2.2.0.25falsefalse00209 - Disclosure - Commitments, Guarantees and Contingenciestruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2011 - 3/31/2011 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $Jan-01-2011_Mar-31-2011http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001031296duration2011-01-01T00:00:002011-03-31T00:00:00USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170USDEPSDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0SharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0PureStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancepurexbrli0MWHStandardhttp://firstenergycorp.com/2011-03-31MWHfe0USDUSD$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>9. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES</b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 4%"><b>(A) 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 March 31, 2011, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $3.8 billion, consisting primarily of parental guarantees ($0.8 billion), subsidiaries’ guarantees ($2.6 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. FirstEnergy views as remote the likelihood that such parental guarantees of $0.2 billion (included in the $0.8 billion discussed above) as of March 31, 2011 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 March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy’s maximum exposure under these collateral provisions was $557 million, consisting of $433 million due to a below investment grade credit rating (of which $184 million is due to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation) and $124 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 $623 million, consisting of $494 million due to a below investment grade credit rating (of which $184 million is related to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation) and $129 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 $138 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, contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy Services segment, including power contracts with affiliates awarded through competitive bidding processes, typically contain margining provisions that require the posting of cash or LOCs in amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES’ and AE Supply’s power portfolio as of March 31, 2011 and forward prices as of that date, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of $158 million and $5 million, respectively. 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 $52 million of collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required to be posted. </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">Signal Peak and Global Rail are borrowers under a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that share ownership in the borrowers with FEV, 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 lenders under the term loan facility 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>(B) 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>CAA 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) 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 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 these 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. (formerly RRI Energy, Inc. and 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, and Met-Ed is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. 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. (Mission) alleging that “modifications” at the Homer City Power Station occurred from 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, Penelec, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station containing in all material respects allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission, 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 injunctive relief against Penelec 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, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, and various current owners of the Homer City Station, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In January 2011, another complaint was filed against Penelec and the other entities described above in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on the Homer City Station’s air emissions as well as 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, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate complaints regarding the Homer City Station seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. Mission 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 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 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">In August 2000, AE received a letter from the EPA requesting that it provide information and documentation relevant to the operation and maintenance of the following ten electric generation facilities, which collectively include 22 generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfield’s Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island. The letter requested information under Section 114 of the CAA to determine compliance with the CAA and related requirements, including potential application of the NSR standards under the CAA, which can require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when the major modification of an existing facility results in an increase in emissions. AE has provided responsive information to this and a subsequent request but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In May 2004, AE, AE Supply, MP and WP received a Notice of Intent to Sue Pursuant to CAA §7604 from the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and from the PA DEP, alleging that Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions of the CAA at the following West Virginia coal-fired facilities: Albright Unit 3; Fort Martin Units 1 and 2; Harrison Units 1, 2 and 3; Pleasants Units 1 and 2 and Willow Island Unit 2. The Notice also alleged PSD violations at the Armstrong, Hatfield’s Ferry and Mitchell generation facilities in Pennsylvania and identifies PA DEP as the lead agency regarding those facilities. In September 2004, AE, AE Supply, MP and WP received a separate Notice of Intent to Sue from the Maryland Attorney General that essentially mirrored the previous Notice. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In June 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply, MP, PE and WP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the Hatfield’s Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell facilities in Pennsylvania. On January 17, 2006, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. In May 2006, the District Court denied Allegheny’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2006, the Court determined that discovery would proceed regarding liability issues, but not remedies. Discovery on the liability phase closed on December 31, 2007, and summary judgment briefing was completed during the first quarter of 2008. In November 2008, the District Court issued a Memorandum Order denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. In December 2009, a new trial judge was assigned to the case, who then entered an order granting a motion to reconsider the rulings in the November 2008 Memorandum Order. In April 2010, the new judge issued an opinion, again denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. The non-jury trial on liability only was held in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in December 2010, Allegheny made its related filings in February 2011 and plaintiffs filed their responses in April 2011. The parties are awaiting a decision from the District Court, but there is no deadline for that decision. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In September 2007, Allegheny also received a NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the Hatfield’s Ferry and Armstrong generation facilities in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island generation facilities in West Virginia. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CAA matters described above but cannot predict their outcomes. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 8%"><i>State Air Quality Compliance</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In early 2006, Maryland passed the Healthy Air Act, which imposes state-wide emission caps on SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> and NO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">X</sub>, requires mercury emission reductions and mandates that Maryland join the RGGI and participate in that coalition’s regional efforts to reduce CO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland became the 10th state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith power station for NO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">X</sub>, SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the station is vital to reliability in the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area, which PJM determined in 2006. Pursuant to the legislation, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) passed alternate NO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">X</sub> and SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% beginning in 2010. The statutory exemption does not extend to R. Paul Smith’s CO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> emissions. Maryland issued final regulations to implement RGGI requirements in February 2008. Ten RGGI auctions have been held through the end of calendar year 2010. RGGI allowances are also readily available in the allowance markets, affording another mechanism by which to secure necessary allowances. On March 14, 2011, MDE requested PJM perform an analysis to determine if termination of operation at R. Paul Smith would adversely impact the reliability of electrical service in the PJM region under current system conditions. FirstEnergy 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 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at Allegheny’s Pleasants generating facility. FirstEnergy is discussing with WVDEP steps to resolve the NOV including installing a reagent injection system to reduce opacity. </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 Circuit 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 Clean Air Transport Rule (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 is currently assessing the impact of these environmental proposals and other factors on FGCO’s facilities, particularly on the operation of its smaller, non-supercritical units. For example, as disclosed herein, 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">On March 16, 2011, the EPA released its MACT proposal to establish emission standards for mercury, hydrochloric acid and various metals for electric generating units. Depending on the action taken by the EPA and how any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergy’s future cost of compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy’s operations may result. </div> <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, in June 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, proposals to ensure that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012, to increase to 25% by 2025, to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. Certain states, primarily the northeastern states participating in the RGGI and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs. </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 required FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and will require it to 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. Until July 1, 2011, this emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is triggered by non-CO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> pollutants. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <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 that recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius; includes a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30 billion over the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020; and establishes the “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related activities in developing countries. To the extent that they have become a party to the Copenhagen Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries, including Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and 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. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Second Circuit. Oral argument was held on April 19, 2011, and a decision is expected by July 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 of its 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, the states in which FirstEnergy operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy’s operations. </div> <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. In April 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuit’s opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the 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. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act generally requiring fish impingement to be reduced to a 12% annual average and studies to be conducted at the majority of our existing generating facilities to assist permitting authorities to determine whether and what site-specific controls, if any, would be required to reduce entrainment of aquatic life. 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. In November 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 April 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is no longer 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. This matter has been referred back to EPA for civil enforcement and FGCO 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; margin-left: 8%"><i>Monongahela River Water Quality</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including TDS and sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River, on new and modified sources, including the scrubber project at the Hatfield’s Ferry generation facility. These criteria are reflected in the current PA DEP water discharge permit for that project. AE Supply appealed the PA DEP’s permitting decision, which would require it to incur significant costs or negatively affect its ability to operate the scrubbers as designed. Preliminary studies indicate an initial capital investment in excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the permit. The permit has been independently appealed by Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens Coal Council, which seeks to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. Those same parties have intervened in the appeal filed by AE Supply, and both appeals have been consolidated for discovery purposes. An order has been entered that stays the permit limits that AE Supply has challenged while the appeal is pending. The hearing is scheduled to begin on September 13, 2011. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In a parallel rulemaking, the PA DEP recommended, and in August 2010, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board issued, a final rule imposing end-of-pipe TDS effluent limitations. FirstEnergy could incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the requirements of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of 2018, and then only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to such units. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its Clean Water Act 303(d) list to the EPA with a recommended sulfate impairment designation for an approximately 68 mile stretch of the Monongahela River north of the West Virginia border. EPA has not acted on PA DEP’s recommendation. If the designation is approved, Pennsylvania will then need to develop a TMDL limit for the river, a process that will take about five years. Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant costs to reduce sulfate discharges into the Monongahela River from its Hatfield’s Ferry and Mitchell facilities in Pennsylvania and its Fort Martin facility in West Virginia. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In October 2009, the WVDEP issued the water discharge permit for the Fort Martin generation facility. Similar to the Hatfield’s Ferry water discharge permit issued for the scrubber project, the Fort Martin permit imposes effluent limitations for TDS and sulfate concentrations. The permit also imposes temperature limitations and other effluent limits for heavy metals that are not contained in the Hatfield’s Ferry water permit. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order that sets deadlines for MP to meet certain of the effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the permit. MP appealed the Fort Martin permit and the administrative order. The appeal included a request to stay certain of the conditions of the permit and order while the appeal is pending, which was granted pending a final decision on appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The appeals have been consolidated. MP moved to dismiss certain of the permit conditions for the failure of the WVDEP to submit those conditions for public review and comment during the permitting process. An agreed-upon order that suspends further action on this appeal, pending WVDEP’s release for public review and comment on those conditions, was entered on August 11, 2010. The stay remains in effect during that process. The current terms of the Fort Martin permit would require MP to incur significant costs or negatively affect operations at Fort Martin. Preliminary information indicates an initial capital investment in excess of the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfield’s Ferry in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the Fort Martin permit, which technology may also meet certain of the other effluent limits in the permit. Additional technology may be needed to meet certain other limits in the permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals. </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">In December 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA asserted that the large volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk to the industry. In May 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPA’s hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management, beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FirstEnergy’s future cost of compliance with any coal combustion residuals regulations that may be promulgated could be substantial and would depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the states. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The Utility Registrants have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2011, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Utility Registrants 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 March 31, 2011. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $64 million for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; margin-left: 4%"><b>(C) 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. 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. In November 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court’s order effectively ends the class action attempt, and leaves only nine (9) plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual claims. The remaining individual plaintiffs have not taken any affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims. </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">Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As of March 31, 2011, 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 their 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 with the decommissioning of FirstEnergy’s nuclear facilities. On March 28, 2011, FENOC submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This submittal identified a total shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry of approximately $92.5 million. This estimate encompasses the shortfall covered by the existing $15 million parental guarantee. FENOC agreed to increase the parental guarantee to $95 million within 90 days of the submittal. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In August 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. By an order dated April 26, 2011, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application to a group of petitioners. By this order, the ASLB also admitted two contentions regarding (1) a combination of renewable alternatives to the renewal of Davis-Besse’s operating license, and (2) the cost of mitigating a severe accident at Davis-Besse. FENOC is currently evaluating these developments and considering an appropriate response. On April 14, 2011, a group of environmental organizations petitioned the NRC Commissioners to suspend all pending nuclear license renewal proceedings, including the Davis-Besse proceeding, to ensure that any safety and environmental implications of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station event in Japan are considered. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In January 2004, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking damages in connection with costs incurred at the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry Nuclear facilities as a result of the DOE failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on January 31, 1998. DOE was required to so commence accepting spent nuclear fuel by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 USC 10101 et seq) and the contracts entered into by the DOE and the owners and operators of these facilities pursuant to the Act. On January 18, 2011, the parties, FirstEnergy and DOJ, filed a joint status report that established a schedule for the litigation of these claims. FirstEnergy filed damages schedules and disclosures with the DOJ on February 11, 2011, seeking approximately $57 million in damages for delay costs incurred through September 30, 2010. The damage claim is subject to review and audit by DOE. </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>Other Legal Matters</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount was approved by the PUCO. In March 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">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.<br /> </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