2.0.0.10falseCOMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES006080 - Disclosure - COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIEStruefalsefalsefalse1usd$falsefalseu000Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170u001Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0u002Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli020fe_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstractfefalsenadurationstringNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsetruefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalseNo definition available.false31us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationstringNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalselabelfalse1falsefalsefalsefalse00<div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">8. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt"></font>(A)<font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font> GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy enters into various agreements on behalf of its subsidiaries to provide financial or performance assurances to third parties. These agreements include contract guarantees, surety bonds and LOCs. As of March 31, 2010, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $4.0 billion, consisting primarily of parental guarantees ($1.0<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold"> </font>billion), subsidiaries’ guarantees ($2.6 billion), surety bonds and LOCs ($0.4 billion).</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions involving electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides guarantees to various providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements legally obligate FirstEnergy to fulfill the obligations of those subsidiaries directly involved in energy and energy-related transactions or financing where the law might otherwise limit the counterparties' claims. If demands of a counterparty were to exceed the ability of a subsidiary to satisfy existing obligations, FirstEnergy's guarantee enables the counterparty's legal claim to be satisfied by other FirstEnergy assets. The likelihood is remote that such parental guarantees of $0.3 billion (included in the $1.0 billion discussed above) as of March 31, 2010 would increase amounts otherwise payable by FirstEnergy to meet its obligations incurred in connection with financings and ongoing energy and energy-related activities.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">While these types of guarantees are normally parental commitments for the future payment of subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a credit rating downgrade or “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of cash collateral, provision of a LOC or accelerated payments may be required of the subsidiary. On February 11, 2010, S&P issued a report lowering FirstEnergy’s and its subsidiaries’ credit ratings by one notch, while maintaining its stable outlook. As a result, FirstEnergy was required to post $46 million of collateral. Moody’s and Fitch affirmed the ratings and stable outlook of FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. As of March 31, 2010, FirstEnergy's maximum exposure under these collateral provisions was $428 million, consisting of $37 million due to “material adverse event” contractual clauses, $63 million due to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation, and $328<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold"> </font>million due to a below investment grade credit rating that includes the $46 million related to the credit rating downgrade by S&P. Additionally, stress case conditions of a credit rating downgrade or “material adverse event” and hypothetical adverse price movements in the underlying commodity markets would increase this amount to $656 million, consisting of $38 million due to “material adverse event” contractual clauses, $63 million related to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation, and $555 million due to a below investment grade credit rating.</font></div><br /><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div><div style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always; WIDTH: 100%"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">38</font></div><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2" /></div></div><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div></div><br /><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Most of FirstEnergy's surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $77 million provide additional assurance to outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, FES’ contracts, including power contracts with affiliates awarded through competitive bidding processes, typically contain margining provisions which require the posting of cash or LOCs in amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES’ power portfolio as of March 31, 2010, and forward prices as of that date, FES has posted collateral of $270 million. Under a hypothetical adverse change in forward prices (95% confidence level change in forward prices over a one year time horizon), FES would be required to post an additional $168 million. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, FES could be required to post higher amounts for margining.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In connection with FES’ obligations to post and maintain collateral under the two-year PSA entered into by FES and the Ohio Companies following the CBP auction on May 13-14, 2009, NGC entered into a Surplus Margin Guaranty in an amount up to $500 million. The Surplus Margin Guaranty is secured by an NGC FMB issued in favor of the Ohio Companies.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">FES’ debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, pursuant to guarantees entered into on March 26, 2007. Similar guarantees were entered into on that date pursuant to which FES guaranteed the debt obligations of each of FGCO and NGC. Accordingly, present and future holders of indebtedness of FES, FGCO and NGC will have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC regardless of whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></font> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">(B)<font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font></font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water quality and other environmental matters. The effects of compliance on FirstEnergy with regard to environmental matters could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's earnings and competitive position to the extent that it competes with companies that are not subject to such regulations and, therefore, do not bear the risk of costs associated with compliance, or failure to comply, with such regulations.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">FirstEnergy accrues environmental liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. Unasserted claims are reflected in FirstEnergy’s determination of environmental liabilities and are accrued in the period that they become both probable and reasonably estimable.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Clean Air Act Compliance</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.3; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emissions regulations. Violations of such regulations can result in the shutdown of the generating unit involved and/or civil or criminal penalties of up to $37,500 for each day the unit is in violation. The EPA has an interim enforcement policy for SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> regulations in Ohio that allows for compliance based on a 30-day averaging period. FirstEnergy believes it is currently in compliance with this policy, but cannot predict what action the EPA may take in the future with respect to the interim enforcement policy.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.3"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.3; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">FirstEnergy complies with SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> reduction requirements under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 by burning lower-sulfur fuel, generating more electricity from lower-emitting plants, and/or using emission allowances. NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> reductions required by the 1990 Amendments are being achieved through combustion controls, the generation of more electricity at lower-emitting plants, and/or using emission allowances. In September 1998, the EPA finalized regulations requiring additional NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> reductions at FirstEnergy's facilities. The EPA's NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> Transport Rule imposes uniform reductions of NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> emissions (an approximate 85% reduction in utility plant NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> emissions from projected 2007 emissions) across a region of nineteen states (including Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia based on a conclusion that such NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> emissions are contributing significantly to ozone levels in the eastern United States. FirstEnergy believes its facilities are also complying with the NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> budgets established under SIPs through combustion controls and post-combustion controls, including Selective Catalytic Reduction and SNCR systems, and/or using emission allowances.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In 1999 and 2000, the EPA issued an NOV and the DOJ filed a civil complaint against OE and Penn based on operation and maintenance of the W. H. Sammis Plant (Sammis NSR Litigation) and filed similar complaints involving 44 other U.S. power plants. This case and seven other similar cases are referred to as the NSR cases. OE’s and Penn’s settlement with the EPA, the DOJ and three states (Connecticut, New Jersey and New York) that resolved all issues related to the Sammis NSR litigation was approved by the Court on July 11, 2005. This settlement agreement, in the form of a consent decree, requires reductions of NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> and SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emissions at the Sammis, Burger, Eastlake and Mansfield coal-fired plants through the installation of pollution control devices or repowering and provides for stipulated penalties for failure to install and operate such pollution controls or complete repowering in accordance with that agreement. Capital expenditures necessary to complete requirements of the Sammis NSR Litigation consent decree, including repowering Burger Units 4 and 5 for biomass fuel consumption, are currently estimated to be $399 million for 2010-2012.</font></div><br /><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div><div style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always; WIDTH: 100%"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">39</font></div><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2" /></div></div><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div></div><br /><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In October 2007, PennFuture and three of its members filed a citizen suit under the federal CAA, alleging violations of air pollution laws at the Bruce Mansfield Plant, including opacity limitations, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In July 2008, three additional complaints were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions. In addition to seeking damages, two of the three complaints seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner”, one being a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other being a class action complaint, seeking certification as a class action with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. On October 16, 2009, a settlement reached with PennFuture and one of the three individual complainants was approved by the Court, which dismissed the claims of PennFuture and of the settling individual. The other two non-settling individuals are now represented by counsel handling the three cases filed in July 2008. FGCO believes those claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in those three complaints. The Pennsylvania Department of Health, under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, completed a Health Consultation regarding the Mansfield Plant and issued a report dated March 31, 2009, which concluded there is insufficient sampling data to determine if any public health threat exists for area residents due to emissions from the Mansfield Plant. The report recommended additional air monitoring and sample analysis in the vicinity of the Mansfield Plant, which the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has completed.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In December 2007, the state of New Jersey filed a CAA citizen suit alleging NSR violations at the Portland Generation Station against Reliant (the current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in 1999), GPU and Met-Ed. On October 30, 2008, the state of Connecticut filed a Motion to Intervene, which the Court granted on March 24, 2009. Specifically, Connecticut and New Jersey allege that "modifications" at Portland Units 1 and 2 occurred between 1980 and 2005 without preconstruction NSR or permitting under the CAA's PSD program, and seek injunctive relief, penalties, attorney fees and mitigation of the harm caused by excess emissions. The scope of Met-Ed’s indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy is disputed. Met-Ed filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims in New Jersey’s Amended Complaint and Connecticut’s Complaint in February and September of 2009, respectively. The Court granted Met-Ed's motion to dismiss New Jersey’s and Connecticut’s claims for injunctive relief against Met-Ed, but denied Met-Ed’s motion to dismiss the claims for civil penalties on statute of limitations grounds in order to allow the states to prove either that the application of the discovery rule or the doctrine of equitable tolling bars application of the statute of limitations.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to Reliant alleging NSR violations at the Portland Generation Station based on “modifications” dating back to 1986. Met-Ed is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. The EPA’s January 2009, NOV also alleged NSR violations at the Keystone and Shawville Stations based on “modifications” dating back to 1984. JCP&L, as the former owner of 16.67% of the Keystone Station, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of the Shawville Station, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></font> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc. alleging that "modifications" at the Homer City Power Station occurred since 1988 to the present without preconstruction NSR or permitting under the CAA's PSD program. Mission Energy is seeking indemnification from Penelec, the co-owner (along with New York State Electric and Gas Company) and operator of the Homer City Power Station prior to its sale in 1999. The scope of Penelec’s indemnity obligation to and from Mission Energy is disputed. Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In August 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and Ohio regulations, including the PSD, NNSR, and Title V regulations at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay Shore, and Ashtabula generating plants. The EPA’s NOV alleges equipment replacements occurring during maintenance outages dating back to 1990 triggered the pre-construction permitting requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs. In September 2009, FGCO received an information request pursuant to Section 114(a) of the CAA requesting certain operating and maintenance information and planning information regarding the Eastlake, Lake Shore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula generating plants. On November 3, 2009, FGCO received a letter providing notification that the EPA is evaluating whether certain scheduled maintenance at the Eastlake generating plant may constitute a major modification under the NSR provision of the CAA. On December 23, 2009, FGCO received another information request regarding emission projections for the Eastlake generating plant pursuant to Section 114(a) of the CAA. FGCO intends to comply with the CAA, including EPA’s information requests, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. A June 2006 finding of violation and NOV in which EPA alleged CAA violations at the Bay Shore Generating Plant remains unresolved and FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of such matter.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In August 2008, FirstEnergy received a request from the EPA for information pursuant to Section 114(a) of the CAA for certain operating and maintenance information regarding its formerly-owned Avon Lake and Niles generating plants, as well as a copy of a nearly identical request directed to the current owner, Reliant Energy, to allow the EPA to determine whether these generating sources are complying with the NSR provisions of the CAA. FirstEnergy intends to fully comply with the EPA’s information request, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.</font></div><br /><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div><div style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always; WIDTH: 100%"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">40</font></div><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2" /></div></div><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div></div><br /><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">National Ambient Air Quality Standards</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In March 2005, the EPA finalized CAIR, covering a total of 28 states (including Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, based on proposed findings that air emissions from 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia significantly contribute to non-attainment of the NAAQS for fine particles and/or the "8-hour" ozone NAAQS in other states. CAIR requires reductions of NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> and SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emissions in two phases (Phase I in 2009 for NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font>, 2010 for SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> and Phase II in 2015 for both NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> and SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font>), ultimately capping SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emissions in affected states to 2.5 million tons annually and NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. CAIR was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and on July 11, 2008, the Court vacated CAIR “in its entirety” and directed the EPA to “redo its analysis from the ground up.” In September 2008, the EPA, utility, mining and certain environmental advocacy organizations petitioned the Court for a rehearing to reconsider its ruling vacating CAIR. In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and allowed CAIR to remain in effect to “temporarily preserve its environmental values” until the EPA replaces CAIR with a new rule consistent with the Court’s July 11, 2008 opinion. On July 10, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in a different case that a cap-and-trade program similar to CAIR, called the “NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> SIP Call,” cannot be used to satisfy certain CAA requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for areas in non-attainment under the "8-hour" ozone NAAQS. FGCO's future cost of compliance with these regulations may be substantial and will depend, in part, on the action taken by the EPA in response to the Court’s ruling.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In December 2000, the EPA announced it would proceed with the development of regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants from electric power plants, identifying mercury as the hazardous air pollutant of greatest concern. In March 2005, the EPA finalized the CAMR, which provides a cap-and-trade program to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in two phases; initially, capping national mercury emissions at 38 tons by 2010 (as a "co-benefit" from implementation of SO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> and NO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">X</font> emission caps under the EPA's CAIR program) and 15 tons per year by 2018. Several states and environmental groups appealed the CAMR to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On February 8, 2008, the Court vacated the CAMR, ruling that the EPA failed to take the necessary steps to “de-list” coal-fired power plants from its hazardous air pollutant program and, therefore, could not promulgate a cap-and-trade program. The EPA petitioned for rehearing by the entire Court, which denied the petition in May 2008. In October 2008, the EPA (and an industry group) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the Court’s ruling vacating CAMR. On February 6, 2009, the EPA moved to dismiss its petition for certiorari. On February 23, 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the EPA’s petition and denied the industry group’s petition. On April 15, 2010, the EPA entered into a consent decree requiring it to propose maximum achievable control technology (MACT) regulations for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants by March 16, 2011, and to finalize the regulations by November 16, 2011. On April 29, 2010, the EPA issued proposed MACT regulations requiring emissions reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from non-electric generating unit boilers, including boilers which do not use fossil fuels such as the proposed Burger biomass repowering project. If finalized, the non-electric generating unit MACT regulations could also provide precedent for MACT standards applicable to electric generating units. Depending on the action taken by the EPA and on how any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FGCO’s future cost of compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to FGCO’s operations may result.</font></div></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></font> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Pennsylvania has submitted a new mercury rule for EPA approval that does not provide a cap-and-trade approach as in the CAMR, but rather follows a command-and-control approach imposing emission limits on individual sources. On December 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruling that Pennsylvania’s mercury rule is “unlawful, invalid and unenforceable” and enjoined the Commonwealth from continued implementation or enforcement of that rule.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Climate Change</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In December 1997, delegates to the United Nations' climate summit in Japan adopted an agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, to address global warming by reducing, by 2012, the amount of man-made GHG, including CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font>, emitted by developed countries. The U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 but it was never submitted for ratification by the U.S. Senate. The EPACT established a Committee on Climate Change Technology to coordinate federal climate change activities and promote the development and deployment of GHG reducing technologies. President Obama has announced his Administration’s “New Energy for America Plan” that includes, among other provisions, ensuring that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012, increasing to 25% by 2025, and implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050.</font></div><br /><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div><div style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always; WIDTH: 100%"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">41</font></div><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2" /></div></div><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div></div><br /><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state and international level. At the international level, the December 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen did not reach a consensus on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, but did take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding political agreement which recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius, included a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30 billion over the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020, and established the “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related activities in developing countries. Once they have become a party to the Copenhagen Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia, and the United States, would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries, including Brazil, China, and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their domestic measurement, reporting, and verification. At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States, and the House of Representatives passed one such bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, on June 26, 2009. The Senate continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. State activities, primarily the northeastern states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emissions from automobiles as “air pollutants” under the CAA. Although this decision did not address CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emissions from electric generating plants, the EPA has similar authority under the CAA to regulate “air pollutants” from those and other facilities. In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that will require FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and submit reports commencing in 2011. Also in September 2009, the EPA proposed new thresholds for GHG emissions that define when CAA permits under the NSR and Title V operating permits programs would be required. The EPA is proposing a major source emissions applicability threshold of 25,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font>e) for existing facilities under the Title V operating permits program and the Prevention of Significant Determination (PSD) portion of NSR. The EPA is also proposing a significance level between 10,000 and 25,000 tpy CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font>e to determine if existing major sources making modifications that result in an increase of emissions above the significance level would be required to obtain a PSD permit. In December 2009, the EPA released its final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.” The EPA’s finding concludes that concentrations of several key GHG increase the threat of climate change. In April 2010, EPA finalized new GHG standards for model years 2012 to 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles requiring an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> per mile in model year 2016 and clarified that GHG regulation under the CAA will not be triggered for electric generating plants and other stationary sources until January 2, 2011, at the earliest.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on October 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, reversed and remanded lower court decisions that had dismissed complaints alleging damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds. On February 6, 2010, the Fifth Circuit granted defendants’ petition for rehearing <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">en banc</font> and on April 30, 2010, the Fifth Circuit cancelled the <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">en banc </font>hearing. On March 5, 2010, the Second Circuit denied defendants’ petition for rehearing and rehearing <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">en banc</font>. These cases involve common law tort claims, including public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global warming and result in property damages. While FirstEnergy is not a party to either litigation, should the courts of appeals decisions be affirmed or not subjected to further review, FirstEnergy and/or one or more of its subsidiaries could be named in actions making similar allegations.</font></div><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.3; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations. The CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emissions per KWH of electricity generated by FirstEnergy is lower than many regional competitors due to its diversified generation sources, which include low or non-CO<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: sub">2</font> emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Clean Water Act</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy's plants. In addition, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy's operations. As provided in the Clean Water Act, authority to grant federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System water discharge permits can be assumed by a state. Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have assumed such authority.</font></div><br /><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div><div style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always; WIDTH: 100%"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">42</font></div><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2" /></div></div><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div></div><br /><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">On September 7, 2004, the EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing large electric generating plants. The regulations call for reductions in impingement mortality (when aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system) and entrainment (which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facility's cooling water system). On January 26, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded portions of the rulemaking dealing with impingement mortality and entrainment back to the EPA for further rulemaking and eliminated the restoration option from the EPA’s regulations. On July 9, 2007, the EPA suspended this rule, noting that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment to minimize impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuit Court’s opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake structures. The EPA is developing a new regulation under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals which have created significant uncertainty about the specific nature, scope and timing of the final performance standard. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness. Depending on the results of such studies and the EPA’s further rulemaking and any action taken by the states exercising best professional judgment, the future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland, Ohio has advised FGCO that it is considering prosecution under the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26, 2007 and February 27, 2007. FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></font> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Regulation of Waste Disposal</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As a result of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated. Certain fossil-fuel combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste disposal requirements pending the EPA's evaluation of the need for future regulation. In February 2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on options for regulating coal combustion residuals, including regulation as non-hazardous waste or regulation as a hazardous waste. In March and June 2009, the EPA requested information from FGCO’s Bruce Mansfield Plant regarding the management of coal combustion residuals. In December 2009, the EPA provided to FGCO the findings of its review of the Bruce Mansfield Plant’s coal combustion residuals management practices. The EPA observed that the waste management structures and the Plant “appeared to be well maintained and in good working order” and recommended only that FGCO “seal and maintain all asphalt surfaces.” On December 30, 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA said that the large volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk to the industry. On May 4, 2010, the EPA issued a proposed rule that provides two options for additional regulation of coal combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPA’s hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management, beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FGCO's future cost of compliance with any coal combustion residuals regulations which may be promulgated could be substantial and would depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the states.</font></div></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The Utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the consolidated balance sheet as of March  31, 2010, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Utilities' proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $101 million (JCP&L - $74 million, TE - $1 million, CEI - $1 million, FGCO - $1 million and FirstEnergy - $24 million) have been accrued through March 31, 2010. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $67 million for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt"></font>(C)<font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font> OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt"></font>Power Outages and Related Litigation</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L's territory. Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the outages.</font></div><br /><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div><div style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always; WIDTH: 100%"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">43</font></div><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2" /></div></div><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div></div><br /><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability, and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of actions. The class was decertified twice by the trial court, and appealed both times by the Plaintiffs, with the results being that: (1) the Appellate Division limited the class only to those customers directly impacted by the outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, NJ, based on a common incident involving the failure of the bushings of two large transformers in the Red Bank substation which resulted in planned and unplanned outages in the area during a 2-3 day period, and (2) in March 2007, the Appellate Division remanded this matter back to the Trial Court to allow plaintiffs sufficient time to establish a damage model or individual proof of damages. On March 31, 2009, the trial court again granted JCP&L’s motion to decertify the class. On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to take an interlocutory appeal to the trial court's decision to decertify the class, which was granted by the Appellate Division on June 15, 2009. Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 25, 2009, and JCP&L filed an opposition brief on September 25, 2009. On or about October 13, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of their appeal of the trial court's decision decertifying the class. The Appellate Division heard oral argument on January 5, 2010, before a three-judge panel. JCP&L is awaiting the Court’s decision.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Litigation Relating to the Proposed Allegheny Energy Merger</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In connection with the proposed merger (Note 14), purported shareholders of Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, against Allegheny Energy and its directors and certain officers, referred to as the Allegheny Energy defendants, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs allege that the merger consideration is unfair, that other terms in the merger agreement including the termination fee and the non-solicitation provisions are unfair, that certain individual defendants are financially interested in the merger, and that Allegheny Energy has failed to disclose material information about the merger to its shareholders. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger and they have demanded jury trials. The Allegheny Energy defendants moved to consolidate the Maryland lawsuits and filed motions to dismiss and answers to each of the Maryland complaints. The court consolidated the Maryland lawsuits and an amended complaint has been filed. The Allegheny Energy defendants, FirstEnergy, and Merger Sub filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on April 21, 2010. The Maryland court has set a hearing for argument on the motions to dismiss for June 3, 2010. By order dated April 26, 2010, the Maryland court certified a plaintiff class that consists of all holders of Allegheny Energy shares at any time from February 11, 2010 to the consummation of the proposed merger. The Pennsylvania state court has consolidated the lawsuits filed in that court. The Allegheny Energy defendants and FirstEnergy have moved to stay the Pennsylvania lawsuits and the plaintiff has moved for leave to take expedited discovery. The Pennsylvania state court will hear argument on both motions on May 27, 2010. By stipulation dated April 14, 2010, no response is due to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania until June 10, 2010. While FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against the claims, the outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain. If a dismissal is not granted or a settlement is not reached, these lawsuits could prevent or delay the completion of the merger and result in substantial costs to FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy. In accordance with its bylaws, Allegheny Energy will advance expenses to and, as necessary, indemnify all of its directors in connection with the foregoing proceedings. All applicable insurance policies may not provide sufficient coverage for the claims under these lawsuits, and rights of indemnification with respect to these lawsuits will continue whether or not the merger is completed. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the merger closes may adversely affect FirstEnergy’s business, financial condition or results of operations.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Nuclear Plant Matters</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 54pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Davis Besse Control Rod Drive Mechanism Nozzles</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">During a planned refueling outage at Davis-Besse that began on February 28, 2010, FENOC initially identified 16 of the 69 control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles that required modification. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was notified of these findings, along with federal, state and local officials. The initial nozzle inspection process included ultrasonic (UT) testing and visual inspections.  On March 18, 2010, the NRC sent a special inspection team to Davis-Besse.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">FENOC has begun a comprehensive investigation to determine the underlying cause for the cracking, and retained a contractor to make the necessary modifications.  Modifications will be made using a proven industry method subject to NRC review.  Further evaluation and testing identified 8 additional nozzles requiring modification. Additional testing will be conducted following the modification of each nozzle to ensure safe, reliable plant operations. The plant is expected to be ready for restart in July 2010.</font></div><br /><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div><div style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always; WIDTH: 100%"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">44</font></div><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2" /></div></div><div><div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div></div></div><br /><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">On April 5, 2010, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) requested that the NRC issue a Show Cause Order, or otherwise delay the restart of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station until such time that the NRC determines that adequate protection standards have been met and reasonable assurance exists that these standards will continue to be met after the plant’s operation is resumed.  What actions, if any, the NRC takes in response to this request have yet to be determined.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of obligations. As of March 31, 2010, FirstEnergy had approximately $1.9 billion invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. As part of the application to the NRC to transfer the ownership of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley and Perry to NGC in 2005, FirstEnergy provided an additional $80 million parental guarantee associated with the funding of decommissioning costs for these units and indicated that it planned to contribute an additional $80 million to these trusts by 2010. By a letter dated March 8, 2010, primarily as a result of the Beaver Valley Power Station operating license renewal, FENOC requested that the NRC reduce FirstEnergy parental guarantee to $15 million and notified the staff that it no longer planned to make the additional contributions into the trusts. FirstEnergy is awaiting the NRC’s decision on the proposed reduction of the parental guarantee.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Other Legal Matters</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy's normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">JCP&L's bargaining unit employees filed a grievance challenging JCP&L's 2002 call-out procedure that required bargaining unit employees to respond to emergency power outages. On May 20, 2004, an arbitration panel concluded that the call-out procedure violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement. On September 9, 2005, the arbitration panel issued an opinion to award approximately $16 million to the bargaining unit employees. A final order identifying the individual damage amounts was issued on October 31, 2007 and the award appeal process was initiated. The union filed a motion with the federal Court to confirm the award and JCP&L filed its answer and counterclaim to vacate the award on December 31, 2007. JCP&L and the union filed briefs in June and July of 2008 and oral arguments were held in the fall. On February 25, 2009, the federal district court denied JCP&L’s motion to vacate the arbitration decision and granted the union’s motion to confirm the award. JCP&L filed a Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit and a Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Judgment on March 6, 2009. The parties participated in the federal court's mediation programs and held private settlement discussions. On April 14, 2010, the parties reached a tentative agreement on a settlement package that must be reviewed and approved by the court. JCP&L recognized a liability for the potential $16 million award in 2005, which has been adjusted for post-judgment interest that began to accrue as of February 25, 2009.</font></div><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">On February 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount was approved by the PUCO. On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court has not yet ruled on that motion to dismiss. The named-defendant companies will continue to defend these claims including challenging any class certification.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. If it were ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject to liability based on the above matters, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div>8. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES(A)    GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCESAs part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy entersfalsefalsefalseIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)
-Number 14
-Paragraph 3
Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)
-Number 5
-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12
falsefalse12falseUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue