )
Regulatory asset deferrals – cessation (1)
    (29 )
 
     
 
       
Pre-Tax Income (Decrease)
  $ (23 )
 
     
 
       
Net Income (Decrease)
  $ (15 )
 
     
 
       
 


(1)   We ceased recording regulatory assets for costs that are reflected in rates pursuant to the MPSC’s 2004 rate orders.

See Note 4 for a further discussion of the MPSC’s interim and final rate orders.

Gas Interim Rate Order - In September 2003, MichCon filed an application with the MPSC for an increase in service and distribution charges (base rates) for its gas sales and transportation customers. The filing requested an overall increase in base rates of $194 million annually (approximately 7% increase, inclusive of gas costs), beginning January 1, 2005. In September 2004, MichCon received an interim order in this rate case authorizing an increase in base rates of $35 million annually, effective September 22, 2004. The interim rate order increased earnings by approximately $6 million in 2004. MichCon expects a final order from the MPSC in the first quarter of 2005.

31


Table of Contents

Operating Costs - During 2004, we experienced increases in operation and maintenance costs, primarily within our electric and gas utilities. The increases were driven by higher costs associated with pension and postretirement benefits and uncollectible accounts receivable.

Pension and postretirement benefits expense totaled $212 million in 2004, compared to $172 million in 2003. The increase is due to financial market performance, lower discount rates and increased health care trend rates. We have made modifications to the pension and postretirement benefit plans to mitigate the earnings impact of higher costs. Additionally, the recoverability of pension and health care benefits costs were part of our electric and gas rate filings. The MPSC approved a pension tracking mechanism in Detroit Edison’s final rate order that provides for the recovery or refunding of pension costs above or below the amount reflected in base rates. The MPSC also required Detroit Edison to propose a similar tracking mechanism for retiree health care costs. Detroit Edison filed a request with the MPSC in February 2005 seeking authority to implement a tracking mechanism for retiree health care costs.

Both utilities continue to experience high levels of past due receivables, especially within our Energy Gas operations. The increase is attributable to economic conditions, high natural gas prices and the lack of adequate levels of assistance for low-income customers. As a result of these factors, our allowance for doubtful accounts expense for the two utilities increased to $105 million in 2004 compared to $76 million for the corresponding 2003 period. We are taking aggressive actions to reduce the level of past due receivables, including 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 MichCon’s current gas rate filing, we addressed numerous operating cost issues, including uncollectible accounts receivable expense. The MPSC Staff supports a provision proposed by MichCon that would allow MichCon to recover or refund 90% of uncollectible accounts receivable expense above or below the amount that is reflected in base rates. We support the MPSC Staff’s recommendation and believe the provision would significantly reduce our risk of high uncollectible gas accounts receivable.

To partially address this issue of rising costs, we continue to employ the DTE Energy Operating System, which is the application of tools and practices to obtain operating efficiencies and enhance operating performance. We are targeting over $100 million in savings during 2005 through the application of Operating System principles.

Weather - Earnings in our electric and gas utilities are seasonal and sensitive to weather. Electric utility earnings are dependent on hot summer weather, while the gas utility’s results are driven by cold winter weather. We experienced both milder summer and winter weather during 2004, which negatively impacted sales demand. The lower demand reduced current year earnings by $27 million compared to 2003.

Additionally, we occasionally experience various types of storms that damage our electric distribution infrastructure resulting in power outages. The impact of storms on our current year earnings was significantly lower than in 2003, which was affected by several catastrophic wind and ice storms, as well as by the August 2003 blackout. Restoration and other costs associated with storm-related power outages lowered 2004 pretax earnings by $48 million compared to $72 million in 2003.

Synthetic Fuel Operations - We operate nine synthetic fuel production plants at eight locations. Since 2002, we have sold majority interests in eight of the nine plants, representing approximately 92% of our total production capacity. Synfuel facilities chemically change coal, including waste and marginal coal, into a synthetic fuel as determined under applicable Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code provides tax credits for the production and sale of solid synthetic fuel produced from coal. Synfuel-related tax credits expire in December 2007.

Operating expenses associated with synfuel projects exceed operating revenues and therefore generate operating losses, which have been more than offset by the resulting Section 29 tax credits. In order to

32


Table of Contents

recognize Section 29 tax credits, a taxpayer must have sufficient taxable income in the year the tax credit is generated. Once earned, the tax credits are utilized subject to certain limitations but can be carried forward indefinitely. We have not had sufficient taxable income to fully utilize tax credits earned in prior periods. As of December 2004, we had $483 million in tax credit carry-forwards. In order to optimize income and cash flow from our synfuel operations, we have sold majority interests in eight of our nine facilities and intend to sell a majority interest in the remaining plant during 2005, representing 99% of our production capacity. When we sell an interest in a synfuel project, we recognize the gain from such sale as the facility produces and sells synfuel and when there is persuasive evidence that the sales proceeds have become fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured. Gain recognition is dependent on the synfuel production qualifying for Section 29 tax credits and the value of such credits as subsequently discussed. 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 Section 29 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. Additionally, the value of the 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, which in recent years has been $3 — $4 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 2003, 2004 and 2005 are as follows:

     
 
   
 
                         
            Beginning Phase-Out     Ending Phase-Out  
    Reference Price     Price     Price  
2003 (actual)
  $ 27.56     $ 50.14     $ 62.94  
2004 (estimated)
  $ 37.61     $ 51.34     $ 64.45  
2005 (estimated)
  Not Available   $ 52.37     $ 65.74  
 
 

Numerous recent events have significantly increased domestic crude oil prices, including terrorism, storm-related supply disruptions and strong worldwide demand. As of February 1, 2005, the NYMEX closing price of a barrel of oil to be delivered in March 2005 was $47.12, which is comparable to a $43.47 Reference Price (assuming that such price was to continue for an entire year). For 2005 and later years, if the Reference Price falls within or exceeds the phase-out range, the availability of tax credits in that year would be reduced or eliminated, respectively.

As previously discussed, until the gain recognition criteria is met, gains from selling interests in synfuel facilities will be 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.

As discussed in Notes 12 and 13, we have entered into derivative and other contracts to economically hedge approximately 65% of our 2005 synfuel cash flow exposure related to the risk of an increase in oil prices. We are continuing to evaluate the current volatility in oil prices and alternatives available to mitigate our unhedged exposure to oil prices as part of our synfuel-related risk management strategy.

Assuming no synfuel tax credit phase out in future years, we expect cash flow from our synfuel business to total approximately $1.6 billion between 2005 and 2008. The source of synfuel cash flow includes cash from operations, asset sales, and the utilization of Section 29 tax credits carried forward from synfuel production prior to 2004.

Non-utility Growth - During 2004, we continued to experience growth in our non-utility businesses with income reaching $283 million compared to $256 million in 2003. The improvement primarily reflects increased contributions in our Energy Marketing & Trading segment, primarily due to a one-time contract gain. Additionally, non-utility growth in 2004 is attributable to increased earnings from our synfuels, coke

33


Table of Contents

batteries and on-site energy projects. Also affecting the year over year comparison are asset gains, losses and impairments during 2004 and 2003 as subsequently discussed.

Outlook - We made significant progress during the past year on our 2004 corporate priorities, which included:

•   Successful rate case outcomes;

•   Addressing structural issues with the electric Customer Choice program;

•   Continuing sell-down of synfuel portfolio;

•   Continuing non-utility growth momentum; and

•   Maintaining cash and balance sheet strength.

Our long-term strategy has not changed and in 2005 we will focus on maintaining a strong utility base, pursuing a unique growth strategy focused on value creation in targeted markets, maintaining a strong balance sheet and paying an attractive dividend. The impact of the rate orders is expected to increase utility earnings in 2005 and 2006 as rate caps expire.

Our financial performance will be dependent on successfully redeploying an expected $1.65 billion of cash flow through 2008, primarily associated with proceeds from the sale of interests in synfuel facilities. Our objective for cash redeployment is to strengthen the balance sheet and coverage ratios, as well as replace the value of synfuels that is currently inherent in our share price. We will first use our cash to reduce parent company debt. Secondly, we will continue to pursue growth investments that meet our strict risk-return and value creation criteria. Lastly, share repurchases will be used to build share value if adequate investment opportunities are not available.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

We had earnings of $431 million in 2004, or $2.49 per diluted share, compared to earnings of $521 million, or $3.09 per diluted share in 2003 and earnings of $632 million, or $3.83 per diluted share in 2002. As subsequently discussed, the comparability of earnings was impacted by our two discontinued businesses, International Transmission Company and Southern Missouri Gas Company, and the adoption of two new accounting rules in 2003. Excluding discontinued operations and the cumulative effect of accounting changes, our earnings from continuing operations in 2004 were $443 million, or $2.55 per diluted share, compared to earnings of $480 million, or $2.85 per diluted share in 2003 and earnings of $586 million, or $3.55 per diluted share in 2002. The following sections provide a detailed discussion of our segments, operating performance and future outlook.

Segment Performance & Outlook – Through 2004, we operated our businesses through three strategic business units (Energy Resources, Energy Distribution and Energy Gas). Each business unit had utility and non-utility operations. The balance of our business consisted of Corporate & Other. This resulted in the following reportable segments. In 2005, we expect to realign our business units as discussed in Note 1.

     
 
   
 
                         
(in Millions, except per share data)   2004     2003     2002  
Net Income (Loss)
                       
Energy Resources
                       
Utility — Power Generation
  $ 62     $ 235     $ 241  
 
                 
Non-utility
                       
Energy Services
    188       199       182  
Energy Marketing & Trading
    92       45       25  
Other
    1       (2 )     7  
 
                     
Total Non-utility
    281       242       214  
 
                 
 
    343       477       455  
 
                 
 
                       
Energy Distribution
                       
Utility — Power Distribution
    88       17       111  

34


Table of Contents

                         
(in Millions, except per share data)   2004     2003     2002  
Non-utility
    (19 )     (15 )     (16 )
 
                 
 
    69       2       95  
 
                 
 
                       
Energy Gas
                       
Utility — Gas Distribution
    20       29       66  
Non-utility
    21       29       26  
 
                 
 
    41       58       92  
 
                 
Corporate & Other
    (10 )     (57 )     (56 )
 
                 
 
                       
Income from Continuing Operations
                       
Utility
    170       281       418  
Non-utility
    283       256       224  
Corporate & Other
    (10 )     (57 )     (56 )
 
                 
 
    443       480       586  
Discontinued Operations
    (12 )     68       46  
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes.
          (27 )      
 
                 
Net Income
  $ 431     $ 521     $ 632  
 
                 
 
                       
Diluted Earnings Per Share
                       
Utility
  $ .98     $ 1.67     $ 2.53  
Non-utility
    1.63       1.52       1.36  
Corporate & Other
    (.06 )     (.34 )     (.34 )
 
                 
Income from Continuing Operations
    2.55       2.85       3.55  
Discontinued Operations
    (.06 )     .40       .28  
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes.
          (.16 )      
 
                 
Net Income
  $ 2.49     $ 3.09     $ 3.83  
 
                 
     
 
   
 

ENERGY RESOURCES

Utility — Power Generation

The power generation plants of Detroit Edison comprise our regulated power generation business. Detroit Edison’s numerous fossil plants, its hydroelectric pumped storage plant and its nuclear plant generate electricity. The generated electricity, supplemented with purchased power, is sold principally throughout Michigan and the Midwest to residential, commercial, industrial and wholesale customers.

Factors impacting income: Power Generation earnings decreased $173 million in 2004 and $6 million in 2003, compared to the prior year. As subsequently discussed, these results primarily reflect reduced gross margins and increased operation and maintenance expenses.

35


Table of Contents

     
 
   
 
                         
(in Millions)   2004     2003     2002  
Operating Revenues
  $ 2,210     $ 2,448     $ 2,711  
Fuel and Purchased Power
    868       920       1,048  
 
                 
Gross Margin
    1,342       1,528       1,663  
Operation and Maintenance
    672       628       626  
Depreciation and Amortization
    272       224       331  
Taxes Other Than Income
    147       157       156  
Operating Income
    251       519       550  
Other (Income) and Deductions
    166       149       189  
Income Tax Provision
    23       135       120  
 
                 
Net Income
  $ 62     $ 235     $ 241  
 
                 
 
                       
Operating Income as a Percent of Operating Revenues
    11 %     21 %     20 %
     
 
   
 

Gross margins declined $186 million during 2004 and $135 million in 2003. The declines were due primarily to lost margins from retail customers choosing to purchase power from alternative suppliers under the electric Customer Choice program as well as reduced cooling demand resulting from mild summer weather. As a result of electric Customer Choice penetration, Detroit Edison lost 18% of retail sales in 2004, compared to 12% of such sales during 2003. 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 previously discussed, 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. The rate orders also lowered PSCR revenues, which were partially offset by increased base rate and transition charge revenues.

Weather in 2004 was 3% milder than 2003, resulting in lost margins of $25 million. Weather in 2003 was also milder than the prior year, resulting in lost margins of $114 million. The decline in margins and revenues in 2004 was also due to the allocation of a smaller portion of Detroit Edison’s billings to Power Generation.

(BAR CHART)

Operating revenues and fuel and purchased power costs decreased in 2004 and 2003 reflecting a $1.27 per megawatt hour (MWh) (8%) decline in fuel and purchased power costs during 2004 and a $.64 per MWh (4%) decline during 2003. Fuel and purchased power costs are a pass-through with the reinstatement of the PSCR in 2004, and therefore do 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. The comparison was also

36


Table of Contents

affected by higher costs associated with substitute power purchased to meet customer demand during the August 2003 blackout. We were required to purchase additional power during the 36-day period it took for our generation fleet to return to pre-blackout capacity.

     
 
   
 
                                                 
    2004             2003             2002      
Electric Sales and Use
                                                 
(in Thousands of MWh)
                                               
Retail
    40,379               43,672               48,346          
Wholesale and Other
    8,569               5,600               6,128            
 
                                         
 
    48,948               49,272               54,474            
Internal Use and Line Loss
    3,574               3,248               3,651          
 
                                         
 
    52,522               52,520               58,125            
 
                                         
     
 
   
 
                                                 
Power Generated and Purchased
                                               
(in Thousands of MWh)
                                               
Power Plant Generation
                                               
Fossil
    39,432       75 %     38,052       72 %     39,017       67 %
Nuclear (Fermi 2)
    8,440       16       8,114       16       9,301       16  
 
                                   
 
    47,872       91       46,166       88       48,318       83  
Purchased Power
    4,650       9       6,354       12       9,807       17  
 
                                       
System Output
    52,522       100 %     52,520       100 %     58,125       100 %
 
                                   
 
                                               
Average Unit Cost ($/MWh)
                                               
 
                                               
Generation (1)
  $ 12.98             $ 12.89             $ 12.53          
 
                                         
Purchased Power (2)
  $ 37.06             $ 41.73             $ 39.16          
 
                                         
Overall Average Unit Cost
  $ 15.11             $ 16.38             $ 17.02          
 
                                         
     
 
   
 


(1)   Represents fuel costs associated with power plants.
 
(2)   Includes amounts associated with hedging activities.

Operation and maintenance expense increased $44 million in 2004 and $2 million in 2003. 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, a Company-wide initiative to improve existing processes and to implement new core information systems, including finance, human resources, supply chain and work management. 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 trend rates. Expenses in 2003 were also affected by $5 million in costs associated with the August 2003 blackout.

Depreciation and amortization expense increased $48 million in 2004 and decreased $107 million in 2003. The variations reflect the income effect of recording regulatory assets, which lowered depreciation and amortization expenses. The regulatory asset deferrals totaled $107 million in 2004 and $153 million in 2003, representing net stranded costs and other costs we believe are recoverable under PA 141.

Other income and deductions expense increased $17 million in 2004 and decreased $40 million in 2003. 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. The 2003 decrease is attributable to lower interest expenses and increased interest income. Interest expense reflects lower borrowing levels and rates, and interest income includes the accrual of carrying charges on environmental-related regulatory assets.

Outlook – Future operating results are expected to vary as a result of external factors such as regulatory proceedings, new legislation, changes in market prices of power, coal and gas, plant performance, changes in economic conditions, weather and the levels of customer participation in the electric Customer Choice program.

37


Table of Contents

As previously discussed, 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 addressed. We will accrue as regulatory assets our unrecovered generation-related fixed costs (stranded costs) due to electric Customer Choice that we believe are recoverable under Michigan legislation and MPSC orders. We have addressed certain issues of the electric Customer Choice program in our February 2005 rate restructuring proposal. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

In conjunction with the sale of the transmission assets of ITC in February 2003, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) froze ITC’s transmission rates through December 2004. It is expected that annual rate adjustments pursuant to a formulistic pricing mechanism beginning in January 2005 will result in an estimated increase in Detroit Edison’s transmission expense of $50 million annually. Additionally, in a proceeding before the FERC, several Midwest utilities seek to recover transmission revenues lost as a result of a FERC order modifying the pricing of transmission service in the Midwest. Detroit Edison estimates that its potential obligation as a result of this proceeding could be $2.2 million per month from December 2004 through March 2005 and $1 million per month from April 2005 through March 2006. Detroit Edison is expected to incur an additional $15 million in 2005 for charges related to the implementation of Midwest Independent Transmission Operator’s open market. As previously discussed, Detroit Edison received rate orders in 2004 that allow for the recovery of increased transmission expenses through the PSCR mechanism.

See Note 4 – Regulatory Matters.

Energy Services

Energy Services is comprised of Coal-Based Fuels, On-Site Energy Projects and non-utility Power Generation. Coal-Based Fuels operations include producing synthetic fuel from nine synfuel plants and producing coke from three coke battery plants. The production of synthetic fuel from all of our synfuel plants and the production of coke from one of our coke batteries generate tax credits under Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code. On-Site Energy Projects include pulverized coal injection, power generation, steam production, chilled water production, wastewater treatment and compressed air supply. Power Generation owns and operates four gas-fired peaking electric generating plants and manages and operates two additional gas-fired power plants under contract. Additionally, Power Generation develops, operates and acquires coal and gas-fired generation.

Factors impacting income: Energy Services earnings decreased $11 million in 2004 and increased $17 million in 2003, compared to the prior year. As subsequently discussed, these results primarily reflect higher gains recognized from selling majority interests in our synfuel plants, varying levels of Section 29 tax credits, a gain from contract termination, uncollectible accounts written-off and losses on synfuel hedges.

38


Table of Contents

     
 
   
 
                                 
(in Millions)           2004     2003     2002  
Operating Revenues
                               
Coal-Based Fuels
          $ 980     $ 850     $ 559  
On-Site Energy Projects
            96       70       63  
Power Generation – Non-utility
            13       9       23  
 
                         
 
            1,089       929       645  
Operation and Maintenance Fuel and purchased power
            1,188       1,049       708  
Depreciation and Amortization Fuel and purchased power
            82       84       81  
Taxes other than Income
            15       18       15  
Gain on Sale of Interests in Synfuel Projects
            (219 )     (83 )     (40 )
 
                         
Operating Income (Loss)
            23       (139 )     (119 )
Other (Income) and Deductions
            (17 )     2       4  
Minority Interest
            (212 )     (91 )     (37 )
Income Taxes
                               
Provision (Benefit)
            95       (19 )     (30 )
Section 29 Tax Credits
            (31 )     (230 )     (238 )
 
                         
 
            64       (249 )     (268 )
 
                         
Net Income
          $ 188     $ 199     $ 182  
 
                         
     
 
   
 

Operating revenues increased $160 million in 2004 and $284 million in 2003 reflecting higher synfuel, coal and coke sales, as well as increased revenues from our on-site energy projects.

The improvement in synfuel revenues results from increased production due to additional sales of project interests in 2004 and 2003, reflecting our strategy to produce synfuel primarily from plants in which we had sold interests in order to optimize income and cash flow. As previously discussed, operating expenses associated with synfuel projects exceed operating revenues and therefore generate operating losses, which have been more than offset by the resulting Section 29 tax credits. When we sell an interest in a synfuel project, we recognize the gain from such sale as the facility produces and sells synfuel and when there is persuasive evidence that the sales proceeds to the Company have become fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured. In substance, we are receiving synfuel gains and reduced operating losses in exchange for tax credits associated with the projects sold.

(BAR CHART)

Coal marketing revenues in 2004 have also been affected by our strategy to produce synfuel primarily from plants in which we had sold interests. This strategy resulted in the reduction of synfuel production levels. We were contractually obligated to supply coal to customers at certain sites that did not produce synfuel as a result of our current 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.

39


Table of Contents

Revenues from coke sales were higher in 2004, due to higher coke sales volumes combined with higher market prices, due to limited supplies of coke in the U.S.

Revenues from on-site energy projects increased in 2004, reflecting the 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 maintenance expense increased $139 million in 2004 and $341 million in 2003, reflecting costs associated with synfuel production and coke operations. Partially offsetting the higher synfuel operating costs in 2004 was the recording of insurance proceeds associated with an accident at one of our coke batteries. Operation and maintenance expense in 2003 was affected by a $30 million pre-tax gain from the termination of a tolling agreement at one of our generation facilities, substantially offset by the establishment of a $28 million pre-tax reserve for receivables associated with a large customer that filed for bankruptcy.

Gains on sale of interests in synfuel projects increased $136 million in 2004 and $43 million in 2003. The improvements are due to additional sales of majority interests in our synfuel projects. To 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 covering approximately 65% of our 2005 synfuel cash flow exposure. The derivative contracts are accounted for under the mark to market method with changes in their fair value recorded as an adjustment to synfuel gains. We recorded a mark to market loss during the 2004 fourth quarter, which reduced 2004 synfuel gains by $12 million pre-tax. See Note 12 for further discussion.

Minority interest increased $121 million in 2004 and $54 million in 2003, reflecting our partners’ share of operating losses associated with synfuel operations. The sale of interests in our synfuel facilities during 2004 and 2003 resulted in allocating a larger percentage of such losses to our partners.

Income taxes increased $313 million in 2004 and $19 million in 2003, reflecting higher taxable earnings and a decline in the level of Section 29 tax credits due to the sale of interests in synfuel facilities.

Outlook - Energy Services 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 2005 as a result of executing long-term utility services contracts in 2004.

Energy Marketing & Trading

Energy Marketing & Trading consists of the electric and gas marketing and trading operations of DTE Energy Trading and CoEnergy. DTE Energy Trading focuses on physical power marketing and structured transactions, as well as the enhancement of returns from DTE Energy’s power plants. CoEnergy focuses on physical gas marketing and the optimization of DTE Energy’s owned and contracted natural gas pipelines and gas storage capacity. To this end, both companies enter into derivative financial instruments as part of their marketing and hedging strategies, including forwards, futures, swaps and option contracts. 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.

Factors impacting income: Energy Marketing & Trading’s earnings increased $47 million in 2004, consisting of a $4 million improvement at DTE Energy Trading and a $43 million improvement at CoEnergy. Earnings increased $20 million in 2003, of which $18 million was attributable to DTE Energy Trading and $2 million to CoEnergy.

DTE Energy Trading’s earnings improvement in 2004 and 2003 was primarily due to realized margins associated with short-term physical trading and origination activities.

40


Table of Contents

     
 
   
 
                         
(in Millions)   2004     2003     2002  
DTE Energy Trading
                       
Margins – Gains (Losses)
                       
Realized (1)
  $ 83     $ 82     $ 38  
Unrealized (2):
                       
Proprietary Trading (3)
    (7 )     (7 )      
Structured Contracts (4)
    3       (2 )     13  
Economic Hedges (5)
    1              
 
                 
Total Unrealized Margins
    (3 )     (9 )     13  
 
                 
Total Margins
    80       73       51  
Operating and Other Costs
    29       28       29  
Income Tax Provision
    15       13       8  
 
                 
Net Income
  $ 36     $ 32     $ 14  
 
                 
 
                       
CoEnergy
                       
Margins – Gains (Losses) (7)
                       
Realized (1)
  $ (42 )   $ 168     $ 32  
Unrealized (2):
                       
Proprietary Trading (3)
          4       9  
Structured Contracts (4)
    (1 )     (1 )     22  
Economic Hedges (5)
    68       (138 )     (93 )
Gas in Inventory (6)
                74  
 
                 
Total Unrealized Margins
    67       (135 )     12  
 
                 
Total Margins
    25       33       44  
Gain from Contract Modification / Termination
    (74 )            
Operating and Other Costs
    12       13       27  
Income Tax Provision
    31       7       6  
 
                 
Net Income
  $ 56     $ 13     $ 11  
 
                 
Total Energy Marketing & Trading Net Income
  $ 92     $ 45     $ 25  
 
                 
     
 
   
 


(1)   Realized margins include the settlement of all derivative and non-derivative contracts, as well as the amortization of deferred assets and liabilities.
 
(2)   Unrealized margins include mark-to-market gains and losses on derivative contracts, net of gains and losses reclassified to realized. See “Fair Value of Contracts” section that follows.
 
(3)   “Proprietary Trading” represents the net unrealized effect of actively traded positions entered into to take advantage of market price movements.
 
(4)   “Structured Contracts” represent the net unrealized effect of derivative transactions entered into with the intent to capture profits by originating substantially hedged positions with wholesale energy marketers, utilities, retail aggregators and alternative energy suppliers.
 
(5)   “Economic Hedges” represent the net unrealized effect of derivative activity associated with assets owned or contracted for by DTE Energy, including forward sales of gas production and trades associated with transportation and storage capacity.
 
(6)   Gas in inventory margins represent gains associated with fair value accounting in 2002. CoEnergy changed its method of accounting for inventory in January 2003 (Note 2).
 
(7)   Excludes the impact on margins from the modification of a transportation agreement with an interstate pipeline company.

CoEnergy’s earnings in 2004 and 2003 were affected by varying gains and losses on economic hedge contracts related to storage assets. As subsequently discussed in the “Outlook” section, the unrealized gains and losses of economic hedge contracts are required to be recognized under mark-to-market accounting, while the offsetting unrealized losses and gains on the underlying asset positions are not recognized.

CoEnergy’s earnings in 2004 reflect a $74 million one-time pre-tax gain from modifying a future purchase commitment under a transportation agreement and terminating a related long-term gas exchange (storage) agreement with an interstate pipeline company. 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 realized and unrealized margins comparison for both DTE Energy Trading and CoEnergy was affected by our decision in late 2003 to monetize certain in-the-money derivative contracts while simultaneously entering into replacement at-the-market contracts. The monetizations were completed in conjunction with implementing a series of initiatives to improve cash flow and fully utilize Section 29 tax

41


Table of Contents

credits. Although the monetizations did not impact earnings, they had the effect of decreasing realized margins and increasing unrealized margins on economic hedges in 2004, and having the opposite effect on margins in 2003.

Outlook – Energy Marketing & Trading will seek to manage its business 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.

Significant portions of the Energy Marketing & Trading portfolio are economically hedged. The portfolio includes financial instruments and gas inventory, as well as owned and contracted natural gas pipelines and storage assets. The financial instruments are deemed derivatives, whereas the gas inventory, pipelines and storage assets are not considered derivatives for accounting purposes. As a result, Energy Marketing & Trading 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 runs annually from April of one year to March of the next year. Our strategy is to economically hedge the price risk of all gas purchases for storage with sales in the over-the-counter (forwards) and futures markets. Current accounting rules require the marking to market of forward 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 anticipate the financial impact of this timing difference will reverse by the end of each storage cycle. See “Fair Value of Contracts” section that follows.

Non-utility — Other

Our other non-utility businesses include our Coal Services and Biomass units. Coal Services 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. Coal Services has formed a subsidiary, DTE PepTec Inc., which uses proprietary technology to produce high quality coal products from fine coal slurries typically discarded from coal mining operations. Biomass develops, owns and operates landfill recovery systems in the U.S. Gas produced from many of these landfill sites qualifies for Section 29 tax credits.

Factors impacting income: Earnings increased $3 million in 2004 and declined $9 million in 2003. The 2004 increase reflects higher sales from coal and emissions credits, partially offset by increased costs associated with our waste coal operations. The 2003 decline reflects reduced marketing and tolling income as well as an increase in operating costs associated with ramping up the DTE PepTec business. Our first waste coal facility in Ohio became operational in late 2003.

                         
 
 
                       
(Dollars in Millions)   2004     2003     2002  
Coal Services
                       
Tons of coal shipped (in millions)
    39.9       32.0       28.5  
 
                       
Biomass
                       
Gas Produced (in Bcf)
    23.2       26.8       27.5  
Tax Credits Generated (1)
  $ 7.7     $ 10.5     $ 12.9  
 
                       
 


(1)   DTE Energy’s portion of total tax credits generated.

Outlook – We expect to continue to grow our Coal Services and Biomass units. We believe a substantial market could exist for the use of DTE PepTec Inc. technology and we continue to modify and prove out this technology. Coal Services and Biomass have formed a new subsidiary to enter the coal mine methane business. We purchased coal mine methane assets in Illinois at the end of 2004, and expect to reconfigure equipment and restart operations by mid-2005.

42


Table of Contents

The Section 29 tax credits generated by Biomass are subject to the same phase out risk if domestic crude oil prices reach certain levels, as detailed in the synthetic fuel operations discussion. See Note 13.

ENERGY DISTRIBUTION

Utility — Power Distribution

Power Distribution operations include the electric distribution services of Detroit Edison. Power Distribution distributes electricity generated and purchased by Energy Resources and alternative energy suppliers to Detroit Edison’s 2.1 million customers.

Factors impacting income: Power Distribution earnings increased $71 million during 2004 and decreased $94 million in 2003, compared to the prior year. As subsequently discussed, these results primarily reflect varying operating revenues and operation and maintenance expenses as well as a non-recurring loss recorded in 2003.

                         
 
 
                       
    2004     2003     2002  
(in Millions)                        
Operating Revenues
  $ 1,358     $ 1,247     $ 1,343  
Fuel and Purchased Power
    17       19       26  
Operation and Maintenance
    723       724       649  
Depreciation and Amortization
    251       249       246  
Taxes Other Than Income
    101       100       117  
 
                 
Operating Income
    266       155       305  
Other (Income) and Deductions
    137       128       136  
Income Tax Provision
    41       10       58  
 
                 
Net Income
  $ 88     $ 17     $ 111  
 
                 
 
                       
Operating Income as a Percent of Operating Revenues
    20 %     12 %     23 %
 
                       
 
                         
    2004     2003     2002  
Electric Deliveries                        
(in Thousands of MWh)                        
Residential
    15,081       15,074       15,958  
Commercial
    13,425       15,942       18,395  
Industrial
    11,472       12,254       13,590  
Wholesale
    2,197       2,241       2,249  
Other
    401       402       403  
 
                 
 
    42,576       45,913       50,595  
Electric Choice
    9,245       6,193       2,967  
Electric Choice – Self Generations*
    595       1,088       543  
 
                 
Total Electric Deliveries
    52,416       53,194       54,105  
 
                 
 
                       
 


*   Represents deliveries for self generators who have purchased power from alternative energy suppliers to supplement their power requirements.

Operating revenues increased $111 million in 2004, primarily due to an increase in base rates resulting from the interim and final rate orders. The 2004 improvement is also attributable to residential sales growth and the allocation of a higher portion of Detroit Edison’s billings to Power Distribution, partially offset by the effects of milder weather. Operating revenues decreased $96 million in 2003, reflecting mild summer weather and the impact of slower economic conditions.

Operation and maintenance expense decreased $1 million in 2004 and increased $75 million in 2003. The operation and maintenance expense comparability was affected by 2003 restoration costs associated with three catastrophic storms and the August 2003 blackout. Both years were also affected by an increase in

43


Table of Contents

reserves for uncollectible accounts receivable, reflecting high past due amounts attributable to economic conditions, and an increase in employee benefit costs. Additionally, the comparisons were affected by incremental costs associated with our DTE2 project implementation, a $22 million pre-tax loss in 2003 from the sale of our steam heating business, and the accrual of refunds in 2004 and 2003 associated with transmission services.

(BAR CHART)

Outlook – Operating results are expected to vary as a result of external factors such as weather, changes in economic conditions and the severity and frequency of storms.

We experienced numerous catastrophic storms over the past few years. The effect of the storms on annual earnings was partially offset by storm insurance. We have been unable to obtain storm insurance at economical rates and as a result, we do not anticipate having insurance coverage at levels that would significantly offset unplanned expenses from ice storms, tornadoes, or high winds that damage our distribution infrastructure.

Non-Utility

Non-utility Energy Distribution operations consist of DTE Energy Technologies, which assembles, markets, distributes and services distributed generation products, provides application engineering, and monitors and manages on-site generation system operations.

Factors impacting income: Non-utility results declined $4 million in 2004 and improved $1 million in 2003. The 2004 decrease includes an impairment charge for an “other than temporary” decline in the fair value of an investment in a joint venture that supplied certain distributed generation equipment and materials to DTE Energy Technologies.

Outlook – DTE Energy Technologies will focus on sales of proprietary pre-engineered and packaged continuous generation products in key applications. This will likely result in near-term revenue decline, but we anticipate gross profit margins will improve. Combined with continuing cost reductions and resumption of sales growth, we believe these actions will lead to improved financial performance in 2005.

44


Table of Contents

ENERGY GAS

Utility — Gas Distribution

Gas Distribution operations include gas distribution services primarily provided by MichCon, our gas utility that purchases, stores, distributes and sells natural gas to 1.2 million residential, commercial and industrial customers located throughout Michigan.

Factors impacting income: Gas Distribution’s earnings declined $9 million in 2004 and $37 million in 2003, compared to the prior year. As subsequently discussed, results primarily reflect varying gross margins, higher operation and maintenance expenses and a non-recurring loss recorded in 2003.

                         
 
 
                       
    2004     2003     2002  
(in Millions)                        
Operating Revenues
  $ 1,682     $ 1,498     $ 1,369  
Cost of Gas
    1,071       909       774  
 
                 
Gross Margins
    611       589       595  
Operation and Maintenance
    400       371       297  
Depreciation and Amortization
    103       101       104  
Taxes Other Than Income
    49       52       51  
 
                 
Operating Income
    59       65       143  
Other (Income) and Deductions
    48       36       41  
Income Tax Provision (Benefit)
    (9 )           36  
 
                 
Net Income
  $ 20     $ 29     $ 66  
 
                 
 
                       
Operating Income as a Percent of Operating Revenues
    4 %     4 %     10 %
 
                       
 

Gross margins increased $22 million in 2004 and decreased $6 million in 2003, compared to the prior year. The improvement in 2004 reflects the impact of interim rate relief and additional margin from the acceleration of several midstream services contracts. Partially offsetting these improvements were lower sales and end user transportation deliveries due to milder weather. The 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 gas cost recovery (GCR) plan case (Note 4). Operating revenues and cost of gas increased significantly in 2004 and 2003 reflecting higher gas prices, which are recoverable from customers through the GCR mechanism.

                         
 
 
                       
    2004     2003     2002  
Gas Markets (in Millions)
                       
Gas sales
  $ 1,435     $ 1,242     $ 1,135  
End user transportation
    119       136       122  
 
                 
 
    1,554       1,378       1,257  
Intermediate transportation
    56       51       48  
Other
    72       69       64  
 
                 
 
  $ 1,682     $ 1,498     $ 1,369  
 
                 
 
                       
Gas Markets (in Bcf)
                       
Gas sales
    173       181       174  
End user transportation
    145       152       171  
 
                 
 
    318       333       345  
Intermediate transportation
    536       576       492  
 
                 
 
    854       909       837  
 
                 
 
                       
 

45


Table of Contents

Operation and maintenance expense increased $29 million in 2004 and $74 million in 2003, reflecting 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.

(BAR CHART)

Other income and deductions expense increased $12 million in 2004 and decreased $5 million in 2003, reflecting a 2003 gain on sale of interests in a series of real estate partnerships.

Income taxes in 2004 and 2003 were impacted by lower earnings and favorably affected by an increase in the amortization of tax benefits previously deferred in accordance with MPSC regulations.

Outlook – Operating results are expected to vary as a result of external factors such as regulatory proceedings, weather and changes in economic conditions. Higher gas prices and economic conditions have resulted in an increase in past due receivables. We believe our allowance for doubtful accounts is based on reasonable estimates. However, failure to make continued progress in collecting past due receivables would unfavorably affect operating results. Energy assistance programs funded by the federal government and the State of Michigan remain critical to MichCon’s ability to control uncollectible accounts receivable expenses. We are working with the State of Michigan and others to increase the share of funding allocated to our customers to be representative of the number of low-income individuals in our service territory.

As a result of the continued increase in operating costs, MichCon filed a rate case in September 2003 to increase rates by $194 million annually to address future operating costs and other issues. MichCon received an interim order in this rate case in September 2004 increasing rates by $35 million annually. The MPSC Staff has recommended a provision that would allow MichCon to recover or refund 90% of uncollectible accounts receivable expense above or below the amount that is reflected in base rates. See Note 4 – Regulatory Matters.

Non-utility

Non-utility operations include the Gas Production business and the Gas Storage, Pipelines & Processing business. Our Gas Production business produces gas from proven reserves in northern Michigan and sells the gas to the Energy Marketing & Trading segment. Gas Storage, Pipelines & Processing 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 entities.

Factors impacting income: Earnings decreased $8 million in 2004 and increased $3 million in 2003. The decline in 2004 is due to gains recorded in 2003 from selling our 16% pipeline interest in the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, as well as from selling certain gas properties. Excluding those gains, income increased $2 million reflecting the acquisition of an additional 15% ownership in the Vector

46


Table of Contents

Pipeline in late 2003, increased sales of transportation capacity by Vector Pipeline and increased storage sales throughout 2004.

Outlook – We anticipate further expansion of our storage facilities and Vector pipeline to take advantage of available growth opportunities. We are also seeking to secure markets for our 10.5% interest in the Millennium Pipeline.

We expect to continue developing our gas production properties in northern Michigan and leverage our experience in this area by pursuing investment opportunities in unconventional gas production outside of Michigan. During 2004, we acquired approximately 50,000 leasehold acres in the southern region of the Barnett shale in Texas, an area of increasing production. We began drilling test wells in December 2004 and anticipate drilling a significant number of additional test wells in the first half of 2005. Initial results from the test wells are expected in mid-2005. If the results are successful, we could commit up to $350 million of capital over the next several years to develop these properties.

CORPORATE & OTHER

Corporate & Other includes various corporate support functions such as accounting, legal and information technology. As these functions essentially support the entire Company, their costs are fully allocated to the various segments based on services utilized and therefore the effect of the allocation on each segment can vary from year to year. Additionally, Corporate & Other holds certain non-utility debt and investments, including assets held for sale and in emerging energy technologies.

Factors impacting income: Corporate & Other results improved $47 million in 2004, compared to a $1 million decline in 2003. 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 (Note 1), as well as lower Michigan Single Business Taxes, resulting from tax saving initiatives. Results for 2003 include a $15 million cash contribution to the DTE Energy Foundation, funded with proceeds received from the sale of ITC. Corporate & Other also benefited from lower financing costs and increased intercompany interest income in both periods.

DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

Southern Missouri Gas Company (SMGC) - We own SMGC, a public utility engaged in the distribution, transmission and sale of natural gas in southern Missouri. In 2004, management approved the marketing of SMGC for sale. Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, we classified SMGC as a discontinued operation in 2004 and 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. Following receipt of regulatory approvals and resolution of other contingencies, it is anticipated that the transaction will close in 2005.

International Transmission Company - In February 2003, we sold ITC, our electric transmission business, to affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Trimaran Capital Partners, LLC. Accordingly, we classified ITC as a discontinued operation. The sale generated a preliminary net of tax gain of $63 million in 2003. The gain was net of transaction costs, the portion of the gain 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 revision of the applicable transaction costs and customer refund. We had income from discontinued operations of $5 million in 2003.

See Note 3 for further discussion.

CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ACCOUNTING CHANGES

As required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, on January 1, 2003, we adopted new accounting rules for asset retirement obligations and energy trading activities. The cumulative effect of

47


Table of Contents

adopting these new accounting rules reduced 2003 earnings by $27 million. See Note 2 for further discussion.

CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY

DTE Energy and its subsidiaries require cash to operate and cash 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, in addition to retiring and paying interest on long-term debt and paying dividends. Our strategic direction anticipates base level capital investments and expenditures for existing businesses in 2005 of up to $1.1 billion. The capital needs of our utilities will increase due primarily to environmental related expenditures.

Capital spending for general corporate purposes will increase in 2005, primarily as a result of DTE2 and environmental spending. We began implementing the DTE2 project in 2003. The Company expects the project to incrementally cost approximately $150 million to $175 million.

The EPA ozone transport regulations and final new air quality standards relating to ozone and particulate air pollution will continue to impact us. Detroit Edison estimates that it will spend approximately $100 million in 2005 and incur up to an additional $1.3 billion of future capital expenditures over the next five to eight years to satisfy both existing and proposed new control requirements. The full recovery of $550 million of environmental expenditures was authorized in the MPSC’s November 2004 final rate order.

Non-utility capital spending will approximate $100 million to $300 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 2005, excluding securitization debt, totals approximately $410 million.

We believe that we will have sufficient internal and external capital resources to fund anticipated capital requirements.

48


Table of Contents

                         
 
(in Millions)   2004     2003     2002  
Cash and Cash Equivalents
                       
Cash Flow From (Used For)
                       
Operating activities:
                       
Net income
  $ 431     $ 521     $ 632  
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
    744       691       759  
Deferred income taxes
    129       (220 )     (208 )
Gain on sale of ITC, synfuel and other assets, net.
    (236 )     (228 )     (40 )
Working capital and other
    (73 )     186       (147 )
 
                 
 
    995       950       996  
 
                 
Investing activities:
                       
Plant and equipment expenditures – utility
    (815 )     (679 )     (794 )
Plant and equipment expenditures – non-utility
    (89 )     (72 )     (190 )
Investment in joint ventures
    (36 )     (34 )     (21 )
Proceeds from sale of ITC, synfuels and other assets
    325       758       41  
Restricted cash and other investments
    (66 )     37       (151 )
 
                 
 
    (681 )     10       (1,115 )
 
                 
Financing activities:
                       
Issuance of long-term debt and common stock
    777       571       1,403  
Redemption of long-term debt
    (759 )     (1,208 )     (793 )
Short-term borrowings, net
    33       (44 )     (267 )
Dividends on common stock and other
    (363 )     (358 )     (359 )
 
                 
 
    (312 )     (1,039 )     (16 )
 
                 
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
  $ 2     $ (79 )   $ (135 )
 
                 
 
                       
 

Cash from Operating Activities

A majority of the Company’s operating cash flow is provided by our two utilities, which are significantly influenced by factors such as weather, electric Customer Choice sales loss, 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 vary from our synthetic fuels business, which we believe will provide over $1.6 billion in cash through 2008, to new start-ups. These new start-ups include our unconventional gas and waste coal recovery businesses, which we are growing and, if successful, could require significant investments.

Although DTE Energy’s overall earnings were $431 million in 2004, cash from operations totaling $995 million was up $45 million from the comparable 2003 period. 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.

49


Table of Contents

Our net operating cash flow in 2003 was $950 million, reflecting a $46 million decline from 2002. The decrease was attributable to lower utility net income, after adjusting for non-cash items. Partially offsetting the declines were lower working capital and other requirements reflecting Company initiatives to improve cash flow and optimize synfuel operations. The improvement in 2003 working capital was achieved despite a $222 million contribution to our pension plans.

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 in our synfuel projects. This will be partially offset by higher cash requirements, primarily within our gas storage business. We are continuing our efforts to identify opportunities to improve cash flow through cash improvement initiatives.

Operating cash flow from our utilities is expected to increase in 2005, but will be affected by the level of sales migration under the electric Customer Choice program and the ability of the MPSC within the regulatory processes to put in place a Customer Choice program that has sound economic fundamentals. In addition, the Customer Choice program’s impact will also be determined by the success of the Company in addressing certain structural flaws within additional regulatory proceedings and the legislative process.

Another factor affecting utility cash flows is the degree and timing of rate relief within the electric and gas rate cases. Based on the final and interim orders issued by the MPSC in 2004, approximately $50 million of additional revenues were realized in the 2004 calendar year. Due to the structure of the interim and final rate orders, we will not realize the full benefits of interim and final rate relief until 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 centered around cash generation and conservation.

Cash flows from our synfuel business are expected to total approximately $1.6 billion between 2005 and 2008. The redeployment of this cash represents a unique opportunity to increase shareholder value and strengthen our balance sheet. We expect to use this cash to reduce debt, to continue to pursue growth investments that meet our strict risk-return and value creation criteria and to potentially repurchase common stock if adequate investment opportunities are not available. Our objectives for cash redeployment are to strengthen the balance sheet and coverage ratios in order to improve our current credit ratings and outlook, and to more than replace the value of synfuels.

Cash flows from our synfuel business are expected to approximate $400 million in 2005. The source of synfuel cash flow includes cash from operations (excluding certain working capital changes), asset sales, and the utilization of Section 29 tax credits carried forward from synfuel production prior to 2004.

Our other operating non-utility businesses are expected to contribute approximately $400 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 2004, which will have the impact of lowering cash flow in 2005.

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 harvest 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 some 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

50


Table of Contents

not make investments unless they meet our criteria. For new business lines, we invest tentatively based on research and analysis. Based on 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 determined by the underlying cash flows of the Company with a clear understanding of any potential impact on our credit ratings.

Net cash relating to investing activities declined $691 million in 2004 and improved $1.1 billion in 2003, compared to the prior year. The changes were 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 changes are due to variations in cash contractually designated for debt service.

Longer term, with the expected improvement at our utilities and 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 borrowings and longer-term financings 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.

DTE Energy and its subsidiaries have a total of $1.675 billion in credit facilities, which provide liquidity to our commercial paper programs and support the use of letters of credit.

                 
(in Millions)            
Issuing Entity   Facility Amount     Maturity Date  
 
DTE Energy
  $ 375.00       5/5/2006  
DTE Energy
    175.00       10/24/2006  
DTE Energy
    525.00       10/15/2009  
Detroit Edison
    68.75       10/24/2006  
Detroit Edison
    206.25       10/15/2009  
MichCon
    81.25       10/24/2006  
MichCon
    243.75       10/15/2009  
 
             
 
  $ 1,675.00          
 
             
 
               
 

Borrowings under the facilities are available at prevailing short-term interest rates. The agreements require each of the Companies to maintain a debt to total capitalization ratio of no more than .65 to l and an “earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization” (EBITDA) to interest ratio of no less than 2 to 1. DTE Energy has significant room under these provisions, with coverage totaling 4.3 to 1 and leverage at .489 to 1 at December 31, 2004. The Companies are currently in compliance with these financial covenants. Should either Detroit Edison or MichCon have delinquent debt obligations of at least $25 million to any creditor, such delinquency will be considered a default under DTE Energy’s credit agreements. These agreements have standard material adverse change (MAC) clauses, however, the agreements expiring in October 2009 include a provision that the MAC clause does not apply when borrowings are made to repay maturing commercial paper.

Additionally, Detroit Edison has a $200 million short-term financing agreement secured by customer accounts receivable. The agreement contains certain covenants related to the delinquency of accounts receivable. Detroit Edison is currently in compliance with these covenants.

For additional information see Note 10 — Short-Term Credit Arrangements and Borrowings.

51


Table of Contents

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 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 improved $727 million in 2004 and declined $1.0 billion in 2003, compared to the prior periods. The 2004 change was primarily due to higher issuances of new long and short-term debt and fewer repurchases of long-term debt. The 2003 change was due to higher redemptions of long-term debt and lower proceeds from issuances of new debt and common stock. For additional information on debt issuances and redemptions, see Note 9 — Long-Term Debt and Preferred Securities.

Amounts available under shelf registrations include $500 million at DTE Energy and $150 million at Detroit Edison. MichCon does not have current shelf capacity. In 2005, we plan on filing new shelf registration statements for MichCon and Detroit Edison.

Common stock issuances or repurchases can also be a source or use of cash. In January 2005, we announced the DTE Energy Board 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. In January 2005, we discontinued issuing new DTE Energy shares for our dividend reinvestment plan, which generated approximately $50 million annually. We also contributed $170 million of DTE Energy common stock to our pension plan in the first quarter of 2004.

Contractual Obligations

The following table details our contractual obligations for debt redemptions, leases, purchase obligations and other long-term obligations as of December 31, 2004:

                                         
 
            Less                        
(in Millions)           Than                     After  
Contractual Obligations   Total     1 Year     1-3 Years     4-5 Years     5 Years  
Long-term debt:
                                       
 
                                       
Mortgage bonds, notes & other
  $ 6,091     $ 410     $ 1,224     $ 759     $ 3,698  
Securitization bonds
    1,496       96       335       272       793  
Equity-linked securities
    178       5       173              
Trust preferred-linked securities
    289                         289  
Capital lease obligations
    94       11       34       20       29  
Interest
    6,346       494       1,280       726       3,846  
Operating leases
    623       64       143       75       341  
Electric, gas, fuel, transportation & storage purchase obligations*
    6,130       3,694       1,601       236       599  
Other long-term obligations
    357       97       151       37       72  
 
                             
 
                                       
Total Obligations
  $ 21,604     $ 4,871     $ 4,941     $ 2,125     $ 9,667  
 
                             
 
                                       
 


*   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 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 DTE

52


Table of Contents

Energy may affect the Company’s ability to access these funding sources or cause an increase in the return required by investors.

In November 2004, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings downgraded MichCon. In December 2004, Standard & Poor’s downgraded DTE Energy, Detroit Edison and MichCon. The ratings reflect weaker credit metrics due to decreased cash flows mainly stemming from increased operation and maintenance costs without sufficient regulatory relief. Additional unfavorable changes in our ratings could restrict our ability to access capital markets at attractive rates and increase our borrowing costs.

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 $356 million at December 31, 2004. Additionally, 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 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.

                 
 
 
        Credit Rating Agency
        Standard &   Moody’s   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
 
 


* Currently on negative outlook

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, Section 29 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:

53


Table of Contents

         
 
         
(in Millions)        
Utility        
Detroit Edison*
  $ (138 )
MichCon
    (42 )
Total
  $ (180 )
 
       
         
 


* 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 (Note 4).

Risk Management and Trading Activities

All derivatives are recorded at fair value and shown as “Assets or liabilities from risk management and trading activities” in the consolidated statement of 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 — New Accounting Pronouncements.

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:

•   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.

Section 29 Tax Credits

We generate Section 29 tax credits from our synfuel, coke battery and biomass operations. We recognize earnings as tax credits are generated at our facilities in one of two ways. First, to the extent we generate credits to our own account, we recognize earnings through reduced tax expense. Second, 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 and collectibility is reasonably assured.

All Section 29 tax credits taken after 1997 are subject to audit by the IRS, however, all of our synthetic fuel facilities have received favorable private letter rulings from the IRS with respect to their operations. Audits of four of our synfuel facilities for the years 2001 and 2002 were successfully completed during 2004. One synfuel facility is currently under audit. If our Section 29 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.

54


Table of Contents

Tax credits generated by our facilities were $449 million in 2004, as compared to $387 million in 2003 and $351 million in 2002. The portion of tax credits generated for our own account were $38 million in 2004, as compared to $241 million in 2003 and $250 million in 2002, with the remaining credits generated allocated to third party partners. Outside firms assist us in assuring we operate in accordance with our private letter rulings and within the parameters of the law, as well as calculating the value of tax credits.

Goodwill

Certain of our business units have goodwill resulting from purchase business combinations (Notes 2 and 16). 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, 2004, our goodwill totaled $2.1 billion. The majority of our goodwill is allocated to our utility reporting units, with approximately $772 million allocated to the utility Energy Gas reporting unit. The value of the utility reporting units is significantly impacted by rate orders and the regulatory environment. The utility Energy Gas reporting unit is comprised primarily of MichCon. We have made certain cash flow assumptions for MichCon that are dependent upon the successful outcome of the outstanding gas rate case (Note 4). These assumptions may change when we receive a final rate order, which is expected during the first quarter of 2005.

Based on our 2004 goodwill impairment test, we determined that the fair value of our reporting units exceed their carrying value and no impairment existed. We will continue to monitor regulatory events, and evaluate their impact on our valuation assumptions and the carrying value of the related goodwill. While we believe our assumptions are reasonable, actual results may differ from our projections.

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 $81 million in 2004, $47 million in 2003, and pension income of $9 million in 2002. Postretirement benefits costs for all plans were $125 million in 2004, $118 million in 2003, and $70 million in 2002. Pension and postretirement benefits costs for 2004 is calculated based upon a number of actuarial assumptions, including an expected long-term rate of return on our plan assets of 9.0%. 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 expected long-term rate of return on plan assets is based on an asset allocation assumption utilizing active investment management of 65% in equity markets, 28% in fixed income markets, and 7% 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 9.0% is a reasonable long-term rate of return on our plan assets. 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. Because of this method, the future value of assets

55


Table of Contents

will be impacted as previously deferred gains or losses are recorded. We have unrecognized net gains due to the recent favorable performance of the financial markets. As of December 31, 2004, we had $63 million of cumulative gains 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 review of bonds that receive one of the two highest ratings given by a recognized rating agency. The discount rate determined on this basis has decreased from 6.25% at December 31, 2003 to 6.0% at December 31, 2004. Due to recent financial market performance, lower discount rates and increased health care trend rates, we estimate that our 2005 pension costs will approximate $96 million compared to $81 million in 2004 and our 2005 postretirement benefit costs will approximate $155 million compared to $125 million in 2004. 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.

Lowering the expected long-term rate of return on our plan assets by 1.0% would have increased our 2004 qualified pension costs by approximately $24 million. Lowering the discount rate and the salary increase assumptions by 1.0% would have increased our pension costs for 2004 by approximately $8 million. Lowering the health care cost trend assumptions by 1.0% would have decreased our postretirement benefit service and interest costs for 2004 by approximately $17 million.

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 $2.4 billion at December 31, 2002 to $2.9 billion at December 31, 2003. The value at December 31, 2004 increased to $3.3 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) at December 2002, 2003 and 2004. The additional minimum pension liability and related accounting entries will be reversed on the balance sheet in future periods if the fair value of plan assets exceeds the accumulated pension benefit obligations. The recording of the minimum pension liability does not affect net income or cash flow.

Pension and postretirement costs and pension cash funding requirements may increase in future years without substantial returns in the financial markets. We made a $35 million cash contribution to the pension plan in 2002, 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 also contributed $33 million to the postretirement plans in 2002 and contributed $80 million to the postretirement plans in 2004. We did not contribute to the postretirement plans in 2003. We do not anticipate making a contribution to our qualified pension plans in 2005. At the discretion of management, we anticipate making a $0 to $40 million contribution to our postretirement plans in 2005.

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 $16 million in 2004.

See Note 14 – Retirement Benefits and Trusteed Assets for a further discussion of our pension and postretirement benefit plans.

56


Table of Contents

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 2003 and 2004. We believe the allowance for doubtful accounts is based on reasonable estimates. However, failure to make continued progress in collecting our past due receivables would unfavorably affect operating results and cash flow.

Legal and Tax Reserves

We are involved in 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 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 industry including Detroit Edison. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality have aggressive programs to clean-up contaminated property.

Air - The EPA ozone transport and acid rain regulations and final new air quality standards relating to ozone and particulate air pollution will continue to impact us. Detroit Edison has spent approximately $580 million through December 2004 and estimates that it will spend up to $100 million in 2005. Detroit Edison estimates it will incur from $700 million to $1.3 billion of additional future capital expenditures over the next five to eight years to satisfy both existing and proposed new control requirements. Recovery of costs to be incurred through December 2004 was provided for in our November 2004 electric rate order. See Note 4 –Regulatory Matters.

The EPA has initiated enforcement actions against several major electric utilities citing violations of the Clean Air Act, asserting that older, coal-fired power plants have been modified in ways that would require them to comply with the more restrictive “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. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division issued a decision in August 2003 finding Ohio Edison Company in violation of the new source provisions of the Clean Air Act. If the Court’s decision is upheld, the electric utility industry could be required to invest substantial amounts on pollution control equipment. During the same month, however, a district court in a different division rendered a conflicting decision on the matter. On October 27, 2003, the EPA promulgated new rules, effective December 26, 2003, allowing repair, replacement or upgrade of production equipment without triggering source requirement controls if the cost of the parts and repairs do not exceed 20% of the replacement value of the equipment being upgraded. Such repairs will be considered routine maintenance, however any changes in emissions would be subject to existing pollution permit limits and other state and federal programs for pollutants. Several states and environmental organizations have challenged these regulations and, on December 24, 2003, were granted a stay until the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit hears the arguments on the case. We cannot predict the future impact of this issue upon Detroit Edison.

Water - In July 2004, the EPA published final regulations establishing performance standards for reducing fish loss at existing power plant cooling water intake structures. These regulations require individual facility studies, and possible intake modifications that will be determined and implemented

57


Table of Contents

over the next five to seven years. It is estimated that we will incur up to $50 million in additional capital expenditures for Detroit Edison.

Contaminated Sites - DTE Enterprises Inc. (MichCon and Citizens) owns, or previously owned, 18 former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. During the mid-1980’s, Enterprises conducted preliminary environmental investigations at former MGP sites, and some contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing was discovered at each site. Enterprises employed outside consultants to evaluate remediation alternatives and associated costs for these sites. As a result of these studies, Enterprises accrued a liability and a corresponding regulatory asset of $24 million. At December 31, 2004, the reserve balance was $24 million of which $4.5 million was classified as current. Our current estimates indicate that the previously accrued amounts are adequate to cover the costs of required remedial actions.

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 $8 million, which is expected to be incurred over the next several years. As a result of the investigation, Detroit Edison accrued approximately $8 million liability during 2004.

DTE ENERGY OPERATING SYSTEM AND DTE2

During 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 technology systems, among other enhancements. Operation and maintenance expenses benefited from our Company-wide initiative to pursue cost efficiencies and enhance operating performance. We expect continued cost containment efforts and process improvements.

In 2003, we began the implementation of DTE2, a Company-wide initiative to improve existing processes and to implement new core information systems including, finance, human resources, supply chain and work management. We expect to incrementally spend approximately $150 million to $175 million over the life of the project. We expect the benefits to outweigh this investment primarily from lower costs, faster business cycles, repeatable and optimized processes, enhanced internal controls, improvements in inventory management and reductions in system support costs.

We are in process of launching the first phase of our multi-year DTE2 project. 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.

NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

See Note 2– New Accounting Pronouncements for discussion of new pronouncements .

FAIR VALUE OF CONTRACTS

The following disclosures are voluntary and we believe provide enhanced transparency of the derivative activities and position of our Energy Trading & Marketing segment 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 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

58


Table of Contents

financial statements as Assets or Liabilities from Risk Management and Trading Activity, 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-market (MTM) accounting.

Fair value represents the amount at which willing parties would transact an arms-length transaction. To determine the fair value of contracts that are 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 and gas 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 and which therefore do not impact 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.
 
•   “Gas Production” represents derivative activity associated with our Michigan gas reserves. A substantial portion of the price risk associated with these reserves has been mitigated through 2013. Changes in the value of the hedges are recorded as Liabilities from Risk Management and Trading with an offset in other comprehensive income to the extent that the hedges are deemed effective. The amounts shown in the following tables exclude the value of the underlying gas reserves and the changes therein.

59


Table of Contents

Roll-Forward of Mark to Market Energy Contract Net Assets

The following tables provide details on changes in our MTM net asset or (liability) position during 2004:

                                                 
 
 
                                               
                                    Other        
    Energy Marketing & Trading     Non-        
    Proprietary     Structured     Economic             Trading        
(in Millions)   Trading     Contracts     Hedges     Total     Activities     Total  
MTM at December 31, 2003
  $ 10     $ 17     $ (171 )   $ (144 )   $ (81 )   $ (225 )
 
                                   
Reclassed to realized upon settlement
    (10 )     (10 )     89       69       42       111  
Changes in fair value recorded to income
    5       12       (20 )     (3 )     (12 )     (15 )
Amortization of option premiums
    (2 )                 (2 )           (2 )
 
                                   
Amounts recorded to unrealized income
    (7 )     2       69       64       30       94  
Amounts recorded in OCI (Note 1)
          4             4       (78 )     (74 )
Option premiums paid and other
                4       4       29       33  
 
                                   
MTM at December 31, 2004
  $ 3     $ 23     $ (98 )   $ (72 )   $ (100 )   $ (172 )
 
                                   
 
                                               
 

The following table provides a current and noncurrent analysis of Assets and Liabilities from Risk Management and Trading Activities as reflected in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as of December 31, 2004. Amounts that relate to contracts that become due within twelve months are classified as current and all remaining amounts are classified as noncurrent.

                                                         
 
 
                                               
                                            Other        
    Energy Marketing & Trading     Non-     Total  
    Proprietary     Structured     Economic                     Trading     Assets  
(in Millions)   Trading     Contracts     Hedges     Eliminations     Totals     Activities     (Liabilities)  
Current assets
  $ 48     $ 115     $ 150     $ (33 )   $ 280     $ 16     $ 296  
Noncurrent assets
    18       44       82       (19 )     125             125  
 
                                         
Total MTM assets
    66       159       232       (52 )     405       16       421  
 
                                         
 
                                                       
Current liabilities
    (45 )     (98 )     (204 )     33       (314 )     (55 )     (369 )
Noncurrent liabilities
    (18 )     (38 )     (126 )     19       (163 )     (61 )     (224 )
 
                                         
Total MTM liabilities.
    (63 )     (136 )     (330 )     52       (477 )     (116 )     (593 )
 
                                         
 
                                                       
Total MTM net assets (liabilities)
  $ 3     $ 23     $ (98 )   $     $ (72 )   $ (100 )   $ (172 )
 
                                         
 
                                                       
 

Maturity of Fair Value of MTM Energy Contract Net Assets

As previously discussed, 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 (OTC) positions for which broker quotes are available. The NYMEX has currently quoted prices for the next 72 months. Although 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.

60


Table of Contents

The table below shows the maturity of our MTM positions:

                                         
 
                                       
                                    Total  
(in Millions)                           2008 and     Fair  
Source of Fair Value   2005     2006     2007     Beyond     Value  
Proprietary Trading
  $ 3     $ (2 )   $ 2     $     $ 3  
Structured Contracts
    17       4       1       1       23  
Economic Hedges
    (55 )     (27 )     (16 )           (98 )
 
                             
Total Energy Marketing & Trading
    (35 )     (25 )     (13 )     1       (72 )
Other Non-Trading Activities
    (38 )     (51 )     (11 )           (100 )
 
                             
Total
  $ (73 )   $ (76 )   $ (24 )   $ 1     $ (172 )
 
                             
 
                                       
 

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

Commodity Price Risk

DTE Energy has commodity price risk arising from market price fluctuations in conjunction with the anticipated purchase of electricity to meet its obligations during periods of peak demand. We also are exposed to the risk of market price fluctuations on gas sale and purchase contracts, gas production and gas inventories. To limit our exposure to commodity price fluctuations, we have entered into a series 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 (Note 1).

Our Energy Services and Biomass businesses are also subject to crude oil price risk. As previously discussed, the Section 29 tax credits generated by DTE Energy’s synfuel and biomass operations are subject to phase out if domestic crude oil prices reach certain levels.

See Note 12 – Financial and Other Derivative Instruments for further discussion.

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. A number of customers have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We have negotiated or are currently involved in negotiations with each of the companies, or their successor companies, that have filed for bankruptcy protection. We regularly review contingent matters relating to purchase and sale contracts and record provisions for amounts considered at risk of probable loss. We believe our 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 in the period they are resolved.

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.

61


Table of Contents

Energy Trading & CoEnergy Portfolio

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, 2004:

                         
 
 
                       
    Credit Exposure              
    before Cash     Cash     Net Credit  
(in Millions)   Collateral     Collateral     Exposure  
Investment Grade (1)
                       
A- and Greater
  $ 234     $ (2 )   $ 232  
BBB+ and BBB
    191       (18 )     173  
BBB-
    17             17  
 
                 
Total Investment Grade
    442       (20 )     422  
Non-investment grade (2)
    15             15  
Internally Rated — investment grade (3)
    78       (1 )     77  
Internally Rated — non-investment grade (4)
    2             2  
 
                 
Total
  $ 537     $ (21 )   $ 516  
 
                 
 
                       
 


(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 (Standard & Poor’s). The five largest counterparty exposures combined for this category represented 28% 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 2% 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 9% 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 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, 2004, the Company has a floating rate debt to total debt ratio of approximately 11% (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.

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, 2004 by a hypothetical 10% and calculating the resulting change in the fair values of the commodity, debt and foreign currency agreements.

62


Table of Contents

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
  $ (18 )   $ 18     Commodity contracts
Power Contracts
  $ 1     $ (2 )   Commodity contracts
Oil Contracts
  $ 15     $ (8 )   Commodity options
Interest Rate Risk
  $ (311 )   $ 325     Long-term debt
Foreign Currency Risk
  $     $     Forward contracts
 

63


Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

The following consolidated financial statements and schedules are included herein.

             
         
      Page  
Controls and Procedures     65  
Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm     66  
Consolidated Statement of Operations     69  
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position     70  
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows     72  
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income     73  
 
           
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements        
Note 1
  Significant Accounting Policies     74  
Note 2
  New Accounting Pronouncements     81  
Note 3
  Dispositions     83  
Note 4
  Regulatory Matters     84  
Note 5
  Nuclear Operations     93  
Note 6
  Jointly Owned Utility Plant     96  
Note 7
  Income Taxes     96  
Note 8
  Common Stock and Earnings Per Share     98  
Note 9
  Long-Term Debt and Preferred Securities     99  
Note 10
  Short-Term Credit Arrangements and Borrowings     102  
Note 11
  Capital and Operating Leases     102  
Note 12
  Financial and Other Derivative Instruments     103  
Note 13
  Commitments and Contingencies     106  
Note 14
  Retirement Benefits and Trusteed Assets     109  
Note 15
  Stock-based Compensation     116  
Note 16
  Segment and Related Information     118  
Note 17
  Supplementary Quarterly Financial Information     123  
 
           
 
  Schedule II – Valuation and Qualifying Accounts     131  

64


Table of Contents

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

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.

(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 Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) as of December 31, 2004, 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 effectively designed to ensure 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.

(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, 2004. In making this assessment, it used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control — Integrated Framework. Based on our assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 2004, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria.

Our management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting has been audited by the Company’s independent 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.

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, 2004.

There has been no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2004 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

65


Table of Contents

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 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, 2004, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued 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.

66


Table of Contents

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, 2004, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued 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, 2004, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued 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, 2004 and for the year then ended, and the financial statement schedule; and our report dated March 15, 2005 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule.

/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan

March 15, 2005

67


Table of Contents

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, 2004 and 2003, 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, 2004. 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, 2004 and 2003, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004 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 2 to the consolidated financial statements, in connection with the required adoption of certain new accounting principles, in 2003 the Company changed its method of accounting for asset retirement obligations, energy trading contracts and gas inventories and in 2002 the Company changed its method of accounting for goodwill and energy trading contracts.

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, 2004, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated March 15, 2005 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 15, 2005

68


Table of Contents

DTE Energy Company
Consolidated Statement of Operations
 
                         
    Year Ended December 31  
(in Millions, Except per Share Amounts)   2004     2003     2002  
Operating Revenues
  $ 7,114     $ 7,041     $ 6,729  
 
                 
 
                       
Operating Expenses
                       
Fuel, purchased power and gas
    2,007       2,241       2,099  
Operation and maintenance
    3,420       3,109       2,589  
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
    744       687       737  
Taxes other than income
    312       334       352  
Asset gains and losses, net
    (215 )     (77 )     (42 )
 
                 
 
    6,268       6,294       5,735  
 
                 
 
                       
Operating Income
    846       747       994  
 
                 
 
                       
Other (Income) and Deductions
                       
Interest expense
    518       546       569  
Interest income
    (55 )     (37 )     (29 )
Other income
    (80 )     (110 )     (45 )
Other expenses
    67       82       34  
 
                 
 
    450       481       529  
 
                 
 
                       
Income Before Income Taxes and Minority Interest
    396       266       465  
 
                       
Income Tax Provision (Benefit) (Note 7)
    165       (123 )     (84 )
 
                       
Minority Interest
    (212 )     (91 )     (37 )
 
                 
 
                       
Income from Continuing Operations
    443       480       586  
 
                       
Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations, net of tax (Note 3)
    (12 )     68       46  
 
                       
Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes, net of tax (Note 2)
          (27 )      
 
                 
 
                       
Net Income
  $ 431     $ 521     $ 632  
 
                 
 
                       
Basic Earnings per Common Share (Note 8)
                       
Income from continuing operations
  $ 2.56     $ 2.87     $ 3.57  
Discontinued operations
    (.06 )     .41       .28  
Cumulative effect of accounting changes
          (.17 )      
 
                 
Total
  $ 2.50     $ 3.11     $ 3.85  
 
                 
 
                       
Diluted Earnings per Common Share (Note 8)
                       
Income from continuing operations
  $ 2.55     $ 2.85     $ 3.55  
Discontinued operations
    (.06 )     .40       .28  
Cumulative effect of accounting changes
          (.16 )      
 
                 
Total
  $ 2.49     $ 3.09     $ 3.83  
 
                 
 
                       
Average Common Shares
                       
Basic
    173       168       164  
Diluted
    173       168       165  
 
                       
Dividends Declared per Common Share
  $ 2.06     $ 2.06     $ 2.06  
 
                       
 
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

69


Table of Contents

DTE Energy Company
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position
 
                 
    December 31  
    2004     2003  
(in Millions)                
ASSETS
               
Current Assets
               
Cash and cash equivalents
  $ 56     $ 54  
Restricted cash (Note 1)
    126       131  
Accounts receivable
               
Customer (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $129 and $99, respectively)
    880       877  
Accrued unbilled revenues
    378       316  
Other
    383       338  
Inventories
               
Fuel and gas
    509       467  
Materials and supplies
    159       162  
Assets from risk management and trading activities
    296       186  
Other
    209       181  
 
           
 
    2,996       2,712  
 
           
Investments
               
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds
    590       518  
Other
    558       601  
 
           
 
    1,148       1,119  
 
           
Property
               
Property, plant and equipment
    18,011       17,679  
Less accumulated depreciation and depletion (Note 2)
    (7,520 )     (7,355 )
 
           
 
    10,491       10,324  
 
           
Other Assets
               
Goodwill (Note 3)
    2,067       2,067  
Regulatory assets (Note 4)
    2,119       2,063  
Securitized regulatory assets (Note 4)
    1,438       1,527  
Notes receivable
    529       469  
Assets from risk management and trading activities
    125       88  
Prepaid pension assets
    184       181  
Other
    200       203  
 
           
 
    6,662       6,598  
 
           
Total Assets
  $ 21,297     $ 20,753  
 
           
 
               
 
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

70


Table of Contents

DTE Energy Company
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position
     
 
   
 
                 
    December 31  
    2004     2003  
(in Millions, Except Shares)                
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
               
Current Liabilities
               
Accounts payable
  $ 892     $ 625  
Accrued interest
    111       110  
Dividends payable
    90       87  
Accrued payroll
    33       51  
Income taxes
    16       185  
Short-term borrowings
    403       370  
Current portion long-term debt, including capital leases
    514       477  
Liabilities from risk management and trading activities
    369       326  
Other
    581       593  
 
           
 
    3,009       2,824  
 
           
Other Liabilities
               
Deferred income taxes
    1,124       988  
Regulatory liabilities (Notes 2 and 4)
    817       817  
Asset retirement obligations (Note 2)
    916       866  
Unamortized investment tax credit
    143       156  
Liabilities from risk management and trading activities
    224       173  
Liabilities from transportation and storage contracts
    387       495  
Accrued pension liability
    265       345  
Deferred gains from asset sales
    414       311  
Minority interest
    132       156  
Nuclear decommissioning (Notes 2 and 5)
    77       67  
Other
    635       599  
 
           
 
    5,134       4,973  
 
           
Long-Term Debt (net of current portion) (Note 9)
               
Mortgage bonds, notes and other
    5,673       5,624  
Securitization bonds
    1,400       1,496  
Equity-linked securities
    178       185  
Trust preferred-linked securities
    289       289  
Capital lease obligations
    66       75  
 
           
 
    7,606       7,669  
 
           
 
               
Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 4, 5 and 13)
               
 
               
Shareholders’ Equity
               
Common stock, without par value, 400,000,000 shares authorized, 174,209,034 and 168,606,522 shares issued and outstanding, respectively
    3,323       3,109  
Retained earnings
    2,383       2,308  
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
    (158 )     (130 )
 
           
 
    5,548       5,287  
 
           
 
               
Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
  $ 21,297     $ 20,753  
 
           
 
               
 
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

71


Table of Contents

DTE Energy Company
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
 
                         
    Year Ended December 31  
(in Millions)   2004     2003     2002  
Operating Activities
                       
Net income
  $ 431     $ 521     $ 632  
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities:
                       
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
    744       691       759  
Deferred income taxes
    129       (220 )     (208 )
Gain on sale of interests in synfuel projects
    (219 )     (83 )     (40 )
Gain on sale of ITC and other assets, net
    (17 )     (145 )      
Partners’ share of synfuel project losses
    (223 )     (78 )     (40 )
Contributions from synfuel partners
    141       65       22  
Cumulative effect of accounting changes
          27        
Changes in assets and liabilities, exclusive of changes shown separately (Note 1)
    9       172       (129 )
 
                 
Net cash from operating activities
    995       950       996  
 
                 
 
                       
Investing Activities
                       
Plant and equipment expenditures – utility
    (815 )     (679 )     (794 )
Plant and equipment expenditures – non-utility
    (89 )     (72 )     (190 )
Investment in joint ventures
    (36 )     (34 )     (21 )
Proceeds from sale of interests in synfuel projects
    221       89       32  
Proceeds from sale of ITC and other assets
    104       669       9  
Restricted cash for debt redemptions
    5       106       (79 )
Other investments
    (71 )     (69 )     (72 )
 
                 
Net cash from (used for) investing activities
    (681 )     10       (1,115 )
 
                 
 
                       
Financing Activities
                       
Issuance of long-term debt
    736       527       1,138  
Redemption of long-term debt
    (759 )     (1,208 )     (793 )
Short-term borrowings, net
    33       (44 )     (267 )
Issuance of common stock
    41       44       265  
Dividends on common stock
    (354 )     (346 )     (338 )
Other
    (9 )     (12 )     (21 )
 
                 
Net cash used for financing activities
    (312 )     (1,039 )     (16 )
 
                 
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
    2       (79 )     (135 )
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
    54       133       268  
 
                 
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
  $ 56     $ 54     $ 133  
 
                 
 
                       
 
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

72


Table of Contents

DTE Energy Company

Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income
 
                                         
                            Accumulated        
                            Other        
    Common Stock     Retained     Comprehensive        
    Shares     Amount     Earnings     Loss     Total  
(Dollars in Millions, Shares in Thousands)                                        
 
Balance, December 31, 2001
    161,134     $ 2,811     $ 1,846     $ (68 )   $ 4,589  
 
Net income
                632             632  
Issuance of new shares
    6,426       270                   270  
Dividends declared on common stock
                (341 )           (341 )
Repurchase and retirement of common stock
    (98 )     (1 )     (2 )           (3 )
Pension obligations (Note 14)
                      (518 )     (518 )
Net change in unrealized losses on derivatives, net of tax
                      (33 )     (33 )
Unearned stock compensation and other
          (28 )     (3 )           (31 )
 
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  
Net income
                431             431  
Issuance of new shares
    5,671       223                   223  
Dividends declared on common stock
                (357 )           (357 )
Repurchase and retirement of common stock
    (69 )     (3 )                 (3 )
Pension obligations (Note 14)
                      7       7  
Net change in unrealized losses on derivatives, net of tax
                      (15 )     (15 )
Net change in unrealized losses on investments, net of tax
                      (20 )     (20 )
Unearned stock compensation and other
          (6 )     1             (5 )
 
Balance, December 31, 2004
    174,209     $ 3,323     $ 2,383     $ (158 )   $ 5,548  
 
     
The following table displays comprehensive income (loss):
 
 
                         
(in Millions)   2004     2003     2002  
Net income
  $ 431     $ 521     $ 632  
 
                 
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax:
                       
Pension obligations, net of taxes of $(4), $(226) and $280 (Notes 4 and 14)
    7       420       (518 )
 
                 
Net unrealized losses on derivatives:
                       
Gains (losses) arising during the period, net of taxes of $26, $(8) and $32
    (49 )     16       (60 )
Amounts reclassified to earnings, net of taxes of $(18), $- and $(15)
    34       1       27  
 
                 
 
    (15 )     17       (33 )
 
                 
Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments:
                       
Gains (losses) arising during the period, net of taxes of $3, $(28) and $-
    (5 )     52        
Amounts reclassified to earnings, net of taxes of $8, $- and $-
    (15 )            
 
                 
 
    (20 )     52        
 
                 
Comprehensive income
  $ 403     $ 1,010     $ 81  
 
                 
 
                       
 
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

73


Table of Contents

DTE Energy Company

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Corporate Structure

DTE Energy is an exempt holding company under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and 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 2.1 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 1.2 million customers throughout Michigan; and
 
  •   Other non-utility subsidiaries engaged in energy marketing and trading, energy services and various other electricity, coal and gas related businesses.

Detroit Edison and MichCon are regulated by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.

Segments realigned – Through 2004, we operated our businesses through three strategic business units (Energy Resources, Energy Distribution and Energy Gas). Each business unit had utility and non-utility operations. The balance of our business consisted of Corporate & Other. See Note 16 for further discussion. In 2005, we expect to realign our business units to strengthen the Company’s focus on customer relationships and growth within our non-utility businesses. Based on this structure, we will set strategic goals, allocate resources and evaluate performance. Beginning with the first quarter of 2005, we expect to report our segment information based on the following realignment:

  •   Electric Utility, consisting of Detroit Edison;
 
  •   Gas Utility, primarily consisting of MichCon;
 
  •   Non-utility Operations

  •   Power and Industrial Projects, primarily consisting of synfuel projects, on-site energy services, steel-related projects, power generation with services, and waste coal recovery operations;
 
  •   Unconventional Gas Production, primarily consisting of gas production and coal bed methane operations;
 
  •   Fuel Transportation and Marketing, primarily consisting of coal transportation and marketing, gas pipelines and storage, and energy marketing and trading operations; and

  •   Corporate & Other, primarily consisting of corporate support functions and certain energy technology investments.

References in this report to “we,” “us,” “our” or “Company” 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

74


Table of Contents

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 – New Accounting Pronouncements.

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.

Prior to December 2004, DTE Energy did not eliminate amounts, principally within Other Income and Other Deductions, resulting from certain intercompany transactions. The amounts of the transactions are immaterial and had no effect on net income. Previously reported prior period amounts have been adjusted to eliminate those intercompany transactions and are now consistent with the current year’s presentation. We reclassified certain other 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 Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) mechanism. MichCon’s accrued revenues include a component for the cost of gas sold that is recoverable through the Gas Cost Recovery (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 retail rates were frozen under Public Act (PA) 141. See Note 4 for further discussion. Accordingly, Detroit Edison did not accrue revenues under the PSCR mechanism prior to 2004.

Non-utility businesses recognize revenues as services are provided and products are delivered. Our Energy Marketing & 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 2004, we have sold majority interests in eight of our nine synthetic fuel production plants, representing approximately 92% of our total production capacity. Proceeds from the sales are contingent upon production levels and the value of Section 29 tax credits. Section 29 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. We have recorded gains from the sale of interests in synthetic fuel facilities totaling $219 million, $83 million and $40 million during 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

Until the gain recognition criteria are met, gains from selling interests in synfuel facilities will be 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.

75


Table of Contents

Comprehensive Income

We comply with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 130, “Reporting Comprehensive Income,” that established standards for reporting comprehensive income. SFAS No. 130 defines comprehensive income as 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 (OCI) at December 31, 2004 include: unrealized gains and losses from derivatives accounted for as cash flow hedges under SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities;” unrealized gains and losses on available for sale securities under SFAS No. 115, “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities;” and, minimum pension liabilities as prescribed by SFAS No. 87, “Employers’ Accounting for Pensions.”

     
 
   
 
                                 
    Minimum     Net     Net     Accumulated  
    Pension     Unrealized     Unrealized     Other  
    Liability     Losses on     Gains on     Comprehensive  
(in Millions)   Adjustment     Derivatives     Investments     Loss  
Beginning balance
  $ (98 )   $ (85 )   $ 53     $ (130 )
Current-period change
    7       (15 )     (20 )     (28 )
 
                       
Ending balance
  $ (91 )   $ (100 )   $ 33     $ (158 )
 
                       
 
                               
 

Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash

Cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand, cash in banks and temporary investments 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.

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, 2004, the replacement cost of gas remaining in storage exceeded the $89 million LIFO cost by $330 million. At December 31, 2003, the replacement cost of gas remaining in storage exceeded the $117 million LIFO cost by $251 million. During 2004, MichCon liquidated 5.7 billion cubic feet of prior years’ LIFO layers. The liquidation benefited 2004 cost of gas by approximately $7 million, but had no impact on earnings as a result of the GCR mechanism.

Our Energy Marketing & Trading segment uses the average cost method for its gas in inventory.

76


Table of Contents

Property, Retirement and Maintenance, and Depreciation and Depletion

     
Summary of property by classification as of December 31:
   
 
                 
(in Millions)   2004     2003  
Property, Plant and Equipment
               
Electric Utility
               
Generation
  $ 7,100     $ 6,938  
Distribution
    5,831       5,733  
 
           
Total Electric Utility
    12,931       12,671  
 
           
 
               
Gas Utility
               
Distribution
    2,020       1,961  
Storage
    221       224  
Other
    883       855  
 
           
Total Gas Utility
    3,124       3,040  
 
           
 
               
Energy Services
               
Coal Based Fuels
    651       652  
On-Site Energy
    193       180  
Merchant Generation
    174       229  
Other
    8       13  
 
           
Total Energy Services
    1,026       1,074  
 
           
 
               
Other Non-utility and Other
    930       894  
 
           
Total Property, Plant and Equipment
    18,011       17,679  
 
           
 
               
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Depletion
               
Electric Utility
               
Generation
    (3,277 )     (3,231 )
Distribution
    (2,077 )     (2,108 )
 
           
Total Electric Utility
    (5,354 )     (5,339 )
 
           
 
               
Gas Utility
               
Distribution
    (845 )     (798 )
Storage
    (100 )     (102 )
Other
    (448 )     (432 )
 
           
Total Gas Utility
    (1,393 )     (1,332 )
 
           
 
               
Energy Services
               
Coal Based Fuels
    (272 )     (219 )
On-Site Energy
    (55 )     (42 )
Merchant Generation
    (18 )     (20 )
Other
    (3 )     (2 )
 
           
Total Energy Services
    (348 )     (283 )
 
           
 
               
Other Non-utility and Other
    (425 )     (401 )
 
           
Total Accumulated Depreciation and Depletion
    (7,520 )     (7,355 )
 
           
Net Property, Plant and Equipment
  $ 10,491     $ 10,324  
 
           
 
               
 

Property is stated at cost and includes construction-related labor, materials, overheads and an “allowance for funds used during construction” (AFUDC). The cost of properties retired, less salvage, at Detroit Edison and MichCon are charged to accumulated depreciation.

77


Table of Contents

Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to expense when incurred, except for Fermi 2. Approximately $3.8 million of expenses related to the anticipated Fermi 2 refueling outage scheduled for 2006 were accrued at December 31, 2004. Amounts are being accrued on a pro-rata basis over an 18-month period that began in November 2004. 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.

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 3.4% in 2004, 2003 and 2002. The composite depreciation rate for MichCon was 3.6%, 3.5%, and 3.6% in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

The average estimated useful life for each class of utility property, plant and equipment as of December 31, 2004 follows:

     
 
   
 
                         
    Estimated Useful Lives in Years
Utility   Generation     Distribution     Transmission  
 
Electric
    39       37        
Gas
    N/A       26       28  
 
                       
 

Non-utility property is depreciated over its estimated useful life using straight-line, declining-balance or units-of-production methods.

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.

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

Our intangible assets consist primarily of software. 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 expected periods of benefit. Intangible assets amortization expense was $43 million in 2004, $40 million in 2003 and $46 million in 2002. The gross carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets at December 31, 2004 were $445 million and $151 million, respectively. The gross carrying amount and accumulated amortization of intangible assets at December 31, 2003 were $537 million and $303 million,

78


Table of Contents

respectively. Amortization expense of intangible assets is estimated to be $40 million annually for 2005 through 2009.

Excise and Sales Taxes

We record the billing of excise and sales taxes as receivable with an offsetting payable to the applicable taxing authority, with no impact on the consolidated statement of 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

We have a comprehensive insurance program in place to provide coverage for various types of risks. Our insurance policies cover risk of loss from various events, including 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 periodically review our insurance coverage. During 2003, we reviewed our process for estimating and recognizing reserves for self-insured risks. As a result of this review, we revised the process for estimating liabilities under our self-insured layers to include an actuarially determined estimate of “incurred but not reported” (IBNR) claims. We have an actuarially determined estimate of our IBNR liability prepared annually and adjust the related reserve 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) Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.” 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)   2004     2003     2002  
Net Income as Reported
  $ 431     $ 521     $ 632  
Less: Total Stock-based Expense (1)
    (6 )     (7 )     (7 )
 
                 
Pro Forma Net Income
  $ 425     $ 514     $ 625  
 
                 
 
                       
Income Per Share
                       
Basic – as reported
  $ 2.50     $ 3.11     $ 3.85  
 
                 
Basic – pro forma
  $ 2.46     $ 3.06     $ 3.81  
 
                 
 
                       
Diluted – as reported
  $ 2.49     $ 3.09     $ 3.83  
 
                 
Diluted – pro forma
  $ 2.45     $ 3.05     $ 3.79  
 
                 
 
                       
 


(1)   Expense determined using a Black-Scholes based option pricing model.

79


Table of Contents

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 (Note 5).

Investment in Plug Power

In 1997, we invested in Plug Power Inc., a company that designs and develops on-site electric fuel cell power generation systems. Since Plug Power is considered a development stage company, generally accepted accounting principles required us to record gains and losses from Plug Power stock issuances as an adjustment to equity. Prior to November 2003, we accounted for our investment in Plug Power under the equity method of accounting. We did not participate in Plug Power’s secondary stock offering in November 2003 and as of December 31, 2003 we owned 14.1 million shares or approximately 19% of Plug Power’s common stock. We have determined that we do not have the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating or financial policies of Plug Power. Accordingly, we began prospective application of the cost method of accounting for our investment in Plug Power, effective November 2003. We record our investment at market value and account for unrealized gains and losses in other comprehensive income or loss. In May 2004, we sold 3.5 million shares of Plug Power stock and recorded a gain of approximately $14 million, net of taxes. The sale reduced our ownership interest in Plug Power to 10.6 million shares, or approximately 14%.

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

A detailed analysis of the changes in assets and liabilities that are reported in the consolidated statement of cash flows follows:

     
 
   
 
                         
    2004     2003     2002  
(in Millions)                        
Changes in Assets and Liabilities, Exclusive of Changes Shown Separately
                       
Accounts receivable, net
  $ 73     $ (50 )   $ (129 )
Accrued unbilled receivable
    (62 )     (20 )     (54 )
Accrued GCR revenue
    (35 )     29       (5 )
Inventories
    (40 )     (61 )     (71 )
Accrued/Prepaid Pensions
    88       (196 )     (10 )
Accounts payable
    266       (21 )     66  
Accrued PSCR refund
    112              
Exchange gas payable
    (43 )     90       9  
Income taxes payable
    (170 )     135       (8 )
General taxes
    (14 )     (12 )     (36 )
Risk management and trading activities
    (64 )     127       69  
Postretirement obligation
    29       112       77  
Other
    (131 )     39       (37 )
 
                 
 
  $ 9     $ 172     $ (129 )
 
                 
 
                       
 

80


Table of Contents

Supplementary cash and non-cash information for the years ended December 31 were as follows:

     
 
   
 
                         
    2004     2003     2002  
(in Millions)                        
Cash Paid for
                       
Interest (excluding interest capitalized)
  $ 517     $ 552     $ 551  
Income taxes
  $ 203     $ 31     $ 167  
 
                       
Noncash Investing and Financing Activities
                       
Notes received from sale of synfuel projects
  $ 214     $ 238     $ 217  
Common stock contributed to pension plan
  $ 170     $     $  
Exchange of debt
  $     $ 100     $  
Issuance of equity-linked securities
  $     $     $ 21  
 
                       
 

See the following notes for other accounting policies impacting our financial statements:

     
Note   Title
 
2
  New Accounting Pronouncements
4
  Regulatory Matters
7
  Income Taxes
12
  Financial and Other Derivative Instruments
14
  Retirement Benefits and Trusteed Assets

NOTE 2 – NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

Energy Trading Activities

Under Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 98-10, “Accounting for Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities,” companies were required to use mark-to-market accounting for contracts utilized in energy trading activities. EITF Issue No. 98-10 was rescinded in October 2002, and energy trading contracts must now be reviewed to determine if they meet the definition of a derivative under SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.” SFAS No. 133 requires all derivatives to be recognized in the statement of financial position as either assets or liabilities measured at their fair value. SFAS No. 133 also requires that changes in the fair value of derivatives be recognized in earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria 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 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 criteria.

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 Energy Marketing & Trading 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 for the first quarter of 2003 by $16 million (net of taxes of $9 million).

81


Table of Contents

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 which it is incurred. We identified a legal retirement obligation for the decommissioning costs for our Fermi 1 and 2 nuclear plants. To a lesser extent, we have retirement obligations for our synthetic fuel operations, gas production facilities, asphalt plant, gas gathering facilities and various other operations. As to utility operations, we believe that adoption of SFAS No. 143 results primarily in timing differences in the recognition of legal asset retirement costs that we are currently recovering in rates and are deferring such differences under SFAS No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation.”

As a result of adopting SFAS No. 143 on January 1, 2003, we recorded a plant asset of $306 million with offsetting accumulated depreciation of $106 million, a retirement obligation liability of $815 million and reversed previously recognized obligations of $377 million, principally nuclear decommissioning liabilities. We also recorded a cumulative effect amount related to utility operations as a regulatory asset of $221 million, and a cumulative effect charge against earnings of $11 million (net of tax of $7 million) for 2003.

If a reasonable estimate of fair value cannot be made in the period the asset retirement obligation is incurred, such as assets with an indeterminate life, the liability is to be recognized when a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. Generally, distribution assets have an indeterminate life, retirement cash flows cannot be determined and there is a low probability of retirement, therefore no liability has been recorded for these assets.

The pro forma effect on earnings had SFAS No. 143 been adopted for all periods presented would decrease reported net income and basic and diluted earnings per share as follows:

     
 
   
 
                 
    (in Millions)        
    Net     Basic and Diluted  
Year   Income     Earnings per Share  
2002
  $ 4.8     $ .03  
 

A reconciliation of the asset retirement obligation for 2004 follows:

     
 
   
 
         
(in Millions)        
Asset retirement obligations at January 1, 2004
  $ 866  
Accretion
    57  
Liabilities settled
    (5 )
Revisions in estimated cash flows
    (2 )
 
     
Asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2004
  $ 916  
 
     
 
       
 

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.

SFAS No. 143 also requires the quantification of the estimated cost of removal obligations, arising from other than legal obligations, which have been accrued through depreciation charges. At December 31, 2003, we reclassified approximately $655 million of previously accrued asset removal costs related to our utility operations, which had been previously netted against accumulated depreciation to regulatory liabilities. There is a generic case before the MPSC to determine the accounting and regulatory treatment of removal costs for Michigan utilities.

82


Table of Contents

Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities

In January 2003, FASB Interpretation No. (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, the “Medicare 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 health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least “actuarially equivalent” to the benefit established by law. We elected at that time to defer the provisions of the Medicare Act, and its impact 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 effects of the Medicare Act. The guidance in this FSP is applicable to sponsors 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 D and thus qualify for the subsidy under the Medicare Act and (b) the expected subsidy will offset or reduce the employer’s share of the cost of the underlying postretirement prescription drug coverage on which the subsidy is based. We believe we qualify for the subsidy under the Medicare Act 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, retroactive to January 1, 2004. 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 and was accounted for as an actuarial gain. The effects of the subsidy reduced net postretirement costs by $16 million in 2004.

Stock Based Payments

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123-R, “Stock Based Payments,” which establishes the accounting for transactions in which an entity exchanges equity instruments for goods or services. Application of SFAS No. 123-R is required for interim or annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005 with earlier adoption encouraged. We have completed a preliminary review and estimate that the new standard will reduce reported earnings by approximately $5 million to $10 million per year.

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

Effective January 1, 2002, we adopted SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” which addresses the financial accounting and reporting standards for the acquisition of intangible assets outside of a business combination and for goodwill and other intangible assets subsequent to their acquisition. This accounting standard requires that goodwill no longer be amortized, but reviewed at least annually for impairment. In accordance with SFAS No. 142, we discontinued the amortization of goodwill effective January 1, 2002.

NOTE 3 – DISPOSITIONS

International Transmission Company – Discontinued Operation

In February 2003, we sold International Transmission Company (ITC), our electric transmission business, for $610 million to affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Trimaran Capital Partners, LLC. The sale

83


Table of Contents

 

generated a preliminary net of tax gain of $63 million in 2003. The gain was net of transaction costs, the portion of the gain 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 revision of the applicable transaction costs and customer refund.

As prescribed by SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” we have reported the operations of ITC as a discontinued operation as shown in the following table:

     
 
   
 
                 
(in Millions)   2003(3)     2002  
Revenues (1)
  $ 21     $ 138  
Expenses (2)
    13       67  
 
           
Operating income
    8       71  
Income taxes
    3       25  
 
           
Income from discontinued operations
  $ 5     $ 46  
 
           
 
               
 


(1)   Includes intercompany revenues of $18 million for 2003 and $118 million for 2002.
 
(2)   Excludes general corporate overhead costs that were previously allocated to ITC in 2003 and 2002.
 
(3)   Represents activity from January 1, 2003 through February 28, 2003, when ITC was sold.

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 involvement of Detroit Edison in the steam heating business, including the commitment to purchase steam and/or electricity through 2024, 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. The steam heating business had assets of $6 million at December 31, 2002, and had net losses of $12 million in 2002. See Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies.

Southern Missouri Gas Company – Discontinued Operation

We own 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 have reported its operating results as a discontinued operation. We recognized a net of tax impairment loss of approximately $7 million in 2004, 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. Following receipt of regulatory approvals and resolution of other contingencies, it is anticipated that the transaction will close in 2005. SMGC had assets of $9 million and liabilities of $35 million at December 31, 2004.

NOTE 4 – REGULATORY MATTERS

Regulation

Detroit Edison and MichCon are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the MPSC, which issues orders pertaining to retail 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

84


Table of Contents

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.

The following are balances and a brief description of the regulatory assets and liabilities at December 31:

     
 
   
 
                 
    2004     2003  
(in Millions)                
Assets
               
Securitized regulatory assets
  $ 1,438     $ 1,527  
 
           
Recoverable income taxes related to securitized regulatory assets
  $ 788     $ 837  
Recoverable minimum pension liability
    605       585  
Asset retirement obligation
    183       192  
Other recoverable income taxes
    109       114  
Recoverable costs under PA 141
               
Net stranded costs
    122       68  
Excess capital expenditures
    7        
Deferred Clean Air Act expenditures
    76       54  
Midwest Independent System Operator charges
    27       21  
Transmission integration costs
          10  
Electric Customer Choice implementation costs
    95       84  
Enhanced security costs
    8       6  
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt
    63       60  
Deferred environmental costs
    31       29  
Accrued GCR revenue
    55       19  
Other
    5       3  
 
           
 
    2,174       2,082  
Less amount included in current assets
    (55 )     (19 )
 
           
 
  $ 2,119     $ 2,063  
 
           
 
               
Liabilities
               
Asset removal costs
  $ 679     $ 655  
Excess securitization savings
          14  
Customer refund – 1997 storm
    2       2  
Refundable income taxes
    135       146  
Accrued GCR potential disallowance
    28       26  
Accrued PSCR refund
    112        
Other
    3       3  
 
           
 
    959       846  
Less amount included in current liabilities
    (142 )     (29 )
 
           
 
  $ 817     $ 817  
 
           
 
               
 

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.

85


Table of Contents

•   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.
 
•   Recoverable minimum pension liability — 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 costs as measured by generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, the minimum pension liability associated with utility operations is recoverable. See Notes 4 and 14.
 
•   Asset retirement obligation — Asset retirement obligations were recorded pursuant to adoption of SFAS No. 143 in 2003. These obligations are primarily for Fermi 2 decommissioning costs that are recovered in rates.
 
•   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.
 
•   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 occur when fixed cost related revenues do 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.
 
•   Transmission integration costs —The MPSC’s November 2004 final rate order denied recovery and determined these costs to be transaction expenses in DTE Energy’s sale of ITC.
 
•   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 141 permits, after MPSC authorization, the recovery of enhanced homeland 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 former manufactured gas plant 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.

LIABILITIES

•   Asset removal costs – The amount collected from customers for the funding of future asset removal activities.
 
•   Excess securitization savings — Savings associated with the 2001 securitization of Fermi 2 and other costs are refundable to Detroit Edison’s customers.
 
•   Customer refund – 1997 storm — The over collection of 1997 storm costs, which will be refunded in accordance with the MPSC’s November 2004 rate order.
 
•   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.
 
•   Accrued GCR potential disallowance — Potential refund resulting from an MPSC order in MichCon’s 2002 GCR plan case that required MichCon to reduce revenues in the calculation of its 2002 GCR expense.
 
•   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.

86


Table of Contents

Electric Rate Case

Rate Request- In June 2003, Detroit Edison filed an application with the MPSC requesting a change in retail electric rates, resumption of the PSCR mechanism, and recovery of net stranded costs. The application and subsequent revisions resulted in a request to increase base rates by $583 million annually.

In addition, Detroit Edison requested recovery of certain regulatory assets. As subsequently discussed, Detroit Edison received interim and final rate orders relating to its June 2003 rate application.

A summary of the rate orders follows:

     
 
   
 
                 
    Interim     Final  
    Rate Increase (1)     Rate Increase (1)  
(in Millions)                
Base Rate Revenue Deficiency
  $ 248     $ 336  
Recovery of SMC Discounts
          38  
 
           
Overall Base Rate Increase
    248       374  
PSCR Savings
    (126 )     (126 )
 
           
Total
  $ 122     $ 248  
 
           
 
               
 
                         
    Actual     Estimate        
    2004     2005 (2)     Total  
Cumulative Recoverable Regulatory Assets
                       
Clean Air Act
  $ 76     $ 68     $ 144  
MISO Transmission Costs
    27       49       76  
Excess Capital Expenditures
    7       15       22  
Customer Refund – 1997 Storm
    (2 )           (2 )
 
                 
 
    108       132       240  
Electric Choice Implementation Costs
    95       6       101  
Net Stranded Costs
    44             44  
 
                 
Total
  $ 247     $ 138     $ 385  
 
                 
 
                       
 


(1)   The impact of rate caps not included.
 
(2)   Represents estimated amounts to be incurred in 2005, as well as carrying costs on unrecovered balances, that were authorized for recovery by the MPSC. Actual amounts incurred are subject to review in future MPSC proceedings, and any overcollections or undercollections will be reflected in future rates.

MPSC Interim Rate Order - On February 20, 2004, the MPSC issued an order for interim rate relief. The order authorized an interim increase in base rates, a transition charge for customers participating in the electric Customer Choice program and a new PSCR factor.

The interim base rate increase totaled $248 million annually, effective February 21, 2004, and was applicable to all customers not subject to a rate cap. The increase was allocated to both full-service customers ($240 million) and electric Customer Choice customers ($8 million). However, because of the rate caps under PA 141, not all of the increase was realized in 2004. The interim order also terminated certain transition credits and authorized transition charges to electric Customer Choice customers designed to result in $30 million in additional revenues. Additionally, the MPSC authorized a reduced PSCR factor for all customers, designed to lower revenues by $126 million annually. However, the MPSC order allowed Detroit Edison to increase base rates for customers still subject to the cap in an equal and offsetting amount with the required reduction in the PSCR factor to maintain the total capped rate levels currently in effect for these customers.

The MPSC deferred addressing other items in the rate request, including a surcharge to recover regulatory assets, until a final rate order was issued.

87


Table of Contents

MPSC Final Rate Order - On November 23, 2004, the MPSC issued an order for final rate relief. The MPSC determined that the base rate increase granted to Detroit Edison should be $336 million annually effective November 24, 2004 and is applicable to all customers not subject to the rate cap. The final order provides for the future recovery of losses resulting from electric Customer Choice. Additionally, beginning in 2005, the final order allows Detroit Edison to recover the discounts previously provided to special manufacturing contract (SMC) customers of $38 million, resulting in an overall base rate increase of $374 million annually. As subsequently discussed, Detroit Edison has been deferring certain costs as regulatory assets that it believes are recoverable under PA 141 once rate caps expire. The final order addressed numerous issues relating to regulatory assets, including the amounts recoverable and the recovery mechanism. The final order authorized the recovery of a lower level of stranded costs than had been recorded through February 20, 2004, the date of the interim order. Accordingly, Detroit Edison adjusted its net stranded costs related regulatory asset, which decreased 2004 net income by $21 million.

The MPSC’s final order authorizes the recovery of approximately $385 million of regulatory assets through three mechanisms:

•   The first mechanism recovers certain accrued regulatory assets over a five-year period using a regulatory asset recovery surcharge (RARS) and is collectible from all full service customers as their rate caps expire. The total amount to be collected is estimated to be $240 million, plus carrying costs of 9.74% on unrecovered balances. The recoverable regulatory assets include costs associated with Clean Air Act compliance, deferred Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) transmission fees, and deferred excess capital expenditures. The MPSC also authorized the refunding of over collected 1997 storm costs.
 
•   The second mechanism includes a surcharge to recover electric Customer Choice implementation costs of $101 million and is collectible from both full service and electric Customer Choice customers. This charge will not be implemented until all current rate caps expire in 2006 and will include carrying costs of 7% on unrecovered balances.
 
•   The third mechanism includes a surcharge to recover $44 million in historical stranded costs incurred in 2002, 2003 and January and February 2004 and is collectible from electric Customer Choice customers, including carrying costs of 7% on unrecovered balances.

Other significant items authorized by the MPSC in its final order:

•   Rate increase was based on a 54% debt and 46% equity capital structure, and an 11% rate of return on common equity.
 
•   Customer rate caps do not expire until January 2006. As a result, the MPSC determined that there is a need to true-up stranded costs for at least 2004. This true-up case must be filed by March 31, 2005. The MPSC also permits Detroit Edison to file additional annual stranded cost true-up proceedings if it deems appropriate to do so pursuant to PA 141.
 
•   Transmission and MISO costs and costs associated with nitrogen oxide (NOx) allowances will be recoverable through the PSCR mechanism and charged to full service customers; however, costs associated with sulfur dioxide (SOx) allowances will not be included in the PSCR, but recoverable through base rates.
 
•   Full cost recovery of $550 million of Clean Air Act environmental expenditures was authorized. We believe that future mandated environmental expenditures will also be recovered through base rates.
 
•   A pension tracking mechanism was established to manage changes in pension costs. Under the tracking mechanism, Detroit Edison would recover or refund pension costs above or below the amount reflected in base rates. Detroit Edison was also required to propose a similar tracking mechanism for retiree health care costs. In February 2005, Detroit Edison filed a request with the MPSC seeking authority to

88


Table of Contents

    implement a tracking mechanism for retiree health care costs (Other Postemployment Benefits Costs Tracker).
 
•   Detroit Edison was ordered to file a rate unbundling and restructuring case by March 23, 2005. As subsequently discussed, this rate restructuring proposal was filed on February 4, 2005.
 
•   Changes to the existing electric Customer Choice program regarding customers returning to full utility service. Customers electing to participate in the electric Customer Choice program will not be permitted to return to Detroit Edison’s full service rates for two years. Electric Customer Choice customers returning to full service must remain on bundled rates for at least one year following their return. Customers who fail to give the appropriate notice or do not stay on the electric Customer Choice program for two years are required to pay the higher of the applicable tariff energy price plus 10%, or the market price of power plus 10%, for any power taken from Detroit Edison.

In December 2004, Detroit Edison and other parties filed petitions for rehearing relating to the MPSC’s November 2004 final rate order. Among other items, Detroit Edison’s petition requests a correction of the capital structure used in determination of the final order and recovery of certain disallowed costs. Detroit Edison awaits an MPSC decision on the petitions for rehearing.

Electric Rate Restructuring Proposal

On February 4, 2005, Detroit Edison filed a rate restructuring proposal with the MPSC to restructure its electric rates and begin phasing out subsidies that are part of its current pricing structure. The proposal would adjust rates for each customer class to be reflective of the full costs incurred to service such customers. Under the proposal, commercial and industrial rates would be lowered, but residential rates would increase over a five-year period beginning in 2007. The MPSC anticipates that this proceeding will be completed in time to have new rates in effect no later than January 1, 2006.

Other Postemployment Benefits Costs Tracker

On February 10, 2005, Detroit Edison filed an application requesting MPSC approval of a proposed tracking mechanism for retiree health care costs. The application was filed as required pursuant to the MPSC’s November 2004 order.

Electric Industry Restructuring

Electric Rates, Customer Choice and Stranded Costs – In 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 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 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.

89


Table of Contents

In July 2003, the MPSC issued an order finding that Detroit Edison had no net stranded costs in 2000 and 2001. Detroit Edison filed a petition for rehearing of the July 2003 order, which the MPSC denied in December 2003. Detroit Edison has appealed. As previously discussed, the MPSC’s November 2004 final order authorized recovery of $44 million of historical stranded costs incurred in 2002, 2003 and January and February 2004 collectible from electric Customer Choice customers through transition charges. Since March 1, 2004, Detroit Edison has recorded $108 million of additional stranded costs as a regulatory asset as the result of rate caps and higher electric Customer Choice sales losses than included in the 2004 MPSC interim order.

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 the company’s consolidated statement of financial position. The Company makes 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.

Excess Securitization Savings – In January 2004, the MPSC issued an order directing Detroit Edison to file a report by March 15, 2004, of the accounting of the savings due to securitization and the application of those savings through December 2003. In addition, Detroit Edison was requested to include in the report an estimate of the foregone carrying cost associated with the excess securitization savings. A report was filed on February 16, 2004 in compliance with the MPSC order.

DTE2 Accounting Application

In 2003, we began the implementation of DTE2, a Company-wide initiative to improve existing processes and to implement new core information systems, including finance, human resources, supply chain and work management. The new information systems are replacing systems that are approaching the end of their useful lives. We expect the benefits of DTE2 to include lower costs, faster business cycles, repeatable and optimized processes, enhanced internal controls, improvements in inventory management and reductions in system support costs.

In July 2004, Detroit Edison filed an accounting application with the MPSC requesting authority to capitalize and amortize DTE2 costs, consisting of computer equipment, software and development costs, as well as related training, maintenance and overhead costs. Through December 2004, we have expensed approximately $20 million of training, maintenance and overhead costs pending MPSC action on our application. Detroit Edison is proposing a 15-year amortization period for the costs, exclusive of the computer equipment costs.

Power Supply Cost Recovery Proceedings

2004 Plan Year – An MPSC December 2003 order resumed the PSCR mechanism that had been suspended while rates were frozen. The order authorized a new PSCR factor for all customers effective January 1, 2004. The MPSC’s February 2004 interim order provided for a credit of 1.05 mills per kWh compared to a 2.04 mills per kWh charge previously in effect. Detroit Edison will file a 2004 PSCR reconciliation case by March 31, 2005.

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 are power supply costs, transmission expenses and NOx emission allowance costs. Detroit Edison self-implemented a factor of a

90


Table of Contents

negative 2.00 mills per kWh on January 1, 2005. The Michigan Attorney General has filed a motion for summary disposition of this proceeding based on arguments that the PSCR statute requires a fixed 48-month PSCR factor. We cannot predict the nature or timing of actions the MPSC will take on this motion.

Transmission Proceedings

On November 18, 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 would be $2.2 million per month from December 2004 through March 2005. Detroit Edison has estimated that the SECA charge for the April 2005 through March 2006 period will be approximately $1 million per month. On December 20, 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. 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.

Gas Rate Case

Rate Request – In September 2003, MichCon filed an application with the MPSC for an increase in service and distribution charges (base rates) for its gas sales and transportation customers. The filing requests an overall increase in base rates of $194 million per year (approximately 7% increase, inclusive of gas costs), beginning January 1, 2005. MichCon requested that the MPSC increase base rates by $154 million per year on an interim basis by April 1, 2004.

MPSC Interim Rate Order – In September 2004, the MPSC issued an order granting interim rate relief to MichCon in the amount of $35 million. The interim rate order was based on a 50% debt and 50% equity capital structure, and an 11.5% rate of return on common equity. Amounts collected are subject to a potential refund pending a final order in this rate case.

MPSC Staff Recommendation on Final Rate Relief – The Staff has recommended a $76 million increase in base rates compared to MichCon’s requested base rate relief of $194 million. The Staff also supports a provision, proposed by MichCon, that would allow MichCon to recover or refund 90% of uncollectible accounts receivable expense above or below the amount that is reflected in base rates. In addition, the Staff proposed a 50% debt and 50% equity capital structure utilizing a reduced rate of return on common equity of 11%. MichCon’s current allowed rate of return on common equity is 11.5%.

MPSC Proposal for Decision (PFD) – The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a PFD on MichCon’s rate request on December 10, 2004. The PFD recommends an increase in base rates of $60 million. The PFD supports the Staff’s recommendations for capital structure, rate of return on common equity and for the proposed reconciliation of uncollectible accounts receivable. MichCon expects a final order in the first quarter of 2005.

Gas Industry Restructuring

In December 2001, the MPSC approved MichCon’s application for a voluntary, expanded permanent gas Customer Choice program, which replaced the experimental program that expired 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, all of MichCon’s 1.2 million customers could elect to participate in the Customer Choice program, thereby purchasing their gas from suppliers other than MichCon. The MPSC also approved the use of deferred accounting for the recovery of implementation costs of the gas Customer Choice program. As of December 2004, approximately 111,000 customers are participating in the gas Customer Choice program.

91


Table of Contents

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 thousand cubic feet (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 of approximately $14 million 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 is subject to the 2002 GCR reconciliation process. In March 2003, the MPSC issued an order in MichCon’s 2002 GCR plan case. The MPSC ordered MichCon to reduce its gas cost recovery expenses by $26.5 million for purposes of calculating the 2002 GCR factor due to MichCon’s decision to utilize storage gas during 2001 that resulted in a gas inventory decrement for the 2001 calendar year.

Although we recorded a $26.5 million reserve in 2003 to reflect the impact of this order, a final determination of actual 2002 revenue and expenses including any disallowances or adjustment, will be decided in MichCon’s 2002 GCR reconciliation case that was filed with the MPSC in February 2003. The Staff and various intervening parties in this proceeding are seeking to have the MPSC disallow an additional $26 million, representing unbilled revenues at December 2001. One party has also proposed the disallowance of half of an $8 million payment made to settle Enron bankruptcy issues. The other parties to the case have recommended that the Enron bankruptcy settlement be addressed in the 2003 GCR reconciliation case. An MPSC Administrative Law Judge has recommended disallowances of $26.5 million related to the use of storage gas in 2001 and $26 million related to the December 2001 unbilled issue, and recommended that the $8 million related to the Enron issue be addressed in the 2003 GCR reconciliation case. We have included this item in our testimony in the 2003 GCR reconciliation filed in February 2004. The Staff has recommended that MichCon be allowed to recover the entire $8 million related to the Enron issue. A final order in this proceeding is expected in 2005. In addition, we filed an appeal of the March 2003 MPSC order with the Michigan Court of Appeals. In November 2004, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied the appeal.

2003 Plan Year – In July 2003, the MPSC approved an increase in MichCon’s 2003 GCR rate to a maximum of $5.75 per Mcf for the billing months of August 2003 through December 2003. MichCon’s 2003 GCR reconciliation case was filed with the MPSC in February 2004. In November 2004, the ALJ issued a PFD in the 2003 reconciliation case. The ALJ recommended that MichCon recover the full $8 million related to the Enron issue since MichCon had reason to believe at that time that cancellation of the contract was in the best interests of customers and since customers ultimately realized a benefit from the cancellation. The ALJ agreed with the MPSC Staff that a $2 million accounting adjustment related to exchange gas be disallowed.

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 would run from April to March of the following year. To accomplish the switch, the 2004 GCR plan case reflects a 15-month transitional period, January 2004 through March 2005. Under the transition proposal, MichCon would file two reconciliations pertaining to the transition period; one addressing the January 2004 to March 2004 period, the other addressing the remaining April 2004 to March 2005 period. The plan also proposes a quarterly GCR ceiling price adjustment mechanism. This mechanism allows MichCon to increase the maximum GCR factor to compensate for increases in market prices, thereby reducing the possibility of a GCR under-recovery. Due to the sustained increase in market prices for natural gas, in June 2004 the MPSC approved a temporary increase in the maximum GCR factor and a contingent factor which resulted in a new temporary maximum factor of $6.62 per Mcf, effective from July 1, 2004 until the MPSC issues its final order in this case. As of December 31, 2004, MichCon has accrued a $55 million regulatory asset representing the under-recovery of actual gas costs incurred in 2004, and the 2003 and 2002 GCR under-recovery.

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 a quarterly GCR ceiling price adjustment mechanism. This mechanism allows MichCon to increase the maximum GCR factor to compensate for increases in market prices, thereby reducing the possibility of a GCR under-recovery.

92


Table of Contents

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. In 2004 and 2003, we reclassified approximately $605 million ($393 million net of tax) and $585 million ($380 million net of tax), respectively, of other comprehensive loss associated with the minimum pension liability to a regulatory asset (Note 14).

Other

We are unable to predict the outcome of the regulatory matters discussed herein. Resolution of these matters is dependent upon future MPSC orders, which may materially impact the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.

NOTE 5 – 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 – Regulatory Matters. 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 these 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.

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 Act (TRIA) of 2002 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 $28 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.

93


Table of Contents

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 1988 (Act), deferred premium charges up to $101 million could be levied against each licensed nuclear facility, but not more than $10 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. The Act expired on August 1, 2002. During 2003, the U.S. Congress extended the Act for commercial nuclear facilities through December 31, 2003. However, provisions of the Act remain in effect for existing commercial reactors. Legislation to extend the Act in conjunction with comprehensive energy legislation is currently under debate in Congress. We cannot predict whether Congress will pass the legislation.

Decommissioning

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.

Detroit Edison has established a restricted external trust to hold funds collected from customers for decommissioning and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Detroit Edison collected $38 million in 2004, $36 million in 2003 and $42 million in 2002 from customers for decommissioning and low-level radioactive waste disposal. Net unrealized investment gains of $17 million and $62 million in 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $39 million in losses in 2002, were recorded as adjustments to the nuclear decommissioning trust funds and regulatory assets. At December 31, 2004, investments in the external trust consisted of approximately 55% in publicly traded equity securities, 43% in fixed debt instruments and 2% in cash equivalents.

At December 31, 2004 and 2003, Detroit Edison had external decommissioning trust funds of $546 million and $474 million, respectively, for the future decommissioning of Fermi 2. At December 31, 2004 and 2003, Detroit Edison had an additional $18 million and $22 million in trust funds for the decommissioning of Fermi 1. At December 31, 2004 and 2003, Detroit Edison also had an external decommissioning trust fund for low-level radioactive waste disposal costs of $26 million and $22 million, respectively. It is estimated that the cost of decommissioning Fermi 2, when its license expires in 2025, will be $1.0 billion in 2004 dollars and $3.4 billion in 2025 dollars, using a 6% inflation rate. In 2001, the company 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 2009.

As a result of adopting SFAS No. 143, Detroit Edison recorded a retirement obligation liability for the decommissioning of Fermi 1 and 2 and reversed previously recognized decommissioning liabilities. At December 31, 2004, we have recorded a liability for the removal of the non-nuclear portion of the plants of $77 million.

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. Detroit Edison is a party in the litigation against the

94


Table of Contents

DOE for both past and future costs associated with the DOE’s failure to accept spent nuclear fuel under the timetable set forth in the Act.

95


Table of Contents

NOTE 6 — 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, 2004 was as follows:

         
 
       
 
                 
            Ludington  
            Hydroelectric  
    Belle River     Pumped Storage  
In-service date
    1984-1985       1973  
Total plant capacity
  1,026 MW   1,872 MW
Ownership interest
    *       49 %
Investment (in Millions)
  $ 1,581     $ 166  
Accumulated depreciation (in Millions)
  $ 740     $ 88  
 
               
 


*   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 — 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)   2004