1.0.0.3falseREGULATORY MATTERSfalse1$falsefalseu000Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170u001Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0u002Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli020fe_PublicUtilitiesAbstractfefalsenadurationstringNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsetruefalsefalsefalse1falsefalse00falsefalseNo definition available.false31us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationstringNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalse0010. REGULATORY MATTERS
(A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVES
In 2005, Congress amended the Federal Power Act to provide for federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards. The mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk power system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities and ATSI. The NERC is charged with establishing and enforcing these reliability standards, although it has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of its responsibilities to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards.
FirstEnergy believes that it is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, it is clear that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst and the FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time. However, the 2005 amendments to the Federal Power Act provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the new reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on FirstEnergy's part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of financial penalties and thus have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
In April 2007, ReliabilityFirst performed a routine compliance audit of FirstEnergy's bulk-power system within the MISO region and found it to be in full compliance with all audited reliability standards. Similarly, in October 2008, ReliabilityFirst performed a routine compliance audit of FirstEnergy's bulk-power system within the PJM region and found it to be in full compliance with all audited reliability standards.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&L's Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic substations, with customers in the affected area losing power. Power was restored to most customers within a few hours and to all customers within eleven hours. On December 16, 2008, JCP&L provided preliminary information about the event to certain regulatory agencies, including the NERC. On March 31, 2009, the NERC initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&L's contribution to the electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated with the event. The initial phase of the investigation required JCP&L to respond to the NERC's request for factual data about the outage. JCP&L submitted its written response on May 1, 2009. The NERC conducted on site interviews with personnel involved in responding to the event on June 16-17, 2009. On July 7, 2009, the NERC issued additional questions regarding the event and JCP&L replied as requested on August 6, 2009. JCP&L is not able at this time to predict what actions, if any, that the NERC may take based on the data submittals or interview results.
On June 5, 2009, FirstEnergy self-reported to ReliabilityFirst a potential violation of NERC Standard PRC-005 resulting from its inability to validate maintenance records for 20 protection system relays in JCP&L's and Penelec's transmission systems. These potential violations were discovered during a comprehensive field review of all FirstEnergy substations to verify equipment and maintenance database accuracy. FirstEnergy has completed all mitigation actions, including calibrations and maintenance records for the relays. ReliabilityFirst issued an Initial Notice of Alleged Violation on June 22, 2009. The NERC approved FirstEnergy's mitigation plan on August 19, 2009, and submitted it to the FERC for approval on August 19, 2009. FirstEnergy is not able at this time to predict what actions or penalties, if any, that ReliabilityFirst will propose for this self-report of violation.
(B ) OHIO
On June 7, 2007, the Ohio Companies filed an application for an increase in electric distribution rates with the PUCO and, on August 6, 2007, updated their filing to support a distribution rate increase of $332 million. On December 4, 2007, the PUCO Staff issued its Staff Reports containing the results of its investigation into the distribution rate request. On January 21, 2009, the PUCO granted the Ohio Companies' application to increase electric distribution rates by $136.6 million (OE - $68.9 million, CEI - $29.2 million and TE - $38.5 million). These increases went into effect for OE and TE on January 23, 2009, and for CEI on May 1, 2009. Applications for rehearing of this order were filed by the Ohio Companies and one other party on February 20, 2009. The PUCO granted these applications for rehearing on March 18, 2009 for the purpose of further consideration. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing.
SB221, which became effective on July 31, 2008, required all electric utilities to file an ESP, and permitted the filing of an MRO. On July 31, 2008, the Ohio Companies filed with the PUCO a comprehensive ESP and a separate MRO. The PUCO denied the MRO application; however, the PUCO later granted the Ohio Companies' application for rehearing for the purpose of further consideration of the matter, which is still pending. The ESP proposed to phase in new generation rates for customers beginning in 2009 for up to a three-year period and resolve the Ohio Companies' collection of fuel costs deferred in 2006 and 2007, and the distribution rate request described above. In response to the PUCO's December 19, 2008 order, which significantly modified and approved the ESP as modified, the Ohio Companies notified the PUCO that they were withdrawing and terminating the ESP application in addition to continuing their rate plan then in effect as allowed by the terms of SB221. On December 31, 2008, the Ohio Companies conducted a CBP for the procurement of electric generation for retail customers from January 5, 2009 through March 31, 2009. The average winning bid price was equivalent to a retail rate of 6.98 cents per KWH. The power supply obtained through this process provided generation service to the Ohio Companies' retail customers who chose not to shop with alternative suppliers. On January 9, 2009, the Ohio Companies requested the implementation of a new fuel rider to recover the costs resulting from the December 31, 2008 CBP. The PUCO ultimately approved the Ohio Companies' request for a new fuel rider to recover increased costs resulting from the CBP but denied OE's and TE's request to continue collecting RTC and denied the request to allow the Ohio Companies to continue collections pursuant to the two existing fuel riders. The new fuel rider recovered the increased purchased power costs for OE and TE, and recovered a portion of those costs for CEI, with the remainder being deferred for future recovery.
On January 29, 2009, the PUCO ordered its Staff to develop a proposal to establish an ESP for the Ohio Companies. On February 19, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an Amended ESP application, including an attached Stipulation and Recommendation that was signed by the Ohio Companies, the Staff of the PUCO, and many of the intervening parties. Specifically, the Amended ESP provided that generation would be provided by FES at the average wholesale rate of the CBP process described above for April and May 2009 to the Ohio Companies for their non-shopping customers; for the period of June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2011, retail generation prices would be based upon the outcome of a descending clock CBP on a slice-of-system basis. The Amended ESP further provided that the Ohio Companies will not seek a base distribution rate increase, subject to certain exceptions, with an effective date of such increase before January 1, 2012, that CEI would agree to write-off approximately $216 million of its Extended RTC balance, and that the Ohio Companies would collect a delivery service improvement rider at an overall average rate of $.002 per KWH for the period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Amended ESP also addressed a number of other issues, including but not limited to, rate design for various customer classes, and resolution of the prudence review and the collection of deferred costs that were approved in prior proceedings. On February 26, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed a Supplemental Stipulation, which was signed or not opposed by virtually all of the parties to the proceeding, that supplemented and modified certain provisions of the February 19, 2009 Stipulation and Recommendation. Specifically, the Supplemental Stipulation modified the provision relating to governmental aggregation and the Generation Service Uncollectible Rider, provided further detail on the allocation of the economic development funding contained in the Stipulation and Recommendation, and proposed additional provisions related to the collaborative process for the development of energy efficiency programs, among other provisions. The PUCO adopted and approved certain aspects of the Stipulation and Recommendation on March 4, 2009, and adopted and approved the remainder of the Stipulation and Recommendation and Supplemental Stipulation without modification on March 25, 2009. Certain aspects of the Stipulation and Recommendation and Supplemental Stipulation took effect on April 1, 2009 while the remaining provisions took effect on June 1, 2009.
On July 27, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed applications with the PUCO to recover three different categories of deferred distribution costs on an accelerated basis. In the Ohio Companies' Amended ESP, the PUCO approved the recovery of these deferrals, with collection originally set to begin in January 2011 and to continue over a 5 or 25 year period. The principal amount plus carrying charges through August 31, 2009 for these deferrals was a total of $305.1 million. The applications were approved by the PUCO on August 19, 2009. Recovery of this amount, together with carrying charges calculated as approved in the Amended ESP, commenced on September 1, 2009, and will be collected in the 18 non-summer months from September 2009 through May 2011, subject to reconciliation until fully collected, with $165 million of the above amount being recovered from residential customers, and $140.1 million being recovered from non-residential customers.
The CBP auction occurred on May 13-14, 2009, and resulted in a weighted average wholesale price for generation and transmission of 6.15 cents per KWH. The bid was for a single, two-year product for the service period from June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2011. FES participated in the auction, winning 51% of the tranches (one tranche equals one percent of the load supply). Subsequent to the signing of the wholesale contracts, three winning bidders reached separate agreements with FES to assign a total of 21 tranches to FES for various periods. The results of the CBP were accepted by the PUCO on May 14, 2009. In addition, FES has separately contracted with numerous communities to provide retail generation service through governmental aggregation programs.
SB221 also requires electric distribution utilities to implement energy efficiency programs. Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of approximately 166,000 MWH in 2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with additional savings required through 2025. Utilities are also required to reduce peak demand in 2009 by 1%, with an additional seventy-five hundredths of one percent reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The PUCO may amend these benchmarks in certain, limited circumstances. Additionally, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve part of their load from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25% of the KWH they serve in 2009. The Ohio Companies are presently involved in collaborative efforts related to energy efficiency, including filing applications for approval with the PUCO, as well as other implementation efforts arising out of the Supplemental Stipulation. We expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable from customers.
On June 17, 2009, the PUCO modified rules that implement the alternative energy portfolio standards created by SB221, including the incorporation of energy efficiency requirements, long-term forecast and greenhouse gas reporting and CO2 control planning. The PUCO filed the rules with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) on July 7, 2009, after which began a 65-day review period. On August 6, 2009, the PUCO withdrew alternative energy and energy efficiency/peak demand reduction rules from JCARR. On August 24, 2009, the integrated resource planning rules were also withdrawn from JCARR. The Ohio Companies and one other party filed applications for rehearing on the rules with the PUCO on July 17, 2009. On August 11, 2009, the PUCO issued an entry on rehearing granting the applications for rehearing only for purposes of further consideration of the issues raised.
On October 15, 2009, the PUCO issued a second Entry on Rehearing, modifying certain of its previous rules. Modified rules previously withdrawn from JCARR were refiled with JCARR on October 16 and October 19, 2009. The rules set out the manner in which the electric utilities, including the Ohio companies, will be required to comply with benchmarks contained in SB 221 related to the employment of alternative energy resources, energy efficiency/peak demand reduction programs as well as greenhouse gas reporting requirements and changes to long term forecast reporting requirements. The rules severely restrict the types of renewable energy resources and energy efficiency and peak reduction programs that may be included toward meeting the statutory goals, which is expected to significantly increase the cost of compliance for the Ohio Companies' customers. On October 23, 2009, the rules were placed in a "to be re-filed" status by JCARR. It is currently unclear what form the final rules may take or their potential impact on the Ohio Companies. As a result of this uncertainty surrounding the rules, as well as the Commission's failure to address certain energy efficiency applications submitted by the Ohio Companies throughout the year and the Commission's recent directive to postpone the launch of a Commission-approved energy efficiency program, the Ohio Companies, on October 27, 2009, submitted an application to amend their 2009 statutory energy efficiency benchmarks to zero. Absent this regulatory relief the Ohio Companies may not be able to meet their 2009 statutory energy efficiency benchmarks, which may result in the assessment of a forfeiture by the PUCO. The Ohio Companies asked the Commission to issue a ruling on or before December 2, 2009.
In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies conducted RFPs to secure Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). The RFPs includes solar and other renewable energy RECs, including those generated in Ohio. The RECs from these two RFPs will be used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under Senate Bill 221 for 2009, 2010, and 2011.
On October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure electric generation service for the period beginning June 1, 2011. The proposed MRO would establish a CBP to secure generation supply for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier and would be similar, in all material respects, to the CBP conducted in May 2009 in that it would procure energy, capacity and certain transmission services on a slice of system basis. However, unlike the May 2009 CBP, the MRO would include multiple bidding sessions and multiple products with different delivery periods for generation supply designed to reduce potential volatility, reduce supplier risk and encourage bidder participation. A technical conference was held on October 29, 2009, at the PUCO. Pursuant to SB221, the PUCO has 90 days to determine whether the MRO meets certain statutory requirements, therefore, the Ohio Companies have requested a PUCO determination by January 18, 2010. Under a determination that such statutory requirements were met, the Ohio Companies would be able to implement the MRO and conduct the CBP
(C) PENNSYLVANIA
Met-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their PLR and default service requirements from FES through a fixed-price partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement. The agreement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to sell the output of NUG energy to the market and requires FES to provide energy at fixed prices to replace any NUG energy sold to the extent needed for Met-Ed and Penelec to satisfy their PLR and default service obligations.
On May 22, 2008, the PPUC approved the Met-Ed and Penelec annual updates to the TSC rider for the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. The TSCs included a component for under-recovery of actual transmission costs incurred during the prior period (Met-Ed - $144 million and Penelec - $4 million) and transmission cost projections for June 2008 through May 2009 (Met-Ed - $258 million and Penelec - $92 million). Met-Ed received PPUC approval for a transition approach that would recover past under-recovered costs plus carrying charges through the new TSC over thirty-one months and defer a portion of the projected costs ($92 million) plus carrying charges for recovery through future TSCs by December 31, 2010. Various interveners filed complaints against those filings. In addition, the PPUC ordered an investigation to review the reasonableness of Met-Ed's TSC, while at the same time allowing Met-Ed to implement the rider June 1, 2008, subject to refund. On July 15, 2008, the PPUC directed the ALJ to consolidate the complaints against Met-Ed with its investigation and a litigation schedule was adopted. Hearings and briefing for both Met-Ed and Penelec have concluded. On August 11, 2009, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision to the PPUC approving Met-Ed's and Penelec's TSCs as filed and dismissing all complaints. Exceptions by various interveners were filed and reply exceptions were filed by Met-Ed and Penelec. The Companies are now awaiting a PPUC decision.
On May 28, 2009, the PPUC approved Met-Ed's and Penelec's annual updates to their TSC rider for the period June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2010, as required in connection with the PPUC's January 2007 rate order. For Penelec's customers the new TSC resulted in an approximate 1% decrease in monthly bills, reflecting projected PJM transmission costs as well as a reconciliation for costs already incurred. The TSC for Met-Ed's customers increased to recover the additional PJM charges paid by Met-Ed in the previous year and to reflect updated projected costs. In order to gradually transition customers to the higher rate, the PPUC approved Met-Ed's proposal to continue to recover the prior period deferrals allowed in the PPUC's May 2008 Order and defer $57.5 million of projected costs to a future TSC to be fully recovered by December 31, 2010. Under this proposal, monthly bills for Met-Ed's customers would increase approximately 9.4% for the period June 2009 through May 2010.
On October 15, 2008, the Governor of Pennsylvania signed House Bill 2200 into law which became effective on November 14, 2008 as Act 129 of 2008. Act 129 addresses issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction; generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Major provisions of the legislation include:
o power acquired by utilities to serve customers after rate caps expire will be procured through a competitive procurement process that must include a prudent mix of long-term and short-term contracts and spot market purchases;
o the competitive procurement process must be approved by the PPUC and may include auctions, RFPs, and/or bilateral agreements;
o utilities must provide for the installation of smart meter technology within 15 years;
o utilities must reduce peak demand by a minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013;
o utilities must reduce energy consumption by a minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively; and
o the definition of Alternative Energy was expanded to include additional types of hydroelectric and biomass facilities.
Act 129 requires utilities to file with the PPUC, an energy efficiency and peak load reduction plan by July 1, 2009. On January 15, 2009, in compliance with Act 129, the PPUC issued its proposed guidelines for the filing of utilities' energy efficiency and peak load reduction plans. On July 1, 2009, Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn filed EE&C Plans with the PPUC in accordance with Act 129. The Pennsylvania Companies submitted a supplemental filing on July 31, 2009, to revise the Total Resource Cost test items in the EE&C Plans pursuant to the PPUC's June 23, 2009 Order. Following an evidentiary hearing and briefing, the Companies filed revised EE&C Plans on September 21, 2009. In an Order entered October 28, 2009, the PPUC approved, in part, and rejected, in part, the Pennsylvania Companies' filing. The Companies must file revised EE&C plans by December 28, 2009, incorporating minor revisions required by the PPUC. These revisions are not expected to impose any additional financial obligations on the Pennsylvania Companies.
Act 129 also requires utilities to file with the PPUC a smart meter technology procurement and installation plan by August 14, 2009. On June 18, 2009, the PPUC issued its guidelines related to Smart Meter deployment. On August 14, 2009, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan as required by Act 129. A litigation schedule has been adopted which includes a Technical Conference and evidentiary hearings this fall. The Pennsylvania Companies expect the PPUC to act on the plans early next year.
Legislation addressing rate mitigation and the expiration of rate caps was not enacted in 2008; however, several bills addressing these issues have been introduced in the current legislative session, which began in January 2009. The final form and impact of such legislation is uncertain.
On February 20, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed with the PPUC a generation procurement plan covering the period January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The companies' plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service via a prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply, as required by Act 129. The plan proposes a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class, through the use of a descending clock auction. Met-Ed and Penelec anticipate PPUC approval of their plan in November 2009.
On February 26, 2009, the PPUC approved a Voluntary Prepayment Plan requested by Met-Ed and Penelec that provides an opportunity for residential and small commercial customers to prepay an amount on their monthly electric bills during 2009 and 2010. Customer prepayments earn interest at 7.5% and will be used to reduce electricity charges in 2011 and 2012.
On March 31, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec submitted their 5-year NUG Statement Compliance filing to the PPUC in accordance with their 1998 Restructuring Settlement. Met-Ed proposed to reduce its CTC rate for the residential class with a corresponding increase in the generation rate and the shopping credit, and Penelec proposed to reduce its CTC rate to zero for all classes with a corresponding increase in the generation rate and the shopping credit. While these changes would result in additional annual generation revenue (Met-Ed - $27 million and Penelec - $59 million), overall rates would remain unchanged. On July 30, 2009, the PPUC entered an order approving the 5-year NUG Statement, approving the reduction of the CTC, and directing Met-Ed and Penelec to file a tariff supplement implementing this change. On July 31, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed tariff supplements decreasing the CTC rate in compliance with the July 30, 2009 order, and increasing the generation rate in compliance with the companies' Restructuring Orders of 1998. On August 14, 2009, the PPUC issued Secretarial Letters approving Met-Ed and Penelec's compliance filings. By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30 day comment period on whether "the Restructuring Settlement allows NUG over collection for select and isolated months to be used to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists." In response to the Tentative Order comments were filed by the Office of Small Business Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate, York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority, ARIPPA, the Met-Ed Industrial Users Group and Penelec Industrial Customer Alliance objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. The Companies filed reply comments on October 26, 2009, and await the decision of the PPUC.
(D) NEW JERSEY
JCP&L is permitted to defer for future collection from customers the amounts by which its costs of supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUGC rates and market sales of NUG energy and capacity. As of September 30, 2009, the accumulated deferred cost balance totaled approximately $102 million.
In accordance with an April 28, 2004 NJBPU order, JCP&L filed testimony on June 7, 2004, supporting continuation of the current level and duration of the funding of TMI-2 decommissioning costs by New Jersey customers without a reduction, termination or capping of the funding. On September 30, 2004, JCP&L filed an updated TMI-2 decommissioning study. This study resulted in an updated total decommissioning cost estimate of $729 million (in 2003 dollars) compared to the estimated $528 million (in 2003 dollars) from the prior 1995 decommissioning study. The DPA filed comments on February 28, 2005 requesting that decommissioning funding be suspended. On March 18, 2005, JCP&L filed a response to those comments. JCP&L responded to additional NJBPU staff discovery requests in May and November 2007 and also submitted comments in the proceeding in November 2007. A schedule for further NJBPU proceedings has not yet been set. On March 13, 2009, JCP&L filed its annual SBC Petition with the NJBPU that includes a request for a reduction in the level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs based on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009. This matter is currently pending before the NJBPU.
New Jersey statutes require that the state periodically undertake a planning process, known as the EMP, to address energy related issues including energy security, economic growth, and environmental impact. The EMP is to be developed with involvement of the Governor's Office and the Governor's Office of Economic Growth, and is to be prepared by a Master Plan Committee, which is chaired by the NJBPU President and includes representatives of several State departments.
The EMP was issued on October 22, 2008, establishing five major goals:
o maximize energy efficiency to achieve a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020;
o reduce peak demand for electricity by 5,700 MW by 2020;
o meet 30% of the state's electricity needs with renewable energy by 2020;
o examine smart grid technology and develop additional cogeneration and other generation resources consistent with the state's greenhouse gas targets; and
o invest in innovative clean energy technologies and businesses to stimulate the industry's growth in New Jersey.
On January 28, 2009, the NJBPU adopted an order establishing the general process and contents of specific EMP plans that must be filed by New Jersey electric and gas utilities in order to achieve the goals of the EMP. Such utility specific plans are due to be filed with the BPU by July 1, 2010. At this time, FirstEnergy and JCP&L cannot determine the impact, if any, the EMP may have on their operations.
In support of the New Jersey Governor's Economic Assistance and Recovery Plan, JCP&L announced a proposal to spend approximately $98 million on infrastructure and energy efficiency projects in 2009. Under the proposal, an estimated $40 million would be spent on infrastructure projects, including substation upgrades, new transformers, distribution line re-closers and automated breaker operations. In addition, approximately $34 million would be spent implementing new demand response programs as well as expanding on existing programs. Another $11 million would be spent on energy efficiency, specifically replacing transformers and capacitor control systems and installing new LED street lights. The remaining $13 million would be spent on energy efficiency programs that would complement those currently being offered. The project relating to expansion of the existing demand response programs was approved by the BPU on August 19, 2009, and implementation will begin in 2009. Implementation of the remaining projects is dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the proposal.
(E) FERC MATTERS
Transmission Service between MISO and PJM
On November 18, 2004, the FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission service between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC's intent was to eliminate multiple transmission charges for a single transaction between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC also ordered MISO, PJM and the transmission owners within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate mechanism to recover lost transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to as the Seams Elimination Cost Adjustment or SECA) during a 16-month transition period. The FERC issued orders in 2005 setting the SECA for hearing. The presiding judge issued an initial decision on August 10, 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by MISO, PJM, and the transmission owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision is subject to review and approval by the FERC. Briefs addressing the initial decision were filed on September 11, 2006 and October 20, 2006. A final order is pending before the FERC, and in the meantime, FirstEnergy affiliates have been negotiating and entering into settlement agreements with other parties in the docket to mitigate the risk of lower transmission revenue collection associated with an adverse order. On September 26, 2008, the MISO and PJM transmission owners filed a motion requesting that the FERC approve the pending settlements and act on the initial decision. On November 20, 2008, FERC issued an order approving uncontested settlements, but did not rule on the initial decision. On December 19, 2008, an additional order was issued approving two contested settlements. On October 29, 2009, FirstEnergy and Exelon filed an additional settlement agreement with FERC to resolve their outstanding claims. FirstEnergy is actively pursuing settlement agreements with other parties to the case.
PJM Transmission Rate
On January 31, 2005, certain PJM transmission owners made filings with the FERC pursuant to a settlement agreement previously approved by the FERC. JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec were parties to that proceeding and joined in two of the filings. In the first filing, the settling transmission owners submitted a filing justifying continuation of their existing rate design within the PJM RTO. Hearings were held and numerous parties appeared and litigated various issues concerning PJM rate design, notably AEP, which proposed to create a "postage stamp," or average rate for all high voltage transmission facilities across PJM and a zonal transmission rate for facilities below 345 kV. AEP's proposal would have the effect of shifting recovery of the costs of high voltage transmission lines to other transmission zones, including those where JCP&L, Met-Ed, and Penelec serve load. On April 19, 2007, the FERC issued an order ("Opinion 494") finding that the PJM transmission owners' existing "license plate" or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new transmission facilities, the FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at 500 kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM footprint by means of a postage-stamp rate. Costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a "beneficiary pays" basis. The FERC found that PJM's current beneficiary-pays cost allocation methodology is not sufficiently detailed and, in a related order that also was issued on April 19, 2007, directed that hearings be held for the purpose of establishing a just and reasonable cost allocation methodology for inclusion in PJM's tariff.
On May 18, 2007, certain parties filed for rehearing of the FERC's April 19, 2007 order. On January 31, 2008, the requests for rehearing were denied. On February 11, 2008, AEP appealed the FERC's April 19, 2007, and January 31, 2008, orders to the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Illinois Commerce Commission, the PUCO and Dayton Power & Light have also appealed these orders to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals of these parties and others have been consolidated for argument in the Seventh Circuit. Oral arguments were held on April 13, 2009. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on August 6, 2009, that remanded the rate design to FERC and denied AEP's appeal. A request for rehearing and rehearing en banc by Baltimore Gas & Electric and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative was denied by the Seventh Circuit on October 20, 2009. On October 28, 2009, the Seventh Circuit closed its case dockets and returned the case to FERC for further action on the remand order.
The FERC's orders on PJM rate design prevented the allocation of a portion of the revenue requirement of existing transmission facilities of other utilities to JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec. In addition, the FERC's decision to allocate the cost of new 500 kV and above transmission facilities on a PJM-wide basis reduces the cost of future transmission to be recovered from the JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec zones. A partial settlement agreement addressing the "beneficiary pays" methodology for below 500 kV facilities, but excluding the issue of allocating new facilities costs to merchant transmission entities, was filed on September 14, 2007. The agreement was supported by the FERC's Trial Staff, and was certified by the Presiding Judge to the FERC. On July 29, 2008, the FERC issued an order conditionally approving the settlement subject to the submission of a compliance filing. The compliance filing was submitted on August 29, 2008, and the FERC issued an order accepting the compliance filing on October 15, 2008. On November 14, 2008, PJM submitted revisions to its tariff to incorporate cost responsibility assignments for below 500 kV upgrades included in PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Planning process in accordance with the settlement. The FERC conditionally accepted the compliance filing on January 28, 2009. PJM submitted a further compliance filing on March 2, 2009, which was accepted by the FERC on April 10, 2009. The remaining merchant transmission cost allocation issues were the subject of a hearing at the FERC in May 2008. An initial decision was issued by the Presiding Judge on September 18, 2008. PJM and FERC trial staff each filed a Brief on Exceptions to the initial decision on October 20, 2008. Briefs Opposing Exceptions were filed on November 10, 2008.
Post Transition Period Rate Design
The FERC had directed MISO, PJM, and the respective transmission owners to make filings on or before August 1, 2007 to reevaluate transmission rate design within MISO, and between MISO and PJM. On August 1, 2007, filings were made by MISO, PJM, and the vast majority of transmission owners, including FirstEnergy affiliates, which proposed to retain the existing transmission rate design. These filings were approved by the FERC on January 31, 2008. As a result of the FERC's approval, the rates charged to FirstEnergy's load-serving affiliates for transmission service over existing transmission facilities in MISO and PJM are unchanged. In a related filing, MISO and MISO transmission owners requested that the current MISO pricing for new transmission facilities that spreads 20% of the cost of new 345 kV and higher transmission facilities across the entire MISO footprint be retained.
On September 17, 2007, AEP filed a complaint under Sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act seeking to have the entire transmission rate design and cost allocation methods used by MISO and PJM declared unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory, and to have the FERC fix a uniform regional transmission rate design and cost allocation method for the entire MISO and PJM "Super Region" that recovers the average cost of new and existing transmission facilities operated at voltages of 345 kV and above from all transmission customers. Lower voltage facilities would continue to be recovered in the local utility transmission rate zone through a license plate rate. AEP requested a refund effective October 1, 2007, or alternatively, February 1, 2008. On January 31, 2008, the FERC issued an order denying the complaint. The effect of this order is to prevent the shift of significant costs to the FirstEnergy zones in MISO and PJM. A rehearing request by AEP was denied by the FERC on December 19, 2008. On February 17, 2009, AEP appealed the FERC's January 31, 2008, and December 19, 2008, orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. FESC, on behalf of its affiliated operating utility companies, filed a motion to intervene on March 10, 2009. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held this appeal in abeyance pending resolution of the Opinion 494 appeal discussed above. Now that the Seventh Circuit has ruled on the Opinion 494 case, AEP and FERC have until November 11, 2009, to advise the Seventh Circuit of any changes to their litigation positions that result from or reflect the Seventh Circuit's decision in the Opinion 494 case.
RTO Consolidation
On August 17, 2009, FirstEnergy filed an application with the FERC requesting to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently, FirstEnergy's transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The consolidation would make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. Most of FirstEnergy's transmission assets in Pennsylvania and all of the transmission assets in New Jersey already operate as a part of PJM.
To ensure a definitive ruling at the same time FERC rules on its request to integrate ATSI into PJM, on October 19, 2009, FirstEnergy filed a related complaint with FERC on the issue of allocating transmission costs to the ATSI footprint for high voltage transmission projects approved prior to FirstEnergy's integration into PJM.
FirstEnergy has requested that FERC rule on its application and the related complaint by December 17, 2009, to provide time to permit management to make a decision on whether to integrate ATSI into PJM prior to the 2010 Base Residual Auction for capacity. Subject to a satisfactory FERC ruling, the integration is expected to be complete on June 1, 2011, to coincide with delivery of power under the next competitive generation procurement process for FirstEnergy's Ohio companies.
On September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohio's stakeholders regarding the RTO consolidation. FirstEnergy filed extensive comments in the PUCO case on September 25, 2009, and reply comments on October 13, 2009, and attended a public meeting on September 15, 2009 to answer questions regarding the RTO consolidation.
Several parties have intervened in the regulatory dockets at the FERC and at the PUCO. Certain interveners have commented and protested particular elements of the proposed RTO consolidation, including an exit fee to MISO, integration costs to PJM, and cost-allocations of future transmission upgrades in PJM and MISO. The result of these comments and protests could delay or otherwise have a material financial effect on the proposed RTO consolidation.
Changes ordered for PJM Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) Auction
On May 30, 2008, a group of PJM load-serving entities, state commissions, consumer advocates, and trade associations (referred to collectively as the RPM Buyers) filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM alleging that three of the four transitional RPM auctions yielded prices that are unjust and unreasonable under the Federal Power Act. On September 19, 2008, the FERC denied the RPM Buyers' complaint. The FERC also ordered PJM to file on or before December 15, 2008, a report on potential adjustments to the RPM program as suggested in a Brattle Group report. On December 12, 2008, PJM filed proposed tariff amendments that would adjust slightly the RPM program. PJM also requested that the FERC conduct a settlement hearing to address changes to the RPM and suggested that the FERC should rule on the tariff amendments only if settlement could not be reached in January, 2009. The request for settlement hearings was granted. Settlement had not been reached by January 9, 2009 and, accordingly, FirstEnergy and other parties submitted comments on PJM's proposed tariff amendments. On January 15, 2009, the Chief Judge issued an order terminating settlement discussions. On February 9, 2009, PJM and a group of stakeholders submitted an offer of settlement, which used the PJM December 12, 2008 filing as its starting point, and stated that unless otherwise specified, provisions filed by PJM on December 12, 2008, apply. On March 26, 2009, the FERC accepted in part, and rejected in part, tariff provisions submitted by PJM, revising certain parts of its RPM. Ordered changes included making incremental improvements to RPM; clarification on certain aspects of the March 26, 2009 Order. On April 27, 2009, PJM submitted a compliance filing addressing the changes the FERC ordered in the March 26, 2009 Order; and subsequently, numerous parties filed requests for rehearing of the March 26, 2009 Order. On June 18, 2009, the FERC denied rehearing and request for oral argument of the March 26, 2009 Order.
PJM has reconvened the Capacity Market Evolution Committee (CMEC) and has scheduled a CMEC Long-Term Issues Symposium to address near-term changes directed by the March 26, 2009 Order and other long-term issues not addressed in the February 2009 settlement. PJM made a compliance filing on September 1, 2009, incorporating tariff changes directed by the March 26, 2009 Order. The tariff changes were approved by the FERC in an order issued on October 30, 2009, and are effective November 1, 2009. The CMEC continues to work to address additional compliance items directed by the March 26, 2009 Order. Another compliance filing is due December 1, 2009.
MISO Resource Adequacy Proposal
MISO made a filing on December 28, 2007 that would create an enforceable planning reserve requirement in the MISO tariff for load-serving entities such as the Ohio Companies, Penn and FES. This requirement was proposed to become effective for the planning year beginning June 1, 2009. The filing would permit MISO to establish the reserve margin requirement for load-serving entities based upon a one day loss of load in ten years standard, unless the state utility regulatory agency establishes a different planning reserve for load-serving entities in its state. FirstEnergy believes the proposal promotes a mechanism that will result in commitments from both load-serving entities and resources, including both generation and demand side resources that are necessary for reliable resource adequacy and planning in the MISO footprint. Comments on the filing were submitted on January 28, 2008. The FERC conditionally approved MISO's Resource Adequacy proposal on March 26, 2008, requiring MISO to submit to further compliance filings. Rehearing requests are pending on the FERC's March 26 Order. On May 27, 2008, MISO submitted a compliance filing to address issues associated with planning reserve margins. On June 17, 2008, various parties submitted comments and protests to MISO's compliance filing. FirstEnergy submitted comments identifying specific issues that must be clarified and addressed. On June 25, 2008, MISO submitted a second compliance filing establishing the enforcement mechanism for the reserve margin requirement which establishes deficiency payments for load-serving entities that do not meet the resource adequacy requirements. Numerous parties, including FirstEnergy, protested this filing.
On October 20, 2008, the FERC issued three orders essentially permitting the MISO Resource Adequacy program to proceed with some modifications. First, the FERC accepted MISO's financial settlement approach for enforcement of Resource Adequacy subject to a compliance filing modifying the cost of new entry penalty. Second, the FERC conditionally accepted MISO's compliance filing on the qualifications for purchased power agreements to be capacity resources, load forecasting, loss of load expectation, and planning reserve zones. Additional compliance filings were directed on accreditation of load modifying resources and price responsive demand. Finally, the FERC largely denied rehearing of its March 26 order with the exception of issues related to behind the meter resources and certain ministerial matters. On November 19, 2008, MISO made various compliance filings pursuant to these orders. Issuance of orders on rehearing and two of the compliance filings occurred on February 19, 2009. No material changes were made to MISO's Resource Adequacy program. On April 16, 2009, the FERC issued an additional order on rehearing and compliance, approving MISO's proposed financial settlement provision for Resource Adequacy. The MISO Resource Adequacy process was implemented as planned on June 1, 2009, the beginning of the MISO planning year. On June 17, 2009, MISO submitted a compliance filing in response to the FERC's April 16, 2009 order directing it to address, among others, various market monitoring and mitigation issues. On July 8, 2009, various parties submitted comments on and protests to MISO's compliance filing. FirstEnergy submitted comments identifying specific aspects of the MISO's and Independent Market Monitor's proposals for market monitoring and mitigation and other issues that it believes the FERC should address and clarify. On October 23, 2009, FERC issued an order approving a MISO compliance filing that revised its tariff to provide for netting of demand resources, but prohibiting the netting of behind-the-meter generation.
FES Sales to Affiliates
FES supplied all of the power requirements for the Ohio Companies pursuant to a Power Supply Agreement that ended on December 31, 2008. On January 2, 2009, FES signed an agreement to provide 75% of the Ohio Companies' power requirements for the period January 5, 2009 through March 31, 2009. Subsequently, FES signed an agreement to provide 100% of the Ohio Companies' power requirements for the period April 1, 2009 through May 31, 2009. On March 4, 2009, the PUCO issued an order approving these two affiliate sales agreements. FERC authorization for these affiliate sales was by means of a December 23, 2008 waiver of restrictions on affiliate sales without prior approval of the FERC.
On May 13-14, 2009, the Ohio Companies held an auction to secure generation supply for their PLR obligation. The results of the auction were accepted by the PUCO on May 14, 2009. Twelve bidders qualified to participate in the auction with nine successful bidders each securing a portion of the Ohio Companies' total supply needs. FES was the successful bidder for 51 tranches, and subsequently purchased 21 additional tranches from other bidders. The auction resulted in an overall weighted average wholesale price of 6.15 cents per KWH for generation and transmission. The new prices for PLR service went into effect with usage beginning June 1, 2009, and continuing through May 31, 2011.
On November 3, 2009, FES, Met-Ed, Penelec and Waverly restated their partial requirements power purchase agreement for 2010. The Fourth Restated Partial Requirements Agreement continues to limit the amount of capacity resources required to be supplied by FES to 3544 MW, but requires FES to supply essentially all of Met-Ed, Penelec, and Waverly's energy requirements in 2010. Under the new agreement, Met-Ed, Penelec, and Waverly (Buyers) assign 1300 MW of existing energy purchases to FES to assist it in supplying Buyers' power supply requirements and managing congestion expenses. FES can either sell the assigned power from the third party into the market or use it to serve the Met-Ed/Penelec load. FES is responsible for obtaining additional power supplies in the event of failure of supply of the assigned energy purchase contracts. Prices for the power sold by FES were increased to $42.77 and $44.42, respectively for Met-Ed and Penelec. In addition, FES agreed to reimburse Met-Ed and Penelec, respectively, for congestion expenses and marginal losses in excess of $208 million and $79 million as billed by PJM in 2010, and associated with delivery of power by FES under the Fourth Restated Partial Requirements Agreement. The Fourth Restated Partial Requirements Agreement terminates at the end of 2010.10. REGULATORY MATTERS
(A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVES
In 2005, Congress amended the Federal Power Act to provide for federally-enforceable mandatoryfalsefalseNo definition available.No authoritative reference available.falsefalse12falseUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue