COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

NUCLEAR INSURANCE

The Price-Anderson Act limits the public liability which can be assessed with respect to a nuclear power plant to $13.6 billion (assuming 104 units licensed to operate) for a single nuclear incident, which amount is covered by: (i) private insurance amounting to $375 million; and (ii) $13.2 billion provided by an industry retrospective rating plan required by the NRC pursuant thereto. Under such retrospective rating plan, in the event of a nuclear incident at any unit in the United States resulting in losses in excess of private insurance, up to $127 million (but not more than $19 million per unit per year in the event of more than one incident) must be contributed for each nuclear unit licensed to operate in the country by the licensees thereof to cover liabilities arising out of the incident. Based on their present nuclear ownership and leasehold interests, FirstEnergy’s maximum potential assessment under these provisions would be $509 million (NG-$501 million) per incident but not more than $76 million (NG-$75 million) in any one year for each incident.

In addition to the public liability insurance provided pursuant to the Price-Anderson Act, FirstEnergy has also obtained insurance coverage in limited amounts for economic loss and property damage arising out of nuclear incidents. FirstEnergy is a member of NEIL, which provides coverage (NEIL I) for the extra expense of replacement power incurred due to prolonged accidental outages of nuclear units. Under NEIL I, FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries have policies, renewable annually, corresponding to their respective nuclear interests, which provide an aggregate indemnity of up to approximately $1.96 billion (NG-$1.93 billion) for replacement power costs incurred during an outage after an initial 20-week waiting period. Members of NEIL I pay annual premiums and are subject to assessments if losses exceed the accumulated funds available to the insurer. FirstEnergy’s present maximum aggregate assessment for incidents at any covered nuclear facility occurring during a policy year would be approximately $14 million (NG-$13 million).

FirstEnergy is insured as to its respective nuclear interests under property damage insurance provided by NEIL to the operating company for each plant. Under these arrangements, up to $2.75 billion of coverage for decontamination costs, decommissioning costs, debris removal and repair and/or replacement of property is provided. FirstEnergy pays annual premiums for this coverage and is liable for retrospective assessments of up to approximately $74 million (NG-$72 million).

FirstEnergy intends to maintain insurance against nuclear risks as described above as long as it is available. To the extent that replacement power, property damage, decontamination, decommissioning, repair and replacement costs and other such costs arising from a nuclear incident at any of FirstEnergy’s plants exceed the policy limits of the insurance in effect with respect to that plant, to the extent a nuclear incident is determined not to be covered by FirstEnergy’s insurance policies, or to the extent such insurance becomes unavailable in the future, FirstEnergy would remain at risk for such costs.

The NRC requires nuclear power plant licensees to obtain minimum property insurance coverage of $1.06 billion or the amount generally available from private sources, whichever is less. The proceeds of this insurance are required to be used first to ensure that the licensed reactor is in a safe and stable condition and can be maintained in that condition so as to prevent any significant risk to the public health and safety. Within 30 days of stabilization, the licensee is required to prepare and submit to the NRC a cleanup plan for approval. The plan is required to identify all cleanup operations necessary to decontaminate the reactor sufficiently to permit the resumption of operations or to commence decommissioning. Any property insurance proceeds not already expended to place the reactor in a safe and stable condition must be used first to complete those decontamination operations that are ordered by the NRC. FirstEnergy is unable to predict what effect these requirements may have on the availability of insurance proceeds.

GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES

FirstEnergy has various financial and performance guarantees and indemnifications which are issued in the normal course of business. These contracts include performance guarantees, stand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and indemnifications. FirstEnergy enters into these arrangements to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties by enhancing the value of the transaction to the third party.

As of December 31, 2014, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $4.0 billion, consisting of parental guarantees ($712 million), subsidiaries' guarantees ($2,338 million) and other guarantees ($649 million).

Of this amount, substantially all relates to guarantees of wholly-owned consolidated entities. FES' debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FG and NG, and FES guarantees the debt obligations of each of FG and NG. Accordingly, present and future holders of indebtedness of FES, FG, and NG would have claims against each of FES, FG, and NG, regardless of whether their primary obligor is FES, FG, or NG.

COLLATERAL AND CONTINGENT-RELATED FEATURES

In the normal course of business, FE and its subsidiaries routinely enter into physical or financially settled contracts for the sale and purchase of electric capacity, energy, fuel and emission allowances. Certain bilateral agreements and derivative instruments contain provisions that require FE or its subsidiaries to post collateral. This collateral may be posted in the form of cash or credit support with thresholds contingent upon FE's or its subsidiaries' credit rating from each of the major credit rating agencies. The collateral and credit support requirements vary by contract and by counterparty. The incremental collateral requirement allows for the offsetting of assets and liabilities with the same counterparty, where the contractual right of offset exists under applicable master netting agreements.

Bilateral agreements and derivative instruments entered into by FE and its subsidiaries have margining provisions that require posting of collateral. Based on FES' power portfolio exposure as of December 31, 2014, FES has posted collateral of $175 million and AE Supply has posted no collateral. The Regulated Distribution segment has posted collateral of $1 million.

These credit-risk-related contingent features stipulate that if the subsidiary were to be downgraded or lose its investment grade credit rating (based on its senior unsecured debt rating), it would be required to provide additional collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required.

Subsequent to the occurrence of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BBB- and Moody's Baa3, or a “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of collateral or accelerated payments may be required of FE or its subsidiaries. The following table discloses the additional credit contingent contractual obligations that may be required under certain events as of December 31, 2014:



Collateral Provisions	FES		AE Supply		Utilities		Total
	(In millions)
Split Rating (One rating agency's rating below investment grade)	$	603	$	6	$	48	$	657
BB+/Ba1 Credit Ratings	$	643	$	6	$	48	$	697
Full impact of credit contingent contractual obligations	$	886	$	72	$	86	$	1,044

Excluded from the preceding chart are the potential collateral obligations due to affiliate transactions between the Regulated Distribution segment and CES segment. As of December 31, 2014, neither FES nor AE Supply had any collateral posted with their affiliates. In the event of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BB- or Moody's Ba3, FES would be required to post $24 million with affiliated parties.

OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

FirstEnergy is a guarantor under a syndicated three-year senior secured term loan facility due October 18, 2015, under which Global Holding borrowed $350 million. Proceeds from the loan were used to repay Signal Peak's and Global Rail's maturing $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility. In addition to FirstEnergy, Signal Peak, Global Rail, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Coal Sales Group, LLC, each being a direct or indirect subsidiary of Global Holding, have also provided their joint and several guaranties of the obligations of Global Holding under the new facility.

In connection with the current facility, 69.99% of Global Holding's direct and indirect membership interests in Signal Peak, Global Rail and their affiliates along with FEV's and WMB Marketing Ventures, LLC's respective 33-1/3% membership interests in Global Holding, are pledged to the lenders under the current facility as collateral.

FirstEnergy, FEV and the other two co-owners of Global Holding, Pinesdale LLC, a Gunvor Group, Ltd. subsidiary, and WMB Marketing Ventures, LLC, have agreed to use their best efforts to refinance the new facility no later than July 20, 2015, which reflects the terms of an amendment dated August 14, 2013, on a non-recourse basis so that FirstEnergy's guaranty can be terminated and/or released. If that refinancing does not occur, FirstEnergy may require each co-owner to lend to Global Holding, on a pro rata basis, funds sufficient to prepay the new facility in full. In lieu of providing such funding, the co-owners, at FirstEnergy's option, may provide their several guaranties of Global Holding's obligations under the facility. FirstEnergy receives a fee for providing its guaranty, payable semiannually, which accrued at a rate of 4% through December 31, 2012, and accrues at a rate of 5% from January 1, 2013 through October 18, 2015, which amends the rate in the prior agreement, in each case based upon the average daily outstanding aggregate commitments under the facility for such semiannual period.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

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.

Clean Air Act

FirstEnergy complies with SO₂ and NOx emission reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, utilizing combustion controls and post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower or non-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances. CAIR requires reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and 2015), ultimately capping SO₂ 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 D.C. Circuit decided that CAIR violated the CAA but allowed CAIR to remain in effect to “temporarily preserve its environmental values” until the EPA replaced CAIR with a new rule consistent with the Court's decision. In July 2011, the EPA finalized CSAPR, to replace CAIR, requiring reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO₂ emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances with some restrictions. On December 30, 2011, CSAPR was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and was ultimately vacated by the Court on August 21, 2012. The Court subsequently ordered the EPA to continue administration of CAIR until it finalized a valid replacement for CAIR. On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision vacating CSAPR and generally upheld the EPA's authority under the CAA to establish the regulatory structure underpinning CSAPR. On October 23, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit lifted its stay of CSAPR allowing its Phase 1 reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions to begin in 2015, a three year delay from EPA's original rule. CSAPR Phase 2 will also be delayed by three years to 2017. Depending on the outcome of further proceedings in this matter and how the EPA and the states implement the final rules, the future cost of compliance may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy's and FES' operations may result.

MATS imposes emission limits for mercury, PM, and HCL for all existing and new coal-fired electric generating units effective in April 2015 with averaging of emissions from multiple units located at a single plant. Under the CAA, state permitting authorities can grant an additional compliance year through April 2016, as needed, including instances when necessary to maintain reliability where electric generating units are being closed. On December 28, 2012, the WVDEP granted a conditional extension through April 16, 2016 for MATS compliance at the Fort Martin, Harrison and Pleasants stations. On March 20, 2013, the PA DEP granted an extension through April 16, 2016 for MATS compliance at the Hatfield's Ferry and Bruce Mansfield stations. In December 2014, FG requested an extension through April 16, 2016 for MATS compliance at the Bay Shore and Sammis stations and await a decision from OEPA. In addition, an EPA enforcement policy document contemplates up to an additional year to achieve compliance, through April 2017, under certain circumstances for reliability critical units. MATS was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by various entities, including FirstEnergy's challenge of the PM emission limit imposed on petroleum coke boilers, such as Bay Shore Unit 1. On April 15, 2014, MATS was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, however, the Court refused to decide FirstEnergy's challenge of the PM emission limit imposed on petroleum coke boilers due to a January 2013 petition for reconsideration still pending but not addressed by EPA. On November 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review MATS, specifically, to determine if EPA should have evaluated the cost of MATS prior to regulating. Depending on the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court review and how the MATS are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergy's total capital cost for compliance (over the 2012 to 2018 time period) is currently expected to be approximately $370 million (CES segment of $178 million and Regulated Distribution segment of $192 million), of which $133 million has been spent through 2014 ($56 million at CES and $77 million at Regulated Distribution).

As of September 1, 2012, Albright, Armstrong, Bay Shore Units 2-4, Eastlake Units 4-5, R. Paul Smith, Rivesville and Willow Island were deactivated. FG entered into RMR arrangements with PJM for Eastlake Units 1-3, Ashtabula Unit 5 and Lake Shore Unit 18 through the spring of 2015, when they are scheduled to be deactivated. In February 2014, PJM notified FG that Eastlake Units 1-3 and Lake Shore Unit 18 will be released from RMR status as of September 15, 2014. FG intends to operate the plants through April 2015, subject to market conditions. As of October 9, 2013, the Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell stations were also deactivated.

FirstEnergy and FES have various long-term coal supply and transportation agreements, some of which run through 2025 and certain of which are related to the plants described above. FE and FES have asserted force majeure defenses for delivery shortfalls under certain agreements, and are in discussion with the applicable counterparties. As to coal transportation agreements, FE and FES have agreed to pay liquidated damages for delivery shortfalls for 2014 in the estimated amount of $70 million. If FE and FES fail to reach a resolution with the applicable counterparties for the agreements associated with the deactivated plants or unresolved aspects of the agreements and it were ultimately determined that, contrary to their belief, the force majeure provisions or other defenses, do not excuse or otherwise mitigate the delivery shortfalls, the results of operations and financial condition of both FirstEnergy and FES could be materially adversely impacted. If that were to occur, FE and FES are unable to estimate the loss or range of loss. Additionally, on July 1, 2014, FES terminated a long-term fuel supply agreement. In connection with this termination, FES recognized a pre-tax charge of $67 million in the second quarter of 2014. In one coal supply agreement, AE Supply has asserted termination rights effective in 2015. In response to the notification of the termination, the coal supplier has commenced litigation alleging AE Supply does not have sufficient justification to terminate the agreement. There are 6 million tons remaining under the contract for delivery. At this time, FirstEnergy cannot estimate the loss or range of loss regarding the on-going litigation with respect to this agreement.

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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that AE performed major modifications in violation of the NSR provisions of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania. On February 6, 2014, the Court entered judgment for AE, AE Supply, MP, PE and WP finding they had not violated the CAA or the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act. New York, Connecticut, and Maryland withdrew their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on December 15, 2014, concluding this litigation. This decision does not change the status of these plants which remain deactivated.

In September 2007, AE received an NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Armstrong plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired Fort Martin and Willow Island plants in West Virginia. The EPA's NOV alleges equipment replacements during maintenance outages triggered the pre-construction permitting requirements under the NSR and PSD programs. On June 29, 2012, January 31, 2013, and March 27, 2013, EPA issued CAA section 114 requests for the Harrison coal-fired plant seeking information and documentation relevant to its operation and maintenance, including capital projects undertaken since 2007. On December 12, 2014, EPA issued a CAA section 114 request for the Fort Martin coal-fired plant seeking information and documentation relevant to its operation and maintenance, including capital projects undertaken since 2009. FirstEnergy intends to comply with the CAA but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs were filed against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner.” One complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a class with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FG believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Climate Change

There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions at the state, federal and international level. Certain northeastern states are participating in the RGGI and western states led by California, have implemented programs, primarily cap and trade mechanisms, to control emissions of certain GHGs. Additional policies reducing GHG emissions, such as demand reduction programs, renewable portfolio standards and renewable subsidies have been implemented across the nation. A June 2013, Presidential Climate Action Plan outlined goals to: (1) cut carbon pollution in America by 17% by 2020 (from 2005 levels); (2) prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change; and (3) lead international efforts to combat global climate change and prepare for its impacts. GHG emissions have already been reduced by 10% between 2005 and 2012 according to an April, 2014 EPA Report. In a joint announcement on November 12, 2014, President Obama stated a U.S. target of reducing GHG emissions by 26 to 28% by 2025 from 2005 emission levels and China's President stated its GHG emissions will "peak", around 2030 with approximately 20% of its energy generated by non-fossil fuels by that same year. Due to plant deactivations and increased efficiencies, FirstEnergy anticipates its CO₂ emissions will be reduced 25% below 2005 levels by 2015, exceeding the President’s Climate Action Plan goals both in terms of timing and reduction levels.

EPA released its final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act” in December 2009, concluding that concentrations of several key GHGs constitutes an "endangerment" and may be regulated as "air pollutants" under the CAA and mandated measurement and reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources, including electric generating plants. EPA proposed a new source performance standard in September 2013, which would not apply to any existing, modified, or reconstructed fossil fuel generating units, of 1,000 lbs. CO₂/MWH for large natural gas fired units (> 850 mmBTU/hr), and 1,100 lbs. CO₂/MWH for other natural gas fired units (≤ 850 mmBTU/hr), and 1,100 lbs. CO₂/MWH for fossil fuel fired units which would require partial carbon capture and storage. EPA proposed regulations in June 2014, to reduce CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel electric generating units that would require each state to develop state implementation plans by June 30, 2016, to meet EPA's state specific CO₂ emission rate goals. EPA's proposal allows states to request a 1-year extension for single-SIPs (June 30, 2017) or a 2-year extension for multi-state SIPs (June 30, 2018). EPA also proposed separate regulations imposing additional CO₂ emission limits on modified and reconstructed fossil fuel electric generating units. On January 7, 2015, EPA announced it would complete all of these so-called "Carbon Pollution Standards" by "midsummer" 2015. On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that CO₂ or other GHG emissions alone cannot trigger permitting requirements under the CAA, but that air emission sources that need PSD permits due to other regulated air pollutants can be required by EPA to install GHG control technologies. On November 13, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit scheduled expedited briefing to consider challenges to prevent EPA from regulating CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel electric generating units. Depending on the outcome of appeals and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, the future cost of compliance may be substantial.

At the international level, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change resulted in the Kyoto Protocol requiring participating countries, which does not include the U.S., to reduce GHGs commencing in 2008 and has been extended through 2020. FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO₂ emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations. The CO₂ 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-CO₂ emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.

Clean Water Act

Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal CWA 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.

The EPA finalized CWA Section 316(b) regulations in May 2014, requiring cooling water intake structures with an intake velocity greater than 0.5 feet per second to reduce fish impingement when aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system to a 12% annual average and requiring cooling water intake structures exceeding 125 million gallons per day to conduct studies to determine site-specific controls, if any, to reduce entrainment, which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facility's cooling water system. 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 cooling water intake channel to divert fish away from the plant's cooling water intake system. Depending on the results of such studies and any final action taken by the states based on those studies, the future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.

The EPA proposed updates to the waste water effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating category (40 CFR Part 423) in April 2013. The EPA proposed eight treatment options for waste water discharges from electric power plants, of which four are "preferred" by the agency. The preferred options range from more stringent chemical and biological treatment requirements to zero discharge requirements. The EPA is required to finalize this rulemaking by September 30, 2015, under a consent decree entered by a U.S. District Court and the treatment obligations are proposed to phase-in as permits are renewed on a 5-year cycle from 2017 to 2022. Depending on the content of the EPA's final rule and any final action taken by the states, the future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.

In October 2009, the WVDEP issued an NPDES water discharge permit for the Fort Martin Plant, which imposes TDS, sulfate concentrations and other effluent limitations for heavy metals, as well as temperature limitations. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin NPDES permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order setting deadlines for MP to meet certain of the effluent limits that were effective immediately under the terms of the NPDES permit. MP appealed, and a stay of certain conditions of the NPDES permit and order have been granted pending a final decision on the appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The Fort Martin NPDES permit could require an initial capital investment ranging from $150 million to $300 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits, which technology may also meet certain of the other effluent limits. Additional technology may be needed to meet certain other limits in the Fort Martin NPDES permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In December 2010, PA DEP recommended a sulfate impairment designation for an approximately 68 mile stretch of the Monongahela River north of the West Virginia border which EPA approved in May of 2011. PA DEP subsequently recommended that the sulfate impairment designation for the Monongahela River be removed in its bi-annual water report. The EPA approved the removal of the sulfate impairment designation for the Monongahela River on December 19, 2014.

FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CWA matters described above but, except as indicated above, cannot predict their outcomes or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Regulation of Waste Disposal

Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the RCRA, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Certain coal 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 December 2014, the EPA finalized regulations for the disposal of CCRs (non-hazardous), establishing national standards regarding landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to assure the safe disposal of CCRs from electric generating plants. Depending on how the final rules are ultimately implemented, the future costs of compliance with such CCR regulations may require material capital expenditures.

The PA DEP filed a 2012 complaint against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania with claims under the RCRA and Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management Act regarding the LBR CCR Impoundment and simultaneously proposed a consent decree between PA DEP and FG to resolve those claims. On December 14, 2012, a modified consent decree was entered by the court, requiring FG to conduct monitoring studies and submit a closure plan to the PA DEP, no later than March 31, 2013, and discontinue disposal to LBR as currently permitted by December 31, 2016. The modified consent decree also required payment of civil penalties of $800,000 to resolve claims under the Solid Waste Management Act. PA DEP issued a 2014 permit requiring FE to provide bonding for 45 years of closure and post-closure activities and to complete closure within a 12-year period, but authorizing FE to seek a permit modification based on "unexpected site conditions that have or will slow closure progress." The permit does not require active dewatering of the CCRs, but does require a groundwater assessment for arsenic and abatement if certain conditions in the permit are met. The Bruce Mansfield Plant is pursuing several options for its CCRs following December 31, 2016. A 2013 complaint filed by Citizens Coal Counsel and other NGOs in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, against the owner and operator of a reclamation mine in LaBelle, Pennsylvania that is one possible alternative, alleged the LaBelle site is in violation of RCRA and state laws. On July 14, 2014, Citizens Coal Council served FE, FG and NRG with a citizen suit notice alleging violations of RCRA due to beneficial reuse of "coal ash" at the LaBelle Site.

On October 10, 2013 approximately 61 individuals filed a complaint against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia seeking damages for alleged property damage, bodily injury and emotional distress related to the LBR CCR Impoundment. The complaints state claims for private nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, reckless conduct and trespass related to alleged groundwater contamination and odors emanating from the Impoundment. FG believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations made in the complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of the above matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss. A similar complaint involving approximately 26 individuals filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has been resolved and was closed on February 9, 2015, pending the filing of a stipulation for dismissal.

FirstEnergy and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the CERCLA. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2014 based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, FE's and its subsidiaries' proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $125 million have been accrued through December 31, 2014. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $85 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. FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the possible losses or range of losses cannot be determined or reasonably estimated at this time.

OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Nuclear Plant Matters

Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As of December 31, 2014, FirstEnergy had approximately $2.3 billion invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. The values of FirstEnergy's NDTs 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 NDTs. By a letter dated July 2, 2014, FENOC submitted a $155 million FES parental guaranty relating to a shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry to the NRC for approval. FE and FES have also entered into a total of $23 million in parental guaranties in support of the decommissioning of the spent fuel storage facilities located at the nuclear facilities. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental guaranties, as appropriate.

In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. An NRC ASLB granted an opportunity for a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application to a group of Intervenors, subject to admissible contentions. On September 29, 2014, the Intervenors filed a petition, accompanied by a request to admit a new contention, to suspend the final licensing decision on Davis-Besse license renewal. These filings argue that the NRC's Continued Storage Rule failed to make necessary safety findings regarding the technical feasibility of spent fuel disposal and the adequacy of future repository capacity required by the Atomic Energy Act. On October 31, 2014, FENOC and the NRC Staff filed their opposition to these requests.

As part of routine inspections of the concrete shield building at Davis-Besse in 2013, FENOC identified changes to the subsurface laminar cracking condition originally discovered in 2011. These inspections revealed that the cracking condition had propagated a small amount in select areas. FENOC's analysis confirms that the building continues to maintain its structural integrity, and its ability to safely perform all of its functions. On September 2, 2014, the Intervenors in the Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding requested that the ASLB introduce issues based on FENOC's plans to manage the subsurface laminar cracking in the Davis-Besse shield building. On January 15, 2015, the ASLB denied this request. The NRC continues to evaluate FENOC's analysis of the shield building.

On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued orders requiring safety enhancements at U.S. reactors based on recommendations from the lessons learned Task Force review of the accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. These orders require additional mitigation strategies for beyond-design-basis external events, and enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels in spent fuel pools. The NRC also requested that licensees including FENOC: re-analyze earthquake and flooding risks using the latest information available; conduct earthquake and flooding hazard walkdowns at their nuclear plants; assess the ability of current communications systems and equipment to perform under a prolonged loss of onsite and offsite electrical power; and assess plant staffing levels needed to fill emergency positions. These and other NRC requirements adopted as a result of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi are likely to result in additional material costs from plant modifications and upgrades at FENOC's nuclear facilities.

ICG Litigation

On December 28, 2006, AE Supply and MP filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against ICG, Anker WV, and Anker Coal for failure to supply coal required by a long term CSA. A non-jury trial was held from January 10, 2011 through February 1, 2011 regarding past and future damages incurred by AE Supply and MP as a result of the shortfall. On May 2, 2011, the court entered a verdict in favor of AE Supply and MP for $104 million ($90 million in future damages and $14 million for past damages/interest) and on August 25, 2011, the verdict became final. On August 26, 2011, ICG filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court. On August 13, 2012, the Superior Court affirmed the $14 million past damages award against ICG but vacated the $90 million future damages award. While the Superior Court found that defendants still owed future damages, it remanded the calculation of those damages back to the trial court. Efforts by AE Supply and MP to have the Superior Court reconsider this decision or challenge it at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were denied. In the second quarter of 2013 the final past damage award of $15.5 million (including interest) was recognized and the case was sent back to the trial court to recalculate future damages only. A multi-day damages hearing was held and, on February 13, 2015, the trial court awarded AE Supply and MP approximately $11.3 million in future damages and prejudgment interest. AE Supply and MP are evaluating the court’s decision and a possible appeal. In a related proceeding before the same court, ICG appealed a ruling that prohibited their reliance on a price re-opener clause to limit future damages. On January 30, 2015, the ICG appeal was denied and ICG has moved for reconsideration on this ruling.

Other Legal Matters

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 loss or range of loss in these matters is not expected to be material to FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described under Note 14, Regulatory Matters of the Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

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. In cases where FirstEnergy determines that it is not probable, but reasonably possible that it has a material obligation, it discloses such obligations and the possible loss or range of loss if such estimate can be made. If it were ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject to liability based on any of the matters referenced above, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.