2.2.0.7 false Regulatory Matters 00210 - Disclosure - Regulatory Matters true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Tons Standard http://firstenergycorp.com/20100331 tons fe 0 Percent Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 kV Standard http://firstenergycorp.com/20100331 kV fe 0 Customers Standard http://firstenergycorp.com/20100331 Customers fe 0 Days Standard http://firstenergycorp.com/20100331 Days fe 0 EPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Regulatory Matters [Abstract] 0 fe_RegulatoryMattersAbstract fe false na duration Regulatory Matters Abstract. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Regulatory Matters Abstract. false 3 REGULATORY MATTERS 1 us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0 9. REGULATORY MATTERS         (A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVESFederally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk power system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities and ATSI. The NERC has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.  FirstEnergy believes that it is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, FirstEnergy also believes that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst and the FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time; however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the new reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on FirstEnergy's part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&L's Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&L's contribution to the electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter. (B)       OHIOThe Ohio Companies operate under an Amended ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, and provides for generation supplied through a CBP. The Amended ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the Ohio Companies through the CBP. The PUCO approved a $136.6 million distribution rate increase for the Ohio Companies in January 2009, which went into effect on January 23, 2009 for OE ($68.9 million) and TE ($38.5 million) and on May 1, 2009 for CEI ($29.2 million). As one element of the Amended ESP, the Ohio Companies agreed not to seek an additional base distribution rate increase, subject to certain exceptions, that would be effective before January 1, 2012. Applications for rehearing of the PUCO order in the distribution case were filed by the Ohio Companies and one other party. The Ohio Companies raised numerous issues in their application for rehearing related to rate recovery of certain expenses, recovery of line extension costs, the level of rate of return and the amount of general plant balances. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing.  On October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure, through a CBP, generation supply for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier for the period beginning June 1, 2011. The CBP would be similar, in all material respects, to the CBP conducted in May 2009 in that it would procure energy, capacity and certain transmission services on a slice of system basis. However, unlike the May 2009 CBP, the MRO would include multiple bidding sessions and multiple products with different delivery periods for generation supply designed to reduce potential volatility and supplier risk and encourage bidder participation. A technical conference and hearings were held in 2009 and the matter has been fully briefed. Pursuant to SB221, the PUCO has 90 days from the date of the application to determine whether the MRO meets certain statutory requirements. Although the Ohio Companies requested a PUCO determination by January 18, 2010, on February 3, 2010, the PUCO announced that its determination would be delayed. Under a determination that such statutory requirements are met, and to the extent the ESP described below has not been implemented, the Ohio Companies would expect to implement the MRO.  On March 23, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP, which if approved by the PUCO, would go into effect on June 1, 2011 and conclude on May 31, 2014. Attached to the application was a Stipulation and Recommendation signed by the Ohio Companies, the Staff of the PUCO, and an additional fourteen parties signing as Signatory Parties, with two additional parties agreeing not to oppose the adoption of the Stipulation. The material terms of the Stipulation include a CBP similar to the one used in May 2009 and the one proposed in the October 2009 MRO filing; a 6% generation discount to certain low-income customers provided by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES; no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; and a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR), to recover a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery system. This Rider substitutes for Rider DSI which terminates by its own terms. The Ohio Companies also agree not to collect certain amounts associated with RTEP and administrative costs associated with the move to PJM. Many of the existing riders approved in the previous ESP remain in effect, some with modifications. The new ESP also requests the resolution of current proceedings pending at the PUCO regarding corporate separation, elements of the smart grid proceeding and the move to PJM. The evidentiary hearing began on April 20, 2010, at the PUCO. The Stipulation requested a decision by the PUCO by May 5, 2010. On April 28, 2010, the PUCO Chairman issued a statement that the PUCO would not issue a decision on May 5, 2010, and would take additional time to review the case record. FirstEnergy recorded approximately $39.5 million of regulatory asset impairments and expenses related to the ESP. On May 12, 2010 a supplemental stipulation was filed that added two additional parties to the Stipulation, namely the City of Akron, Ohio and Council for Smaller Enterprises, to provide additional energy efficiency benefits. Pursuant to a PUCO Entry, a hearing was held on June 21, 2010 to consider the estimated bill impacts arising from the proposed ESP, and testimony was provided in support of the supplemental stipulation. On July 22, 2010, a second supplemental stipulation was filed that, among other provisions and if approved, would provide a commitment that retail customers of the Ohio Companies will not pay certain costs related to the companies' integration into PJM, a regional transmission organization, for the longer of the five year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million, and establishes a $12 million fund to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP. Additional parties signing or not opposing the second supplemental stipulation include Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC), Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition (NOAC), Environmental Law and Policy Center and a number of low income community agencies. A hearing was held on the second supplemental stipulation on July 29, 2010. The matter is awaiting decision from the PUCO.  Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of approximately 166,000 MWH in 2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with additional savings required through 2025. Utilities are also required to reduce peak demand in 2009 by 1%, with an additional 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The PUCO may amend these benchmarks in certain, limited circumstances, and the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO seeking such amendments. On January 7, 2010, the PUCO amended the Ohio Companies' 2009 energy efficiency benchmarks to zero, contingent upon the Ohio Companies meeting the revised benchmarks in a period of not more than three years. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that the Ohio Companies peak demand reduction programs complied with PUCO rules. On December 15, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. On March 8, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed their 2009 Status Update Report with the PUCO in which they indicated compliance with the 2009 statutory energy efficiency and peak demand benchmarks as those benchmarks were amended as described above.  The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable from customers. The Ohio Companies' three year portfolio plan is still awaiting decision from the PUCO. The plan has yet to be approved by the PUCO, which is delaying the launch of the programs described in the plan. Without such approval, the Ohio Companies' compliance with 2010 benchmarks is jeopardized and if not approved soon may require the Ohio Companies to seek an amendment to their annual benchmark requirements for 2010. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a forfeiture. Additionally under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve part of their load from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25% of the KWH they serve in 2009. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RFPs sought RECs, including solar RECs and RECs generated in Ohio in order to meet the Ohio Companies' alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The RECs acquired through these two RFPs will be used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. The PUCO reduced the Ohio Companies' aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies' acquired through their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Companies' 2010 alternative energy requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. On April 15, 2010, the Ohio Companies and FES (due to its status as an electric service company in Ohio) filed compliance reports with the PUCO setting forth how they individually satisfied the alternative energy requirements in SB221 for 2009. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark, which application is still pending. On July 1, 2010, the Ohio Companies announced their intent to conduct an RFP in 2010 to secure RECs and solar RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies' alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221. RFP bids are due August 3, 2010 and contracts are expected to be signed the week of August 9, 2010. On February 12, 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for all-electric customers. On March 3, 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers be set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31, 2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect on March 17, 2010. On April 15, 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers to which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the associated additional amounts. The PUCO also stated that the new credit would remain in place through at least the 2011 winter season, and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the issue. Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect on May 21, 2010. The Ohio Companies also filed on May 14, 2010 an application for rehearing of the Second Entry on Rehearing, which was granted for purposes of further consideration on June 9, 2010. No hearing has been scheduled in this matter. As noted above in Note 8, FirstEnergy, CEI and OE filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to the PUCO approved reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The court has not yet ruled on that motion to dismiss. (C)       PENNSYLVANIAMet-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their POLR and default service requirements from FES through a fixed-price partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement. The agreement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to sell the output of NUG energy to the market and requires FES to provide energy at fixed prices to replace any NUG energy sold to the extent needed for Met-Ed and Penelec to satisfy their POLR and default service obligations. Met-Ed and Penelec filed with the PPUC a generation procurement plan covering the period January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service via a prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply, as required by Act 129, with a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class, through the use of a descending clock auction. On August 12, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a settlement agreement with the PPUC for the generation procurement plan, reflecting the settlement on all but two reserved issues. On November 6, 2009, the PPUC entered an Order approving the settlement and finding in favor of Met-Ed and Penelec on the two reserved issues. Generation procurement began in January 2010. On February 8, 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The parties to the proceeding have reached a settlement on all issues and filed a joint petition to approve the settlement agreement in July 2010. The PPUC is required to issue an order on the plan no later than November 8, 2010. If approved, procurement under the plan is expected to begin January 2011. The PPUC adopted a Motion on January 28, 2010 and subsequently entered an Order on March 3, 2010 which denies the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and directs Met-Ed and Penelec to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and instructs Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all marginal transmission losses collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases beginning January 1, 2011. On March 18, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff supplements to end collection of marginal transmission loss costs. By Order entered March 25, 2010, the PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUC's order, Met-Ed and Penelec filed the plan to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and carrying charges and the plan for the use of these funds to mitigate future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011. The PPUC approved this plan June 7, 2010. On April 1, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUC's March 3, 2010 Order. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, it is the belief of Met-Ed and Penelec that they should prevail in the appeal and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $199.7 million ($158.5 million for Met-Ed and $41.2 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the period prior to January 1, 2011. On April 2, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Response to the PPUC's March 3, 2010 Order requesting approval of procedures to establish separate accounts to track all marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and the use of those funds to mitigate future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011, and the PPUC entered an Order on June 7, 2010, granting Met-Ed's and Penelec's request. On July 9 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed their briefs with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Office of Small Business Advocate filed its brief on July 9, 2010. The PPUC's brief is due to be filed in August 2010. On May 20, 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Ed's and Penelec's annual updates to their TSC rider for the period June 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 including marginal transmission losses as approved by the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The TSC for Met-Ed's customers increased to be fully recovered by December 31, 2010. Act 129 was enacted in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction; generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other things Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load reduction plan, or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities' plans to reduce energy consumption by a minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce peak demand by a minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. The PPUC entered an Order on February 26, 2010 approving the Pennsylvania Companies' EE&C Plans and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan with the PPUC. This plan proposes a 24-month assessment period in which the Pennsylvania Companies will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate assessment period costs at approximately $29.5 million, which the Pennsylvania Companies, in their plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJ's Initial Decision approved the Smart Meter Plan as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUC's Implementation Order; eliminating the provision of interest in the 1307(e) reconciliation; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs minus resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and reflecting that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be capitalized. On April 15, 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman Cawley that modified the ALJ's initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the Smart Meter Implementation Plan for the Pennsylvania Companies. The PPUC entered its Order on June 9, 2010, consistent with the Chairman's Motion. On June 24, 2010, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUC's Order regarding the future ability to roll smart meter costs into base rates.  Legislation addressing rate mitigation and the expiration of rate caps was introduced in the legislative session that ended in 2008; several bills addressing these issues were introduced in the 2009 legislative session. The final form and impact of such legislation is uncertain. By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists.   In response to the Tentative Order, various parties filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC. (D)       NEW JERSEYJCP&L is permitted to defer for future collection from customers the amounts by which its costs of supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUGC rates and market sales of NUG energy and capacity. As of June 30, 2010, the accumulated deferred cost balance totaled approximately $81 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, on July 26, 2010, JCP&L filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by $180 million annually. If approved as filed, the change would not go into effect until January 1, 2011.  In accordance with an April 28, 2004 NJBPU order, JCP&L filed testimony on June 7, 2004, supporting continuation of the current level and duration of the funding of TMI-2 decommissioning costs by New Jersey customers without a reduction, termination or capping of the funding. On September 30, 2004, JCP&L filed an updated TMI-2 decommissioning study. This study resulted in an updated total decommissioning cost estimate of $729 million (in 2003 dollars) compared to the estimated $528 million (in 2003 dollars) from the prior 1995 decommissioning study. The DPA filed comments on February 28, 2005 requesting that decommissioning funding be suspended. On March 18, 2005, JCP&L filed a response to those comments. JCP&L responded to additional NJBPU staff discovery requests in May and November 2007 and also submitted comments in the proceeding in November 2007. A schedule for further NJBPU proceedings has not yet been set. On March 13, 2009, JCP&L filed its annual SBC Petition with the NJBPU that includes a request for a reduction in the level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs based on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). This matter is currently pending before the NJBPU. New Jersey statutes require that the state periodically undertake a planning process, known as the EMP, to address energy related issues including energy security, economic growth, and environmental impact. The NJBPU adopted an order establishing the general process and contents of specific EMP plans that must be filed by New Jersey electric and gas utilities in order to achieve the goals of the EMP. On April 16, 2010, the NJBPU issued an order indefinitely suspending the requirement of New Jersey utilities to submit Utility Master Plans until such time as the status of the EMP has been made clear. At this time, FirstEnergy and JCP&L cannot determine the impact, if any, the EMP may have on their operations. In support of former New Jersey Governor Corzine's Economic Assistance and Recovery Plan, JCP&L announced a proposal to spend approximately $98 million on infrastructure and energy efficiency projects in 2009. Under the proposal, an estimated $40 million would be spent on infrastructure projects, including substation upgrades, new transformers, distribution line re-closers and automated breaker operations. In addition, approximately $34 million would be spent implementing new demand response programs as well as expanding on existing programs. Another $11 million would be spent on energy efficiency, specifically replacing transformers and capacitor control systems and installing new LED street lights. The remaining $13 million would be spent on energy efficiency programs that would complement those currently being offered. The project relating to expansion of the existing demand response programs was approved by the NJBPU on August 19, 2009, and implementation began in 2009. Approval for the project related to energy efficiency programs intended to complement those currently being offered was denied by the NJBPU on December 1, 2009. On July 6, 2010, the January 30, 2009 petition directed to infrastructure investment which had been pending before the NJBPU was withdrawn by JCP&L. Implementation of the remaining projects is dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the proposal. (E)       FERC MATTERSPJM Transmission Rate On April 19, 2007, 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 based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone. Costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a load flow methodology, referred to as "DFAX", generally referred to as a "beneficiary pays" approach to allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities. The FERC found that PJM's current beneficiary-pays cost allocation methodology was 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. FERC ultimately issued an order approving use of the beneficiary pays method of cost allocation for transmission facilities included in the PJM regional plan that operate below 500 kV. The FERC's April 19, 2007 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which issued a decision on August 6, 2009. The court affirmed FERC's ratemaking treatment for existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate design issue back to FERC.  In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for "paper hearings" – meaning that FERC called for parties to submit comments or written testimony pursuant to the schedule described in the order. FERC identified nine separate issues for comments, and directed PJM to file the first round of comments on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments within 45 days, and reply comments 30 days later. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order. PJM's filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the majority of their costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. FERC is not expected to act before the fourth quarter of 2010.   RTO Consolidation FERC issued an order approving, subject to certain future compliance filings, ATSI's move to PJM. This allows FirstEnergy to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently, FirstEnergy's transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The consolidation will make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. Most of FirstEnergy's transmission assets in Pennsylvania and all of the transmission assets in New Jersey already operate as a part of PJM. FERC approved FirstEnergy's proposal to use a Fixed Resource Requirement Plan (FRR Plan) to obtain capacity to satisfy the PJM capacity requirements for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years. In December 2009, ATSI executed the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement and the Ohio Companies and Penn executed the PJM Operating Agreement and the PJM Reliability Assurance Agreement. Execution of these agreements committed ATSI and the Ohio Companies and Penn's load to moving into PJM on the schedule described in the application and approved in the FERC Order.  FirstEnergy successfully conducted the FRR auctions on March 19, and participated in the PJM base residual auction for the 2013 delivery year, thereby obtaining the capacity necessary for its ATSI footprint to meet PJM's capacity requirements. FirstEnergy expects to integrate into PJM effective June 1, 2011. On September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohio's stakeholders 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. MISO Complaints Versus PJM On March 9, 2010, MISO filed two complaints against PJM with FERC under Sections 206, 306, and 309 of the FPA alleging violations of the MISO/PJM Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). In Docket No. EL 10-46-000, the complaint, alleges that PJM erroneously calculated charges to MISO for market-to-market settlements made from 2005 to 2009 pursuant to the congestion management provisions of the JOA. The MISO seeks approximately $130 million plus interest to correct for resultant net underpayments from PJM to MISO. In Docket No. EL 10-45-000, MISO alleges that by failing to account for the market flows from 34 PJM generators over the period from 2007-2009, PJM underpaid MISO by a total of roughly $75 million including interest. For the period from 2005-2007, MISO claimed an underpayment by PJM of at least $12 million plus interest.  MISO also claimed that PJM failed to maintain required records necessary to calculate underbilling for the 2005-2007 billing. In the second complaint, MISO alleged that PJM has refused to comply with provisions of the JOA requiring market-to-market dispatch since 2009, and is improperly demanding repayment of redispatch payments previously made to MISO. PJM filed its answers to the complaints on April 12, 2010, opposing the relief sought by MISO.  In addition, on April 12, 2010, PJM filed a complaint with FERC pursuant to Section 206, 306, and 309 alleging that MISO is violating the JOA with PJM by initiating market-to-market coordination and financial settlements for substitute (proxy) reciprocal coordinated flowgates between MISO and PJM. PJM claims that the JOA does not permit MISO to initiate market-to-market settlements using proxy flowgates in lieu of designated reciprocal coordinated flowgates. This complaint addresses substantially the same issues as the second MISO complaint, in which MISO argues that the use of proxy flowgates is permitted by agreement of the RTOs and operating practice. Each party filed a complaint in order to ensure their right to claim refunds, if any, if successful in their arguments at FERC. On June 29, 2010, FERC issued an order consolidating the cases and establishing settlement judge procedures. If the settlement process is unsuccessful, the cases will proceed to evidentiary hearings. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal On July 15, 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with the FERC their proposed cost allocation methodology for new transmission projects. If approved, so-called Multi Value Projects (MVPs) - transmission projects that have a regional impact and are part of a regional plan - will have a 100% regional allocation of costs under the proposed methodology. If approved by FERC, MISO's proposal is expected to permit the allocation of the costs of large transmission projects designed to integrate wind from the upper Midwest across the entire MISO. MISO has requested a FERC response to the filing by the FERC's December open meeting, but an effective date for its proposal of July 16, 2011. Under MISO's proposal, the costs of MVP projects approved by MISO's Board prior to the June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergy's integration into PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy. 9. REGULATORY MATTERS         (A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVESFederally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock This element can be used to encapsulate the entire disclosure for public utilities (including data and tables). Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 71 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true