Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental Electric Utility Air — Detroit Edison is subject to the EPA ozone transport and acid rain regulations that limit power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Since 2005, the EPA and the State of Michigan have issued additional emission reduction regulations relating to ozone, fine particulate, regional haze and mercury air pollution. The rules have led to additional controls on fossil-fueled power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions. To comply with these requirements, Detroit Edison has spent approximately $1.5 billion through 2010. The Company estimates Detroit Edison will make capital expenditures of approximately $200 million in 2011 and up to $2 billion of additional capital expenditures through 2020 based on current regulations. Further, additional rulemakings are expected over the next few years which could require additional controls for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and hazardous air pollutants. The EPA’s proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units rule (covering mercury and other air pollutants) was issued on March 16, 2011 for review and comment. The EPA accepted comments on the proposal and may modify it prior to finalization, scheduled for November 2011. Also, on July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) which replaces the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), requiring further reductions of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. DTE Energy is reviewing potential impacts of the proposed and recently finalized rules, but is not able to quantify the financial impact of these and other expected rulemakings at this time. In July 2009, DTE Energy received a Notice of Violation/Finding of Violation (NOV/FOV) from the EPA alleging, among other things, that five Detroit Edison power plants violated New Source Performance standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements, and operating permit requirements under the Clean Air Act. An additional NOV/FOV was received in June 2010 related to a recent project and outage at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant. On August 5, 2010, the United States Department of Justice, at the request of the EPA, brought a civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against DTE Energy and Detroit Edison, related to the June 2010 NOV/FOV and the outage work performed at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant, but not relating to the July 2009 NOV/FOV. Among other relief, the EPA requested the court to require Detroit Edison to install and operate the best available control technology at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant. Further, the EPA requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction to require Detroit Edison to (i) begin the process of obtaining the necessary permits for the Monroe Unit 2 modification and (ii) offset the pollution from Monroe Unit 2 through emissions reductions from Detroit Edison’s fleet of coal-fired power plants until the new control equipment is operating. In January 2011, the EPA’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied. On August 23, 2011, the U.S. District judge granted DTE Energy's motion for summary judgment in the civil case, dismissing the case and entering judgment in favor of DTE Energy and Detroit Edison. On October 20, 2011, the EPA caused to be filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. DTE Energy and Detroit Edison believe that the plants identified by the EPA, including Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant, have complied with all applicable federal environmental regulations. Depending upon the outcome of discussions with the EPA regarding the NOV/FOV, Detroit Edison could also be required to install additional pollution control equipment at some or all of the power plants in question, implement early retirement of facilities where control equipment is not economical, engage in supplemental environmental programs, and/or pay fines. DTE Energy and Detroit Edison cannot predict the financial impact or outcome of these matters, or the timing of its resolution. Water — In response to an EPA regulation, Detroit Edison is required to examine alternatives for reducing the environmental impacts of the cooling water intake structures at several of its facilities. Based on the results of completed studies and expected future studies, Detroit Edison may be required to install additional control technologies to reduce the impacts of the water intakes. Initially, it was estimated that Detroit Edison could incur up to approximately $80 million in additional capital expenditures over the 4 to 6 years subsequent to 2008 to comply with these requirements. However, a January 2007 circuit court decision remanded back to the EPA several provisions of the federal regulation that has resulted in a delay in compliance dates. The decision also raised the possibility that Detroit Edison may have to install cooling towers at some facilities at a cost substantially greater than was initially estimated for other mitigative technologies. In 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to review the remanded cost-benefit analysis provision of the rule and in April 2009 upheld the EPA’s use of this provision in determining best technology available for reducing environmental impacts. On April 20, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule. A final rule is scheduled to be issued in mid-2012. The EPA has also issued an information collection request to begin a review of steam electric effluent guidelines. It is not possible at this time to quantify the financial impacts of these developing requirements. 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. The facilities, which produced gas, have been designated as manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Detroit Edison conducted remedial investigations at contaminated sites, including three former MGP sites. The investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing at each site. In addition to the MGP sites, the Company is also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites, including the area surrounding an ash landfill, electrical distribution substations, and underground and aboveground storage tank locations. The findings of these investigations indicated that the estimated cost to remediate these sites is expected to be incurred over the next several years. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company had $8 million and $9 million, respectively, accrued for remediation. Any significant change in assumptions, such as remediation techniques, nature and extent of contamination and regulatory requirements, could impact the estimate of remedial action costs for the sites and affect the Company’s financial position and cash flows. Landfill — Detroit Edison owns and operates a permitted engineered ash storage facility at the Monroe Power Plant to dispose of fly ash from the coal fired power plant. Detroit Edison performed an engineering analysis in 2009 and identified the need for embankment side slope repairs and reconstruction. Those repairs are ongoing and are expected to be completed by 2013. The EPA has published proposed rules to regulate coal ash under the authority of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The proposed rule published on June 21, 2010 contains two primary regulatory options to regulate coal ash residue. The EPA is currently considering either designating coal ash as a “Hazardous Waste” as defined by RCRA or regulating coal ash as non-hazardous waste under RCRA. Agencies and legislatures have urged the EPA to regulate coal ash as a non-hazardous waste. If the EPA designates coal ash as a hazardous waste, the agency could apply some, or all, of the disposal and reuse standards that have been applied to other existing hazardous wastes to disposal and reuse of coal ash. Some of the regulatory actions currently being contemplated could have a significant impact on our operations and financial position and the rates we charge our customers. It is not possible to quantify the financial impact of those expected rulemakings at this time. Gas Utility Contaminated Sites — Gas Utility owns, or previously owned, 15 former MGP sites. Investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing at each site. In addition to the MGP sites, the Company is also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites. Cleanup activities associated with these sites will be conducted over the next several years. The MPSC has established a cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism for investigation and remediation costs incurred at former MGP sites. Accordingly, Gas Utility recognizes a liability and corresponding regulatory asset for estimated investigation and remediation costs at former MGP sites. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company had $41 million and $36 million, respectively, accrued for remediation. Any significant change in assumptions, such as remediation techniques, nature and extent of contamination and regulatory requirements, could impact the estimate of remedial action costs for the sites and affect the Company’s financial position and cash flows. The Company anticipates the cost amortization methodology approved by the MPSC for MichCon, which allows MichCon to amortize the MGP costs over a 10-year period beginning with the year subsequent to the year the MGP costs were incurred, and the cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism for Citizens approved by the City of Adrian, will prevent environmental costs from having a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations. Non-Utility The Company’s non-utility affiliates are subject to a number of environmental laws and regulations dealing with the protection of the environment from various pollutants. The Michigan coke battery facility received and responded to information requests from the EPA that resulted in the issuance of a Notice of Violation in June of 2007 alleging potential maximum achievable control technologies and new source review violations. The EPA is in the process of reviewing the Company’s position of demonstrated compliance and has not initiated escalated enforcement. At this time, the Company cannot predict the financial impact of this issue. Furthermore, the Michigan coke battery facility is the subject of an investigation by the MDEQ concerning visible emissions readings that resulted from the Company self reporting to MDEQ questionable activities by an employee of a contractor hired by the Company to perform the visible emissions readings. At this time, the Company cannot predict the financial impact of this investigation. In April 2006, the prior owners of the coke battery facility in Pennsylvania that the Company purchased in 2008 received a Notice of Violation/Finding of Violation from the EPA alleging violations of the lowest achievable emission rate requirements associated with visible emissions from the combustion stack, door leaks and charging activities at the coke battery facility. The EPA has also alleged certain violations of the Clean Water Act, but has not issued a notice of violation in connection with these alleged violations. The Company is in the process of negotiating a Consent Order with the EPA to settle these historic air and water issues. The Company expects to enter into the Consent Order during the fourth quarter of 2011. The Company received two Notices of Violation from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in 2010 alleging violations of the permit for the Pennsylvania coke battery facility in connection with coal pile storm water runoff. The Company has implemented best management practices to address this issue and is currently seeking a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to upgrade its wastewater treatment technology to a biological treatment facility. The Company expects to spend less than $1.5 million on the existing waste water treatment system to comply with existing water discharge requirements and to upgrade its coal pile storm water runoff management program. The Company may spend an additional $13 million over the next few years to meet future regulatory requirements and gain other operational improvements savings. The Company believes that its non-utility affiliates are substantially in compliance with all environmental requirements, other than as noted above. Other In March 2011, the EPA finalized a new set of regulations regarding the identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are considered solid waste, industrial boiler and process heater maximum achievable control technologies (IBMACT) for major and area sources, and commercial/industrial solid waste incinerator new source performance standard and emission guidelines (CISWI). Both IBMACT and CISWI regulations were stayed and a re-proposal is expected by the end of 2011. The re-proposed rules may impact our existing operations and may require us, in certain instances, to install new air pollution control devices. The re-proposed regulations will provide a minimum period of three years for compliance with the applicable standards. Based on the final approved regulations, anticipated in the first half of 2012, the Company will assess the financial impact, if any, on current operations for compliance with the applicable new standards. In February 2008, DTE Energy was named as one of approximately 24 defendant oil, power and coal companies in a lawsuit filed in a United States District Court. DTE Energy was served with process in March 2008. The plaintiffs, the Native Village of Kivalina and City of Kivalina, which are home to approximately 400 people in Alaska, claim that the defendants’ business activities have contributed to global warming and, as a result, higher temperatures are damaging the local economy and leaving the island more vulnerable to storm activity in the fall and winter. As a result, the plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $400 million for relocation costs associated with moving the village to a safer location, as well as unspecified attorney’s fees and expenses. On October 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court granted defendants’ motions dismissing all of plaintiffs’ federal claims in the case on two independent grounds: (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims because of the political question doctrine; and (2) plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. The court also dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claims because the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over them after it dismissed the federal claims; the dismissal of the state law claims was without prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Nuclear Operations Property Insurance Detroit Edison maintains property insurance policies specifically for the Fermi 2 plant. These policies cover such items as replacement power and property damage. The Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) is the primary supplier of the insurance policies. Detroit Edison maintains a policy for extra expenses, including replacement power costs necessitated by Fermi 2’s unavailability due to an insured event. This policy has a 12-week waiting period and provides 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. In 2007, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (TRIA) was extended through December 31, 2014. A major change in the extension is the inclusion of “domestic” acts of terrorism in the definition of covered or “certified” acts. For multiple terrorism losses caused by acts of terrorism not covered under the TRIA occurring within one year after the first loss from terrorism, the NEIL policies would make available to all insured entities up to $3.2 billion, plus any amounts recovered from reinsurance, government indemnity, or other sources to cover losses. Under the NEIL policies, Detroit Edison could be liable for maximum assessments of up to approximately $29 million per event if the loss associated with any one event at any nuclear plant in the United States should exceed the accumulated funds available to NEIL. Public Liability Insurance As of January 1, 2011, as required by federal law, Detroit Edison maintains $375 million of public liability insurance for a nuclear incident. For liabilities arising from a terrorist act outside the scope of TRIA, the policy is subject to one industry aggregate limit of $300 million. Further, under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, deferred premium charges up to $117.5 million could be levied against each licensed nuclear facility, but not more than $17.5 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. 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 accounted for as 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 and the proposed fiscal year 2011 federal budget recommends termination of funding for completion of the government’s long-term storage facility. Detroit Edison is a party in the litigation against the 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 Federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Detroit Edison currently employs a spent nuclear fuel storage strategy utilizing a fuel pool. The Company continues to develop its on-site dry cask storage facility and has postponed the initial offload from the spent fuel pool until 2013. The dry cask storage facility is expected to provide sufficient spent fuel storage capability for the life of the plant as defined by the original operating license. Issues relating to long-term waste disposal policy and to the disposition of funds contributed by Detroit Edison ratepayers to the federal waste fund await future governmental action. Guarantees In certain limited circumstances, the Company enters into contractual guarantees. The Company may guarantee another entity’s obligation in the event it fails to perform. The Company may provide guarantees in certain indemnification agreements. Finally, the Company may provide indirect guarantees for the indebtedness of others. The Company’s guarantees are not individually material with maximum potential payments totaling $10 million at September 30, 2011. The Company is periodically required to obtain performance surety bonds in support of obligations to various governmental entities and other companies in connection with its operations. As of September 30, 2011, the Company had approximately $14 million of performance bonds outstanding. In the event that such bonds are called for nonperformance, the Company would be obligated to reimburse the issuer of the performance bond. The Company is released from the performance bonds as the contractual performance is completed and does not believe that a material amount of any currently outstanding performance bonds will be called. Labor Contracts There are several bargaining units for the Company’s approximately 5,000 represented employees. In the 2011 second quarter, a new three-year agreement was ratified covering approximately 400 represented employees. The majority of the remaining represented employees are under contracts that expire August 2012 and June and October 2013. Purchase Commitments As of September 30, 2011, the Company was party to numerous long-term purchase commitments relating to a variety of goods and services required for the Company’s business. These agreements primarily consist of fuel supply commitments and energy trading contracts. The Company estimates that these commitments will be approximately $5 billion from 2011 through 2051. The Company also estimates that 2011 capital expenditures will be approximately $1.7 billion. The Company has made certain commitments in connection with expected capital expenditures. Bankruptcies The Company purchases and sells electricity, gas, coal, coke and other energy products from and to numerous companies operating in the steel, automotive, energy, retail, financial and other industries. Certain of its customers have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Company regularly reviews contingent matters relating to these customers and its purchase and sale contracts and records provisions for amounts considered at risk of probable loss. The Company believes its accrued amounts are adequate for probable loss. The final resolution of these matters may have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Other Contingencies The Company is involved in certain other legal, regulatory, administrative and environmental proceedings before various courts, arbitration panels and governmental agencies concerning claims arising in the ordinary course of business. These proceedings include certain contract disputes, additional environmental reviews and investigations, audits, inquiries from various regulators, and pending judicial matters. The Company cannot predict the final disposition of such proceedings. The Company regularly reviews legal matters and records provisions for claims that it can estimate and are considered probable of loss. The resolution of these pending proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s operations or financial statements in the periods they are resolved. See Notes 4 and 6 for a discussion of contingencies related to derivatives and regulatory matters.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental

Electric Utility

Air — Detroit Edison is subject to the EPA ozone transport and acid rain regulations that limit power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Since 2005, the EPA and the State of Michigan have issued additional emission reduction regulations relating to ozone, fine particulate, regional haze and mercury air pollution. The rules have led to additional controls on fossil-fueled power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions. To comply with these requirements, Detroit Edison has spent approximately $1.5 billion through 2010. The Company estimates Detroit Edison will make capital expenditures of approximately $200 million in 2011 and up to $2 billion of additional capital expenditures through 2020 based on current regulations. Further, additional rulemakings are expected over the next few years which could require additional controls for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and hazardous air pollutants. The EPA’s proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units rule (covering mercury and other air pollutants) was issued on March 16, 2011 for review and comment. The EPA accepted comments on the proposal and may modify it prior to finalization, scheduled for November 2011. Also, on July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) which replaces the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), requiring further reductions of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. DTE Energy is reviewing potential impacts of the proposed and recently finalized rules, but is not able to quantify the financial impact of these and other expected rulemakings at this time.

In July 2009, DTE Energy received a Notice of Violation/Finding of Violation (NOV/FOV) from the EPA alleging, among other things, that five Detroit Edison power plants violated New Source Performance standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements, and operating permit requirements under the Clean Air Act. An additional NOV/FOV was received in June 2010 related to a recent project and outage at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant.

On August 5, 2010, the United States Department of Justice, at the request of the EPA, brought a civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against DTE Energy and Detroit Edison, related to the June 2010 NOV/FOV and the outage work performed at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant, but not relating to the July 2009 NOV/FOV. Among other relief, the EPA requested the court to require Detroit Edison to install and operate the best available control technology at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant. Further, the EPA requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction to require Detroit Edison to (i) begin the process of obtaining the necessary permits for the Monroe Unit 2 modification and (ii) offset the pollution from Monroe Unit 2 through emissions reductions from Detroit Edison’s fleet of coal-fired power plants until the new control equipment is operating. In January 2011, the EPA’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied. On August 23, 2011, the U.S. District judge granted DTE Energy's motion for summary judgment in the civil case, dismissing the case and entering judgment in favor of DTE Energy and Detroit Edison. On October 20, 2011, the EPA caused to be filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

DTE Energy and Detroit Edison believe that the plants identified by the EPA, including Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant, have complied with all applicable federal environmental regulations. Depending upon the outcome of discussions with the EPA regarding the NOV/FOV, Detroit Edison could also be required to install additional pollution control equipment at some or all of the power plants in question, implement early retirement of facilities where control equipment is not economical, engage in supplemental environmental programs, and/or pay fines. DTE Energy and Detroit Edison cannot predict the financial impact or outcome of these matters, or the timing of its resolution.

Water — In response to an EPA regulation, Detroit Edison is required to examine alternatives for reducing the environmental impacts of the cooling water intake structures at several of its facilities. Based on the results of completed studies and expected future studies, Detroit Edison may be required to install additional control technologies to reduce the impacts of the water intakes. Initially, it was estimated that Detroit Edison could incur up to approximately $80 million in additional capital expenditures over the 4 to 6 years subsequent to 2008 to comply with these requirements. However, a January 2007 circuit court decision remanded back to the EPA several provisions of the federal regulation that has resulted in a delay in compliance dates. The decision also raised the possibility that Detroit Edison may have to install cooling towers at some facilities at a cost substantially greater than was initially estimated for other mitigative technologies. In 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to review the remanded cost-benefit analysis provision of the rule and in April 2009 upheld the EPA’s use of this provision in determining best technology available for reducing environmental impacts. On April 20, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule. A final rule is scheduled to be issued in mid-2012. The EPA has also issued an information collection request to begin a review of steam electric effluent guidelines. It is not possible at this time to quantify the financial impacts of these developing requirements.

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. The facilities, which produced gas, have been designated as manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. Detroit Edison conducted remedial investigations at contaminated sites, including three former MGP sites. The investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing at each site. In addition to the MGP sites, the Company is also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites, including the area surrounding an ash landfill, electrical distribution substations, and underground and aboveground storage tank locations. The findings of these investigations indicated that the estimated cost to remediate these sites is expected to be incurred over the next several years. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company had $8 million and $9 million, respectively, accrued for remediation. Any significant change in assumptions, such as remediation techniques, nature and extent of contamination and regulatory requirements, could impact the estimate of remedial action costs for the sites and affect the Company’s financial position and cash flows.

Landfill — Detroit Edison owns and operates a permitted engineered ash storage facility at the Monroe Power Plant to dispose of fly ash from the coal fired power plant. Detroit Edison performed an engineering analysis in 2009 and identified the need for embankment side slope repairs and reconstruction. Those repairs are ongoing and are expected to be completed by 2013.

The EPA has published proposed rules to regulate coal ash under the authority of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The proposed rule published on June 21, 2010 contains two primary regulatory options to regulate coal ash residue. The EPA is currently considering either designating coal ash as a “Hazardous Waste” as defined by RCRA or regulating coal ash as non-hazardous waste under RCRA. Agencies and legislatures have urged the EPA to regulate coal ash as a non-hazardous waste. If the EPA designates coal ash as a hazardous waste, the agency could apply some, or all, of the disposal and reuse standards that have been applied to other existing hazardous wastes to disposal and reuse of coal ash. Some of the regulatory actions currently being contemplated could have a significant impact on our operations and financial position and the rates we charge our customers. It is not possible to quantify the financial impact of those expected rulemakings at this time.

Gas Utility

Contaminated Sites — Gas Utility owns, or previously owned, 15 former MGP sites. Investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing at each site. In addition to the MGP sites, the Company is also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites. Cleanup activities associated with these sites will be conducted over the next several years.

The MPSC has established a cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism for investigation and remediation costs incurred at former MGP sites. Accordingly, Gas Utility recognizes a liability and corresponding regulatory asset for estimated investigation and remediation costs at former MGP sites. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company had $41 million and $36 million, respectively, accrued for remediation.

Any significant change in assumptions, such as remediation techniques, nature and extent of contamination and regulatory requirements, could impact the estimate of remedial action costs for the sites and affect the Company’s financial position and cash flows. The Company anticipates the cost amortization methodology approved by the MPSC for MichCon, which allows MichCon to amortize the MGP costs over a 10-year period beginning with the year subsequent to the year the MGP costs were incurred, and the cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism for Citizens approved by the City of Adrian, will prevent environmental costs from having a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations.

Non-Utility

The Company’s non-utility affiliates are subject to a number of environmental laws and regulations dealing with the protection of the environment from various pollutants.

The Michigan coke battery facility received and responded to information requests from the EPA that resulted in the issuance of a Notice of Violation in June of 2007 alleging potential maximum achievable control technologies and new source review violations. The EPA is in the process of reviewing the Company’s position of demonstrated compliance and has not initiated escalated enforcement. At this time, the Company cannot predict the financial impact of this issue. Furthermore, the Michigan coke battery facility is the subject of an investigation by the MDEQ concerning visible emissions readings that resulted from the Company self reporting to MDEQ questionable activities by an employee of a contractor hired by the Company to perform the visible emissions readings. At this time, the Company cannot predict the financial impact of this investigation.

In April 2006, the prior owners of the coke battery facility in Pennsylvania that the Company purchased in 2008 received a Notice of Violation/Finding of Violation from the EPA alleging violations of the lowest achievable emission rate requirements associated with visible emissions from the combustion stack, door leaks and charging activities at the coke battery facility. The EPA has also alleged certain violations of the Clean Water Act, but has not issued a notice of violation in connection with these alleged violations. The Company is in the process of negotiating a Consent Order with the EPA to settle these historic air and water issues. The Company expects to enter into the Consent Order during the fourth quarter of 2011.

The Company received two Notices of Violation from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in 2010 alleging violations of the permit for the Pennsylvania coke battery facility in connection with coal pile storm water runoff. The Company has implemented best management practices to address this issue and is currently seeking a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to upgrade its wastewater treatment technology to a biological treatment facility. The Company expects to spend less than $1.5 million on the existing waste water treatment system to comply with existing water discharge requirements and to upgrade its coal pile storm water runoff management program. The Company may spend an additional $13 million over the next few years to meet future regulatory requirements and gain other operational improvements savings.

The Company believes that its non-utility affiliates are substantially in compliance with all environmental requirements, other than as noted above.

Other

In March 2011, the EPA finalized a new set of regulations regarding the identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are considered solid waste, industrial boiler and process heater maximum achievable control technologies (IBMACT) for major and area sources, and commercial/industrial solid waste incinerator new source performance standard and emission guidelines (CISWI). Both IBMACT and CISWI regulations were stayed and a re-proposal is expected by the end of 2011. The re-proposed rules may impact our existing operations and may require us, in certain instances, to install new air pollution control devices. The re-proposed regulations will provide a minimum period of three years for compliance with the applicable standards. Based on the final approved regulations, anticipated in the first half of 2012, the Company will assess the financial impact, if any, on current operations for compliance with the applicable new standards.

In February 2008, DTE Energy was named as one of approximately 24 defendant oil, power and coal companies in a lawsuit filed in a United States District Court. DTE Energy was served with process in March 2008. The plaintiffs, the Native Village of Kivalina and City of Kivalina, which are home to approximately 400 people in Alaska, claim that the defendants’ business activities have contributed to global warming and, as a result, higher temperatures are damaging the local economy and leaving the island more vulnerable to storm activity in the fall and winter. As a result, the plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $400 million for relocation costs associated with moving the village to a safer location, as well as unspecified attorney’s fees and expenses. On October 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court granted defendants’ motions dismissing all of plaintiffs’ federal claims in the case on two independent grounds: (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims because of the political question doctrine; and (2) plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. The court also dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claims because the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over them after it dismissed the federal claims; the dismissal of the state law claims was without prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Nuclear Operations

Property Insurance

Detroit Edison maintains property insurance policies specifically for the Fermi 2 plant. These policies cover such items as replacement power and property damage. The Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) is the primary supplier of the insurance policies.

Detroit Edison maintains a policy for extra expenses, including replacement power costs necessitated by Fermi 2’s unavailability due to an insured event. This policy has a 12-week waiting period and provides 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.

In 2007, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (TRIA) was extended through December 31, 2014. A major change in the extension is the inclusion of “domestic” acts of terrorism in the definition of covered or “certified” acts. For multiple terrorism losses caused by acts of terrorism not covered under the TRIA occurring within one year after the first loss from terrorism, the NEIL policies would make available to all insured entities up to $3.2 billion, plus any amounts recovered from reinsurance, government indemnity, or other sources to cover losses.

Under the NEIL policies, Detroit Edison could be liable for maximum assessments of up to approximately $29 million per event if the loss associated with any one event at any nuclear plant in the United States should exceed the accumulated funds available to NEIL.

Public Liability Insurance

As of January 1, 2011, as required by federal law, Detroit Edison maintains $375 million of public liability insurance for a nuclear incident. For liabilities arising from a terrorist act outside the scope of TRIA, the policy is subject to one industry aggregate limit of $300 million. Further, under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, deferred premium charges up to $117.5 million could be levied against each licensed nuclear facility, but not more than $17.5 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.

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 accounted for as 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 and the proposed fiscal year 2011 federal budget recommends termination of funding for completion of the government’s long-term storage facility. Detroit Edison is a party in the litigation against the 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 Federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Detroit Edison currently employs a spent nuclear fuel storage strategy utilizing a fuel pool. The Company continues to develop its on-site dry cask storage facility and has postponed the initial offload from the spent fuel pool until 2013. The dry cask storage facility is expected to provide sufficient spent fuel storage capability for the life of the plant as defined by the original operating license. Issues relating to long-term waste disposal policy and to the disposition of funds contributed by Detroit Edison ratepayers to the federal waste fund await future governmental action.

Guarantees

In certain limited circumstances, the Company enters into contractual guarantees. The Company may guarantee another entity’s obligation in the event it fails to perform. The Company may provide guarantees in certain indemnification agreements. Finally, the Company may provide indirect guarantees for the indebtedness of others. The Company’s guarantees are not individually material with maximum potential payments totaling $10 million at September 30, 2011.

The Company is periodically required to obtain performance surety bonds in support of obligations to various governmental entities and other companies in connection with its operations. As of September 30, 2011, the Company had approximately $14 million of performance bonds outstanding. In the event that such bonds are called for nonperformance, the Company would be obligated to reimburse the issuer of the performance bond. The Company is released from the performance bonds as the contractual performance is completed and does not believe that a material amount of any currently outstanding performance bonds will be called.

Labor Contracts

There are several bargaining units for the Company’s approximately 5,000 represented employees. In the 2011 second quarter, a new three-year agreement was ratified covering approximately 400 represented employees. The majority of the remaining represented employees are under contracts that expire August 2012 and June and October 2013.

Purchase Commitments

As of September 30, 2011, the Company was party to numerous long-term purchase commitments relating to a variety of goods and services required for the Company’s business. These agreements primarily consist of fuel supply commitments and energy trading contracts. The Company estimates that these commitments will be approximately $5 billion from 2011 through 2051.

The Company also estimates that 2011 capital expenditures will be approximately $1.7 billion. The Company has made certain commitments in connection with expected capital expenditures.

Bankruptcies

The Company purchases and sells electricity, gas, coal, coke and other energy products from and to numerous companies operating in the steel, automotive, energy, retail, financial and other industries. Certain of its customers have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Company regularly reviews contingent matters relating to these customers and its purchase and sale contracts and records provisions for amounts considered at risk of probable loss. The Company believes its accrued amounts are adequate for probable loss. The final resolution of these matters may have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

Other Contingencies

The Company is involved in certain other legal, regulatory, administrative and environmental proceedings before various courts, arbitration panels and governmental agencies concerning claims arising in the ordinary course of business. These proceedings include certain contract disputes, additional environmental reviews and investigations, audits, inquiries from various regulators, and pending judicial matters. The Company cannot predict the final disposition of such proceedings. The Company regularly reviews legal matters and records provisions for claims that it can estimate and are considered probable of loss. The resolution of these pending proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s operations or financial statements in the periods they are resolved.

See Notes 4 and 6 for a discussion of contingencies related to derivatives and regulatory matters.