2.2.0.7 false Regulatory Matters 00210 - Disclosure - Regulatory Matters true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Pure Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 EPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Regulatory Matters [Abstract] 0 fe_RegulatoryMattersAbstract fe false na duration Regulatory Matters Abstract. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Regulatory Matters Abstract. false 3 REGULATORY MATTERS 1 us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0 10. REGULATORY MATTERS         (A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVESFederally-enforceable 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 has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.  FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. FirstEnergy's practice is to address and resolve any occasional or isolated incidents of noncompliance as they arise in the normal course of operations. FirstEnergy also believes that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst 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, 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. 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 resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. 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. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter. On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported a vegetation encroachment event on a Met-Ed 230 kV line to ReliabilityFirst. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirst issued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirst on September 27, 2010. At this time, FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this investigation. (B)       OHIOThe Ohio Companies operate under an Amended ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, and provides for generation supplied through a CBP. The Amended ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the Ohio Companies through the May 2009 CBP. The PUCO approved a $136.6 million distribution rate increase for the Ohio Companies in January 2009, which went into effect on January 23, 2009 for OE ($68.9 million) and TE ($38.5 million) and on May 1, 2009 for CEI ($29.2 million). Applications for rehearing of the PUCO order in the distribution case were filed by the Ohio Companies and one other party. The Ohio Companies raised numerous issues in their application for rehearing related to rate recovery of certain expenses, recovery of line extension costs, the level of rate of return and the amount of general plant balances. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing.  On October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure, through a CBP, generation supply for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier for the period beginning June 1, 2011. The CBP 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. 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. The PUCO has not yet issued an order in this matter. On March 23, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP. The new ESP will 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 (initial auctions scheduled for October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to any tranches assigned post auction; 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 substitutes for 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, dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings. 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. FirstEnergy recorded approximately $39.5 million of regulatory asset impairments and expenses related to the ESP. On May 12, 2010, a supplemental stipulation was filed that added two additional parties to the Stipulation, namely the City of Akron, Ohio and Council for Smaller Enterprises, to provide additional energy efficiency benefits. On July 22, 2010, a second supplemental stipulation was filed that, among other provisions provides a commitment that retail customers of the Ohio Companies will not pay certain costs related to the companies' integration into PJM, for the longer of the five year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, and establishes a $12 million fund to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP. Additional parties signing or not opposing the second supplemental stipulation include Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC), Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition (NOAC), Environmental Law and Policy Center and a number of low income community agencies. The PUCO modified and approved the new ESP on August 25, 2010. The Companies accepted the PUCO's decision subject to the implementation of certain elements of the ESP being consistent with the terms as they were included in the stipulation. On September 24, 2010, an application for rehearing was filed by the OCC and two other parties. The Ohio Companies and other parties filed their memorandum contra to that application for rehearing on October 4, 2010. The PUCO granted the application for rehearing on October 22, 2010. The PUCO has yet to rule on the substance of the application for rehearing.  Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that will 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 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO seeking amendments to these benchmarks. On January 7, 2010, the PUCO amended the Ohio Companies' 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 the Ohio Companies' peak demand reduction programs complied with PUCO rules. 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. 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.  The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable from customers. The Ohio Companies' three year portfolio plan is still awaiting decision from the PUCO. The plan has yet to be approved by the PUCO, which is delaying the launch of the programs described in the plan. Without such approval, the Ohio Companies' compliance with 2010 benchmarks is jeopardized and if not approved soon may require the Ohio Companies to seek an amendment to their annual benchmark requirements for 2010. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a forfeiture. 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 served 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 were used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. 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 Ohio 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. In July 2010, the Ohio Companies initiated an additional RFP to secure RECs and solar RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies' alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221. As a result of this RFP, contracts were executed in August 2010. On February 12, 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for all-electric customers. On March 3, 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers be set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31, 2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect on March 17, 2010. On April 15, 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers to which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the associated additional amounts. The PUCO also stated that it expected that the new credit would remain in place through at least the 2011 winter season, and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the issue. Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect on May 21, 2010. The Ohio Companies also filed on May 14, 2010 an application for rehearing of the Second Entry on Rehearing, which was granted for purposes of further consideration on June 9, 2010. On September 9, 2010, the OCC filed a motion requesting that a procedural schedule be established. The Ohio Companies filed their motion contra on September 23, 2010. The PUCO Staff issued a report related to the all-electric issue on September 24, 2010, in which it provides background on the issue and sets forth its bill impact analysis under a number of different scenarios for a longer term solution, but it made no specific recommendation to the PUCO. (C)       PENNSYLVANIAMet-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their POLR 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 POLR and default service obligations. 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, with 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, reflecting the settlement on all but 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. On February 8, 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. On July 29, 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues. The PPUC adopted a Motion approving the Joint Petition for Settlement on October 21, 2010. The Joint Petition resolves all issues relating to Penn's Default Service Plan for the next program period, including its procurement method, compliance with the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act, rate design and retail market issues. The PPUC's approval of the Joint Petition is conditioned by holding that the provision relating to the recovery of MISO exit cost fees and one-time PJM integration costs (resulting from Penn's June 1, 2011 exit of MISO and integration into PJM) be approved, but made subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Penn may not put these provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and PJM integration costs. An Order consistent with the Motion is expected to be entered in the near future.  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, and 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 costs for marginal transmission losses. By Order entered March 25, 2010, the PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUC's order, Met-Ed and Penelec filed the plan to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and carrying charges and the plan for the use of these funds to mitigate future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011. The PPUC approved this plan on June 7, 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 July 9, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed their briefs with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Office of Small Business Advocate filed its brief on July 9, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the PPUC as well as MEIUG and PICA filed their briefs. Met-Ed and Penelec filed their reply brief on September 9, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Ed's and Penelec's annual updates to their TSC rider for the period June 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 including marginal transmission losses as approved by the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The TSC for Met-Ed's customers was increased to provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010. Act 129 was enacted in 2008 to address 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. The PPUC entered an Order on February 26, 2010 approving the Pennsylvania Companies' EE&C Plans and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan with the PPUC. 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. 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, and decided various issues regarding the Smart Meter Implementation Plan for the Pennsylvania Companies. The PPUC entered its Order on June 9, 2010, consistent with the Chairman's Motion. On June 24, 2010, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUC's Order regarding the future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates. On August 5, 2010, the PPUC granted in part the petition for reconsideration by deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn from seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time.  By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists.   In response to the Tentative Order, various parties filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC. (D)       NEW JERSEYJCP&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 September 30, 2010, the accumulated deferred cost balance was a credit of approximately $3 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, on July 26, 2010, JCP&L filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by $180 million annually. If approved as filed, the change would not go into effect until January 1, 2011.  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 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). This matter is currently pending before the NJBPU. 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 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 NJBPU 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. 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. On July 6, 2010, the January 30, 2009 petition directed to infrastructure investment which had been pending before the NJBPU was withdrawn by JCP&L. Implementation of the remaining projects is dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the proposal. (E)       FERC MATTERSPJM Transmission Rate On April 19, 2007, 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, 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 based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone. Costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a load flow methodology (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a “beneficiary pays” approach to allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities.  The FERC's Opinion 494 order was 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 load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate design issue back to FERC.  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 and the reply comments. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order. PJM's filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the majority of their costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. FERC is expected to act before the end of the year.   RTO Consolidation On December 17, 2009, FERC issued an order approving, subject to certain future compliance filings, ATSI's move to PJM. This move, which is expected to be effective on June 1, 2011, allows FirstEnergy to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently, FirstEnergy's transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The consolidation will make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. In the order, FERC approved FirstEnergy's proposal to use a Fixed Resource Requirement Plan (FRR Plan) to obtain capacity to satisfy the PJM capacity requirements for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years. On December 17, 2009, ATSI executed the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement and 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, the Ohio Companies and Penn to the move into PJM.  FirstEnergy successfully conducted the FRR auctions on March 19, 2010. Moreover, the ATSI-zone loads participated in the PJM base residual auction for the 2013 delivery year. Successful completion of these steps secured the capacity necessary for the ATSI footprint to meet PJM's capacity requirements.  On September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohio's stakeholders regarding the RTO consolidation. On August 25, 2010, the PUCO issued an order that, among other things, committed the PUCO to close this case and also to withdraw its objections that were filed in the relevant FERC dockets conditioned upon the Ohio Companies not seeking recovery of MISO exit fees or PJM integration costs (estimated to be approximately $37 million as of September 30, 2010). Notwithstanding the PUCO's actions, certain other parties protested aspects of the move into PJM, and certain of these matters remain outstanding and will be resolved in future FERC proceedings. Under the terms of the ESP Order issued on August 25, 2010, the PUCO has agreed to close this docket. MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal On July 15, 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed cost allocation methodology for new transmission projects. The new transmission projects--described as Multi-Value Projects (MVPs)--are a class of MTEP projects. The MISO proposes to allocate the costs of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the MISO footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be “wheeled through” the MISO as well as to energy transactions that “source” in the MISO but “sink” outside of MISO. MISO expects that its MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring wind generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. MISO has requested that FERC rule on its MVP proposal by December, but has asked for an effective date for its proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISO's Board approved the first MVP project--the so-called “Michigan Thumb Project.” Under MISO's proposal, the costs of MVP projects approved by MISO's Board prior to the anticipated June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergy's integration into PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy. This approach is reflected in the MISO's estimated allocations of the costs for the Michigan Thumb Project, where approximately $16 million in annual revenue requirements were allocated to the ATSI zone. On September 10, 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to MISO's MVP proposal. FirstEnergy believes that MISO's proposal to allocate costs of MVP projects across the entire MISO footprint does not align with the established rule that cost allocation is to be based on cost causation (the “beneficiary pays” approach). FirstEnergy also argued that, in light of progress to date in the ATSI move to PJM, it would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVP costs to the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous other parties filed pleadings on MISO's MVP proposal. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matterFederally-enforceable 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 has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.  FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. FirstEnergy's practice is to address and resolve any occasional or isolated incidents of noncompliance as they arise in the normal course of operations. FirstEnergy also believes that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst 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, 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. 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 resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. 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. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter. On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported a vegetation encroachment event on a Met-Ed 230 kV line to ReliabilityFirst. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirst issued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirst on September 27, 2010. At this time, FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this investigation. The Ohio Companies operate under an Amended ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, and provides for generation supplied through a CBP. The Amended ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the Ohio Companies through the May 2009 CBP. The PUCO approved a $136.6 million distribution rate increase for the Ohio Companies in January 2009, which went into effect on January 23, 2009 for OE ($68.9 million) and TE ($38.5 million) and on May 1, 2009 for CEI ($29.2 million). Applications for rehearing of the PUCO order in the distribution case were filed by the Ohio Companies and one other party. The Ohio Companies raised numerous issues in their application for rehearing related to rate recovery of certain expenses, recovery of line extension costs, the level of rate of return and the amount of general plant balances. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing.  On October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure, through a CBP, generation supply for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier for the period beginning June 1, 2011. The CBP 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. 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. The PUCO has not yet issued an order in this matter. On March 23, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP. The new ESP will 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 (initial auctions scheduled for October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to any tranches assigned post auction; 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 substitutes for 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, dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings. 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. FirstEnergy recorded approximately $39.5 million of regulatory asset impairments and expenses related to the ESP. On May 12, 2010, a supplemental stipulation was filed that added two additional parties to the Stipulation, namely the City of Akron, Ohio and Council for Smaller Enterprises, to provide additional energy efficiency benefits. On July 22, 2010, a second supplemental stipulation was filed that, among other provisions provides a commitment that retail customers of the Ohio Companies will not pay certain costs related to the companies' integration into PJM, for the longer of the five year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, and establishes a $12 million fund to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP. Additional parties signing or not opposing the second supplemental stipulation include Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC), Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition (NOAC), Environmental Law and Policy Center and a number of low income community agencies. The PUCO modified and approved the new ESP on August 25, 2010. The Companies accepted the PUCO's decision subject to the implementation of certain elements of the ESP being consistent with the terms as they were included in the stipulation. On September 24, 2010, an application for rehearing was filed by the OCC and two other parties. The Ohio Companies and other parties filed their memorandum contra to that application for rehearing on October 4, 2010. The PUCO granted the application for rehearing on October 22, 2010. The PUCO has yet to rule on the substance of the application for rehearing.  Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that will 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 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO seeking amendments to these benchmarks. On January 7, 2010, the PUCO amended the Ohio Companies' 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 the Ohio Companies' peak demand reduction programs complied with PUCO rules. 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. 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.  The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable from customers. The Ohio Companies' three year portfolio plan is still awaiting decision from the PUCO. The plan has yet to be approved by the PUCO, which is delaying the launch of the programs described in the plan. Without such approval, the Ohio Companies' compliance with 2010 benchmarks is jeopardized and if not approved soon may require the Ohio Companies to seek an amendment to their annual benchmark requirements for 2010. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a forfeiture. 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 served 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 were used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. 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 Ohio 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. In July 2010, the Ohio Companies initiated an additional RFP to secure RECs and solar RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies' alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221. As a result of this RFP, contracts were executed in August 2010. On February 12, 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for all-electric customers. On March 3, 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers be set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31, 2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect on March 17, 2010. On April 15, 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers to which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the associated additional amounts. The PUCO also stated that it expected that the new credit would remain in place through at least the 2011 winter season, and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the issue. Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect on May 21, 2010. The Ohio Companies also filed on May 14, 2010 an application for rehearing of the Second Entry on Rehearing, which was granted for purposes of further consideration on June 9, 2010. On September 9, 2010, the OCC filed a motion requesting that a procedural schedule be established. The Ohio Companies filed their motion contra on September 23, 2010. The PUCO Staff issued a report related to the all-electric issue on September 24, 2010, in which it provides background on the issue and sets forth its bill impact analysis under a number of different scenarios for a longer term solution, but it made no specific recommendation to the PUCO. Met-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their POLR 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 POLR and default service obligations. 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, with 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, reflecting the settlement on all but 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. On February 8, 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. On July 29, 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues. The PPUC adopted a Motion approving the Joint Petition for Settlement on October 21, 2010. The Joint Petition resolves all issues relating to Penn's Default Service Plan for the next program period, including its procurement method, compliance with the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act, rate design and retail market issues. The PPUC's approval of the Joint Petition is conditioned by holding that the provision relating to the recovery of MISO exit cost fees and one-time PJM integration costs (resulting from Penn's June 1, 2011 exit of MISO and integration into PJM) be approved, but made subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Penn may not put these provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and PJM integration costs. An Order consistent with the Motion is expected to be entered in the near future.  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, and 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 costs for marginal transmission losses. By Order entered March 25, 2010, the PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUC's order, Met-Ed and Penelec filed the plan to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and carrying charges and the plan for the use of these funds to mitigate future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011. The PPUC approved this plan on June 7, 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 July 9, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed their briefs with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Office of Small Business Advocate filed its brief on July 9, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the PPUC as well as MEIUG and PICA filed their briefs. Met-Ed and Penelec filed their reply brief on September 9, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Ed's and Penelec's annual updates to their TSC rider for the period June 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 including marginal transmission losses as approved by the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The TSC for Met-Ed's customers was increased to provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010. Act 129 was enacted in 2008 to address 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. The PPUC entered an Order on February 26, 2010 approving the Pennsylvania Companies' EE&C Plans and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan with the PPUC. 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. 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, and decided various issues regarding the Smart Meter Implementation Plan for the Pennsylvania Companies. The PPUC entered its Order on June 9, 2010, consistent with the Chairman's Motion. On June 24, 2010, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUC's Order regarding the future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates. On August 5, 2010, the PPUC granted in part the petition for reconsideration by deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn from seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time.  By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists.   In response to the Tentative Order, various parties filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC. 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 September 30, 2010, the accumulated deferred cost balance was a credit of approximately $3 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, on July 26, 2010, JCP&L filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by $180 million annually. If approved as filed, the change would not go into effect until January 1, 2011.  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 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). This matter is currently pending before the NJBPU. 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 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 NJBPU 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. 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. On July 6, 2010, the January 30, 2009 petition directed to infrastructure investment which had been pending before the NJBPU was withdrawn by JCP&L. Implementation of the remaining projects is dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the proposal. PJM Transmission Rate On April 19, 2007, 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, 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 based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone. Costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a load flow methodology (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a “beneficiary pays” approach to allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities.  The FERC's Opinion 494 order was 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 load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate design issue back to FERC.  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 and the reply comments. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order. PJM's filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the majority of their costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. FERC is expected to act before the end of the year.   RTO Consolidation On December 17, 2009, FERC issued an order approving, subject to certain future compliance filings, ATSI's move to PJM. This move, which is expected to be effective on June 1, 2011, allows FirstEnergy to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently, FirstEnergy's transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The consolidation will make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. In the order, FERC approved FirstEnergy's proposal to use a Fixed Resource Requirement Plan (FRR Plan) to obtain capacity to satisfy the PJM capacity requirements for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years. On December 17, 2009, ATSI executed the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement and 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, the Ohio Companies and Penn to the move into PJM.  FirstEnergy successfully conducted the FRR auctions on March 19, 2010. Moreover, the ATSI-zone loads participated in the PJM base residual auction for the 2013 delivery year. Successful completion of these steps secured the capacity necessary for the ATSI footprint to meet PJM's capacity requirements.  On September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohio's stakeholders regarding the RTO consolidation. On August 25, 2010, the PUCO issued an order that, among other things, committed the PUCO to close this case and also to withdraw its objections that were filed in the relevant FERC dockets conditioned upon the Ohio Companies not seeking recovery of MISO exit fees or PJM integration costs (estimated to be approximately $37 million as of September 30, 2010). Notwithstanding the PUCO's actions, certain other parties protested aspects of the move into PJM, and certain of these matters remain outstanding and will be resolved in future FERC proceedings. Under the terms of the ESP Order issued on August 25, 2010, the PUCO has agreed to close this docket. MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal On July 15, 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed cost allocation methodology for new transmission projects. The new transmission projects--described as Multi-Value Projects (MVPs)--are a class of MTEP projects. The MISO proposes to allocate the costs of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the MISO footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be “wheeled through” the MISO as well as to energy transactions that “source” in the MISO but “sink” outside of MISO. MISO expects that its MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring wind generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. MISO has requested that FERC rule on its MVP proposal by December, but has asked for an effective date for its proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISO's Board approved the first MVP project--the so-called “Michigan Thumb Project.” Under MISO's proposal, the costs of MVP projects approved by MISO's Board prior to the anticipated June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergy's integration into PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy. This approach is reflected in the MISO's estimated allocations of the costs for the Michigan Thumb Project, where approximately $16 million in annual revenue requirements were allocated to the ATSI zone. On September 10, 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to MISO's MVP proposal. FirstEnergy believes that MISO's proposal to allocate costs of MVP projects across the entire MISO footprint does not align with the established rule that cost allocation is to be based on cost causation (the “beneficiary pays” approach). FirstEnergy also argued that, in light of progress to date in the ATSI move to PJM, it would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVP costs to the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous other parties filed pleadings on MISO's MVP proposal. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter 10. REGULATORY MATTERS         (A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVESFederally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock This 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 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true