One Energy Plaza

Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279

 

2009 Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Proxy Statement

 

 

We invite you to attend the annual meeting of DTE Energy Company (“DTE,” “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”) to:

 

 

The record date for this annual meeting is March 2, 2009. Only shareholders of record at the close of business on that date can vote at the meeting. For more information, please read the accompanying 2009 Proxy Statement.

 

This 2009 Notice of Annual Meeting, as well as the accompanying Proxy Statement and proxy card, will be first sent or given to our shareholders on or about March 23, 2009.

 

It is important that your shares be represented at the meeting. Shareholders may vote their shares (1) in person at the annual meeting, (2) by telephone, (3) via the Internet, or (4) by completing and mailing the enclosed proxy card in the return envelope. Specific instructions for voting by telephone or via the Internet are attached to the proxy card. If you attend the meeting and vote at it, your vote at the meeting will replace any earlier vote by telephone, Internet or proxy. If your shares are directly held in your name as a shareholder of record, an admission ticket to the meeting is attached to your proxy card. Please vote your proxy, and bring the admission ticket with you to the meeting. If your shares are registered in the name of a bank, brokerage firm, or other nominee and you plan to attend the meeting, bring your statement of account showing evidence of ownership as of the record date. All shareholders who plan to attend the meeting must present a government-issued photo identification card, such as your driver’s license, state identification card or passport.

 

March 23, 2009

 

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the
Annual Shareholders Meeting to Be Held on April 30, 2009:

 

The Proxy Statement and Annual Report are available to security holders at
http://bnymellon.mobular.net/bnymellon/dte

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

2009 PROXY STATEMENT OF DTE ENERGY COMPANY

 

 

 

 

 

 

At DTE, we are committed to operating in an ethical, legal, environmentally sensitive and socially responsible manner, while creating long-term value for our shareholders. The foundation of our governance practices begins at the top, with the DTE Energy Board of Directors Mission Statement and Governance Guidelines (“Governance Guidelines”). The Governance Guidelines set forth the practices the Board follows with respect to Board composition and selection, Board meetings, the performance evaluation and succession planning for DTE’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO” or “Chief Executive Officer”), Board committees, Board compensation, and communicating with the Board, among other things. The Governance Guidelines are also intended to align the interests of directors and management with those of our shareholders. The following is a summary of the Governance Guidelines, along with other governance practices at DTE.

 

Our Bylaws provide that the Board be divided into three classes, each class being as nearly equal in number as possible. At each annual shareholder meeting, the shareholders elect one class of directors for a three-year term, and elect any director who may be filling a vacancy in an unexpired term. If a vacancy in the Board occurs between annual shareholder meetings, the vacancy may be filled by a majority vote of the directors then in office, and such person will be subject to election by the shareholders at the next annual shareholder meeting.

 

Under the Governance Guidelines, the Corporate Governance Committee periodically assesses the skills, characteristics and composition of the Board, along with the need for expertise and other relevant factors as it deems appropriate. In light of these assessments, and in light of the standards set forth in the Governance Guidelines, the Corporate Governance Committee may seek candidates with specific qualifications and candidates who satisfy other requirements set by the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee considers candidates who have been properly nominated by shareholders, as well as candidates who have been identified by Board members and Company personnel. In addition, the Corporate Governance Committee may use a search firm to assist in the search for candidates and nominees and to evaluate the nominees’ skills against the Board’s criteria. Based on its review of all candidates, the Corporate Governance Committee recommends a slate of director nominees for election at the annual meeting of shareholders. The slate of nominees may include both incumbent and new nominees.

 

Potential candidates are reviewed and evaluated by the Corporate Governance Committee, and certain candidates are interviewed by one or more Corporate Governance Committee members. An invitation to join the Board is extended by the Board itself, through the Chairman and the Chair of the Corporate Governance Committee.

 

In addition to the four nominees who are incumbent directors — John E. Lobbia, Eugene A. Miller, Charles W. Pryor, Jr. and Ruth G. Shaw — the Board has nominated Gerard M. Anderson, the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer, to stand for election as a director for a term expiring in 2012. In addition, during 2008, the Corporate Governance Committee retained a third-party search firm to assist in identifying, evaluating and recruiting potential director candidates. The Corporate Governance Committee screened director candidates and recommended to the Board that Mark A. Murray be nominated as a director. The Board nominated Mr. Murray to stand for election as a director for a term expiring in 2011.

 

Our Governance Guidelines state that the exact size of the Board will be determined by the Board from time to time. Currently, our Governance Guidelines set the size of the Board at no less than 10 and no more than 18 directors. As a matter of policy, in accordance with NYSE listing standards, we believe that the Board should consist of a majority of independent directors. The Board must affirmatively determine that a director has no material relationship with the Company, either directly or indirectly, or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company. The Board has established the following categorical standards for director independence:

 

A director, for whom any of the following is true, will not be considered independent:

 

 

 

Contributions to a tax-exempt organization will not be considered to be a material relationship that would impair a director’s independence if a director serves as an executive officer of a tax-exempt organization and, within the preceding three years, contributions in any single fiscal year were less than $1 million or 2% (whichever is greater) of such tax-exempt organization’s consolidated gross revenues.

 

Applying these standards, the Board has affirmatively determined that a majority of our directors qualify as independent and have no material relationship with the Company. The independent directors are Lillian Bauder, W. Frank Fountain, Jr., Allan D. Gilmour, Frank M. Hennessey, Gail J. McGovern, Eugene A. Miller, Charles W. Pryor, Jr., General Josue Robles, Jr., Ruth G. Shaw and James H. Vandenberghe (the “Independent Directors”). The Board also affirmatively determined that, if elected, nominee Mark A. Murray will be an Independent Director. Directors Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Alfred R. Glancy III and John E. Lobbia are not Independent Directors and may be deemed to be affiliates of the Company under the categorical standards due, in Mr. Earley’s case, to his current employment as CEO; in Mr. Lobbia’s case, to his prior employment as Chairman and CEO; and, in Mr. Glancy’s case, to his prior employment as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MCN Energy Group, Inc. (“MCN”). Mr. Glancy is not standing for re-election because he has reached the mandatory retirement age for retired CEOs of the Company, as more fully described on page 9. (For more information about our relationship with Mr. Glancy, see “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” beginning on page 16.) Nominee Gerard M. Anderson will not be an Independent Director if elected due to his current employment as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company.

 

The Board has standing committees for Audit, Corporate Governance, Finance, Nuclear Review, Organization and Compensation and Public Responsibility. The Board committees act in an advisory capacity to the full Board, except that the Organization and Compensation Committee has direct responsibility for the CEO’s goals, performance and compensation along with compensation of other executives, and the Audit Committee has direct responsibility for appointing, replacing, compensating and overseeing the independent registered public accounting firm. Each committee has adopted a charter that clearly establishes the committee’s respective roles and responsibilities. In addition, each committee has authority to retain independent outside professional advisors or experts as it deems advisable or necessary, including the sole authority to retain and terminate any such advisors, to carry out its duties. The Board has determined that each member of the Audit, Corporate Governance, and Organization and Compensation Committees is independent under our categorical

standards and that each member is free of any relationship that would interfere with his or her individual exercise of independent judgment. The Board has also determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets the independence requirements under the SEC rules and NYSE listing standards applicable to Audit Committee members.

 

Our Bylaws currently provide that the Chairman may simultaneously serve as the CEO of the Company and shall preside at all meetings of the Board. In addition, if the Chairman and CEO positions are held by the same individual, the Board may elect an independent director as Presiding Director who would serve until the next annual meeting. The Presiding Director’s duties include presiding at executive sessions. On March 6, 2008, the Board unanimously re-elected Mr. Gilmour as the Presiding Director.

 

The Board met six times in 2008. A portion of each Board meeting is spent with the Chairman and CEO and no other management members. All of the incumbent directors attended at least 83% of the Board meetings and the meetings of the committees on which they served, six of whom had a 100% attendance record. It is our policy that directors attend annual meetings of shareholders. Twelve of the 13 directors then in office attended last year’s annual meeting. Dr. Shaw was unable to attend the 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders due to a scheduling conflict she had identified prior to joining the Board.

 

The Board has not established term limits other than the current three-year terms of office. However, the Corporate Governance Committee of the Board has established policies that independent directors should not stand for election after attaining the age of 72, unless the Board waives this provision when circumstances exist which make it prudent to continue the service of the particular independent director. Directors who are retired CEOs of the Company or its subsidiaries shall not stand for election after attaining the age of 70. Except for the CEO, who may continue to serve as a director for so long as he is serving as Chairman, current employees who are also directors will not stand for re-election after retiring from employment with the Company.

 

It is the Board’s practice that the non-management directors meet in executive session at every regular Board meeting and meet in executive session at other times whenever they believe it would be appropriate. The non-management directors met in executive sessions (sessions without the CEO or any representatives of management present) at all six Board meetings in 2008. At least once per year, the non-management directors meet in executive session to review the Organization and Compensation Committee’s performance review of the CEO and the President. The Presiding Director chairs the executive sessions of non-management directors.

 

The Board evaluates its performance annually. In addition, each Board committee performs an annual self-assessment to determine its effectiveness. Periodically, the Board performs a peer review of all directors who have served one year or more. The results of the Board and Committee self-assessments are discussed with the Board and each Committee, respectively. The results of the individual peer review are reviewed by the Chair of the Corporate Governance Committee and discussed with the Corporate Governance Committee. The Chair of the Corporate Governance Committee discusses the results of the peer review with individual directors, as directed by the Corporate Governance Committee.

 

The Company has established a Board compensation structure intended to provide compensation of approximately one-half cash and one-half equity. The Board has stock ownership guidelines that set specific

Company stock ownership requirements based on the director’s years of service on the Board. (See “Director Stock Ownership” on page 14.)

 

The DTE Energy Board of Directors Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, the Officer Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and The DTE Energy Way are the standards of behavior for Company directors, officers, and employees. Any waiver of, or amendments to, the Board of Directors Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the Officer Code of Business Conduct and Ethics as it pertains to the CEO, the Chief Financial Officer, senior financial officers and other Executive Officers, as defined in the “Security Ownership of Directors and Officers” section on page 15, will be disclosed promptly by posting such waivers or amendments on the Company Web site, www.dteenergy.com. There were no waivers or amendments during 2008.

 

The Company has established several methods for shareholders or other non-affiliated persons to communicate their concerns to the directors.

 

 

By telephone:		877-406-9448
or
By Internet:		ethicsinaction.dteenergy.com
or
By mail:		For auditing, accounting practices or internal control matters: DTE Energy Company Audit Committee One Energy Plaza Room 2441 WCB Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279
		For business ethics issues: DTE Energy Company Office of the Assistant to the Chairman One Energy Plaza Room 2343 WCB Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279

 

 

		Presiding Director c/o Corporate Secretary DTE Energy Company One Energy Plaza Room 2465 WCB Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279

 

Periodically, we revise our governance information in response to changing regulatory requirements and evolving corporate governance developments. Current copies of the Governance Guidelines, committee charters, categorical standards of director independence and the codes of ethics referred to above are available on our Web site at www.dteenergy.com, in the “Investor Information — Corporate Governance” section. You can also request a copy of any or all of these documents by mailing your request to the Corporate Secretary, DTE Energy Company, One Energy Plaza, Room 2465 WCB, Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279.

 

The information on the Company’s Web site is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this Proxy Statement or incorporated into any other filings the Company makes with the SEC.

 

The table below reflects the membership and the number of meetings held by each Board committee during 2008.

 

 

 

Following is a summary of the terms of each committee’s charter and the responsibilities of its members:

 

Audit Committee

 

 

The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate. The Board has reviewed the qualifications and experience of each of the Audit Committee members and determined that each member of the Audit Committee qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as that term has been defined by the SEC.

 

Corporate Governance Committee

 

 

Finance Committee

 

 

Nuclear Review Committee

 

 

Organization and Compensation Committee

 

 

Public Responsibility Committee

 

 

As a part of its oversight function, the Board monitors how management operates the Company, in part via its committee structure. When granting authority to management, approving strategies and receiving management reports, the Board considers, among other things, the risks and vulnerabilities we face. The Audit Committee considers risk issues associated with our overall financial reporting and disclosure process and legal compliance, as well as reviewing policies on risk control assessment and accounting risk exposure. In addition to its regularly scheduled meetings, the Audit Committee meets with the Chief Financial Officer, the General Auditor, the Chief Risk Officer and the independent registered public accounting firm in executive sessions at least quarterly, and with the General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer as determined from time to time by the Audit Committee. The Finance Committee oversees financial, capital and insurance risk. The Nuclear Review Committee reviews risk relating to the operation of our nuclear power facilities. Other committees, such as the Public Responsibility Committee, deal with other matters of risk associated with social responsibility, reputation, safety and the environment. The Company also utilizes an internal Risk Management Committee, chaired by the CEO and comprised of senior officers, that, among other things, directs the development and maintenance of comprehensive risk management policies and procedures, and reviews, sets, and monitors risk limits on a regular basis for enterprise risk, counter-party credit and commodity based exposures.

 

Elements of Director Compensation

 

Employee directors receive no payment for service as directors. The goal of our compensation policies for non-employee directors is to tie their compensation to your interests as shareholders. Accordingly, approximately 50% of a director’s annual compensation is in the form of equity-based compensation, including phantom shares of our common stock. The compensation program for non-employee directors is reviewed on an annual basis by the Board. This review includes a review of a comparative peer group of companies that is identical to the peer group used to review executive compensation (See “Executive Compensation — Compensation Discussion and Analysis” beginning on page 30). Based on the review completed in June 2008, three changes were made to the non-employee director compensation program. Effective July 1, 2008, the annual equity award was increased from 1,750 phantom shares to 2,000 phantom shares and the annual cash retainer was increased from $50,000 to $60,000. In addition, non-employee directors are paid the equivalent of their committee meeting fees for any official Company business or special services that may be required by the Company. For total compensation paid to each director during 2008, see the “2008 Director Compensation Table” on page 53. The compensation program is described below.

 

 

 

Payment of Non-Employee Director Fees and Expenses

 

Non-employee directors may defer up to 100% of their annual retainer and meeting fees into an unfunded deferred compensation plan. Retainers and all meeting fees for non-employee directors are either (i) payable in cash or (ii) at the election of the director, deferred into an account pursuant to the DTE Energy Company Plan for Deferring the Payment of Directors’ Fees. Deferred fees may accrue for future payment, with interest accrued monthly at the 5-year U.S. Treasury Bond rate as of the last business day of each month or, at the election of the director, they may be invested in phantom shares of our common stock with all imputed dividends reinvested.

 

In addition to the retainers and fees, non-employee directors are reimbursed for their travel expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings, along with reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred when attending director education seminars.

 

Additional payments are provided to Mr. Glancy in connection with the DTE/MCN merger in 2001. See page 17 for a description of the terms of Mr. Glancy’s agreement with the Company.

 

Directors’ Retirement Plan

 

Benefits under the DTE Energy Company Retirement Plan for Non-Employee Directors were frozen as of December 31, 1998, and all non-employee directors were deemed vested on that date. No further benefits will accrue. Messrs. Gilmour and Miller and Dr. Bauder are the only current directors covered by this plan and, upon their retirement from the Board, they will each receive $3,415 per month for 45, 111, and 152 months, respectively.

 

Director Life Insurance

 

The Company provides each non-employee director with group-term life insurance in the amount of $20,000 and travel accident insurance in the amount of $100,000.

 

Director Stock Ownership

 

We have established stock ownership guidelines for directors to more closely tie their interests to those of shareholders. Under these guidelines, the Board requires that each director own shares of the Company’s common stock beginning no later than 30 days after election to the Board. In addition, directors are required to own, within five years after initial election to the Board, shares of Company stock having a value equal to two times their annual cash and phantom stock compensation. Common stock, time-based restricted stock, and phantom shares held by a director are counted toward fulfillment of this ownership requirement. As of January 2, 2009, all directors met the initial common stock ownership requirement and those directors who have served as a director for at least five years after their initial election have fulfilled the five-year requirement.

 

Indemnification

 

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors. These agreements require the Company to indemnify such individuals for certain liabilities to which they may become subject as a result of their affiliation with the Company.

 

The following table sets forth information as of January 2, 2009, with respect to beneficial ownership of common stock, phantom stock, performance shares, and options exercisable within 60 days for (i) each of our directors and nominees for director, (ii) our CEO, chief financial officer, the three other highest paid executive officers and Mr. Robert J. Buckler (the “Named Executive Officers”), and (iii) all executive officers and directors as a group. Executive officers for this purpose are those individuals defined as Executive Officers under Rule 16a-1(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Unless otherwise indicated, each of the named individuals has sole voting and/or investment power of the shares identified. To our knowledge, no member of our management team or director was a beneficial owner of one percent or more of the outstanding shares of common stock as of January 2, 2009.

 

Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership as of January 2, 2009

 

 

 

 

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, officers and 10% shareholders (if any) to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with respect to our securities with the SEC and to furnish copies of these reports to us. We reviewed the filed reports and written representations from our directors and executive officers (to our knowledge, we do not have any 10% shareholders) regarding the necessity of filing reports. Based on our review, the sale of Company shares in April 2008 by Mr. Earley’s adult son was not timely reported. Mr. Earley disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares held by his son. In addition, the sale of Company shares in December 2008 by Mr. Buckler, who retires from the Company on May 19, 2009, was not timely reported due to an administrative oversight.

 

The following table sets forth information regarding the only persons or groups known to the Company to be beneficial owners of more than 5% of our outstanding common stock.

 

 

 

 

Related-person transactions have the potential to create actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Company has policies in place to address related-party transactions. In addition, our Corporate Governance Committee and Audit Committee review potential dealings or transactions with related-parties. In general, employees and directors may not be involved in a business transaction where there is a conflict of interest with the Company. The DTE Energy Way requires non-officer employees to report conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest to their respective superiors; the Officer Code of Conduct and Ethics requires officers to report conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest to the Company’s General Counsel or to the Company’s Board of Directors; and the Board of Directors Code of Business Conduct and Ethics requires directors to

disclose conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest to the Company’s Corporate Governance Committee or the Chairman of the Board. For directors and officers, any waivers of the Company’s conflict of interest policy must be approved by the Board or a Board committee, as required under the Officer Code of Conduct and Ethics or Board of Directors Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and disclosed to shareholders.

 

Mr. Glancy was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MCN at the time of the DTE/MCN merger in 2001. In connection with the merger, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Glancy which, among other things, states that (a) we agreed to nominate Mr. Glancy to the Board in accordance with our normal procedures until he reaches retirement age; (b) Mr. Glancy will receive personal secretarial services for three days a week; (c) for as long as Mr. Glancy remains a member of our Board, we will provide him with a home security system; (d) in the event that the Internal Revenue Service determines or claims that any payments or benefits provided to Mr. Glancy constitute “excess parachute payments,” we will make a tax reimbursement payment to him in accordance with the agreement; and (e) we will indemnify Mr. Glancy from any actions, suits or proceedings in connection with the agreement. Mr. Glancy is responsible for paying taxes on the imputed income relating to the secretarial services and home security system. Mr. Glancy is not standing for re-election because he has reached the mandatory retirement age for retired CEOs of the Company, as more fully described on page 9.

 

In addition, Mr. Hennessey was a director of MCN at the time of the merger. The shares he owned under the MCN Energy Group Inc. Nonemployee Directors’ Compensation Plan were converted to cash at the time of the merger and placed in a cash balance account for him in the DTE Energy Company Plan for Deferring the Payment of Directors’ Fees. The cash balance account is managed by the Company, with interest accumulating at a 10-year Treasury rate, with a 10-year payout beginning in 2001. During 2008, Mr. Hennessey received $74,590.

 

Our Bylaws require that the Board be divided into three classes. At each annual shareholder meeting, the shareholders elect one class of directors for a three-year term and elect directors who may be filling a vacancy in an unexpired term, if any. All of the nominees have consented to serve if elected.

 

Proxies cannot be voted for more than six persons. If any nominee becomes unable or unwilling to serve at the time of the meeting, the persons named in the enclosed proxy card have discretionary authority to vote for a substitute nominee or nominees. It is anticipated that all nominees will be available for election.

 

Brief biographies of each nominee for election at this meeting and each director continuing in office are provided on the following pages. The information includes each person’s principal occupation(s) and business experience for at least the past five years. The dates shown for service as a director of DTE include service as a director of Detroit Edison, our former corporate parent and, as a result of a share exchange in 2001, now our wholly-owned subsidiary.

 

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE NOMINEES FOR ELECTION AT THIS MEETING.

 

 

 

 

 

Subject to ratification by the shareholders, the Audit Committee has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm to audit our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 and to perform other audit-related services. Following the Audit Committee’s appointment, the Board voted unanimously to recommend that our shareholders vote to ratify the Audit Committee’s selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent auditors for 2009.

 

On September 25, 2008, the Audit Committee of the Board dismissed Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) as its independent registered public accounting firm. The dismissal was the result of a competitive proposal process and was effective as of the date of the completion of the audit services for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. The services were completed on February 27, 2009. Deloitte had performed these services since 1995.

 

The reports of Deloitte on the consolidated financial statements of DTE for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

 

During the Company’s two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 and from January 1, 2009 through February 27, 2009, there were no disagreements with Deloitte on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements, if not resolved to Deloitte’s satisfaction, would have caused Deloitte to make reference to the subject matter of such disagreements in connection with its reports on the Company’s consolidated financial statements for such years.

 

During the Company’s two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 and from January 1, 2009 through February 27, 2009, there were no “reportable events” as defined under Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K.

 

Representatives of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Deloitte will be present at the annual meeting and will be afforded an opportunity to make a statement, if they desire, and to respond to appropriate questions from shareholders.

 

The following table presents fees for professional services rendered by Deloitte for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008, and fees billed for other services rendered by Deloitte during those periods.

 

 

 

 

 

Consistent with SEC policies regarding the independence of the registered public accounting firm, the Audit Committee is responsible for appointing, approving professional service fees of, and overseeing the work of the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has established a policy regarding pre-approval of all audit and permissible non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm.

 

Prior to engaging the independent registered public accounting firm to perform specific services, the Audit Committee pre-approves these services by category of service. The Audit Committee may delegate to the Chair of the Audit Committee, or to one or more other designated members of the Audit Committee, the authority to grant pre-approvals of all permitted services or classes of these permitted services to be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm up to, but not exceeding, a pre-defined limit. The decisions of the designated member to pre-approve a permitted service is reported to the Audit Committee at each scheduled meeting. At least quarterly, the Audit Committee reviews:

 

 

For the year 2008, all audit, audit-related, tax and other services performed by Deloitte were pre-approved by the Audit Committee in accordance with the regulations of the SEC. The Audit Committee considered and determined that the provision of the non-audit services by Deloitte during 2008 were compatible with maintaining independence of the registered public accounting firm.

 

The purpose of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board’s oversight of the integrity of the Company’s financial statements, the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications and independence and the performance of the Company’s internal audit function. All members of the Audit Committee meet the criteria for independence as defined in our categorical standards and the audit committee independence requirements under the SEC rules. The Audit Committee Charter also complies with requirements of the NYSE.

 

Management is responsible for the financial reporting process, including the system of internal controls, and for the preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Management is also responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. The independent registered public accounting firm is responsible for auditing these financial statements and expressing an opinion as to their conformity with GAAP. The independent registered public accounting firm is also responsible for expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee’s responsibility is to monitor and review these processes, acting in an oversight capacity, and the Audit Committee does not certify the financial statements

or internal control over financial reporting or guarantee the independent registered public accounting firm’s reports. The Audit Committee relies, without independent verification, on the information provided to it including representations made by management and the reports of the independent registered public accounting firm.

 

The Audit Committee discussed with Deloitte the matters required to be discussed by audit standards, SEC regulations and NYSE requirements. Disclosures were received from Deloitte regarding its independence as required by applicable requirements of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and discussed with them. The Audit Committee has considered whether the services provided by Deloitte other than those services relating to audit services are compatible with maintaining Deloitte’s independence. The Audit Committee has concluded that such services have not impaired Deloitte’s independence. The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008 with management and Deloitte. Based on the review and discussions noted above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting as of December 31, 2008 with management and Deloitte. Based on the review and discussions noted above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting as of December 31, 2008 be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.

 

In 2008, the Audit Committee requested proposals from major auditing firms for the audit of the Company’s financial statements beginning in 2009. After an extensive review of those proposals, the Audit Committee appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent auditor beginning in fiscal year 2009, subject to ratification by the shareholders.

 

Audit Committee

 

Frank M. Hennessey, Chair

W. Frank Fountain, Jr.

Josue Robles, Jr.

James H. Vandenberghe

 

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE PROPOSAL TO RATIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM.

 

The Company expects the following shareholder proposal to be presented for consideration at the annual meeting by the Office of the Comptroller of New York City, as the custodian and trustee of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, the New York City Teachers’ Retirement System, the New York City Police Pension Fund and the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, and custodian of the New York City Board of Education Retirement System (collectively, the “New York City Funds”), which beneficially owned an aggregate of 461,276 shares of the Company’s Common Stock as of November 18, 2008. The proposal, along with the supporting statement, is included below. The New York City Funds’ request was submitted by William C. Thompson, Jr., Comptroller, City of New York, 1 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007-2341 on behalf of the Boards of Trustees of the New York City Funds.

 

The following proposal and supporting statement were submitted by the New York City Funds:

 

Shareholder Proposal And Supporting Statement

 

Proposal

 

Resolved, that the shareholders of DTE Energy Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

 

 

 

The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website to reduce costs to shareholders.

 

Supporting Statement

 

As long-term shareholders of DTE Energy, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These activities include direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of a federal, state or local candidate.

 

Disclosure is consistent with public policy and in the best interest of the company and its shareholders. Absent a system of accountability, company assets can be used for policy objectives that may be inimical to the long-term interests of and may pose risks to the company and its shareholders.

 

DTE Energy contributed at least $400,000 in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle (CQ’s PoliticalMoneyLine:http://moneyline.cq.com and National Institute on Money in State Politics:

www.followthemoney.org). However, its payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed.

 

Trade Associations engage in political activities that may adversely impact the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders and the company’s reputation. A critical issue is global warming which can have serious consequences for the company’s shareholders. For example, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argue against mandatory federal action to address climate change. Without disclosure, it is impossible for shareholders to know whether their company belongs to these or other groups, and whether company payments to associations are used for political activities, including opposing government action on climate change.

 

Relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of political expenditures. DTE Energy’s Board and shareholders need complete disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. We urge your support for this critical governance reform.

 

Board And Management Response

 

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT OPPOSE THIS SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL AND RECOMMEND A VOTE AGAINST IT FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BELOW:

 

DTE has a long tradition as a responsible corporate citizen and is committed to complying with the law regarding political contributions and expenditures. The Board believes the Company has a responsibility to shareholders to be engaged and to participate in the political process with respect to issues that affect the Company or are significant to our business. The Board also believes that it is in the best interests of our shareholders to support the legislative process by making corporate political contributions to organizations when such contributions are consistent with the Company’s business objectives and are permitted by federal, state and local laws.

 

This shareholder submitted substantially the same proposal in connection with our 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, and the Board opposed the proposal. The Company expanded its political contribution information and disclosures on our Web site prior to the 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. At the 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the proposal was defeated by a vote of 58,491,668 “Against,” 24,705,127 “For” and 14,316,494 “Abstain.” The Board continues to believe that adoption of this resolution is unnecessary. Information about, and links to, publicly available information concerning political contributions are available on our Web site at dteenergy.com/corporateGovernance/political.html and available through various political contribution disclosure laws.

 

In addition, the Company has adopted a formal policy on corporate political participation that applies to all employees of the Company and its subsidiaries and is incorporated in our daily business practices. A copy of this policy is available on our Web site at dteenergy.com/corporateGovernance/pdfs/politicalParticipation.html. Among other things, the policy provides as follows:

 

A. Corporate Contributions — Our policy mandates that corporate contributions to political organizations be made only as permitted by applicable laws and authorized by our Vice President — Corporate & Government Affairs. Disclosure of the amount of these contributions will be annually posted on our Web site.

 

B. Political Action Committee Contributions — Political contributions to federal, state and local candidates, political party committees, and political action committees are made by the DTE Energy Political Action Committee (PAC), which is funded by voluntary contributions from eligible DTE employees. The PAC’s activities are guided by a steering committee comprised of PAC members elected by all PAC members and are subject to comprehensive regulation, including detailed disclosure requirements. PAC contributions are reported to the Federal Election Commission and the Michigan Secretary of State’s Bureau of Elections. Links to these organizations are available on our Web site.

 

C. Trade Associations — DTE belongs to a number of trade associations that participate in the political process. DTE’s sole purpose in becoming a member of these trade associations is not for

political purposes, as DTE may not agree with all positions taken by trade associations on issues. The benefits that DTE does receive from trade associations are primarily expertise and the ability to gain insight on industry setting standards. Our policy on political participation provides that DTE will request that trade associations to which our dues or other payments are significant provide a breakdown of the portion of our dues or payments that were used for political contributions. This information is included in the annual Board report of PAC and political activities.

 

D. Board Oversight — The Company’s political activities are reviewed annually by the Public Responsibility Committee of the DTE Energy Board of Directors. We believe this oversight process ensures accountability and transparency for the Company’s corporate political activities.

 

Given the adoption of the Company’s policy on corporate political participation discussed above and the mandatory public disclosure requirements already required under the law, the Board has again concluded that the Company’s policy and disclosures exceed what is required by the law. This, coupled with ample public information regarding DTE’s political participation, appropriately addresses the concerns cited in the New York City Funds’ proposal.

 

While the Company supports many of the objectives expressed in the shareholder proposal, the Company believes that the level of specific disclosure requested by the proposal could have unintended consequences and could hinder DTE’s ability to pursue its business and strategic objectives. For example, disclosing specific contributions made to political parties, committees and other organizations could lead to increased requests for contributions from the Company from other such organizations with similar or opposing views. Additionally, such disclosure would make it easier for competitors and opponents to discern the Company’s public policy and political strategies which could have negative consequences for the Company.

 

ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” THE SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL.

 

The Company expects the following shareholder proposal to be presented for consideration at the annual meeting by the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund (the “Pension Fund”), which beneficially owned an aggregate of 5,105 shares of the Company’s Common Stock as of December 8, 2008. The proposal, along with the supporting statement, is included below. The Pension Fund’s request was submitted by Kenneth Colombo, Edward F. Carlough Plaza, 601 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 500, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 on behalf of the Pension Fund.

 

The following proposal and supporting statement were submitted by the Pension Fund:

 

Shareholder Proposal And Supporting Statement

 

Proposal

 

Resolved:  That the shareholders of DTE Energy Company (“Company”) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company’s articles of incorporation to provide that director nominees shall be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders, with a plurality vote standard retained for contested director elections, that is, when the number of director nominees exceeds the number of board seats.

 

Supporting Statement

 

In order to provide shareholders a meaningful role in director elections, the Company’s director election vote standard should be changed to a majority vote standard. A majority vote standard would require that a nominee receive a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected. The standard is particularly well-suited for the vast majority of director elections in which only board nominated candidates are on the ballot. We believe that a majority vote standard in board elections would establish a challenging vote standard for board nominees and improve the performance of individual directors and entire boards. The Company presently uses a plurality vote standard in all director elections. Under the plurality standard, a board nominee can be elected with as little as a single affirmative vote, even if a substantial majority of the votes cast are “withheld” from the nominee.

 

In response to strong shareholder support for a majority vote standard, a strong majority of the nation’s leading companies, including Intel, General Electric, Motorola, Hewlett Packard, Morgan Stanley, Home Depot, Gannett, Marathon Oil, and Pfizer, have adopted a majority vote standard in company bylaws or articles of incorporation. Additionally, these companies have adopted director resignation policies in their bylaws or corporate governance policies to address post-election issues related to the status of director nominees that fail to win election. Other companies have responded only partially to the call for change by simply adopting post election director resignation policies that set procedures for addressing the status of director nominees that receive more “withhold” votes than “for” votes. At the time of this proposal submission, our Company and its board had not taken either action.

 

We believe that a post election director resignation policy without a majority vote standard in company governance documents is an inadequate reform. The critical first step in establishing a meaningful majority vote policy is the adoption of a majority vote standard. With a majority vote standard in place, the board can then take action to develop a post election procedure to address the status of directors that fail to win election. A majority vote standard combined with a post election director resignation policy would establish a meaningful right for shareholders to elect directors, and reserve for the board an important post election role in determining the continued status of an unelected director. We urge the Board to take this important step of establishing a majority vote standard in the Company’s governance documents.

 

Board And Management Response

 

The Board is committed to good governance practices and has implemented a variety of measures in recent years, discussed elsewhere in this proxy statement, to strengthen the Company’s governance processes.

 

This proposal requests that the Company adopt a majority voting standard for uncontested director elections. The Company currently uses a plurality voting standard, the normal standard under Michigan law, which provides that nominees who receive the most affirmative votes are elected to serve as directors. The Company also provides shareholders the right to cumulate their votes in director elections in order to enhance a shareholder’s ability to express a preference in the election of directors.

 

In recent years, a number of companies have adopted a majority voting standard for uncontested director elections. However, in the judgment of the Board and Management, it is unusual for a corporation’s organizational documents to provide both for cumulative voting and election of directors by a majority of votes cast. Cumulative voting in director elections currently is provided for in the Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.

 

Cumulative voting allows a shareholder to cumulate votes for one candidate in order to elect a director under a plurality vote standard, which is considered to favor minority shareholder rights and interests. In contrast, some advocate election of directors by majority vote because that approach allows shareholders to withhold votes from a director candidate in an uncontested election and block election of that candidate if a majority of shares are not affirmatively voted in favor of the candidate.

 

In the Board’s and Management’s view, it would be more difficult for a shareholder to exercise cumulative voting rights effectively if the Company’s election procedures were changed from a plurality voting to a majority voting standard. Combining cumulative voting and election of directors by majority vote also could create other legal and technical difficulties and unintended consequences. For example, if a sufficient number of shareholders cumulated their votes to elect one director by a majority vote, it may be mathematically impossible for other director candidates to be elected by a majority of votes cast, even though they would be elected by a plurality vote standard.

 

The Board and Management believe the plurality voting standard currently used for election of directors is more compatible with cumulative voting provisions currently provided for in the Company’s organizational documents. However, the Board and Management are comfortable either with the current director election provisions or with the election of directors by majority vote without cumulative voting.

 

Having reviewed this proposal and considered all relevant issues, the Board and Management support this proposal with the qualification that, if this proposal is approved by the shareholders of the Company, other changes to the Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, including the elimination of cumulative voting, also will be needed. If this proposal is approved, the Board and Management plan to present for a shareholder vote at the Company’s 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders a proposal recommending a majority vote in director election standard along with the elimination of cumulative voting.

 

ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL AND RECOMMEND A VOTE “FOR” THIS PROPOSAL BY SHAREHOLDERS WITH AN EXPECTATION THAT CUMULATIVE VOTING WILL BE ELIMINATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER CHANGES REQUESTED BY THIS PROPOSAL. IF SHAREHOLDERS PREFER TO RETAIN CUMULATIVE VOTING RIGHTS AS CURRENTLY PROVIDED IN THE COMPANY’S ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMEND A VOTE “AGAINST” THIS PROPOSAL.

 

Our management does not intend to bring any other business before the meeting for action and has not been notified of any other business proposed to be brought before the meeting. However, if any other business should be properly presented for action, it is the intention of the persons named on the enclosed proxy card to vote in accordance with their judgment on such business.

 

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

 

Overview

 

Your understanding of our executive compensation program is important to us. The goal of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis is to explain:

 

 

Throughout this Proxy Statement, the term “Named Executive Officers” means: (1) the Chairman and CEO, Anthony F. Earley, Jr.; (2) the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, David E. Meador; (3) the President and Chief Operating Officer, Gerard M. Anderson; (4) the Group President of our Company and the President and Chief Operating Officer of our gas utility subsidiary, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (“MichCon”), Gerardo Norcia; (5) the Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Bruce D. Peterson; and (6) Robert J. Buckler. Mr. Buckler served as Group President of the Company and President and Chief Operating Officer — Detroit Edison through December 8, 2008. He will continue as Group President until May 19, 2009, when he will retire from the Company. In addition, the term “executive” includes the Named Executive Officers and individuals who are at or above the level of corporate vice president (or equivalent), the General Auditor, and other individuals whose base annual salary is at or above $225,000, and includes Executive Officers as defined by the Exchange Act.

 

Philosophy and Objectives

 

Our executive compensation philosophy is to motivate and reward executives who achieve short-term and long-term corporate and financial objectives leading to the success of the Company. We will continue to emphasize performance-based compensation for results that are consistent with shareholder interests. The main objectives underlying this philosophy are:

 

 

Role of the Organization and Compensation Committee

 

The Board has a long-standing process for determining executive compensation that is performance-based, objective, and transparent. The process is designed to serve the purpose of recruiting, retaining and motivating executives for the benefit of shareholders. The Board-designed governance process expressly delegates to the Organization and Compensation Committee (the “O&C Committee”) the responsibility to determine and approve the CEO’s compensation, as well as the compensation of certain other executives. The O&C Committee makes all decisions regarding compensation for the Named Executive Officers. Although the responsibilities have been delegated, the entire Board maintains oversight and receives direct reports after each O&C Committee meeting.

The O&C Committee is composed entirely of independent directors, none of whom derives a personal benefit from the compensation decisions the O&C Committee makes. Generally, the O&C Committee is responsible for our executive compensation program throughout the enterprise (including subsidiaries). The O&C Committee responsibilities for executive compensation are more fully detailed in its charter, which is available at http://www.dteenergy.com/corporateGovernance/organization.html. The O&C Committee continually monitors the executive compensation program and adopts changes to reflect the dynamic marketplace in which we compete for talent. To the extent necessary, the O&C Committee also works with other Board Committees to review or approve reports, awards and other matters relating to compensation. For example, the Finance Committee reviews the financial components of performance targets and measures, the Corporate Governance Committee assists in the review of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the Audit Committee reviews the internal controls over the data reported herein.

 

The O&C Committee uses information from several external sources to monitor and achieve an executive compensation program that supports our business goals and attracts executives whose performance will be measured against those goals. Independent outside consultants and external information enable the O&C Committee to maintain impartial decision-making regarding performance and pay. The O&C Committee annually reviews each component of the Named Executive Officers’ compensation and is advised directly by the outside compensation consulting firm, discussed in further detail below, in connection with such review. The O&C Committee, based on input from its consultant and management and a review of competitive data from peer group companies (as discussed below), believes that the current structure is appropriately balanced and competitive to accomplish the important tasks of recruiting, retaining, and motivating talented executives in the energy industry in which we compete.

 

Independent Review of Compensation Program — The O&C Committee employs an outside consulting firm, Mercer Human Resources Consulting LLC (“Mercer HR”), a subsidiary of Marsh & McClennan Companies, Inc. (“Marsh”), to advise the O&C Committee on various executive compensation matters, including current compensation trends. Mercer HR also provides objective recommendations as to the design of our executive compensation program. Mercer HR reports directly to the O&C Committee. Use of this outside consultant is an important component of the compensation setting process, as it enables the O&C Committee to make informed decisions based on market data and practices. The representative from Mercer HR, who is considered a leading professional in the compensation field, attends O&C Committee meetings, meets with Committee members in executive session and consults with the members as required and provides input with regard to the CEO’s compensation and performance.

 

Mercer HR has served as the O&C Committee’s outside consultant since 2002 and is considered to be an independent consultant. Mercer HR has no affiliations with any of the Named Executive Officers or members of the Board other than in its role as an outside consultant. The lead consultant and partner in charge of Mercer HR, who provides executive compensation consulting services to the O&C Committee, does not provide any other services to the Company. To help ensure that the consultant maintains the highest level of independence from the Company, all work performed by Mercer HR and its affiliates (a) outside the scope of the O&C Committee on executive compensation matters, and (b) which have a total cost of $25,000 or greater, require pre-approval by the O&C Committee.

 

During 2008, Mercer HR provided health and welfare consulting services to the Company along with union negotiation support services. Oliver Wyman, another subsidiary of Marsh, was engaged to review our accounts receivable process and to perform both a summary cost benchmarking update for our major operations and a comprehensive A&G benchmarking study. Marsh USA Inc., another subsidiary of Marsh, provides insurance brokering and loss prevention services to the Company. The O&C Committee approved all of these additional services. In 2008, we paid Mercer HR approximately $75,000 for advising the O&C Committee on executive compensation, approximately $575,000 for health and welfare consulting, and approximately $220,000 for union negotiation support services. In addition, we paid Oliver Wyman approximately $1,515,000 and Marsh USA Inc. approximately $260,000 for the services summarized above. For 2009, the Company has decided to use another consultant to provide health and welfare consulting and union negotiation support services.

Management’s Role

 

Our management works closely with the O&C Committee in the executive compensation process. Excluding the CEO’s compensation, management’s responsibilities include:

 

 

The CEO’s compensation is determined solely by the O&C Committee, which bases its decisions on performance and market studies along with participation and recommendations from its independent outside consultant.

 

Compensation and Peer Group Assessment — Each component of executive compensation (see “Key Components of Executive Compensation” below) is compared, measured and evaluated against a peer group of companies. The O&C Committee approves the peer group and periodically reviews and updates the companies included in that group. Management also retains Hewitt Associates (“Hewitt”), another external consulting firm, to conduct a market study every two years covering compensation practices for similar positions in the peer group. Hewitt’s comprehensive data base includes most of our desired utility/energy peer companies and also includes data for most of our utility/energy-related executive positions. The most recent study was completed in September 2007.

 

The peer group for Hewitt’s study, as approved by the O&C Committee, consisted of the following companies. Most of these companies, along with DTE, participate in the same independent compensation surveys. The surveys provide us with availability of data needed for accurate compensation comparisons. The peer group consists primarily of utilities (including utility holding companies), broad-based energy companies, and significant non-energy companies selected on the basis of revenues, financial strength, geographic location and availability of compensation information. The O&C Committee reviews the peer group data for the Named Executive Officers and the Company’s mix of compensation components in making compensation decisions.

 

Key Components of Executive Compensation

 

The key components of the compensation program include the following:

 

 

While the programs and pay levels reflect differences in job responsibilities, the structure of the compensation and benefits program is applied consistently to our Named Executive Officers, including the CEO. Differences in compensation between the CEO and the other Named Executive Officers are due, in part, to an analysis of peer group benchmark data, as well as differences in the responsibilities of each Named Executive Officer. We review each element of total compensation, both individually and on a combined basis, for each Named Executive Officer and make adjustments as appropriate based on these comparisons. The following is a more detailed discussion of the components of the Company’s executive compensation program:

 

Base Salary

 

The objective of base salary is to provide a stable, fixed source of income that reflects an executive’s job responsibilities, experience, value to the Company, and demonstrated performance. When setting individual base salary levels, we consider several factors, including (i) the market reference point for the executive’s position based on information received from Hewitt, (ii) the responsibilities of the executive’s position, (iii) the experience and performance of the individual, and (iv) retention issues. Market reference points target the median for most positions, adjusted to take into account differences in company size within the peer group. In addition, we establish midpoints for each executive group level for determining base salary for those executives whose jobs cannot be easily matched in the marketplace. These midpoints are consistent with the market reference points for other executives in the same executive group. Annually, we review these midpoints to ensure they are consistent with the market and make salary adjustments, when appropriate.

 

Annual and Long-Term Incentive Plans

 

We have two primary incentive plans that reward executives for performance. The plans are consistent with our objectives of tying compensation to performance and encouraging executives to align their interests with those of the shareholders of the Company. The DTE Energy Company Annual Incentive Plan (the “Annual Incentive Plan”) allows us to reward executives with annual cash bonuses for performance against pre-established objectives based on work performed in the prior year. The DTE Energy Company 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan allows us to grant executives long-term equity incentives to encourage continued employment with DTE, to accomplish pre-defined long-term performance objectives and create shareholder alignment. On April 27, 2006, the Company’s shareholders approved the 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, which replaced the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan (the two plans are referred to collectively as the “Long-Term Incentive Plan”).

 

Over the last several years, the weight given to the incentive programs, especially in the area of long-term incentives, has gradually been increased to more closely align us with practices in the peer group. We believe the current mix among base salary, the Annual Incentive Plan and the Long-Term Incentive Plan is appropriately set to provide market-competitive compensation when Company performance warrants. The mix is more heavily weighted toward incentive compensation at higher executive levels within DTE. The interplay between the Annual Incentive Plan and the Long-Term Incentive Plan provides a balance of short- and long-term incentives to motivate executives to achieve our business goals and objectives and to properly reward executives for the achievement of such goals and objectives.

 

a. Annual Incentive Plan — The objective of the Annual Incentive Plan is to compensate individuals annually based on the achievement of specific annual goals. Participating executives and other select employees may receive annual cash awards based on performance compared against pre-established Company and functional/departmental objectives. The purpose of providing cash awards under the Annual Incentive Plan

is to tie compensation to near-term performance and to align executives’ interests with those of our shareholders. Objectives that management proposes are reviewed and approved or revised by the O&C Committee, with financial goal recommendations reviewed by the Board’s Finance Committee, no later than 90 days after the beginning of the performance period. The objectives include performance measures in several categories that are critical to our success. When setting these objectives, management and the O&C Committee determine the elements of our business that require the focused attention of the executives. The weights, which can change from year-to-year, are determined based on the Company’s key priorities and areas of focus for the upcoming year. The final awards, if any, are paid after the O&C Committee approves the final results of each objective. The performance payout percentage is based upon performance objectives, each of which is weighted to reflect its importance to the total calculation.

 

The Annual Incentive Plan cash awards to executives are determined as follows:

 

1. The executive’s most recent year-end base salary is multiplied by an Annual Incentive Plan target percentage to arrive at the target award.

 

2. The overall performance payout percentage, which can range from 0% to 175%, is determined based on final results compared to threshold, target, and maximum levels for each objective.

 

3. The target award is then multiplied by the performance payout percentage to arrive at the pre-adjusted calculated award.

 

4. The pre-adjusted calculated award is then adjusted by an individual performance modifier (assessment of an individual executive’s achievements for the year), which can range from 0% to 150%, to arrive at the final award.

 

For 2008, the performance objectives (and related weighting) for calculating the Named Executive Officers pre-adjusted award were as follows:

 

For Messrs. Earley, Meador, Anderson and Peterson:

 

 

The DTE Energy operating EPS target was $2.90, and the actual result for 2008 was $2.90 resulting in a payout of 100% of the target amount for that objective. The DTE Energy cash flow target was $(50) million, and the actual result as defined for 2008 was $(17.1) million, resulting in a payout of 116.5% of the target amount for that objective.

 

For 2008, the performance targets for safety, diversity hiring — minority and diversity hiring — female were met or exceeded. Performance targets for customer satisfaction rating percentage improvement and MPSC complaints were not met. The aggregate weighted payment percentage for Messrs. Earley, Meador, Anderson and Peterson’s pre-adjusted calculated award was 95%.

For Mr. Buckler:

 

 

As stated above, the DTE Energy operating EPS target of $2.90 was met, resulting in a payout of 100% of the target amount for that objective. The Detroit Edison operating net income target was $370 million, and the actual result for 2008 for incentive purposes was $339.6 million resulting in a payout of 34.9% of the target amount for that objective. The Detroit Edison cash flow target was $(10) million, and the actual result as defined for 2008 was $337.6 million, resulting in a payout of 175% of the target for that objective.

 

For 2008, the performance targets for safety and diversity hiring — minority were met or exceeded. Performance targets for customer satisfaction rating — percent improvement, MPSC complaints and diversity hiring — female, were not met. The aggregate weighted payment percentage for Mr. Buckler’s pre-adjusted calculated award was 74.6%.

 

For Mr. Norcia:

 

 

As stated above, the DTE Energy operating EPS target of $2.90 was met, resulting in a payout of 100% of the target amount for that objective. The MichCon operating net income target was $95 million, and the actual result for 2008 for incentive purposes was $97.7 million resulting in a payout of 120.3% of the target amount for that objective. The MichCon cash flow target was $(95) million, and the actual result as defined for 2008 was $(252.2) million, resulting in no payout for that objective.

 

The Gas Storage & Pipeline businesses operating net income target was $40.8 million and the actual result was $44.0 million resulting in a payout of 139% of the target amount for that objective. The Gas Storage & Pipeline businesses cash flow target was $48.4 million and the actual result was $57.1 million resulting in a payout of 150% of the target amount for that objective. The Gas Storage & Pipeline businesses ROIC target was 13.8% and the actual result was 17.5% resulting in a payout of 150% of the target amount for that objective.

 

For 2008, the performance targets for safety, diversity hiring — minority and diversity hiring — female were met or exceeded. Performance targets for customer satisfaction rating — percent improvement and MPSC

complaints were not met. The aggregate weighted payment percentage for Mr. Norcia’s pre-adjusted calculated award was 90.6%.

 

The earnings per share, cash flow, net income and ROIC measures were chosen as indicators of the Company’s financial strength. The customer satisfaction, safety and diversity measures were selected to make the Company more responsive to our customers’ needs and to make the Company a safer and better place to work.

 

Each objective has a minimum, target and maximum level. The Company must attain a minimum level of achievement for an objective before any compensation is payable with respect to that objective. The minimum established level of each objective will result in a payout of 25% of target, and the maximum established for each level (or better) will result in a payment of 175% of target.

 

The pre-adjusted awards are adjusted by an individual performance modifier for each of the Named Executive Officers. Individual performance criteria are set at the beginning of each calendar year for each of the Named Executive Officers. For 2008, qualitative criteria include, as applicable, leadership performance, overall operational and customer performance, continuous operational improvements and other appropriate operating measures. The O&C Committee evaluates the individual performance of each of the Named Executive Officers and approves an adjustment to the annual award based on the individual contribution and performance. The individual performance modifier adjusts a Named Executive Officer’s annual cash bonus such that the Named Executive Officer’s actual cash bonus ranges between zero and 150% of the pre-adjusted calculated award. For 2008, after adjusting for individual performance, annual incentive awards for the Named Executive Officers ranged from 100% to 131% of the pre-adjusted calculated awards.

 

The final awards for 2008 year were paid to each of the Named Executive Officers in early 2009 and are reported in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column of the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 41.

 

b. Long-Term Incentive Plan — The Long-Term Incentive Plan provides the O&C Committee the ability to design programs that focus on our long-term performance over a three-year period, with the objective to align executives’ interests with those of our shareholders. Our principles for ownership of stock, discussed on page 39, ensure that the executives and other employees have a vested interest in the financial health, management, and success of the Company.

 

The Long-Term Incentive Plan rewards executives and other employees with stock-based compensation. Participants may receive stock options, restricted stock, performance shares, performance units or a combination of these awards. To date, we have granted only performance shares, time-based restricted stock and non-qualified stock options. During 2008, executives received Long-Term Incentive Plan grants based upon a target percentage of base salary. The grants made during 2008 were based on targets of 275% of base salary for Mr. Earley, 200% of base salary for Mr. Anderson, 150% of base salary for Mr. Meador, 140% of base salary for Mr. Buckler and 115% of base salary for Messrs. Norcia and Peterson. In addition to the targeted award levels, the O&C Committee also considers previous years’ grants, career potential, and retention issues in determining the final number of awards granted.

 

The value of each element of these Long-Term Incentive Plan grants was as follows:

 

 

This mix was designed to provide a balance of incentives to executives for creating long-term shareholder value through strong financial and operating performance and to align executive interests with shareholder interests.

 

 

 

Long-Term Incentive Plan (2008 Payout of Awards Granted in 2005)

 

 

Total shareholder return compared to the S&P Electric Utility Index is the primary measure because it reflects how well our Company has performed on total return to its shareholders relative to the total shareholder returns of similar companies. See footnote 2 to the “Option Exercises and Stock Vested in 2008” table on page 46. Over the past three years, the payout level has ranged from 12.75% to 36.25%. For the 2005 — 2007 period, total shareholder return compared to the S&P Electric Utility Index target was the 50^th percentile, and the actual result was the 10^th percentile, resulting in no payout for that objective. However, the minimum levels of performance for the balance sheet health and employee engagement measures were exceeded. Based on the results of these measures, the 2008 payout level, as approved by the O&C Committee, was 16.5%.

 

 

We have granted non-qualified stock options to executives and other employees of all levels since 1997 to enable these individuals to participate in our future success and to align their interests with those of our shareholders. The granting of options is administered by the O&C Committee under the terms of the Long-Term Incentive Plan. Prior to February 2007, the Long-Term Incentive Plan provided that the option exercise price was based on the average of the highest and lowest trading prices on the date the option was granted. In February 2007, the Board authorized an amendment to the Long-Term Incentive Plan that changed the option exercise price so it is based on the closing price on the date the option is granted. This change was implemented for consistency with the SEC disclosure provisions.

 

Retirement and Other Benefits

 

Providing a supplemental retirement program for our executives is in keeping with our philosophy and objectives to attract and retain talented executives. The Pension Benefits Table and related footnotes beginning on page 47 describe both the qualified and non-qualified retirement benefit programs for which certain executives are eligible and are commonly offered by other employers in our peer group. Other benefit programs include the DTE Energy Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan,” which was closed effective as of January 1, 2007 for future deferrals), which allowed executives to voluntarily defer receipt of payments from the Annual Incentive Plan or performance shares paid in cash, and the DTE Energy Company Supplemental Savings Plan (the “Supplemental Savings Plan”), which mirrors the 401(k) plan and allows executives to continue to defer base salary after certain IRS limits have been reached. The matching contributions we make in the Supplemental Savings Plan are the same as those provided under the 401(k) plan. For further description of the supplemental retirement programs, see “Pension Benefits” on page 46.

 

Executive Benefits

 

We provide executives with certain benefits generally not available to our other employees as a matter of competitive practice and as a retention tool. The O&C Committee periodically reviews the level of executive benefits provided to executives against a peer group to assure they are reasonable and consistent with our overall compensation objectives.

 

In January 2007, we discontinued providing most non-cash executive benefits and began paying a cash allowance in lieu of executive benefits typically provided by other companies. The executive is permitted to use the allowance as he or she deems appropriate. Although the allowance is taxable for income tax purposes, it is not considered as compensation for any Company incentive or benefit program.

 

During 2008, we provided various benefits that included the following:

 

a. Home security program and security driver for business:  Home security monitoring for most executives has been phased out and replaced by the executive benefit allowance. During 2008, the Company provided home security monitoring systems for certain executives, including some of the Named Executive Officers, based on our executive security policies and a security risk assessment by the Company’s chief security officer. These expenses are considered appropriate to protect the Company and its executives despite the incidental personal benefit to the executives. In addition to home security monitoring, under our executive security policy, the Board requires Mr. Earley to use a Company car and security driver while on Company business.

 

b. Use of a leased vehicle:  The Company’s executive lease vehicle program was phased out and replaced by the executive benefit allowance. As leases expired beginning on January 1, 2007, executives began receiving a portion of the allowance referenced above in place of a Company-provided vehicle. The phase out of this program was completed in mid-2008.

 

c. Corporate aircraft for limited business travel:  We lease a fractional share of an aircraft for limited business travel by executives and other employees when there is an appropriate business purpose. Personal use of the aircraft is not allowed except in unusual circumstances and requires the prior approval of the CEO. During 2008, there was no personal use of the aircraft.

 

d. Supplemental retirement program:  The Pension Benefits Table and related footnotes beginning on page 47 describe both the qualified and non-qualified retirement benefit programs for which certain executives are eligible and are commonly offered by other employers in our peer group. Other benefit programs include the DTE Energy Company Supplemental Savings Plan (“Supplemental Savings Plan”), which mirrors the 401(k) plan and allows executives to continue to defer base salary after certain IRS limits have been reached. The matching contributions we make in the Supplemental Savings Plan are the same as those provided under the 401(k) plan. For further description of the supplemental retirement programs, see “Pension Benefits” on page 46.

 

e. Other benefits:  Executives also received in 2008 minor vehicle maintenance services (for those executives with a leased vehicle), car washes and limited use of corporate event tickets when available.

 

Post-Termination Agreements

 

We have entered into indemnification agreements and change-in-control agreements with each of the Named Executive Officers and certain other executives. The indemnification agreements require that we indemnify these individuals for certain liabilities to which they may become subject as a result of their affiliation with the Company. The change-in-control agreements are intended to provide continuity of management in the event there is a change-in-control of the Company and to align executive and shareholder interests in support of corporate transactions. The important terms of, and the potential payments provided under, the change-in-control agreements are described beginning on page 51.

 

Stock Ownership Policy

 

Our principles for ownership of stock ensure that the executives and other employees have a vested interest in the financial health, management and success of the Company. We expect most executives and certain other employees to own, within five years of their appointment to such position, shares of our stock having a value equal to a multiple of their annual base salary. Common stock, time-based restricted stock, phantom stock, and unvested performance shares (assuming achievement of target levels of performance) are counted toward the fulfillment of this ownership requirement. The following are the requirements for the Named Executive Officers: (i) for Messrs. Earley and Anderson, five times their respective base salary; (ii) for Messrs. Buckler and Meador, four times their respective base salary; and (iii) for Messrs. Norcia and Peterson, three times their respective base salary. Other executives and employees may be required to hold from one to three times their base salaries as determined by their executive group level within the Company. As of January 2, 2009, 100% of the Named Executive Officers and other required employees met the stock ownership guidelines.

 

Internal Revenue Code Limits on Deductibility of Compensation

 

Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) places a limit of $1 million on the amount of compensation we can deduct as a business expense on our federal income tax return with respect to “covered employees” unless it is (i) based on performance and (ii) paid under a program that meets Internal Revenue Code requirements. In general, “covered employees” for these purposes are our CEO and the three highest paid executive officers named in the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 41 other than the CEO and CFO. The Annual Incentive Plan and the Long-Term Incentive Plan, previously approved by the shareholders, are designed to provide the opportunity for use of the performance-based compensation exception. The Long-Term Incentive Plan permits various types of awards, some of which qualify for exemption under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) and some of which do not. We expect to continue to emphasize performance-based compensation programs designed to fulfill future corporate business objectives at all levels. Although these programs are generally designed to satisfy the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m), we believe it is important to

preserve flexibility in designing compensation programs and it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to grant compensation that may not meet all of the Internal Revenue Code requirements for deducting compensation in excess of $1 million and, therefore, will not be tax deductible for the Company. For the 2008 tax year, the Company paid the Named Executive Officers a total of $2.9 million which was not deductible.

 

We have also structured all of our nonqualified compensation programs to be in compliance with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, as added by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Internal Revenue Code Section 409A imposes additional tax penalties on our executive officers for certain types of deferred compensation that are not in compliance with the form and timing of elections and distribution requirements of that section.

 

Accounting considerations also play a role in our executive compensation program. Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement SFAS No. 123R requires us to expense the fair value of our stock option grants over the vesting period, which reduces the amount of our reported profits. However, our executives only realize benefits from their stock options to the extent our stock price exceeds the option exercise price when they exercise their vested stock options.

 

The O&C Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K. Based on that review and discussion, we recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s 2009 Proxy Statement.

 

Organization and Compensation Committee

 

Eugene A. Miller, Chair
Frank M. Hennessey
Allan D. Gilmour
Ruth G. Shaw

 

The table below summarizes the total compensation earned by each of the Named Executive Officers for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008, except for Messrs. Norcia and Peterson. Since 2007 was Mr. Peterson’s first year as a Named Executive Officer, his total compensation, and the corresponding footnotes, relate only to the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008. In addition, Mr. Norcia’s total compensation and corresponding footnotes relate only to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as 2008 was his first year as a Named Executive Officer.