2.0.0.10falseREGULATORY MATTERS006090 - Disclosure - REGULATORY MATTERStruefalsefalsefalse1usd$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_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlockus-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="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">9. REGULATORY 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-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font style="MARGIN-LEFT: 17.5pt"></font>(A)<font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font> RELIABILITY INITIATIVES</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 2005, Congress amended the FPA to provide for federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards. The mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk power system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities and ATSI. The NERC is charged with establishing and enforcing these reliability standards, although it has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of its responsibilities to eight regional entities, including Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> Corporation. All of FirstEnergy’s facilities are located within the Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards.</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">45</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">FirstEnergy believes that it is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, it is clear that the NERC, Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> and the FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time. However, the 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the new reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on FirstEnergy’s part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.</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 April 2007, Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> performed a routine compliance audit of FirstEnergy’s bulk-power system within the Midwest ISO region and found it to be in full compliance with all audited reliability standards. Similarly, in October 2008, Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> performed a routine compliance audit of FirstEnergy’s bulk-power system within the PJM region and found it to be in full compliance with all audited reliability standards. FirstEnergy’s MISO facilities are next due for the periodic audit by Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First </font>later this year.</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 December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&L’s Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic substations, with customers in the affected area losing power. Power was restored to most customers within a few hours and to all customers within eleven hours. On December 16, 2008, JCP&L provided preliminary information about the event to certain regulatory agencies, including the NERC. On March 31, 2009, the NERC initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&L’s contribution to the electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated with the event. The initial phase of the investigation required JCP&L to respond to the NERC’s request for factual data about the outage. JCP&L submitted its written response on May 1, 2009. The NERC conducted on site interviews with personnel involved in responding to the event on June 16-17, 2009. On July 7, 2009, the NERC issued additional questions regarding the event and JCP&L replied as requested on August 6, 2009. JCP&L is not able at this time to predict what actions, if any, that the NERC may take based on the data submittals or interview results.</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 June 5, 2009, FirstEnergy self-reported to Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> a potential violation of NERC Standard PRC-005 resulting from its inability to validate maintenance records for 20 protection system relays (out of approximately 20,000 reportable relays) in JCP&L’s and Penelec’s transmission systems. These potential violations were discovered during a comprehensive field review of all FirstEnergy substations to verify equipment and maintenance database accuracy. FirstEnergy has completed all mitigation actions, including calibrations and maintenance records for the relays. Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> issued an Initial Notice of Alleged Violation on June 22, 2009. The NERC approved FirstEnergy’s mitigation plan on August 19, 2009, and submitted it to the FERC for approval on August 19, 2009. FirstEnergy is not able at this time to predict what actions or penalties, if any, that Reliability<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">First</font> will propose for this self-reported violation.</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>(B)<font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font> OHIO</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 June 7, 2007, the Ohio Companies filed an application for an increase in electric distribution rates with the PUCO and, on August 6, 2007, updated their filing. On January 21, 2009, the PUCO granted the Ohio Companies’ application in part to increase electric distribution rates by $136.6 million (OE - $68.9 million, CEI - $29.2 million and TE - $38.5 million). These increases went into effect for OE and TE on January 23, 2009, and for CEI on May 1, 2009. Applications for rehearing of this order were filed by the Ohio Companies and one other party on February 20, 2009. The PUCO granted these applications for rehearing on March 18, 2009 for the purpose of further consideration. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing.</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">SB221, which became effective on July 31, 2008, required all electric utilities to file an ESP, and permitted the filing of an MRO. On July 31, 2008, the Ohio Companies filed with the PUCO a comprehensive ESP and a separate MRO. The PUCO denied the MRO application; however, the PUCO later granted the Ohio Companies’ application for rehearing for the purpose of further consideration of the matter. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing. The ESP proposed by the Ohio Companies was approved by the PUCO on December 19, 2008.  The Ohio Companies thereafter withdrew and terminated the ESP and continued their rate plan then in effect as allowed by the terms of SB221. On December 31, 2008, the Ohio Companies conducted a CBP for the procurement of electric generation for retail customers from January 5, 2009 through March 31, 2009. On January 9, 2009, the Ohio Companies requested the implementation of a new fuel rider to recover the costs resulting from the December 31, 2008 CBP. The PUCO ultimately approved the Ohio Companies’ request for a new fuel rider, which recovered the increased purchased power costs for OE and TE, and recovered a portion of those costs for CEI, with the remainder being deferred for future recovery.</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">46</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 February 19, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an Amended ESP application, including an attached Stipulation and Recommendation that was signed by the Ohio Companies, the Staff of the PUCO, and many of the intervening parties. Specifically, the Amended ESP provided that generation would be provided by FES at the average wholesale rate of the CBP described above for April and May 2009 to the Ohio Companies for their non-shopping customers; for the period of June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2011, retail generation prices would be based upon the outcome of a descending clock CBP on a slice-of-system basis. The Amended ESP further provided that the Ohio Companies will not seek a base distribution rate increase, subject to certain exceptions, with an effective date of such increase before January 1, 2012, that CEI would agree to write-off approximately $216 million of its Extended RTC regulatory asset, and that the Ohio Companies would collect a delivery service improvement rider at an overall average rate of $.002 per KWH for the period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Amended ESP also addressed a number of other issues, including but not limited to, rate design for various customer classes, and resolution of the prudence review and the collection of deferred costs that were approved in prior proceedings. On February 26, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed a Supplemental Stipulation, which was signed or not opposed by virtually all of the parties to the proceeding, that supplemented and modified certain provisions of the February 19, 2009 Stipulation and Recommendation. Specifically, the Supplemental Stipulation modified the provision relating to governmental aggregation and the Generation Service Uncollectible Rider, provided further detail on the allocation of the economic development funding contained in the Stipulation and Recommendation, and proposed additional provisions related to the collaborative process for the development of energy efficiency programs, among other provisions. The PUCO adopted and approved certain aspects of the Stipulation and Recommendation on March 4, 2009, and adopted and approved the remainder of the Stipulation and Recommendation and Supplemental Stipulation without modification on March 25, 2009. Certain aspects of the Stipulation and Recommendation and Supplemental Stipulation took effect on April 1, 2009 while the remaining provisions took effect on June 1, 2009.</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">SB221 also requires electric distribution utilities to implement energy efficiency programs. Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of approximately 166,000 MWH in 2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with additional savings required through 2025. Utilities are also required to reduce peak demand in 2009 by 1%, with an additional .75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The PUCO may amend these benchmarks in certain, limited circumstances, and the Ohio Companies have filed an application with the PUCO seeking such amendments. On January 7, 2010, the PUCO amended the 2009 energy efficiency benchmarks to zero, contingent upon the Ohio Companies meeting the revised benchmarks in a period of not more than three years. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that due to a change in PUCO rules subsequent to the filing of the Ohio Companies’ application, the Ohio Companies’ application seeking a reduction of the peak demand reduction requirements was moot. In its March 10, 2010, Entry the PUCO also found that the Ohio Companies peak demand reduction programs complied with PUCO rules.</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 Ohio Companies are presently involved in collaborative efforts related to energy efficiency programs, including filing applications for approval of those programs with the PUCO, as well as other implementation efforts arising out of the Supplemental Stipulation. On December 15, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. The PUCO set the matter for a hearing that was completed on March 8, 2010, and all briefing was completed by April 12, 2010. On March 8, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed their 2009 Status Update Report with the PUCO in which they indicated compliance with the 2009 statutory energy efficiency and peak demand benchmarks as those benchmarks were amended as described above.  Interested parties filed comments on the Report.  The PUCO has yet to address these comments. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable from customers.</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 October 2009, the PUCO issued additional Entries modifying certain of its previous rules that set out the manner in which electric utilities, including the Ohio Companies, will be required to comply with benchmarks contained in SB221 related to the employment of alternative energy resources, energy efficiency/peak demand reduction programs as well as greenhouse gas reporting requirements and changes to long term forecast reporting requirements. Applications for rehearing filed in mid-November 2009 were granted on December 9, 2009 for the sole purpose of further consideration of the matters raised in those applications. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing. The rules implementing the requirements of SB221 went into effect on December 10, 2009.</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">47</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">Additionally under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve part of their load from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25% of the KWH they serve in 2009. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RFPs sought RECs, including solar RECs and RECs generated in Ohio in order to meet the Ohio Companies’ alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The RECs acquired through these two RFPs will be used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. On December 7, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO seeking a force majeure determination regarding the Ohio Companies’ compliance with the 2009 solar energy resources benchmark, and seeking a reduction in the benchmark. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market and thus granted the Ohio Companies’ application seeking force majeure. The PUCO reduced the Ohio Companies’ aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies’ acquired through their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Companies’ 2010 alternative energy requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. On April 15, 2010, the Ohio Companies and FES (due to its status as an electric service company in Ohio) filed compliance reports with the PUCO setting forth how they individually satisfied the alternative energy requirements in SB221 for 2009. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark, which application is still pending.</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 October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure electric generation service for the period beginning June 1, 2011. The proposed MRO would establish a CBP to secure generation supply for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier and would be similar, in all material respects, to the CBP conducted in May 2009 in that it would procure energy, capacity and certain transmission services on a slice of system basis. However, unlike the May 2009 CBP, the MRO would include multiple bidding sessions and multiple products with different delivery periods for generation supply designed to reduce potential volatility and supplier risk and encourage bidder participation. A technical conference was held on October 29, 2009. Hearings took place in December 2009 and the matter has been fully briefed. Pursuant to SB221, the PUCO has 90 days from the date of the application to determine whether the MRO meets certain statutory requirements. Although the Ohio Companies requested a PUCO determination by January 18, 2010, on February 3, 2010, the PUCO announced that its determination would be delayed. Under a determination that such statutory requirements are met, the Ohio Companies would be able to implement the MRO and conduct the CBP.</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 March 23, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP, which if approved by the PUCO, would go into effect on June 1, 2011 and conclude on May 31, 2014. Attached to the application was a Stipulation and Recommendation signed by the Ohio Companies, the Staff of the PUCO, and an additional fourteen parties signing as Signatory Parties, with two additional parties agreeing not to oppose the adoption of the Stipulation. The material terms of the Stipulation include a CBP similar to the one used in May 2009 and the one proposed in the October 2009 MRO filing; a 6% generation discount to certain low-income customers provided by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES; no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; and a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR), to recover a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery system. This Rider replaces the Delivery Service Improvement Rider (Rider DSI) which terminates by its own terms. The Ohio Companies also agree not to collect certain amounts associated with RTEP and administrative costs associated with the move to PJM. Many of the existing riders approved in the previous ESP remain in effect, some with modifications. The new ESP also requests the resolution of current proceedings pending at the PUCO regarding corporate separation, elements of the smart grid proceeding and the move to PJM. The evidentiary hearing began on April 20, 2010, at the PUCO. The Stipulation requested a decision by the PUCO by May 5, 2010. On April 28, 2010, the PUCO Chairman issued a statement that the PUCO will not issue a decision on May 5, 2010, and will take additional time to review the case record. FirstEnergy recorded approximately $39.5 million of regulatory asset impairments and expenses related to the ESP.</font></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-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt"></font>(C)<font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font> PENNSYLVANIA</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">Met-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their PLR and default service requirements from FES through a fixed-price partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement. The agreement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to sell the output of NUG energy to the market and requires FES to provide energy at fixed prices to replace any NUG energy sold to the extent needed for Met-Ed and Penelec to satisfy their PLR and default service obligations.</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 February 20, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed with the PPUC a generation procurement plan covering the period January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service via a prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply, as required by Act 129. The plan proposed a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class, through the use of a descending clock auction. On August 12, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a settlement agreement with the PPUC for the generation procurement plan covering the period January 1, 2011, through May 31, 2013, reflecting the settlement on all but two issues. The settlement plan proposes a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class. On September 2, 2009, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD) approving the settlement and adopted the Met-Ed and Penelec’s positions on two reserved issues. On November 6, 2009, the PPUC entered an Order approving the settlement and finding in favor of Met-Ed and Penelec on the two reserved issues. Generation procurement began in January 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">48</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 May 22, 2008, the PPUC approved Met-Ed and Penelec annual updates to the TSC rider for the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. The TSCs included a component for under-recovery of actual transmission costs incurred during the prior period (Met-Ed - $144 million and Penelec - $4 million) and transmission cost projections for June 2008 through May 2009 (Met-Ed - $258 million and Penelec - $92 million). Met-Ed received PPUC approval for a transition approach that would recover past under-recovered costs plus carrying charges through the new TSC over thirty-one months and defer a portion of the projected costs ($92 million) plus carrying charges for recovery through future TSCs by December 31, 2010. Various intervenors filed complaints against those filings. In addition, the PPUC ordered an investigation to review the reasonableness of Met-Ed’s TSC, while at the same time allowing Met-Ed to implement the rider June 1, 2008, subject to refund. On July 15, 2008, the PPUC directed the ALJ to consolidate the complaints against Met-Ed with its investigation and a litigation schedule was adopted. Hearings and briefing for both Met-Ed and Penelec have concluded. On August 11, 2009, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision to the PPUC approving Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s TSCs as filed and dismissing all complaints. Exceptions by various interveners were filed and reply exceptions were filed by Met-Ed and Penelec. The PPUC adopted a Motion on January 28, 2010 and subsequently entered an Order on March 3, 2010 which denies the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, directs Met-Ed and Penelec to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and instructs Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all marginal transmission losses collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases beginning January 1, 2011. On March 18, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff supplements to end collection of marginal transmission loss costs. By Order entered March 25, 2010, the PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. On April 1, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUC’s March 3, 2010 Order. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, it is the belief of Met-Ed and Penelec that they should prevail in the appeal and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $199.7 million ($158.5 million for Met-Ed and $41.2 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the period prior to January 1, 2011. On April 2, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Response to the PPUC’s March 3, 2010 Order requesting approval of procedures to establish separate accounts to track all marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and the use of those funds to mitigate future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011</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 May 28, 2009, the PPUC approved Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s annual updates to their TSC rider for the period June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2010 subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the 2008 TSC filing described above, as required in connection with the PPUC’s January 2007 rate order. For Penelec’s customers the new TSC resulted in an approximate 1% decrease in monthly bills, reflecting projected PJM transmission costs as well as a reconciliation for costs already incurred. The TSC for Met-Ed’s customers increased to recover the additional PJM charges paid by Met-Ed in the previous year and to reflect updated projected costs. In order to gradually transition customers to the higher rate, the PPUC approved Met-Ed’s proposal to continue to recover the prior period deferrals allowed in the PPUC’s May 2008 Order and defer $57.5 million of projected costs to a future TSC to be fully recovered by December 31, 2010. Under this proposal, monthly bills for Met-Ed’s customers would increase approximately 9.4% for the period June 2009 through May 2010.</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">Act 129 became effective in 2008 and addresses issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction; generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other things Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load reduction plan, or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities’ plans to reduce energy consumption by a minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce peak demand by a minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. On July 1, 2009, Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn filed EE&C Plans with the PPUC in accordance with Act 129. The Pennsylvania Companies submitted a supplemental filing on July 31, 2009, to revise the Total Resource Cost test items in the EE&C Plans pursuant to the PPUC’s June 23, 2009 Order. Following evidentiary hearings and further revisions to the EE&C Plans, the Pennsylvania Companies filed final plans and tariff revisions on February 5, 2010 consistent with the minor revisions required by the PPUC. The PPUC entered an Order on February 26, 2010 approving the final plans and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010.</font></div><div> </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">Act 129 also required utilities to file by August 14, 2009 with the PPUC smart meter technology procurement and installation plan to provide for the installation of smart meter technology within 15 years. On August 14, 2009, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan. Consistent with the PPUC’s rules, this plan proposes a 24-month assessment period in which the Pennsylvania Companies will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate assessment period costs at approximately $29.5 million, which the Pennsylvania Companies, in their plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. An Initial Decision was issued by the presiding ALJ on January 28, 2010. The ALJ’s Initial Decision approved the Smart Meter Plan as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUC’s Implementation Order; eliminating the provision of interest in the 1307(e) reconciliation; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs minus resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and reflecting that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be capitalized. On April 15, 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman Cawley that modified the ALJ’s initial decision issued on January 28, 2010, and decided various issues regarding the Smart Meter Implementation Plan (SMIP) for the Pennsylvania Companies. An order consistent with Chairman Cawley’s Motion is anticipated to be entered in the near future, in which event the Pennsylvania Companies will move forward with the Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan.</font></div><br /></div><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">49</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"> </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">Legislation addressing rate mitigation and the expiration of rate caps was introduced in the legislative session that ended in 2008; several bills addressing these issues were introduced in the 2009 legislative session. The final form and impact of such legislation is uncertain.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </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 March 31, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec submitted their 5-year NUG Statement Compliance filing to the PPUC in accordance with their 1998 Restructuring Settlement. Met-Ed proposed to reduce its CTC rate for the residential class with a corresponding increase in the generation rate and the shopping credit, and Penelec proposed to reduce its CTC rate to zero for all classes with a corresponding increase in the generation rate and the shopping credit. While these changes would result in additional annual generation revenue (Met-Ed - $27 million and Penelec - $59 million), overall rates would remain unchanged. On July 30, 2009, the PPUC entered an order approving the 5-year NUG Statement, approving the reduction of the CTC, and directing Met-Ed and Penelec to file a tariff supplement implementing this change. On July 31, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed tariff supplements decreasing the CTC rate in compliance with the July 30, 2009 order, and increasing the generation rate in compliance with the Pennsylvania Companies’ Restructuring Orders of 1998. On August 14, 2009, the PPUC issued Secretarial Letters approving Met-Ed and Penelec’s compliance filings.</font></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">By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment period on whether “the Restructuring Settlement allows NUG over-collection for select and isolated months to be used to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists.”   In response to the Tentative Order, the Office of Small Business Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate, York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority, ARIPPA, the Met-Ed Industrial Users Group and Penelec Industrial Customer Alliance filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec filed reply comments on October 26, 2009. On November 5, 2009, the PPUC issued a Secretarial Letter allowing parties to file reply comments to Met-Ed and Penelec’s reply comments by November 16, 2009, and reply comments were filed by the Office of Consumer Advocate, ARIPPA, and the Met-Ed Industrial Users Group and Penelec Industrial Customer Alliance. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.</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 February 8, 2010, Penn filed with the PPUC a generation procurement plan covering the period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service via a prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply, as required by Act 129. The plan proposed a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class, through the use of a descending clock auction. A preliminary conference was held on March 26, 2010, and, among other things, established a procedural schedule.  Evidentiary hearings are scheduled for June 15-16, 2010. The PPUC is required to issue an order on the plan no later than November 8, 2010.</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>(D)<font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font> NEW JERSEY</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">JCP&L is permitted to defer for future collection from customers the amounts by which its costs of supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUGC rates and market sales of NUG energy and capacity. As of March 31, 2010, the accumulated deferred cost balance totaled approximately $55 million.</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 accordance with an April 28, 2004 NJBPU order, JCP&L filed testimony on June 7, 2004, supporting continuation of the current level and duration of the funding of TMI-2 decommissioning costs by New Jersey customers without a reduction, termination or capping of the funding. On September 30, 2004, JCP&L filed an updated TMI-2 decommissioning study. This study resulted in an updated total decommissioning cost estimate of $729 million (in 2003 dollars) compared to the estimated $528 million (in 2003 dollars) from the prior 1995 decommissioning study. The DPA filed comments on February 28, 2005 requesting that decommissioning funding be suspended. On March 18, 2005, JCP&L filed a response to those comments. JCP&L responded to additional NJBPU staff discovery requests in May and November 2007 and also submitted comments in the proceeding in November 2007. A schedule for further NJBPU proceedings has not yet been set. On March 13, 2009, JCP&L filed its annual SBC Petition with the NJBPU that includes a request for a reduction in the level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs based on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009. This matter is currently pending before the NJBPU.</font></div><div> </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">New Jersey statutes require that the state periodically undertake a planning process, known as the EMP, to address energy related issues including energy security, economic growth, and environmental impact. The EMP is to be developed with involvement of the Governor’s Office and the Governor’s Office of Economic Growth, and is to be prepared by a Master Plan Committee, which is chaired by the NJBPU President and includes representatives of several State departments. The EMP was issued on October 22, 2008, establishing five major goals:</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div><table style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 36pt" align="right"><div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Symbol, serif"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">·</font>  </font></div></td><td><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">maximize energy efficiency to achieve a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020;</font></div></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div><table style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 36pt" align="right"><div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Symbol, serif"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">·</font>  </font></div></td><td><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">reduce peak demand for electricity by 5,700 MW by 2020;</font></div></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /><br /></div></div><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">50</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><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><div><table style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 36pt" align="right"><div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Symbol, serif"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">·</font>  </font></div></td><td><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">meet 30% of the state’s electricity needs with renewable energy by 2020;</font></div></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div><table style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 36pt" align="right"><div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Symbol, serif">·  </font></div></td><td><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">examine smart grid technology and develop additional cogeneration and other generation resources consistent with the state’s greenhouse gas targets; and</font></div></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div><table style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 36pt" align="right"><div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Symbol, serif"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">·</font>  </font></div></td><td><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">invest in innovative clean energy technologies and businesses to stimulate the industry’s growth in New Jersey.</font></div></td></tr></table></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 January 28, 2009, the NJBPU adopted an order establishing the general process and contents of specific EMP plans that must be filed by New Jersey electric and gas utilities in order to achieve the goals of the EMP. On April 16, 2010, the BPU issued an order indefinitely suspending the requirement of New Jersey utilities to submit Utility Master Plans until such time as the status of the EMP has been made clear. At this time, FirstEnergy and JCP&L cannot determine the impact, if any, the EMP may have on their operations.</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 support of former New Jersey Governor Corzine's Economic Assistance and Recovery Plan, JCP&L announced a proposal to spend approximately $98 million on infrastructure and energy efficiency projects in 2009. Under the proposal, an estimated $40 million would be spent on infrastructure projects, including substation upgrades, new transformers, distribution line re-closers and automated breaker operations. In addition, approximately $34 million would be spent implementing new demand response programs as well as expanding on existing programs. Another $11 million would be spent on energy efficiency, specifically replacing transformers and capacitor control systems and installing new LED street lights. The remaining $13 million would be spent on energy efficiency programs that would complement those currently being offered. The project relating to expansion of the existing demand response programs was approved by the NJBPU on August 19, 2009, and implementation began in 2009. Approval for the project related to energy efficiency programs intended to complement those currently being offered was denied by the NJBPU on December 1, 2009. Implementation of the remaining projects is dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the proposal.</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 February 11, 2010, S&P downgraded the senior unsecured debt of FirstEnergy Corp. to BB+. As a result, pursuant to the requirements of a pre-existing NJBPU order, JCP&L filed, on February 17, a plan addressing the mitigation of any effect of the downgrade and which provided an assessment of present and future liquidity necessary to assure JCP&L’s continued payment to BGS suppliers. The NJBPU subsequently held a public hearing to review the plan and available options. On March 17, 2010, the NJBPU determined that JCP&L demonstrated that it has ample resources available to continue uninterrupted payments to BGS suppliers and that there are no concerns with JCP&L's liquidity and therefore no further action is required.</font></div><div> </div><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: 17.5pt"></font>(E)<font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font> FERC MATTERS</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>Transmission Service between MISO and PJM</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 November 18, 2004, the FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission service between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC’s intent was to eliminate multiple transmission charges for a single transaction between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC also ordered MISO, PJM and the transmission owners within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate mechanism to recover lost transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to as the Seams Elimination Cost Adjustment or SECA) during a 16-month transition period. The FERC issued orders in 2005 setting the SECA for hearing. The presiding judge issued an initial decision on August 10, 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by MISO, PJM and the transmission owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision is subject to review and approval by the FERC. A final order is pending before the FERC, and in the meantime, FirstEnergy affiliates have been negotiating and entering into settlement agreements with other parties in the docket to mitigate the risk of lower transmission revenue collection associated with an adverse order. On September 26, 2008, the MISO and PJM transmission owners filed a motion requesting that the FERC approve the pending settlements and act on the initial decision. On November 20, 2008, FERC issued an order approving uncontested settlements, but did not rule on the initial decision. On December 19, 2008, an additional order was issued approving two contested settlements. On October 29, 2009, March 17, 2010 and April 8, 2010, FirstEnergy, filed additional settlement agreements with FERC to resolve outstanding claims with various parties. FirstEnergy is actively pursuing settlement agreements with other parties to the case. On December 8, 2009, certain parties sought a writ of mandamus from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals directing FERC to issue an order on the Initial Decision. The Court agreed to hold this matter in abeyance based upon FERC’s representation to use good faith efforts to issue a substantive ruling on the initial decision no later than May 27, 2010. If FERC fails to act, the case will be submitted for briefing in June. The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted.</font></div><br /></div><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">51</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><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>PJM Transmission Rate</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 January 31, 2005, certain PJM transmission owners made filings with the FERC pursuant to a settlement agreement previously approved by the FERC. JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec were parties to that proceeding and joined in two of the filings. In the first filing, the settling transmission owners submitted a filing justifying continuation of their existing rate design within the PJM RTO. Hearings were held on the content of the compliance filings and numerous parties appeared and litigated various issues concerning PJM rate design, notably AEP, which proposed to create a "postage stamp," or average rate for all high voltage transmission facilities across PJM and a zonal transmission rate for facilities below 345 kV. AEP's proposal would have the effect of shifting recovery of the costs of high voltage transmission lines to other transmission zones, including those where JCP&L, Met-Ed, and Penelec serve load. On April 19, 2007, the FERC issued an order (Opinion 494) finding that the PJM transmission owners’ existing “license plate” or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new transmission facilities, the FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at 500 kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM footprint by means of a postage-stamp rate. Costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a “beneficiary pays” basis. The FERC found that PJM’s current beneficiary-pays cost allocation methodology is not sufficiently detailed and, in a related order that also was issued on April 19, 2007, directed that hearings be held for the purpose of establishing a just and reasonable cost allocation methodology for inclusion in PJM’s tariff.</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 FERC’s April 19, 2007 order and a related order denying a request for rehearing were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which issued a decision on August 6, 2009. The court affirmed FERC’s ratemaking treatment for existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a postage-stamp basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate design issue back to FERC. A request for rehearing and rehearing en banc by two companies was denied by the Seventh Circuit on October 20, 2009.</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 an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for “paper hearings” – meaning that FERC called for parties to submit comments or written testimony pursuant to the schedule described in the order. FERC identified nine separate issues for comments, and directed PJM to file the first round of comments on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments within 45 days, and reply comments 30 days later. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order.  Interested parties may file responsive comments or studies by May 28, 2010.  Reply comments are due by June 28, 2010.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">RTO Consolidation</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 August 17, 2009, FirstEnergy filed an application with the FERC requesting to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently, FirstEnergy’s transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The consolidation would make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. Most of FirstEnergy’s transmission assets in Pennsylvania and all of the transmission assets in New Jersey already operate as a part of PJM. Key elements of the filing include a Fixed Resource Requirement Plan (FRR Plan) that describes the means whereby capacity will be procured and administered as necessary to satisfy the PJM capacity requirements for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years; and also a request that ATSI’s transmission customers be excused from the costs for regional transmission projects that were approved through PJM’s RTEP process prior to ATSI’s entry into PJM (legacy RTEP costs). The integration is expected to be complete on June 1, 2011, to coincide with delivery of power under the next competitive generation procurement process for the Ohio Companies. To ensure a definitive ruling at the same time the FERC rules on its request to integrate ATSI into PJM, on October 19, 2009, FirstEnergy filed a related complaint with the FERC on the issue of exempting the ATSI footprint from the legacy RTEP costs.</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 September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohio’s stakeholders regarding the RTO consolidation. FirstEnergy filed extensive comments in the PUCO case on September 25, 2009, and reply comments on October 13, 2009, and attended a public meeting on September 15, 2009 to answer questions regarding the RTO consolidation. Several parties have intervened in the regulatory dockets at the FERC and at the PUCO. Certain interveners have commented and protested particular elements of the proposed RTO consolidation, including an exit fee to MISO, integration costs to PJM, and cost-allocations of future transmission upgrades in PJM and MISO.</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 December 17, 2009, FERC issued an order approving, subject to certain future compliance filings, ATSI’s move to PJM. FirstEnergy’s request to be exempted from legacy RTEP costs was rejected and its complaint dismissed.</font><br /></div></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">52</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><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">  </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 December 17, 2009, ATSI executed the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement. On December 18, 2009, the Ohio Companies and Penn executed the PJM Operating Agreement and the PJM Reliability Assurance Agreement. Execution of these agreements committed ATSI and the Ohio Companies and Penn’s load to moving into PJM on the schedule described in the application and approved in the FERC Order (June 1, 2011).</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 January 15, 2010, the Ohio Companies and Penn submitted a compliance filing describing the process whereby ATSI-zone load serving entities (LSEs) can “opt out” of the Ohio Companies' and Penn's FRR Plan for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years. On January 16, 2010, FirstEnergy filed for clarification or rehearing of certain issues associated with implementing the FRR auctions on the proposed schedule. On January 19, 2010, FirstEnergy filed for rehearing of FERC’s decision to impose the legacy RTEP costs on ATSI’s transmission customers. Also on January 19, 2010, several parties, including the PUCO and the OCC asked for rehearing of parts of FERC’s order. None of the rehearing parties asked FERC to rescind authorization for ATSI to enter PJM. Instead, parties focused on questions of cost and cost allocation or on alleged errors in implementing the move. On February 3, 2010, FirstEnergy filed an answer to the January 19, 2010 rehearing requests of other parties. On February 16, 2010, FirstEnergy submitted a second compliance filing to FERC; the filing describes communications protocols and performance deficiency penalties for capacity suppliers that are taken in FRR auctions.</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 March 10, 2010, FERC granted FirstEnergy’s request for expedited hearing on the conduct of the FRR auctions. The Ohio Companies and Penn obtained their PJM capacity requirements for the 2011 and 2012 delivery years in the FRR auctions conducted March 15-19, 2010. The PJM market monitor certified the FRR auction results on March 25, 2010, and the auction results were released by PJM on March 26, 2010. On March 29, 2010, the Ohio Companies and Penn signed agreements with all winning suppliers. In May 2010, the Ohio Companies and Penn’s load will be included in the PJM Base Residual Auction for the delivery year beginning 2013. FirstEnergy and unaffiliated generation and loads in the ATSI footprint are also expected to participate in the Base Residual Auction. FirstEnergy expects to integrate into PJM effective June 1, 2011.</font></div><div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Changes ordered for PJM Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) Auction</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 May 30, 2008, a group of PJM load-serving entities, state commissions, consumer advocates, and trade associations (referred to collectively as the RPM Buyers) filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM alleging that three of the four transitional RPM auctions yielded prices that are unjust and unreasonable under the FPA. On September 19, 2008, the FERC denied the RPM Buyers’ complaint. On December 12, 2008, PJM filed proposed tariff amendments that would adjust slightly the RPM program. PJM also requested that the FERC conduct a settlement hearing to address changes to the RPM and suggested that the FERC should rule on the tariff amendments only if settlement could not be reached in January 2009. The request for settlement hearings was granted. Settlement had not been reached by January 9, 2009 and, accordingly, FirstEnergy and other parties submitted comments on PJM’s proposed tariff amendments. On January 15, 2009, the Chief Judge issued an order terminating settlement discussions. On February 9, 2009, PJM and a group of stakeholders submitted an offer of settlement, which used the PJM December 12, 2008 filing as its starting point, and stated that unless otherwise specified, provisions filed by PJM on December 12, 2008 apply.</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 March 26, 2009, the FERC accepted in part, and rejected in part, tariff provisions submitted by PJM, revising certain parts of its RPM. It ordered changes included making incremental improvements to RPM and clarification on certain aspects of the March 26, 2009 Order. On April 27, 2009, PJM submitted a compliance filing addressing the changes the FERC ordered in the March 26, 2009 Order; subsequently, numerous parties filed requests for rehearing of the March 26, 2009 Order. On June 18, 2009, the FERC denied rehearing and request for oral argument of the March 26, 2009 Order.</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">MISO Complaints Versus PJM</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 March 9, 2010, MISO filed two complaints against PJM with FERC under Sections 206, 306, and 309 of the FPA alleging violations of the MISO/PJM Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). In the first complaint, MISO alleged that by failing to account for the market flows from 34 PJM generators over the period from 2007-2009, PJM underpaid MISO by a total of roughly $75 million including interest. For the period from 2005-2007, MISO claimed an underpayment by PJM of at least $12 million plus interest.  MISO also claimed that PJM failed to maintain required records necessary to calculate underbilling for the 2005-2007 billing.</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 the second complaint, MISO alleged that PJM has refused to comply with provisions of the JOA requiring market-to-market dispatch since 2009, and is improperly demanding repayment of redispatch payments previously made to MISO.</font></div><br /></div><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">53</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">PJM filed its answers to the complaints on April 12, 2010, opposing the relief sought by MISO. In addition, on April 12, 2010, PJM filed a complaint with FERC pursuant to Section 206, 306, and 309 alleging that MISO is violating the JOA with PJM by initiating market-to-market coordination and financial settlements for substitute (proxy) reciprocal coordinated flowgates between MISO and PJM. PJM claims that the JOA does not permit MISO to initiate market-to-market settlements using proxy flowgates in lieu of designated reciprocal coordinated flowgates. This complaint addresses substantially the same issues as the second MISO complaint, in which MISO argues that the use of proxy flowgates is permitted by agreement of the RTOs and operating practice. Each party filed a complaint in order to ensure their right to claim refunds, if any, if successful in their arguments at FERC.</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 has intervened in all three proceedings, and timely filed comments supporting MISO in its first complaint, relating to improper accounting of market flows resulting in underpayments from 2005-2009.  FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div>9. REGULATORY MATTERS(A)    RELIABILITY INITIATIVESIn 2005, Congress amended the FPA to provide for federally-enforceable mandatoryfalsefalsefalseThis element can be used to encapsulate the entire disclosure for public utilities (including data and tables).Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)
-Number 71
falsefalse12falseUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue