COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES

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. 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 credit support to various providers for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements include provisions for parent guarantees, surety bonds and/or LOCs to be issued by FirstEnergy on behalf of one or more of its subsidiaries. Additionally, certain contracts may contain collateral provisions that are contingent upon either FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings.

As of March 31, 2012, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $4.1 billion, consisting of parental guarantees ($0.9 billion), subsidiaries' guarantees ($2.5 billion), and other guarantees ($0.7 billion).

Most of FirstEnergy’s surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $151 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.

While the types of guarantees discussed above are normally parental commitments for the future payment of subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BBB- and Moody's Baa3 and lower, or a “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of collateral or accelerated payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of March 31, 2012, FirstEnergy’s exposure to additional credit contingent contractual obligations was $671 million, as shown below:



Collateral Provisions	FES		AE Supply		Utilities		Total
	(In millions)
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade ⁽¹⁾	$	439	$	8	$	59	$	506
Material adverse event ⁽²⁾	91		60		14		165
Total	$	530	$	68	$	73	$	671


⁽¹⁾	Includes $222 million and $40 million that are also considered accelerations of payment or funding obligations for FES and the Utilities, respectively.


⁽²⁾	Includes $42 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation for FES.

Certain bilateral non-affiliate contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy Services segment contain margining provisions that require posting of collateral. Based on FES' and AE Supply's power portfolio exposures as of March 31, 2012, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of $84 million and $1 million, respectively. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required.

Not included in the preceding information is potential collateral arising from the PSAs between FES or AE Supply and affiliated utilities in the Regulated Distribution Segment. As of March 31, 2012, neither FES nor AE Supply had any collateral posted with their affiliates. In the event of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BB- or Moody's Ba3, FES and AE Supply would be required to post $54 million and $18 million, respectively.

FES' debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, and FES guarantees the debt obligations of each of FGCO and NGC. Accordingly, present and future holders of indebtedness of FES, FGCO and NGC would have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC, regardless of whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.

Signal Peak and Global Rail are borrowers under a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility due in October 2012. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that originally shared ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a guaranty of the borrowers' obligations under the facility. Following the sale of a portion of FEV's ownership interest in Signal Peak and Global Rail in the fourth quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy, WMB Loan Ventures, LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II, LLC, together with Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Holding, continue to guarantee the borrowers' obligations until either the facility is replaced with non-recourse financing (no later than June 30, 2012) or replaced with appropriate recourse financing no earlier than September 4, 2012, that provides for separate guarantees from each owner in proportion with each equity owner's percentage ownership in the joint venture. In addition, FEV, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Holding, the entities that own direct and indirect equity interests in the borrowers, have pledged those interests to the lenders under the current facility as collateral. In March 2012, after an evaluation of its current operations, business plan and market conditions, the Global Rail Board of Managers opted to focus first on extending its current senior secured term loan facility due in October 2012, before replacing that facility with non-recourse financing. There can be no assurance that the term loan facility will be extended on satisfactory terms or at all.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water quality and other environmental matters. Compliance with environmental regulations could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's earnings and competitive position to the extent that FirstEnergy 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.

CAA Compliance

FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO₂and NOx emissions regulations under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO₂ and NOx reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion controls and post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower or non-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances.

In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner.” One complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a class with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FGCO believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints.

In December 2007, the states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging NSR violations at the coal-fired Portland Generation Station against GenOn Energy, Inc. (formerly RRI Energy, Inc. and the current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from ME in 1999) and ME. Specifically, these suits allege that “modifications” at Portland Units 1 and 2 occurred between 1980 and 2005 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA's PSD program, and seek injunctive relief, penalties, attorney fees and mitigation of the harm caused by excess emissions. The Court dismissed New Jersey's and Connecticut's claims for injunctive relief against ME, but denied ME's motion to dismiss the claims for civil penalties. The parties dispute the scope of ME's indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy. In February 2012, GenOn announced its plans to retire the Portland Station in January 2015 citing EPA emissions limits and compliance schedules to reduce SO₂ air emissions by approximately 81% at the Portland Station by January 6, 2015. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. alleging NSR violations at the coal-fired Portland Generation Station based on “modifications” dating back to 1986. The NOV also alleged NSR violations at the Keystone and Shawville coal-fired plants based on “modifications” dating back to 1984. ME, JCP&L and PN, as former owners of the facilities, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In January 2011, the U.S. DOJ filed a complaint against PN in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief against PN based on alleged “modifications” at the coal-fired Homer City generating plant between 1991 to 1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA's PSD and Title V permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, NYSEG, and various current owners of Homer City, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate complaints regarding Homer City seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. In October 2011, the Court dismissed all of the claims with prejudice of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of New Jersey and New York against all of the defendants, including PN. In December 2011, the U.S., the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of New Jersey and New York all filed notices appealing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. PN believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the loss or possible range of loss. The parties dispute the scope of NYSEG's and PN's indemnity obligation to and from Edison International.

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 coal-fired plants. The EPA's NOV alleges equipment replacements during maintenance outages dating back to 1990 triggered the pre-construction permitting requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs. In June 2011, EPA issued another Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and Ohio regulations, specifically opacity limitations and requirements to continuously operate opacity monitoring systems at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula coal-fired plants. FGCO intends to comply with the CAA but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In August 2000, AE received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA from the EPA requesting that it provide information and documentation relevant to the operation and maintenance of the following ten coal-fired plants, which collectively include 22 electric generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfield's Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island to determine compliance with the NSR provisions under the CAA, which can require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when a major modification of an existing facility results in an increase in emissions. In September 2007, AE received a NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Armstrong plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired Fort Martin and Willow Island plants in West Virginia. FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against these CAA matters, but cannot predict their outcomes or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In June 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply, MP, PE and WP in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania. A non-jury trial on liability only was held in September 2010. The parties are awaiting a decision from the District Court, but there is no deadline for that decision. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The EPA's CAIR requires reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and 2015), ultimately capping SO₂ emissions in affected states to 2.5 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided that CAIR violated the CAA but 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 decision. In July 2011, the EPA finalized CSAPR, to replace CAIR, requiring reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO₂ emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances with some restrictions. On February 21, 2012, the EPA revised certain CASPR state budgets (for Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin and new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas), certain generating unit allocations (for some units in Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee) for NOx and SO₂ emissions and delayed from 2012 to 2014 certain allowance penalties that could apply with respect to interstate trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances. On December 30, 2011, CSAPR was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending a decision on legal challenges argued before the Court on April 13, 2012. The Court ordered EPA to continue administration of CAIR until the Court resolves the CSAPR appeals. Depending on the outcome of these proceedings and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, FGCO's and AE Supply's future cost of compliance may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions

On December 21, 2011, the EPA finalized the MATS imposing emission limits for mercury, PM, and HCL for all existing and new coal-fired electric generating units effective in April 2015 with averaging of emissions from multiple units located at a single plant. Under the CAA, state permitting authorities can grant an additional compliance year through April 2016, as needed, including instances when necessary to maintain reliability where electric generating units are being closed. In addition, an EPA enforcement policy document contemplates up to an additional year to achieve compliance, through April 2017, under certain circumstances for reliability critical units. On January 26, 2012 and February 8, 2012, FGCO, MP and AE Supply announced the retirement by September 1, 2012 (subject to a reliability review by PJM) of nine coal-fired power plants (Albright, Armstrong, Ashtabula, Bay Shore except for generating unit 1, Eastlake, Lake Shore, R. Paul Smith, Rivesville and Willow Island) with a total capacity of 3,349 MW (generating, on average, approximately ten percent of the electricity produced by the companies over the past three years) due to MATS and other environmental regulations. Depending on how the MATS are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergy's future cost of compliance with MATS may be substantial and other changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

On March 8, 2012, FGCO filed an application for a feasibility study with PJM to install and interconnect to the transmission system approximately 800 megawatts of new combustion turbine peaking generation at its existing Eastlake Plant in Eastlake, Ohio, to help ensure reliable electric service in the region. On April 25, 2012, PJM concluded its initial analysis of the reliability impacts from our previously announced plant retirements and requested Reliability Must-Run arrangements for Eastlake 1-3, Ashtabula 5 and Lake Shore 18. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, FirstEnergy recognized pre-tax severance expense of approximately $7 million (including $4 million by FES) as a result of the closures.

On March 9, 2012, to assist the WVPSC with inquiries from public officials and the public, MP provided information to the WVPSC in the form of a closed entry filing in the ENEC case related to the plant deactivations. On April 2, 2012, the WVPSC issued an order requesting additional information from MP related to the Albright, Rivesville and Willow Island plant deactiviation announcements. On April 30, 2012, MP provided the WVPSC with additional information regarding the plant deactivations. We anticipate deactivating these units by September 1, 2012.

Climate Change

There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state and international level. 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, in June 2009. Certain states, primarily the northeastern states participating in the RGGI and western states led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs.

In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that required FirstEnergy to measure and report GHG emissions commencing in 2010. 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 GHGs increase the threat of climate change and may be regulated as “air pollutants” under the CAA. In April 2010, the EPA finalized new GHG standards for model years 2012 to 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles and clarified that GHG regulation under the CAA would not be triggered for electric generating plants and other stationary sources until January 2, 2011, at the earliest. In May 2010, the EPA finalized new thresholds for GHG emissions that define when NSR preconstruction permits would be required including an emissions applicability threshold of 75,000 tons per year of CO₂ equivalents for existing facilities under the CAA's PSD program.

At the international level, the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the U.S. in 1998 but never submitted for ratification by the U.S. Senate, was intended to address global warming by reducing the amount of man-made GHG, including CO₂, emitted by developed countries by 2012. A 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 that recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius; includes a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30 billion over three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020; and establishes the “Green Climate Fund” to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related activities in developing countries. To the extent that 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. A December 2011 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban, Africa, established a negotiating process to develop a new post-2020 climate change protocol, called the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”. This negotiating process contemplates developed countries, as well as developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, to undertake legally binding commitments post-2020. In addition, certain countries agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol for a second commitment period, commencing in 2013 and expiring in 2018 or 2020.

FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO₂ emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations. The CO₂ emissions per KWH of electricity generated by FirstEnergy is lower than many of its regional competitors due to its diversified generation sources, which include low or non-CO₂ emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.

Clean Water Act

Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal CWA and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy's plants. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy's operations.

In 2004, the EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the CWA for reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing 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). In 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidated portions of the Section 316(b) performance standards and the EPA has taken the position 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. In April 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuit's opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the CWA authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake structures. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation under Section 316(b) of the CWA to reduce fish impingement to a 12% annual average and determine site-specific controls, if any, to reduce entrainment of aquatic life following studies to be provided to permitting authorities. On July 19, 2011, the EPA extended the public comment period for the new proposed Section 316(b) regulation by 30 days but stated its schedule for issuing a final rule remains July 27, 2012. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness, including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore power plant's water intake channel to divert fish away from the plant's water intake system. Depending on the results of such studies and the EPA's further rulemaking and any final action taken by the states exercising best professional judgment, the future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.

In April 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is no longer considering prosecution under the CWA 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. On February 1, 2012, FirstEnergy executed a tolling agreement with the EPA extending the statute of limitations for civil liability claims for those petroleum spills to July 31, 2012. FGCO does not anticipate any losses resulting from this matter to be material.

In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including TDS and sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River, on new and modified sources, including the scrubber project at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry Plant. These criteria are reflected in the NPDES water discharge permit issued by PA DEP for that project. In January 2009, AE Supply appealed the PA DEP's permitting decision to the EHB, due to estimated costs in excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet TDS and sulfate limits in the NPDES permit. Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens Coal Council also appealed the NPDES permit seeking to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. In April 2012, a joint motion was filed by the parties informing the EHB of a proposed settlement and seeking the lifting of a portion of the EHB's stay of certain terms of the Hatfield's Ferry Plant's NPDES permit. The joint motion was granted by the EHB on April 27, 2012. The parties intend to memorialize the settlement in a Consent Decree to be lodged with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Consent Decree, if entered by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, will resolve the disputes concerning the Hatfield's Ferry Plant NPDES permit, including TDS and sulphate limits.

The PA DEP recommended, and in August 2010, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board issued, a final rule imposing end-of-pipe TDS effluent limitations. FirstEnergy could incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the requirements of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of 2018, and then would apply only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to such units.

In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its CWA 303(d) list to the EPA with a recommended sulfate impairment designation for an approximately 68 mile stretch of the Monongahela River north of the West Virginia border. In May 2011, the EPA agreed with PA DEP's recommended sulfate impairment designation. PA DEP's goal is to submit a final water quality standards regulation, incorporating the sulfate impairment designation for EPA approval by May 2013. PA DEP will then need to develop a TMDL limit for the river, a process that will take approximately five years. Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant costs to reduce sulfate discharges into the Monongahela River from the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired Fort Martin Plant in West Virginia.

In October 2009, the WVDEP issued an NPDES water discharge permit for the Fort Martin Plant, which imposes TDS, sulfate concentrations and other effluent limitations for heavy metals, as well as temperature limitations. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin NPDES permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order that sets deadlines for MP to meet certain of the effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the NPDES permit. MP has appealed, and a stay of certain conditions of the NPDES permit and order have been granted pending a final decision on the appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The Fort Martin NPDES permit could require an initial capital investment in excess of the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfield's Ferry in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits, which technology may also meet certain of the other effluent limits. Additional technology may be needed to meet certain other limits in the Fort Martin NPDES permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In May 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the Sierra Club filed a CWA citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia alleging violations of arsenic limits in the NPDES water discharge permit for the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Station seeking unspecified civil penalties and injunctive relief. The MP filed an answer on July 11, 2011, and a motion to stay the proceedings on July 13, 2011. On January 3, 2012, the Court denied MP's motion to dismiss or stay the CWA citizen suit but without prejudice to re-filing in the future. In April 2012, the parties reached a settlement requiring MP to resolve these CWA citizen suit claims for an immaterial amount. If approved by the Court, a Consent Decree will be entered by the Court to resolve these claims. MP is currently seeking relief from the arsenic limits through WVDEP agency review.

In June 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the Sierra Club served a 60-day Notice of Intent required prior to filing a citizen suit under the CWA for alleged failure to obtain a permit to construct the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Plant.

FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CWA matters described above but, except as indicated above, cannot predict their outcomes or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Regulation of Waste Disposal

Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. 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 December 2009, in an advance notice of public rulemaking, the EPA asserted that the large volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk to the industry. In May 2010, the EPA proposed 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. The LBR CCB impoundment is expected to run out of disposal capacity for disposal of CCBs from the BMP between 2016 and 2018. BMP is pursuing several CCB disposal options.

FirstEnergy's future cost of compliance with any coal combustion residuals regulations that 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. Compliance with those regulations could have an adverse impact on FirstEnergy's results of operations and financial condition.

Certain of our utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the CERCLA. 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, 2012, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, FE's and its subsidiaries' proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $106 million (including $70 million applicable to JCP&L) have been accrued through March 31, 2012. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $63 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. FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the possible losses or range of losses cannot be determined or reasonably estimated at this time.

OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Nuclear Plant Matters

Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As of March 31, 2012, FirstEnergy had approximately $2 billion invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental guarantee, as appropriate. The values of FirstEnergy's NDT fluctuate based on market conditions. If the value of the trusts decline by a material amount, FirstEnergy's obligation to fund the trusts may increase. Disruptions in the capital markets and their effects on particular businesses and the economy could also affect the values of the NDT. FirstEnergy Corp. currently maintains a $95 million parental guaranty in support of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities.

In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. By an order dated April 26, 2011, a NRC ASLB granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application to a group of petitioners. The NRC subsequently narrowed the scope of admitted contentions in this proceeding to a challenge to the computer code used to model source terms in FENOC's Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives analysis. On January 10, 2012, intervenors petitioned the ASLB for a new contention on the cracking of the Davis-Besse shield building discussed below. The ASLB scheduled a May 18, 2012, oral argument on the petitioner's request for a new contention, but has yet to rule on the admission of this contention.

On October 1, 2011, Davis-Besse was safely shut down for a scheduled outage to install a new reactor vessel head and complete other maintenance activities. The new reactor head, which replaced a head installed in 2002, enhances safety and reliability, and features control rod nozzles made of material less susceptible to cracking. On October 10, 2011, following opening of the building for installation of the new reactor head, a sub-surface hairline crack was identified in one of the exterior architectural elements on the shield building. These elements serve as architectural features and do not have structural significance. During investigation of the crack at the shield building opening, concrete samples and electronic testing found similar sub-surface hairline cracks in most of the building's architectural elements. FENOC's investigation also identified other indications. Included among them were sub-surface hairline cracks in the upper portion of the shield building (above elevation 780') and in the vicinity of the main steam line penetrations. A team of industry-recognized structural concrete experts and Davis-Besse engineers has determined these conditions do not affect the facility's structural integrity or safety.

On December 2, 2011, the NRC issued a CAL which concluded that FENOC provided "reasonable assurance that the shield building remains capable of performing its safety functions." The CAL imposed a number of commitments from FENOC including, submitting a root cause evaluation and corrective actions to the NRC by February 28, 2012, and further evaluations of the shield building. On February 27, 2012, FENOC sent the root cause evaluation to the NRC. Finally, the CAL also stated that the NRC was still evaluating whether the current condition of the shield building conforms to the plant's licensing basis. On December 6, 2011, the Davis-Besse plant returned to service.

By letter dated August 25, 2011, the NRC made a final significance determination (white) associated with a violation that occurred during the retraction of a source range monitor from the Perry reactor vessel. The NRC also placed Perry in the degraded cornerstone column (Column 3) of the NRC's Action Matrix governing the oversight of commercial nuclear reactors. As a result, the NRC staff will conduct several supplemental inspections, culminating in an inspection using Inspection Procedure 95002 to determine if the root cause and contributing causes of risk significant performance issues are understood, the extent of condition has been identified, whether safety culture contributed to the performance issues, and if FENOC's corrective actions are sufficient to address the causes and prevent recurrence.

On March 12, 2012, the NRC Staff issued orders requiring safety enhancements at U.S. reactors based on recommendations from the lessons learned Task Force review of the accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. These orders require additional mitigation strategies for beyond-design-basis external events, and enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels in spent fuel pools. The NRC also requested that licensees including FENOC: re-analyze earthquake and flooding risks using the latest information available; conduct earthquake and flooding hazard walkdowns at their nuclear plants; assess the ability of current communications systems and equipment to perform under a prolonged loss of onsite and offsite electrical power; and assess plant staffing levels needed to fill emergency positions. These and other NRC requirements adopted as a result of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi are likely to result in additional material costs from plant modifications and upgrades at FENOC's nuclear facilities.

On February 16, 2012, the NRC issued a request for information to the licensed operators of 11 nuclear power plants, including Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2, with respect to the modeling of fuel performance as it relates to "thermal conductivity degradation," which is the potential in higher burn up fuel for reduced capacity to transfer heat that could potentially change its performance during various accident scenarios, including loss of coolant accidents. The request for information indicated that this phenomenon has not been accounted for adequately in performance models for the fuel developed by the fuel manufacturer and that the NRC might consider imposing restrictions on reactor operating limits. On March 16, 2012, FENOC submitted its response to the NRC demonstrating that the NRC requirements are being met. FENOC also agreed to submit to the NRC revised large break loss of coolant accident analyses by December 15, 2016, that further consider the effects of fuel pellet thermal conductivity degradation.

ICG Litigation

On December 28, 2006, AE Supply and MP filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against ICG, Anker WV, and Anker Coal. Anker WV entered into a long term Coal Sales Agreement with AE Supply and MP for the supply of coal to the Harrison generating facility. Prior to the time of trial, ICG was dismissed as a defendant by the Court, which issue can be the subject of a future appeal. As a result of defendants' past and continued failure to supply the contracted coal, AE Supply and MP have incurred and will continue to incur significant additional costs for purchasing replacement coal. A non-jury trial was held from January 10, 2011 through February 1, 2011. At trial, AE Supply and MP presented evidence that they have incurred in excess of $80 million in damages for replacement coal purchased through the end of 2010 and will incur additional damages in excess of $150 million for future shortfalls. Defendants primarily claim that their performance is excused under a force majeure clause in the coal sales agreement and presented evidence at trial that they will continue to not provide the contracted yearly tonnage amounts. On May 2, 2011, the court entered a verdict in favor of AE Supply and MP for $104 million ($90 million in future damages and $14 million for replacement coal / interest). On August 25, 2011, the Allegheny County Court denied all Motions for Post-Trial relief and the May 2, 2011 verdict became final. On August 26, 2011, ICG posted bond and filed a Notice of Appeal. Briefing on the Appeal is concluded with oral argument scheduled for May 16, 2012. AE Supply and MP intend to vigorously pursue this matter through appeal.

Other Legal Matters

In February 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 had been approved by the PUCO. In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint by the Court of Common Pleas on all counts except for one relating to an allegation of fraud which it remanded to the trial court. The Companies timely filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio on December 5, 2011, challenging this one aspect of the Court of Appeals opinion. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to hear the appeal.

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 under Note 8, Regulatory Matters to the Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

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. In cases where FirstEnergy determines that it is not probable, but reasonably possible that it has a material obligation, it discloses such obligations and the possible loss or range of loss and if such estimate can be made. If it were ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject to liability based on any of the matters referenced above, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.