COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

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 March 31, 2018, FirstEnergy's outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $1.9 billion, consisting of guarantees and assurances on behalf of FES and FENOC ($484 million), parental guarantees on behalf of its consolidated subsidiaries ($1,007 million), other guarantees ($255 million) and other assurances ($178 million).

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 ratings 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 AE Supply's power portfolio exposure as of March 31, 2018, AE Supply had no posted collateral. The Utilities and FET had posted collateral of $6 million.

These credit-risk-related contingent features, or the margining provisions within bilateral agreements, 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, which is the ability to secure additional collateral when needed, could be required. The following table discloses the potential additional credit rating contingent contractual collateral obligations as of March 31, 2018.



Potential Collateral Obligations		AE Supply		Utilities and FET		FE Corp		Total
	(In millions)
Contractual Obligations for Additional Collateral
At Current Credit Rating		$	1	$	—	$	—	$	1
Upon Further Downgrade		—		46		—		46
Surety Bonds (Collateralized Amount)		1		109		236		346
Total Exposure from Contractual Obligations		$	2	$	155	$	236	$	393

Surety Bonds are not tied to a credit rating. Surety Bonds' impact assumes maximum contractual obligations (typical obligations require 30 days to cure). FE provides credit support for FG surety bonds of $169 million and $31 million for the benefit of the PA DEP with respect to LBR and the Hatfield's Ferry disposal site, respectively.

OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

FE is a guarantor under a syndicated senior secured term loan facility due March 3, 2020, under which Global Holding's outstanding balance is $255 million. In addition to FE, Signal Peak, Global Rail, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Coal Sales Group, LLC, each being a direct or indirect subsidiary of Global Holding, continue to provide their joint and several guarantees of the obligations of Global Holding under the facility.

In connection with the 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water quality and other environmental matters. Pursuant to a March 28, 2017 executive order, the EPA and other federal agencies are to review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law. FirstEnergy cannot predict the timing or ultimate outcome of any of these reviews or how any future actions taken as a result thereof, in particular with respect to existing environmental regulations, may impact its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

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 and/or using emission allowances.

CSAPR requires reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions in two phases (2015 and 2017), 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. The D.C. Circuit ordered the EPA on July 28, 2015, to reconsider the CSAPR caps on NOx and SO₂ emissions from power plants in 13 states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. This follows the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling generally upholding the EPA’s regulatory approach under CSAPR, but questioning whether the EPA required upwind states to reduce emissions by more than their contribution to air pollution in downwind states. The EPA issued a CSAPR update rule on September 7, 2016, reducing summertime NOx emissions from power plants in 22 states in the eastern U.S., including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, beginning in 2017. Various states and other stakeholders appealed the CSAPR update rule to the D.C. Circuit in November and December 2016. On September 6, 2017, the D.C. Circuit rejected the industry's bid for a lengthy pause in the litigation and set a briefing schedule. Depending on the outcome of the appeals, the EPA’s reconsideration of the CSAPR update rule and how the EPA and the states ultimately implement CSAPR, the future cost of compliance may be material and changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

The EPA tightened the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone from the 2008 standard levels of 75 PPB to 70 PPB on October 1, 2015. The EPA stated the vast majority of U.S. counties will meet the new 70 PPB standard by 2025 due to other federal and state rules and programs but the EPA will designate those counties that fail to attain the new 2015 ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2017. The EPA missed the October 1, 2017, deadline and has not yet promulgated the attainment designations. States will then have roughly three years to develop implementation plans to attain the new 2015 ozone NAAQS. On December 5, 2017, fourteen states and the District of Columbia filed complaints in the U.S. District Court of Northern California seeking an order that the EPA promulgate the attainment designations for the new 2015 ozone NAAQS. Depending on how the EPA and the states implement the new 2015 ozone NAAQS, the future cost of compliance may be material and changes to FirstEnergy’s operations may result. In August 2016, the State of Delaware filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that the Harrison generating facility's NOx emissions significantly contribute to Delaware's inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition seeks a short-term NOx emission rate limit of 0.125 lb/mmBTU over an averaging period of no more than 24 hours. On September 27, 2016, the EPA extended the time frame for acting on the State of Delaware's CAA Section 126 petition by six months to April 7, 2017, but has not taken any further action. On January 2, 2018, the State of Delaware provided the EPA a notice required at least 60 days prior to filing a suit seeking to compel the EPA to either approve or deny the August 2016 CAA Section 126 petition. In November 2016, the State of Maryland filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that NOx emissions from 36 EGUs, including Harrison Units 1, 2 and 3 and Pleasants Units 1 and 2, significantly contribute to Maryland's inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition seeks NOx emission rate limits for the 36 EGUs by May 1, 2017. On January 3, 2017, the EPA extended the time frame for acting on the CAA Section 126 petition by six months to July 15, 2017, but has not taken any further action. On September 27, 2017, and October 4, 2017, the State of Maryland and various environmental organizations filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking an order that the EPA either approve or deny the CAA Section 126 petition of November 16, 2016. In March 2018, the State of New York filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that NOx emissions from nine states (including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) significantly contribute to New York’s inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition seeks suitable emission rate limits for large stationary sources that are affecting New York’s air quality within the three years allowed by CAA Section 126. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the loss or range of loss.

MATS imposed emission limits for mercury, PM, and HCl for all existing and new fossil fuel fired EGUs effective in April 2015 with averaging of emissions from multiple units located at a single plant. The majority of FirstEnergy's MATS compliance program and related costs have been completed.

On May 1, 2017, FE and FG and CSX and BNSF entered into a definitive settlement agreement, which resolved all claims related to a coal transportation contract dispute as a result of MATS on the terms and conditions set forth below. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, FG agreed to pay CSX and BNSF an aggregate amount equal to $109 million, payable in three annual installments, the first of which was made on May 1, 2017. FE agreed to unconditionally and continually guarantee the settlement payments due by FG pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement further provided that in the event of the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings or failure to make timely settlement payments, the unpaid settlement amount will immediately accelerate and become due and payable in full. On April 6, 2018, FE paid the remaining $72 million under the settlement agreement as a result of the FES Bankruptcy.

As to a specific coal supply agreement, AE Supply, the party thereto, asserted termination rights effective in 2015 as a result of MATS. In response to notification of the termination, on January 15, 2015, Tunnel Ridge, LLC, the coal supplier, commenced litigation in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, alleging AE Supply did not have sufficient justification to terminate the agreement and seeking damages for the difference between the market and contract price of the coal, or lost profits plus incidental damages. On February 18, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle settling all claims in dispute. The agreement in principle includes, among other matters, a $93 million payment by AE Supply, as well as certain coal supply commitments for Pleasants Power Station during its remaining operation by AE Supply. Certain aspects of the final settlement agreement are guaranteed by FE, including the $93 million payment. The parties executed the final settlement agreement on March 9, 2018 and the plaintiff dismissed the matter with prejudice on March 15, 2018.

Climate Change

FirstEnergy has established a goal to reduce CO₂ emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045. 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.

The 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. 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 the EPA to install GHG control technologies. The EPA released its final CPP regulations in August 2015 (which have been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court), to reduce CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The EPA also finalized separate regulations imposing CO₂ emission limits for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel fired EGUs. Numerous states and private parties filed appeals and motions to stay the CPP with the D.C. Circuit in October 2015. On January 21, 2016, a panel of the D.C. Circuit denied the motions for stay and set an expedited schedule for briefing and argument. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule during the pendency of the challenges to the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. On March 28, 2017, an executive order, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” instructed the EPA to review the CPP and related rules addressing GHG emissions and suspend, revise or rescind the rules if appropriate. On October 16, 2017, the EPA issued a proposed rule to repeal the CPP. Depending on the outcomes of the review pursuant to the executive order, of further appeals and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, the future cost of compliance may be material.

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. The Obama Administration submitted in March 2015, a formal pledge for the U.S. to reduce its economy-wide GHG emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and in September 2016, joined in adopting the agreement reached on December 12, 2015, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings in Paris. The Paris Agreement was ratified by the requisite number of countries (i.e., at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of global GHG emissions) in October 2016 and its non-binding obligations to limit global warming to well below two degrees Celsius became effective on November 4, 2016. On June 1, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the Paris Agreement. 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 material capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations.

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. Depending on any final action taken by the states with respect to impingement and entrainment, the future capital costs of compliance with these standards may be material.

On September 30, 2015, the EPA finalized new, more stringent effluent limits for the Steam Electric Power Generating category (40 CFR Part 423) for arsenic, mercury, selenium and nitrogen for wastewater from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water. The treatment obligations phase-in as permits are renewed on a five-year cycle from 2018 to 2023. The final rule also allows plants to commit to more stringent effluent limits for wet scrubber systems based on evaporative technology and in return have until the end of 2023 to meet the more stringent limits. On April 13, 2017, the EPA granted a Petition for Reconsideration and administratively stayed (effective upon publication in the Federal Register) all deadlines in the effluent limits rule pending a new rulemaking. Also, on September 18, 2017, the EPA postponed certain compliance deadlines for two years. Depending on the outcome of appeals and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, the future costs of compliance with these standards may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

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 the appeal or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CWA matters described above but, except as indicated above, cannot predict their outcomes or estimate the 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 CCRs, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste disposal requirements pending the EPA's evaluation of the need for future regulation.

In April 2015, the EPA finalized regulations for the disposal of CCRs (non-hazardous), establishing national standards for 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. On September 13, 2017, the EPA announced that it would reconsider certain provisions of the final regulations. Based on an assessment of the finalized regulations, the future cost of compliance and expected timing had no significant impact on FirstEnergy's existing AROs associated with CCRs. Although not currently expected, changes in timing and closure plan requirements in the future could materially and adversely impact FirstEnergy's AROs.

Pursuant to a 2013 consent decree, PA DEP issued a 2014 permit for the Little Blue Run CCR impoundment requiring the Bruce Mansfield plant to cease disposal of CCRs by December 31, 2016, and FG to provide bonding for 45 years of closure and post-closure activities and to complete closure within a 12-year period, but authorizing FG 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 CCRs from the Bruce Mansfield plant are being beneficially reused with the majority used for reclamation of a site owned by the Marshall County Coal Company in Moundsville, W. Va., and the remainder recycled into drywall by National Gypsum. These beneficial reuse options are expected to be sufficient for ongoing plant operations, however, the Bruce Mansfield plant is pursuing other options. On May 22, 2015 and September 21, 2015, the PA DEP reissued a permit for the Hatfield's Ferry CCR disposal facility and then modified that permit to allow disposal of Bruce Mansfield plant CCR. The Sierra Club's Notices of Appeal before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board challenging the renewal, reissuance and modification of the permit for the Hatfield’s Ferry CCR disposal facility were resolved through a Consent Adjudication between FG, PA DEP and the Sierra Club requiring operational changes that became effective November 3, 2017. As noted above, FE provides credit support for FG surety bonds of $169 million and $31 million for the benefit of the PA DEP with respect to LBR and the Hatfield's Ferry disposal site, respectively.

FirstEnergy or 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 Sheets as of March 31, 2018, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, FirstEnergy's 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 March 31, 2018. 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. FE or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the loss 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 retired nuclear facility, TMI-2. As of March 31, 2018, FirstEnergy had approximately $0.8 billion invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of its retired TMI-2 nuclear generating facility. The values of FirstEnergy's NDTs also fluctuate based on market conditions. If the values 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.

FES Bankruptcy

On March 31, 2018, FES, including its consolidated subsidiaries, FG, NG, FE Aircraft Leasing Corp., Norton Energy Storage L.L.C. and FirstEnergy Generation Mansfield Unit 1 Corp, and FENOC filed voluntary petitions for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 3, "Discontinued Operations," for additional information.

Other Legal Matters

There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy's normal business operations pending against FE or its subsidiaries. The loss or range of loss in these matters is not expected to be material to FE or its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described under Note 13, "Regulatory Matters."

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 FE 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 FE's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.