Each of the Utilities' retail rates, conditions of service, issuance of securities and other matters are subject to regulation in the states in which it operates - in Maryland by the MDPSC, in New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Ohio by the PUCO, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC. The transmission operations of PE in Virginia, ATSI in Ohio, and the Transmission Companies in Pennsylvania are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC, PUCO and PPUC, respectively. In addition, under Ohio law, municipalities may regulate rates of a public utility, subject to appeal to the PUCO if not acceptable to the utility. Further, if any of the FirstEnergy affiliates were to engage in the construction of significant new transmission facilities, depending on the state, they may be required to obtain state regulatory authorization to site, construct and operate the new transmission facility.

Company

Rates Effective For Customers

Allowed Debt/Equity

Allowed ROE

CEI

May 2009

51% /49%

10.5%

ME(1)

January 2017

48.8% / 51.2%

Settled(2)

February 2015

54% / 46%

Settled(2)

JCP&L

November 2021(3)

48.6% / 51.4%

9.6%

January 2009

51% /49%

10.5%

PE (West Virginia)

February 2015

54% / 46%

Settled(2)

PE (Maryland)

March 2019

47% / 53%

9.65%

PN(1)

January 2017

47.4% /52.6%

Settled(2)

Penn(1)

January 2017

49.9% / 50.1%

Settled(2)

January 2009

51% / 49%

10.5%

WP(1)

January 2017

49.7% / 50.3%

Settled(2)

PE operates under MDPSC approved base rates that were effective as of March 23, 2019. PE also provides SOS pursuant to a combination of settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and regulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is competitively procured in the form of rolling contracts of varying lengths through periodic auctions that are overseen by the MDPSC and a third-party monitor. Although settlements with respect to SOS supply for PE customers have expired, service continues in the same manner until changed by order of the MDPSC. PE recovers its costs plus a return for providing SOS.

The EmPOWER Maryland program requires each electric utility to file a plan to reduce electric consumption and demand 0.2% per year, up to the ultimate goal of 2% annual savings, for the duration of the 2021-2023 EmPOWER Maryland program cycles to the extent the MDPSC determines that cost-effective programs and services are available. PE's approved 2021-2023 EmPOWER Maryland plan continues and expands upon prior years' programs for a projected total investment of approximately $148 million over the three-year period. PE recovers program investments with a return through an annually reconciled surcharge, with most costs subject to recovery over a five-year period with a return on the unamortized balance. On August 16, 2022, the MDPSC ordered each utility to file, by October 28, 2022, a set of plans for paying down all amortization balances by the scheduled expiration of the EmPOWER program on December 31, 2029. PE submitted its required plan on October 28, 2022, and, at the direction of the MDPSC, filed a revised plan on January 11, 2023. Maryland law only allows for the utility to recover lost distribution revenue attributable to energy efficiency or demand reduction programs through a base rate case proceeding, and to date, such recovery has not been sought or obtained by PE.

In December 2017, the NJBPU issued proposed rules to modify its current CTA policy in base rate cases to: (i) calculate savings using a five-year look back from the beginning of the test year; (ii) allocate savings with 75% retained by the company and 25% allocated to customers; and (iii) exclude transmission assets of electric distribution companies in the savings calculation. On January 17, 2019, the NJBPU approved the proposed CTA rules with no changes. On May 17, 2019, the NJ Rate Counsel filed an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey and on June 7, 2021, the Superior Court issued an order reversing the NJBPU’s CTA rules and remanded the case back to the NJBPU. Specifically, the Court’s ruling requires 100% of the CTA savings to be credited to customers in lieu of the NJBPU’s current policy requiring 25%. On September 19, 2022, the NJBPU issued a notice to re-adopt its rules of practice, including proposed changes to the rules regarding CTA policy in base rate cases consistent with the Superior Court’s June 7, 2021 order. Once the proposed rules of practice are final, they will be applied on a prospective basis in a future base rate case, however, it is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy’s results or financial condition.

On October 28, 2020, the NJBPU approved a stipulated settlement between JCP&L and various parties, resolving JCP&L’s request for distribution base rate increase. The settlement provided for a $94 million annual base distribution revenues increase for JCP&L based on an ROE of 9.6%, which became effective for customers on November 1, 2021. The settlement additionally provided that JCP&L would be subject to a management audit, which began in May 2021 and is currently ongoing. JCP&L is currently waiting for issuance of the final report.

On September 14, 2021, JCP&L submitted a supplemental filing with the NJBPU to revise a previously filed AMI Program, which proposed the deployment of approximately 1.2 million advanced meters. Under the revised AMI Program, during the first six years of the AMI Program from 2022 through 2027, JCP&L estimates costs of $494 million, consisting of capital investments of approximately $390 million, incremental operations and maintenance expenses of approximately $73 million and cost of removal of $31 million. On February 8, 2022, JCP&L filed with the NJBPU a stipulation entered into with the NJBPU staff, NJ Rate Counsel and others, that, pending NJBPU approval, would affirm the terms of the revised AMI Program. The Stipulation, which was approved by NJBPU order on February 23, 2022, also provides that the revised AMI Program-related capital costs, the legacy meter stranded costs, and the operations and maintenance expense will be deferred and placed in regulatory assets, with such amounts sought to be recovered in the JCP&L’s subsequent base rate cases.

On July 2, 2020, the NJBPU issued an order allowing New Jersey utilities to track and create a regulatory asset for future recovery of all prudently incurred incremental costs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic beginning March 9, 2020 and continuing until the New Jersey Governor issues an order stating that the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer in effect. New Jersey utilities can request recovery of such regulatory asset in a stand-alone COVID-19 regulatory asset filing or future base rate case. On October 28, 2020, the NJBPU issued an order expanding the scope of the proceeding to examine all pandemic issues, including recovery of the COVID-19 regulatory assets, by way of a generic proceeding. No moratorium on residential disconnections remains in effect for investor-owned electric utilities such as JCP&L, but investor-owned electric public utilities are required to offer qualifying residential customers deferred payment arrangements meeting certain minimum criteria prior to disconnecting service. Additionally, new legislation was enacted on March 25, 2022, prohibiting utilities from disconnecting electric service to customers that have applied for utility bill assistance before June 15, 2022 until such time as the state agency administering the assistance program makes a decision on the application and further requiring that all utilities offer a deferred payment arrangement meeting certain minimum criteria after the state agency’s decision on the application has been made.

Pursuant to an NJBPU order requiring all New Jersey electric distribution companies to file electric vehicle programs, JCP&L filed its program on March 1, 2021. JCP&L’s proposed electric vehicle program consisted of six sub-programs, including a consumer education and outreach initiative that would begin on January 1, 2022, and continue over a four-year period. On May 2, 2022, JCP&L filed with the NJBPU a stipulation entered into with the NJBPU staff, NJ Rate Counsel and others that provided a total budget of approximately $40 million for JCP&L’s electric vehicle program, including investments of approximately $29 million and operations and maintenance expenses of approximately $11 million. Electric vehicle related capital and operations and maintenance costs shall be deferred and placed in separate regulatory assets for recovery in JCP&L’s next base rate case. The stipulation was approved without modification by the NJBPU on June 8, 2022.

On September 17, 2022, in connection with Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development, LLC, a transmission company jointly owned by Shell New Energies US and EDF Renewables North America, JCP&L submitted a proposal to the NJBPU and PJM to build transmission infrastructure connecting offshore wind-generated electricity to the New Jersey power grid. On October 26, 2022, the JCP&L proposal was accepted in an order issued by NJBPU. The proposal included approximately $723 million in investments to both build new and upgrade existing transmission infrastructure. JCP&L’s proposal projects an investment ROE of 10.2% and includes the option for JCP&L to acquire up to a 20% equity stake in Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development, LLC. The resulting rates associated with the project are expected to be shared among the ratepayers of all New Jersey electric utilities. Construction is expected to begin in 2025.

currently operate under ESP IV, effective June 1, 2016 and continuing through May 31, 2024, that continues the supply of power to non-shopping customers at a market-based price set through an auction process. ESP IV also continues the Rider DCR, which supports continued investment related to the distribution system for the benefit of customers, with increased revenue caps of $20 million per year from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2022; and $15 million per year from June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2024. In addition, ESP IV includes: (1) continuation of a base distribution rate freeze through May 31, 2024; (2) a goal across FirstEnergy to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045; and (3) contributions, totaling $51 million to: (a) fund energy conservation programs, economic development and job retention in the Ohio Companies’ service territories; (b) establish a fuel-fund in each of the Ohio Companies’ service territories to assist low-income customers; and (c) establish a Customer Advisory Council to ensure preservation and growth of the competitive market in Ohio.

On July 15, 2022, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO for approval of phase two of their distribution grid modernization plan that would, among other things, provide for the installation of an additional 700,000 smart meters, distribution automation equipment on approximately 240 distribution circuits, voltage regulating equipment on approximately 220 distribution circuits, and other investments and pilot programs in related technologies designed to provide enhanced customer benefits. The Ohio Companies propose that phase two will be implemented over a four-year budget period with estimated capital investments of approximately $626 million and operations and maintenance expenses of approximately $144 million over the deployment period. Under the proposal, costs of phase two of the grid modernization plan would be recovered through the Ohio Companies’ AMI rider, pursuant to the terms and conditions approved in ESP IV. On December 27, 2022, the Ohio Companies filed a motion with the PUCO requesting a procedural schedule that would facilitate the issuance of an order by year-end 2023.

On November 1, 2021, the Ohio Companies, together with the OCC, PUCO Staff, and several other signatories, entered into an Ohio Stipulation with the intent of resolving the ongoing energy efficiency rider audits, various SEET proceedings, including the Ohio Companies’ 2017 SEET proceeding, and the Ohio Companies’ quadrennial ESP review, each of which was pending before the PUCO. Specifically, the Ohio Stipulation provides that the Ohio Companies’ current ESP IV passes the required statutory test for their prospective SEET review as part of the Quadrennial Review of ESP IV, and except for limited circumstances, the signatory parties have agreed not to challenge the Ohio Companies’ SEET return on equity calculation methodology for their 2021-2024 SEET proceedings. The Ohio Stipulation additionally affirms that: (i) the Ohio Companies’ ESP IV shall continue through its previously authorized term of May 31, 2024; and (ii) the Ohio Companies will file their next base rate case in May 2024, and further, no signatory party will seek to adjust the Ohio Companies’ base distribution rates before that time, except in limited circumstances. The Ohio Companies further agreed to refund $96 million to customers in connection with the 2017-2019 SEET cases, and to provide $210 million in future rate reductions for all customers, including $80 million in 2022, $60 million in 2023, $45 million in 2024, and $25 million in 2025. The PUCO approved the 2017-2019 SEET refunds and 2022 rate reductions on December 1, 2021, and refunds began in December 2021. Current and future rate reductions are recognized as a reduction to regulated distribution segment’s revenue in the Consolidated Statements of Income as they are provided to the Ohio Companies’ customers.

On September 8, 2020, the OCC filed motions in the Ohio Companies’ corporate separation audit and DMR audit dockets, requesting the PUCO to open an investigation and management audit, hire an independent auditor, and require FirstEnergy to show it did not improperly use money collected from consumers or violate any utility regulatory laws, rules or orders in its activities regarding HB 6. On December 30, 2020, in response to the OCC's motion, the PUCO reopened the DMR audit docket, and directed PUCO staff to solicit a third-party auditor and conduct a full review of the DMR to ensure funds collected from customers through the DMR were only used for the purposes established in ESP IV. On June 2, 2021, the PUCO selected an auditor and the auditor filed the final audit report on January 14, 2022, which made certain findings and recommendations. The report found that spending of DMR revenues was not required to be tracked, and that DMR revenues, like all rider revenues, are placed into the regulated money pool as a matter of routine, where the funds lose their identity. Therefore, the report could not suggest that DMR funds were used definitively for direct or indirect support for grid modernization. The report also concluded that there was no documented evidence that ties revenues from the DMR to lobbying for the passage of HB 6, but also could not rule out with certainty uses of DMR funds to support the passage of HB 6. The report further recommended that the regulated companies' money pool be audited more frequently and the Ohio Companies adopt formal dividend policies. Final comments and responses were filed by parties during the second quarter of 2022.

On September 15, 2020, the PUCO opened a new proceeding to review the political and charitable spending by the Ohio Companies in support of HB 6 and the subsequent referendum effort, and directing the Ohio Companies to show cause, demonstrating that the costs of any political or charitable spending in support of HB 6, or the subsequent referendum effort, were not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by customers. The Ohio Companies initially filed a response stating that the costs of any political or charitable spending in support of HB 6, or the subsequent referendum effort, were not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by customers, but on August 6, 2021, filed a supplemental response explaining that, in light of the facts set forth in the DPA and the findings of the Rider DCR audit report further discussed below, political or charitable spending in support of HB 6, or the subsequent referendum effort, affected pole attachment rates paid by approximately $15 thousand. On October 26, 2021, the OCC filed a motion requesting the PUCO to order an independent external audit to investigate FE’s political and charitable spending related to HB 6, and to appoint an independent review panel to

retain and oversee the auditor. In November and December 2021, parties filed comments and reply comments regarding the Ohio Companies’ original and supplemental responses to the PUCO’s September 15, 2020, show cause directive. On May 4, 2022, the PUCO selected a third-party auditor to determine whether the show cause demonstration submitted by the Ohio Companies is sufficient to ensure that the cost of any political or charitable spending in support of HB 6 or the subsequent referendum effort was not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by ratepayers.

In connection with an ongoing audit of the Ohio Companies’ policies and procedures relating to the code of conduct rules between affiliates, on November 4, 2020, the PUCO initiated an additional corporate separation audit as a result of the FirstEnergy leadership transition announcement made on October 29, 2020, as further discussed below. The additional audit is to ensure compliance by the Ohio Companies and their affiliates with corporate separation laws and the Ohio Companies’ corporate separation plan. The additional audit is for the period from November 2016 through October 2020. The final audit report was filed on September 13, 2021. The audit report makes no findings of major non-compliance with Ohio corporate separation requirements, minor non-compliance with eight requirements, and findings of compliance with 23 requirements. Parties filed comments and reply comments on the audit report.

In connection with an ongoing annual audit of the Ohio Companies’ Rider DCR for 2020, and as a result of disclosures in FirstEnergy’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 (filed on February 18, 2021), the PUCO expanded the scope of the audit on March 10, 2021, to include a review of certain transactions that were either improperly classified, misallocated, or lacked supporting documentation, and to determine whether funds collected from customers were used to pay the vendors, and if so, whether or not the funds associated with those payments should be returned to customers through Rider DCR or through an alternative proceeding. On August 3, 2021, the auditor filed its final report on this phase of the audit, and the parties submitted comments and reply comments on this audit report in October 2021. Additionally, on September 29, 2021, the PUCO expanded the scope of the audit in this proceeding to determine if the costs of the naming rights for FirstEnergy Stadium have been recovered from the Ohio Companies’ customers. On November 19, 2021, the auditor filed its final report, in which the auditor concluded that the FirstEnergy Stadium naming rights expenses were not recovered from Ohio customers. On December 15, 2021, the PUCO further expanded the scope of the audit to include an investigation into an apparent nondisclosure of a side agreement in the Ohio Companies’ ESP IV settlement proceedings, but stayed its expansion of the audit until otherwise ordered by the PUCO.

In the fourth quarter of 2020, motions were filed with the PUCO requesting that the PUCO amend the Ohio Companies’ riders for collecting the OVEC-related charges required by HB 6 to provide for refunds in the event such provisions of HB 6 are repealed. Neither the Ohio Companies nor FE benefit from the OVEC-related charges the Ohio Companies collect. Instead, the Ohio Companies are further required by HB 6 to remit all the OVEC-related charges they collect to non-FE Ohio electric distribution utilities. The Ohio Companies contested the motions, which are pending before the PUCO.

The Pennsylvania Companies operate under rates approved by the PPUC, effective as of January 27, 2017. On November 18, 2021, the PPUC issued orders to each of the Pennsylvania Companies directing they operate under DSPs for the June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2023 delivery period, which DSPs provide for the competitive procurement of generation supply for customers who do not receive service from an alternative EGS. Under the 2019-2023 DSPs, supply will be provided by wholesale suppliers through a mix of 3, 12 and 24-month energy contracts, as well as two RFPs for 2-year SREC contracts for ME, PN and Penn. On December 14, 2021, the Pennsylvania Companies filed proposed DSPs for provision of generation for the June 1, 2023 through May 31, 2027 delivery period, to be sourced through competitive procurements for customers who do not receive service from an alternative EGS. An evidentiary hearing was held on April 13, 2022, and on April 20, 2022, the parties filed a partial settlement with the PPUC resolving certain of the issues in the proceeding and setting aside the remainder of the issues to be resolved through briefing. PPUC approved the partial settlement, without modification, on August 4, 2022. Under the 2023-2027 DSPs, supply is proposed to be provided through a mix of 12 and 24-month energy contracts, as well as long-term solar PPAs.

In March 2018, the PPUC approved adjusted customer rates of the Pennsylvania Companies to reflect the net impact of the Tax Act. As a result, the Pennsylvania Companies established riders that, beginning July 1, 2018, refunded to customers tax savings attributable to the Tax Act as compared to the amounts established in their most recent base rate proceedings on a current and going forward basis. The amounts recorded as savings for the total period of January 1 through June 30, 2018, were tracked and were to be addressed for treatment in a future proceeding. On May 17, 2021, the Pennsylvania Companies filed petitions with the PPUC proposing to refund the net savings for the January through June 2018 period to customers beginning January 1, 2022. On November 18, 2021, the PPUC approved the Pennsylvania Companies' proposed refunds, but also revised a previous methodology for calculating the net tax savings, which resulted in additional tax savings attributable to the Tax Act to be refunded

to customers and directed the Pennsylvania Companies to file new petitions to propose the timing and methodology to provide these additional refunds to customers. The Pennsylvania Companies recalculated the net impact for 2018 through 2021 under the revised PPUC methodology in comparison to amounts already refunded to customers under the existing riders, which resulted in an additional $61 million in savings, with interest, to be provided to customers. As a result, FirstEnergy recognized a pre-tax charge of $61 million in the fourth quarter of 2021, associated with the additional refund and based on the November 2021 PPUC order and methodology. The Pennsylvania Companies filed petitions to propose the timing and methodology of the refund of these amounts on February 17, 2022. The Pennsylvania Companies’ petitions and the proposed refunds addressed within were approved by the PPUC on June 16, 2022, without modification, effective July 1, 2022, and which refunds were fully completed by December 31, 2022.

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Act 129 of 2008 and PPUC orders, the Pennsylvania Companies implemented energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs with demand reduction targets, relative to 2007 to 2008 peak demands, at 2.9% MW for ME, 3.3% MW for PN, 2.0% MW for Penn, and 2.5% MW for WP; and energy consumption reduction targets, as a percentage of the Pennsylvania Companies’ historic 2009 to 2010 reference load at 3.1% MWH for ME, 3.0% MWH for PN, 2.7% MWH for Penn, and 2.4% MWH for WP.

Pennsylvania EDCs are permitted to seek PPUC approval of an LTIIP for infrastructure improvements and costs related to highway relocation projects, after which a DSIC may be approved to recover LTIIP costs. On January 16, 2020, the PPUC approved the Pennsylvania Companies’ LTIIPs for the five-year period beginning January 1, 2020 and ending December 31, 2024 for a total capital investment of approximately $572 million for certain infrastructure improvement initiatives. On June 25, 2021, the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate filed a complaint against Penn’s quarterly DSIC rate, disputing the recoverability of the Companies’ automated distribution management system investment under the DSIC mechanism. On January 26, 2022, the parties filed a joint petition for settlement that resolves all issues in this matter, which was approved by the PPUC without modification on April 14, 2022.

Following the Pennsylvania Companies’ 2016 base rate proceedings, the PPUC ruled in a separate proceeding related to the DSIC mechanisms that the Pennsylvania Companies were not required to reflect federal and state income tax deductions related to DSIC-eligible property in DSIC rates. The decision was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and in July 2021 the court upheld the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s reversal of the PPUC’s decision and remanded the matter back to the PPUC for determination as to how DSIC calculations shall account for ADIT and state taxes. The PPUC issued the order as directed, which was challenged by an intervening party. All parties have briefed the issue and await a ruling from the PPUC. Neither the PPUC’s determination or the underlying order are expected to result in a material impact to FirstEnergy.

On December 29, 2021, the WVPSC issued an order granting MP and PE’s requested $19.6 million increase in ENEC rates, requiring, among other things, that MP and PE refund to its large industrial customers their respective portion of the $7.7 million rate reduction discussed above and also requires MP and PE to negotiate a PPA for its capacity shortfall and a reasonable reserve margin if certain conditions are met. By order dated March 2, 2022, the WVPSC reopened the case to determine whether rates should be increased to recover growing ENEC under-recoveries. On May 17, 2022, the WVPSC issued an order approving an interim rate increase of $94 million, effective for customer rates on May 18, 2022, subject to a prudence review during MP and PE’s 2022 ENEC case.

On August 25, 2022, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC their annual ENEC case requesting an increase in ENEC rates of $183.8 million beginning January 1, 2023, which represents a 12.2% increase to the rates then in effect. The increase was driven by an underrecovery during the review period (July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022) of $144.9 million due to higher coal, reagent, and allowance expenses. This filing additionally addresses, among other things, the WVPSC’s May 2022 request for a prudence review of current rates. At a hearing on December 8, 2022, the parties in the case presented a unanimous settlement to increase rates by approximately $92 million, effective January 1, 2023, and carry over to MP and PE’s 2023 ENEC case, approximately $92 million at a carrying charge of 4%. In an order dated December 30, 2022, the WVPSC approved the settlement with respect to the proposed rate increase, but MP and PE rates remain subject to a prudence review in their 2023 ENEC case. The order also instructs MP to evaluate the feasibility of purchasing the Pleasants Power Station and file a summary of the evaluation by March 31, 2023.

On November 22, 2021, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC their plan to construct 50 MWs of solar generation at five sites in West Virginia. The plan includes a tariff to offer solar power to West Virginia customers and cost recovery for MP and PE from other customers through a surcharge for any solar investment not fully subscribed by their customers. A hearing was held in mid-March 2022 and on April 21, 2022, the WVPSC issued an order approving, effective May 1, 2022, the requested tariff and requiring MP and PE to subscribe at least 85% of the planned 50 MWs before seeking final tariff approval. MP and PE must seek separate approval from the WVPSC to recover any solar generation costs in excess of the approved tariff. The first solar generation site is expected to be in-service by the end of 2023 and all construction completed at the other sites no later than the end of 2025 at a total investment cost of approximately $110 million.

On December 17, 2021, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC for approval of environmental compliance projects at the Ft. Martin and Harrison Power Stations to comply with the EPA’s ELG and operate these plants beyond 2028. The request includes a surcharge to recover the expected $142 million capital investment and $3 million in annual operation and maintenance expense. MP and PE reached a settlement agreement with WVPSC staff and all intervenors, recommending: (i) approval of the ELG compliance plan submitted by MP and PE and (ii) recovery of costs through a surcharge. A ruling approving the settlement without modification was issued by the WVPSC on September 12, 2022, and construction is expected to be completed by the end of 2025. See Note 13, “Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies - Environmental Matters - Clean Water Act" below, for additional details on the EPA's ELG.

Under the FPA, FERC regulates rates for interstate wholesale sales and transmission of electric power, regulatory accounting and reporting under the Uniform System of Accounts, and other matters, including construction and operation of hydroelectric projects. With respect to their wholesale services and rates, the Utilities, AE Supply and the Transmission Companies are subject to regulation by FERC. FERC regulations require JCP&L, MP, PE, WP and the Transmission Companies to provide open access transmission service at FERC-approved rates, terms and conditions. Transmission facilities of JCP&L, MP, PE, WP and the Transmission Companies are subject to functional control by PJM and transmission service using their transmission facilities is provided by PJM under the PJM Tariff.

Company

Rates Effective

Capital Structure

Allowed ROE

ATSI

January 1, 2015

Actual (13-month average)

10.38%

JCP&L

January 1, 2020

Actual (13-month average)

10.20%

January 1, 2021(1)

Actual (13-month average)(1)

11.35%(1)

January 1, 2021(1)

Actual (13-month average)(1)

11.35%(1)

January 1, 2021(1)

Actual (13-month average)(1)

11.35%(1)

MAIT

July 1, 2017

Lower of Actual (13-month average) or 60%

10.3%

TrAIL

July 1, 2008

Actual (year-end)

12.7%(TrAIL the Line & Black Oak SVC)

11.7% (All other projects)

FERC regulates the sale of power for resale in interstate commerce in part by granting authority to public utilities to sell wholesale power at market-based rates upon showing that the seller cannot exert market power in generation or transmission or erect barriers to entry into markets. The Utilities and AE Supply each have been authorized by FERC to sell wholesale power in interstate commerce at market-based rates and have a market-based rate tariff on file with FERC, although in the case of the Utilities major wholesale purchases remain subject to review and regulation by the relevant state commissions.

Federally enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, AE Supply, and the Transmission Companies. NERC is the Electric Reliability Organization designated by FERC to establish and enforce these reliability standards, although NERC has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to six regional entities, including RFC. All of the facilities that FirstEnergy operates are located within the RFC region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and RFC 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 RFC.

FirstEnergy believes that it is in material compliance with all currently effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such occurrences are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the occurrence and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an occurrence to RFC. Moreover, it is clear that NERC, RFC and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. Any inability on FirstEnergy’s part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk electric system could result in the imposition of financial penalties, or obligations to upgrade or build transmission facilities, that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

FERC’s Division of Audits and Accounting initiated a nonpublic audit of FESC in February 2019. Among other matters, the audit is evaluating FirstEnergy’s compliance with certain accounting and reporting requirements under various FERC regulations. On February 4, 2022, FERC filed the final audit report for the period of January 1, 2015 through September 30, 2021, which included several findings and recommendations that FirstEnergy has accepted. The audit report included a finding and related recommendation on FirstEnergy’s methodology for allocation of certain corporate support costs to regulatory capital accounts under certain FERC regulations and reporting. Effective in the first quarter of 2022 and in response to the finding, FirstEnergy had implemented a new methodology for the allocation of these corporate support costs to regulatory capital accounts for its regulated distribution and transmission companies on a prospective basis. With the assistance of an independent outside firm, FirstEnergy completed an analysis during the third quarter of 2022 of these costs and how it impacted certain FERC-jurisdictional wholesale transmission customer rates for the audit period of 2015 through 2021. As a result of this analysis, FirstEnergy recorded in the third quarter of 2022 approximately $45 million ($34 million after-tax) in expected customer refunds, plus interest, due to its wholesale transmission customers and reclassified approximately $195 million of certain transmission capital assets to operating expenses for the audit period, of which $90 million ($67 million after-tax) are not expected to be recoverable and impacted FirstEnergy’s earnings since they relate to costs capitalized during stated transmission rate time periods. These reclassifications also resulted in a reduction to the Regulated Transmission segment’s rate base by approximately $160 million, which is not expected to materially impact FirstEnergy or the segment’s future earnings. The expected wholesale transmission customer refunds were recognized as a reduction to revenue, and the amount of reclassified transmission capital assets that are not expected to be recoverable were recognized within “Other operating expenses” at the Regulated Transmission segment and on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Statements of Income.

On May 1, 2020, ATSI filed amendments to its formula rate to recover regulatory assets for certain costs that ATSI incurred as a result of its 2011 move from MISO to PJM, certain costs allocated to ATSI by FERC for transmission projects that were constructed by other MISO transmission owners, and certain costs for transmission-related vegetation management programs. A portion of these costs would have been charged to the Ohio Companies. Additionally, ATSI proposed certain income tax-related adjustments and certain tariff changes addressing the revenue credit components of the formula rate template. On June 30, 2020, FERC issued an initial order accepting the tariff amendments subject to refund and setting the matter for hearing and settlement proceedings. ATSI and the parties to the FERC proceeding subsequently were able to reach settlement, and on October 14, 2021, filed the settlement with FERC. As a result of the filed settlement, FirstEnergy recognized a $21 million pre-tax charge during the third quarter of 2021, which reflects the difference between amounts originally recorded as regulatory assets and amounts which will ultimately be recovered as a result of the pending settlement. From a segment perspective, during the third quarter of 2021, the Regulated Transmission segment recorded a pre-tax charge of $48 million and the Regulated Distribution segment recognized a $27 million reduction to a reserve previously recorded in 2010. In addition, the settlement provides for partial recovery of future incurred costs allocated to ATSI by MISO for the above-referenced transmission projects that were constructed by other MISO transmission owners, which is not expected to have a material impact on FirstEnergy or ATSI. The uncontested settlement was approved by FERC on March 24, 2022 without modification. ATSI’s compliance filing to implement the terms of the settlement was accepted by FERC without modification on June 23, 2022.

On March 15, 2018, FERC initiated proceedings on the question of how to address possible changes to ADIT and bonus depreciation as a result of the Tax Act. Such possible changes could impact FERC-jurisdictional rates, including transmission rates. On November 21, 2019, FERC issued a final rule (Order No. 864). Order No. 864 requires utilities with transmission formula rates to update their formula rate templates to include mechanisms to: (i) deduct any excess ADIT from or add any deficient ADIT to their rate base; to maintain rate base neutrality (ii) raise or lower their income tax allowances by any amortized excess or deficient ADIT; and (iii) incorporate a new permanent worksheet into their rates that will annually track information related to excess or deficient ADIT. Per FERC directives, ATSI submitted its compliance filing on May 1, 2020. MAIT submitted its compliance filing on June 1, 2020. On November 18, 2021, FERC issued an order that: (i) accepted ATSI’s proposed tariff amendments to its rate base adjustment mechanism, effective January 27, 2020; (ii) directed ATSI to make a further compliance filing by January 17, 2022; and (iii) set the amount of ATSI’s recorded ADIT balances as of December 31, 2017, for hearing and settlement procedures. ATSI submitted the compliance filing, and following settlement negotiations, filed an uncontested

settlement agreement with FERC on October 18, 2022. There is no timetable for FERC to rule on the settlement agreement. On December 3, 2021, FERC issued an order that (i) accepted MAIT’s proposed tariff amendments to its rate base adjustment mechanism, effective January 27, 2020; (ii) directed MAIT to make a further compliance filing by February 1, 2022; and (iii) set the amount of MAIT’s recorded ADIT balances as of December 31, 2017 for hearing and settlement procedures. MAIT submitted the compliance filing, and following settlement negotiations, filed an uncontested settlement agreement with FERC on October 18, 2022. There is no timetable for FERC to rule on the settlement agreement. On May 15, 2020, TrAIL submitted its compliance filing and on June 1, 2020, PATH submitted its required compliance filing. On May 4, 2021, FERC staff requested additional information about PATH’s proposed rate base adjustment mechanism, and PATH submitted the requested information on June 3, 2021. On July 12, 2021, FERC staff requested additional information about TrAIL’s proposed rate base adjustment mechanism. TrAIL filed its response on August 6, 2021. On March 31, 2022, FERC issued an order, ruling that TrAIL’s compliance filing partially complied with the requirements of Order No. 864 and directing TrAIL to submit a further compliance filing to address certain additional items that according to FERC will further enhance transparency. TrAIL submitted the compliance filing on May 31, 2022, and FERC accepted the compliance filing by letter order dated August 30, 2022. On April 27, 2022, FERC issued an order on PATH’s compliance filing, ruling that it partially complied with the requirements of Order No. 864 and directing PATH to submit a further compliance filing to address certain additional items. PATH submitted the compliance filing on June 27, 2022, and FERC accepted the compliance filing by letter order dated November 14, 2022. MP, WP and PE - as holders of a “stated” transmission rate when Order No. 864 issued – addressed these requirements as part of the transmission rates amendments that were filed with FERC on October 29, 2020. An uncontested settlement of all issues in that case was filed for FERC approval on January 18, 2023.

On February 24, 2022, the OCC filed a complaint with FERC against ATSI, AEP’s Ohio affiliates and AEPSC, and Duke Energy Ohio, LLC asserting that FERC should reduce the ROE utilized in the utilities’ transmission formula rates by eliminating the 50 basis point adder associated with RTO membership, effective February 24, 2022. The OCC contends that this result is required because Ohio law mandates that transmission owning utilities join an RTO and that the 50 basis point adder is applicable only where RTO membership is voluntary. ATSI disagrees with the OCC’s characterization and set forth its reasons for such disagreement in a combined motion to dismiss and answer that was filed with FERC on March 31, 2022. On that same date, AEP and Duke filed separate motions to dismiss and answers to the OCC complaint, and several other parties filed comments. ATSI filed a response to certain intervenors’ filings on April 28, 2022. On December 15, 2022, FERC denied the complaint as to ATSI and Duke, but granted it as to AEP. On January 17, 2023, AEP and the OCC filed requests for rehearing and on February 1, 2023, FirstEnergy filed an answer to the OCC’s rehearing request. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding, but it is not expected to have a material impact.

On March 20, 2020, FERC initiated a rulemaking proceeding on the transmission rate incentives provisions of Section 219 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. FirstEnergy submitted comments through EEI and as part of a consortium of PJM Transmission Owners. In a supplemental rulemaking proceeding that was initiated on April 15, 2021, FERC requested comments on, among other things, whether to require utilities that have been members of an RTO for three years or more and that have been collecting an “RTO membership” ROE incentive adder to file tariff updates that would terminate collection of the incentive adder. Initial comments on the proposed rule were filed on June 25, 2021, and reply comments were filed on July 26, 2021. The rulemaking remains pending before FERC. FirstEnergy is a member of PJM and its transmission subsidiaries could be affected by the supplemental proposed rule. FirstEnergy participated in comments on the supplemental rulemaking that were submitted by a group of PJM transmission owners and by various industry trade groups. If there were to be any changes to FirstEnergy's transmission incentive ROE, such changes will be applied on a prospective basis.

On October 29, 2020, MP, PE and WP filed tariff amendments with FERC to implement a forward-looking formula transmission rate, to be effective January 1, 2021. In addition, on October 30, 2020, KATCo filed a proposed new tariff to establish a forward-looking formula rate and requested that the new rate become effective January 1, 2021. In its filing, KATCo explained that while it currently owns no transmission assets, it may build new transmission facilities in the Allegheny zone, and that it may seek required state and federal authorizations to acquire transmission assets from PE and WP by January 1, 2022. These transmission rate filings were accepted for filing by FERC on December 31, 2020, effective January 1, 2021, subject to refund, pending further hearing and settlement procedures and were consolidated into a single proceeding. MP, PE and WP, and KATCo filed uncontested settlement agreements with FERC on January 18, 2023. There is no timetable for FERC to rule on the settlement agreements. Also on January 25, 2023, the FERC Chief Administrative Law Judge granted a motion of MP, PE, and WP for interim rates to implement certain aspects of the settled rate retroactive to January 1, 2023. As a result of the filed settlement, FirstEnergy recognized a $25 million pre-tax charge during the fourth quarter of 2022, which reflects the difference between amounts originally recorded as assets and amounts which will ultimately be recovered from customers as a result of the pending settlement.