2.2.0.25falsefalse00214 - Disclosure - Commitments, Guarantees and Contingenciestruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $Jan-01-2010_Dec-31-2010http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001031296duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170PureStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancepurexbrli0SharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDEPSDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0fe_CommitmentsGuaranteesAndContingenciesAbstractfefalsenadurationCommitments Guarantees And Contingencies Abstract.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringCommitments Guarantees And Contingencies Abstract.falsefalseCommitments, Guarantees and Contingencies [Abstract]3false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt"><b>14. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES</b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 4%"><b>(A) NUCLEAR INSURANCE</b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The Price-Anderson Act limits the public liability which can be assessed with respect to a nuclear power plant to $12.6 billion (assuming 104 units licensed to operate) for a single nuclear incident, which amount is covered by: (i) private insurance amounting to $375 million; and (ii) $12.2 billion provided by an industry retrospective rating plan required by the NRC pursuant thereto. Under such retrospective rating plan, in the event of a nuclear incident at any unit in the United States resulting in losses in excess of private insurance, up to $118 million (but not more than $18 million per unit per year in the event of more than one incident) must be contributed for each nuclear unit licensed to operate in the country by the licensees thereof to cover liabilities arising out of the incident. Based on their present nuclear ownership and leasehold interests, FirstEnergy’s maximum potential assessment under these provisions would be $470 million (OE-$40 million, NGC-$408 million, and TE-$22 million) per incident but not more than $70 million (OE-$6 million, NGC-$61 million, and TE-$3 million) in any one year for each incident. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In addition to the public liability insurance provided pursuant to the Price-Anderson Act, FirstEnergy has also obtained insurance coverage in limited amounts for economic loss and property damage arising out of nuclear incidents. FirstEnergy is a member of NEIL which provides coverage (NEIL I) for the extra expense of replacement power incurred due to prolonged accidental outages of nuclear units. Under NEIL I, FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries have policies, renewable yearly, corresponding to their respective nuclear interests, which provide an aggregate indemnity of up to approximately $1.4 billion (OE-$120 million, NGC-$1.22 billion, TE-$64 million) for replacement power costs incurred during an outage after an initial 26-week waiting period. Members of NEIL I pay annual premiums and are subject to assessments if losses exceed the accumulated funds available to the insurer. FirstEnergy’s present maximum aggregate assessment for incidents at any covered nuclear facility occurring during a policy year would be approximately $9 million (OE-$1 million, NGC-$8 million, and TE-less than $1 million). </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">FirstEnergy is insured as to its respective nuclear interests under property damage insurance provided by NEIL to the operating company for each plant. Under these arrangements, up to $2.8 billion of coverage for decontamination costs, decommissioning costs, debris removal and repair and/or replacement of property is provided. FirstEnergy pays annual premiums for this coverage and is liable for retrospective assessments of up to approximately $61 million (OE-$5 million, NGC-$52 million, TE-$2 million, Met Ed, Penelec, and JCP&L-less than $1 million each) during a policy year. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">FirstEnergy intends to maintain insurance against nuclear risks as described above as long as it is available. To the extent that replacement power, property damage, decontamination, decommissioning, repair and replacement costs and other such costs arising from a nuclear incident at any of FirstEnergy’s plants exceed the policy limits of the insurance in effect with respect to that plant, to the extent a nuclear incident is determined not to be covered by FirstEnergy’s insurance policies, or to the extent such insurance becomes unavailable in the future, FirstEnergy would remain at risk for such costs. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The NRC requires nuclear power plant licensees to obtain minimum property insurance coverage of $1.1 billion or the amount generally available from private sources, whichever is less. The proceeds of this insurance are required to be used first to ensure that the licensed reactor is in a safe and stable condition and can be maintained in that condition to prevent any significant risk to the public health and safety. Within 30 days of stabilization, the licensee is required to prepare and submit to the NRC a cleanup plan for approval. The plan is required to identify all cleanup operations necessary to decontaminate the reactor sufficiently to permit the resumption of operations or to commence decommissioning. Any property insurance proceeds not already expended to place the reactor in a safe and stable condition must be used first to complete those decontamination operations that are ordered by the NRC. FirstEnergy is unable to predict what effect these requirements may have on the availability of insurance proceeds. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 4%"><b>(B) GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES</b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">As part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy enters into various agreements on behalf of its subsidiaries to provide financial or performance assurances to third parties. These agreements include contract guarantees, surety bonds and LOCs. As of December 31, 2010, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $3.7 billion, consisting primarily of parental guarantees ($0.8 billion), subsidiaries’ guarantees ($2.5 billion), surety bonds and LOCs ($0.4 billion). </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions involving electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides guarantees to various providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements legally obligate FirstEnergy to fulfill the obligations of those subsidiaries directly involved in energy and energy-related transactions or financing where the law might otherwise limit the counterparties’ claims. If demands of a counterparty were to exceed the ability of a subsidiary to satisfy existing obligations, FirstEnergy’s guarantee enables the counterparty’s legal claim to be satisfied by other FirstEnergy assets. The likelihood is remote that such parental guarantees of $0.3 billion (included in the $0.8 billion discussed above) as of December 31, 2010 would increase amounts otherwise payable by FirstEnergy to meet its obligations incurred in connection with financings and ongoing energy and energy-related activities. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">While these types of guarantees are normally parental commitments for the future payment of subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a credit rating downgrade or “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of cash collateral, provision of an LOC or accelerated payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of December 31, 2010, FirstEnergy’s maximum exposure under these collateral provisions was $468 million, consisting of $429 million due to a below investment grade credit rating (of which $224 million is due to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation) and $39 million due to “material adverse event” contractual clauses. Additionally, stress case conditions of a credit rating downgrade or “material adverse event” and hypothetical adverse price movements in the underlying commodity markets would increase this amount to $532 million, consisting of $486 million due to a below investment grade credit rating (of which $224 million is related to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation) and $46 million due to “material adverse event” contractual clauses. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">Most of FirstEnergy’s surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $82 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. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, FES’ contracts, including power contracts with affiliates awarded through competitive bidding processes, typically contain margining provisions which require the posting of cash or LOCs in amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES’ power portfolio as of December 31, 2010, and forward prices as of that date, FES has posted collateral of $185 million. Under a hypothetical adverse change in forward prices (95% confidence level change in forward prices over a one year time horizon), FES would be required to post an additional $28 million. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, FES could be required to post higher amounts for margining. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In connection with FES’ obligations to post and maintain collateral under the two-year PSA entered into by FES and the Ohio Companies following the CBP auction on May 13-14, 2009, NGC entered into a Surplus Margin Guaranty in an amount up to $500 million. The Surplus Margin Guaranty is secured by an NGC FMB issued in favor of the Ohio Companies. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">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 will have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC regardless of whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">On October 22, 2010, Signal Peak and Global Rail entered into a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility among the two limited liability companies that comprise Signal Peak and Global Rail, as borrowers. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that share ownership with FEV, the borrowers have provided a guaranty of the borrowers’ obligations under the facility. In addition, FEV and the other entities that directly own the equity interest in the borrowers have pledged those interests to the banks as collateral for the facility. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 4%"><b>(C) ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS</b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">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. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Clean Air Act Compliance</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> and NOx emissions regulations under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> and NOx reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) under the CAA by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion controls and post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances. Violations can result in the shutdown of the generating unit involved and/or civil or criminal penalties. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The Sammis, Eastlake and Mansfield coal-fired plants are operated under a consent decree with the EPA and DOJ that requires reductions of NOx and SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emissions through the installation of pollution control devices or repowering. OE and Penn are subject to stipulated penalties for failure to install and operate such pollution controls or complete repowering in accordance with that agreement. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner”, one being a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other being a class action complaint seeking certification as a class action with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FGCO believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in those three complaints. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at the Portland Generation Station against GenOn Energy, Inc. (the current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in 1999) and Met-Ed. 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. In September 2009, the Court granted Met-Ed’s motion to dismiss New Jersey’s and Connecticut’s claims for injunctive relief against Met-Ed, but denied Met-Ed’s motion to dismiss the claims for civil penalties. The parties dispute the scope of Met-Ed’s indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn alleging NSR violations at the Portland Generation Station based on “modifications” dating back to 1986 and also alleged NSR violations at the Keystone and Shawville Stations based on “modifications” dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L, as the former owner of 16.67% of the Keystone Station, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of the Shawville Station, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc. alleging that “modifications” at the Homer City Power Station occurred since 1988 to the present without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA’s PSD program. In May 2010, the EPA issued a second NOV to Mission Energy Westside, Inc., Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station containing in all material respects identical allegations as the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission Energy Westside, Inc., Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station a notification that was required 60 days prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA. In January, 2011, the DOJ filed a complaint against Penelec in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on alleged “modifications” at the Homer City Power Station 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 the Homer City Station, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New York intervened and have filed a separate complaint regarding the Homer City Station. Mission Energy Westside, Inc. is seeking indemnification from Penelec, the co-owner and operator of the Homer City Power Station prior to its sale in 1999. The scope of Penelec’s indemnity obligation to and from Mission Energy Westside, Inc. is under dispute and Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In January 2011, a complaint was filed against Penelec in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on the Homer City Station’s air emissions. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, NYSEG and various current owners of the Homer City Station, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. The complaint also seeks certification as a class action and to enjoin the Homer City Station from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner.” Penelec believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in the complaint. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In August 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and Ohio regulations, including the PSD, NNSR, and Title V regulations at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula generating plants. The EPA’s NOV alleges equipment replacements occurring during maintenance outages dating back to 1990 triggered the pre-construction permitting requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs. FGCO received a request for certain operating and maintenance information and planning information for these same generating plants and notification that the EPA is evaluating whether certain maintenance at the Eastlake generating plant may constitute a major modification under the NSR provision of the CAA. Later in 2009, FGCO also received another information request regarding emission projections for the Eastlake generating plant. FGCO intends to comply with the CAA, including the EPA’s information requests, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>National Ambient Air Quality Standards</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The EPA’s CAIR requires reductions of NOx and SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and 2015), ultimately capping SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> 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 vacated CAIR “in its entirety” and directed the EPA to “redo its analysis from the ground up.” In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and allowed CAIR to remain in effect to “temporarily preserve its environmental values” until the EPA replaces CAIR with a new rule consistent with the Court’s opinion. The Court ruled in a different case that a cap-and-trade program similar to CAIR, called the “NOx SIP Call,” cannot be used to satisfy certain CAA requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for areas in non-attainment under the “8-hour” ozone NAAQS. In July 2010, the EPA proposed the CATR to replace CAIR, which remains in effect until the EPA finalizes CATR. CATR requires reductions of NOx and SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emissions in affected states to 2.6 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. The EPA proposed a preferred regulatory approach that allows trading of NOx and SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and severely limits interstate trading of NOx and SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emission allowances. The EPA also requested comment on two alternative approaches—the first eliminates interstate trading of NOx and SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emission allowances and the second eliminates trading of NOx and SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emission allowances in its entirety. Depending on the actions taken by the EPA with respect to CATR, the proposed MACT regulations discussed below and any future regulations that are ultimately implemented, FGCO’s future cost of compliance may be substantial. Management continues to assess the impact of these environmental proposals and other factors on FGCO’s facilities, particularly on the operation of its smaller, non-supercritical units. In August 2010, for example, management decided to idle certain units or operate them on a seasonal basis until developments clarify. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The EPA’s CAMR provides for a cap-and-trade program to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in two phases; initially, capping nationwide emissions of mercury at 38 tons by 2010 (as a “co-benefit” from implementation of SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> and NOx emission caps under the EPA’s CAIR program) and 15 tons per year by 2018. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, at the urging of several states and environmental groups, vacated the CAMR, ruling that the EPA failed to take the necessary steps to “de-list” coal-fired power plants from its hazardous air pollutant program and, therefore, could not promulgate a cap-and-trade program. On April 29, 2010, the EPA issued proposed MACT regulations requiring emissions reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from non-electric generating unit boilers. If finalized, the non-electric generating unit MACT regulations could also provide precedent for MACT standards applicable to electric generating units. On January 20, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion by the EPA for an extension of the deadline to issue final rules, ordering the EPA to issue such rules by February 21, 2011. The EPA also entered into a consent decree requiring it to propose MACT regulations for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from electric generating units by March 16, 2011, and to finalize the regulations by November 16, 2011. Depending on the action taken by the EPA and on how any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FGCO’s future cost of compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to FGCO’s operations may result. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Climate Change</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">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, on June 26, 2009. The Senate continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. President Obama has announced his Administration’s “New Energy for America Plan” that includes, among other provisions, ensuring that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012, increasing to 25% by 2025, and implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. State activities, primarily the northeastern states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that will require FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and submit reports commencing in 2011. 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 permits under the CAA’s NSR program would be required. The EPA established an emissions applicability threshold of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) effective January 2, 2011 for existing facilities under the CAA’s PSD program, but until July 1, 2011 that emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is triggered by non-carbon dioxide pollutants. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">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 CO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub>, 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 which recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius; include a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30 billion over the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020; and establish the “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related activities in developing countries. Once they have become a party to the Copenhagen Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries, including Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on October 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that had dismissed complaints alleging damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds. However, a subsequent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court dismissal of a complaint alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort claims, including public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global warming and result in property damages. On December 6, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Second Circuit in <i>Connecticut v. AEP</i>. Briefing and oral argument are expected to be completed in early 2011 and a decision issued in or around June 2011. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, FirstEnergy and/or one or more of its subsidiaries could be named in actions making similar allegations. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations. The CO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emissions per KWH of electricity generated by FirstEnergy is lower than many regional competitors due to its diversified generation sources, which include low or non-CO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Clean Water Act</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy’s plants. In addition, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy’s operations. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing 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). 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. On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuit’s opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake structures. The EPA is developing a new regulation under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals which have created significant uncertainty about the specific nature, scope and timing of the final performance standard. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness, 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. On November 19, 2010, the Ohio EPA issued a permit for the Bay Shore power plant requiring installation of reverse louvers in its entire water intake channel by December 31, 2014. 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. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In June 2008, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is considering prosecution under the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26, 2007 and February 27, 2007. FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Regulation of Waste Disposal</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">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 February 2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on options for regulating coal combustion residuals, including whether they should be regulated as hazardous or non-hazardous waste. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">On December 30, 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA said that the large volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk to the industry. On May 4, 2010, the EPA 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. FGCO’s future cost of compliance with any coal combustion residuals regulations which may be promulgated could be substantial and would depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the states. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The Utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2010, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Utilities’ proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $104 million (JCP&L — $69 million, TE — $1 million, CEI — $1 million, FGCO — $1 million and FirstEnergy — $32 million) have been accrued through December 31, 2010. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $64 million for environmental remediation of former MGPs and gas holder facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 4%"><b>(D) OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS</b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Power Outages and Related Litigation</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L’s territory. Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs’ claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of actions. On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision decertifying the class. Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. JCP&L is waiting for the Court’s decision. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Litigation Relating to the Proposed Allegheny Merger</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In connection with the proposed merger (Note 22), purported shareholders of Allegheny have filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits against Allegheny and its directors and certain officers, referred to as the Allegheny Energy defendants, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub. Four putative class action and derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (Maryland Court). One was withdrawn. The Maryland Court has consolidated the remaining three cases under the caption: In re Allegheny Energy Shareholder and Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 24-C-10-1301. Three shareholder lawsuits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and the court has consolidated these actions under the caption: In re Allegheny Energy, Inc. Shareholder Class and Derivative, Litigation, Lead Case No. 1101 of 2010. One putative shareholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 10-319 NBF. In summary, the lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement, and that Allegheny, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, jury trials, money damages and injunctive relief. While FirstEnergy believes the lawsuits are without merit and has defended vigorously against the claims, in order to avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the defendants have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement of all these shareholder lawsuits and have reached agreement with counsel for all of the plaintiffs concerning fee applications. Under the terms of the settlement, no payments are being made by FirstEnergy or Merger Sub. A formal stipulation of settlement was filed with the Maryland Court on October 18, 2010 and it was approved and became final on January 12, 2011. The separate Pennsylvania federal and state proceedings were dismissed on January 14, 2011 and January 18, 2011, respectively. The above shareholder actions have been fully and finally resolved. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Nuclear Plant Matters</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">During a planned refueling outage that began on February 28, 2010, FENOC conducted a non destructive examination and testing of the CRDM nozzles of the Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head. FENOC identified flaws in CRDM nozzles that required modification. The NRC was notified of these findings, along with federal, state and local officials. On March 17, 2010, the NRC sent a special inspection team to Davis-Besse to assess the adequacy of FENOC’s identification, analyses and resolution of the CRDM nozzle flaws and to ensure acceptable modifications were made prior to placing the RPV head back in service. After successfully completing the modifications, FENOC committed to take a number of corrective actions including strengthening leakage monitoring procedures and shutting Davis-Besse down no later than October 1, 2011, to replace the reactor pressure vessel head with nozzles made of material less susceptible to primary water stress corrosion cracking, further enhancing the safe and reliable operations of the plant. On June 29, 2010, FENOC returned Davis-Besse to service. On September 9, 2010, the NRC held a public exit meeting describing the results of the NRC special inspection team inspection of FENOC’s identification of the CRDM nozzles with flaws and the modifications to those nozzles. On October 22, 2010, the NRC issued its final report of the special inspection. The report contained three findings characterized as very low safety significance that were promptly corrected prior to plant operation. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">On April 5, 2010, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) requested that the NRC issue a Show Cause Order, or otherwise delay the restart of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station until the NRC determines that adequate protection standards have been met and reasonable assurance exists that these standards will continue to be met after the plant’s operation is resumed. By a letter dated July 13, 2010, the NRC denied UCS’s request for immediate action because “the NRC has conducted rigorous and independent assessments of returning the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head to service and its continued operation, and determined that it was safe for the plant to restart.” The UCS petition was referred to a petition manager for further review. What additional actions, if any, that the NRC takes in response to the UCS request have not been determined. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As of December 31, 2010, 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. FirstEnergy provides an additional $15 million parental guarantee associated with the funding of decommissioning costs for these units. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental guarantee, as appropriate. The values of FirstEnergy’s nuclear decommissioning trusts 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 its effects on particular businesses and the economy could also affect the values of the nuclear decommissioning trusts. The NRC issued guidance anticipating an increase in low-level radioactive waste disposal costs associated the decommissioning of FirstEnergy’s nuclear facilities. As a result, FirstEnergy’s decommissioning funding obligations are expected to increase. FirstEnergy continues to evaluate the status of its funding obligations for the decommissioning of these nuclear facilities. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">On August 27, 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. On December 27 and 28, 2010, a group of petitioners filed a request for hearing contending that FENOC failed to adequately consider wind or solar generation, or some combination thereof, as an alternative to license extension at Davis-Besse. They further argued FENOC had failed to adequately assess the cost of a severe accident at Davis-Besse. FENOC and the NRC staff responded to this pleading on January 21, 2011, demonstrating that none of the petitioners’ arguments were admissible contentions under the National Environmental Policy Act or NRC regulations. An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel is expected to determine whether a hearing is necessary. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Ohio Legal Matters</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">On February 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount was approved by the PUCO. On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court granted the motion to dismiss on September 7, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, which has not yet rendered an opinion. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>Other Legal Matters</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy’s normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. If it were ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject to liability based on the above matters, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy’s or its subsidiaries’ financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged NotefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 falsefalseCOMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES12Commitments, Guarantees and ContingenciesUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue