Regulatory Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

10. REGULATORY MATTERS

(A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVES

Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, FGCO, FENOC, ATSI and TrAIL. The NERC is the ERO charged with establishing and enforcing these reliability standards, although it has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergy’s facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.

FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in 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 items are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the item and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an item to ReliabilityFirst. Moreover, it is clear that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with future new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time; however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the future reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on FirstEnergy’s part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&L’s Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&L’s contribution to the electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter.

On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported to ReliabilityFirst a vegetation encroachment event on a Met-Ed 230 kV line. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirst issued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirst on September 27, 2010. In March 2011, ReliabilityFirst submitted its proposed findings and settlement, although a final determination has not yet been made by FERC.

Allegheny has been subject to routine audits with respect to its compliance with applicable reliability standards and has settled certain related issues. In addition, ReliabilityFirst is currently conducting certain investigations with regard to certain matters of compliance by Allegheny.

(B) MARYLAND

By statute enacted in 2007, the obligation of Maryland utilities to provide standard offer service (SOS) to residential and small commercial customers, in exchange for recovery of their costs plus a reasonable profit, was extended indefinitely. The legislation also established a five-year cycle (to begin in 2008) for the MDPSC to report to the legislature on the status of SOS. PE now conducts rolling auctions to procure the power supply necessary to serve its customer load pursuant to a plan approved by the MDPSC. However, the terms on which PE will provide SOS to residential customers after the settlement beyond 2012 will depend on developments with respect to SOS in Maryland between now and then, including but not limited to possible MDPSC decisions in the proceedings discussed below.

The MDPSC opened a new docket in August 2007 to consider matters relating to possible “managed portfolio” approaches to SOS and other matters. “Phase II” of the case addressed utility purchases or construction of generation, bidding for procurement of demand response resources and possible alternatives if the TrAIL and PATH projects were delayed or defeated. It is unclear when the MDPSC will issue its findings in this and other SOS-related pending proceedings discussed below.

In September 2009, the MDPSC opened a new proceeding to receive and consider proposals for construction of new generation resources in Maryland. In December 2009, Governor Martin O’Malley filed a letter in this proceeding in which he characterized the electricity market in Maryland as a “failure” and urged the MDPSC to use its existing authority to order the construction of new generation in Maryland, vary the means used by utilities to procure generation and include more renewables in the generation mix. In August 2010, the MDPSC opened another new proceeding to solicit comments on the PJM RPM process. Public hearings on the comments were held in October 2010. In December 2010, the MDPSC issued an order soliciting comments on a model request for proposal for solicitation of long-term energy commitments by Maryland electric utilities. PE and numerous other parties filed comments, and at this time no further proceedings have been set by the MDPSC in this matter.

In September 2007, the MDPSC issued an order that required the Maryland utilities to file detailed plans for how they will meet the “EmPOWER Maryland” proposal that electric consumption be reduced by 10% and electricity demand be reduced by 15%, in each case by 2015.

The Maryland legislature in 2008 adopted a statute codifying the EmPOWER Maryland goals. In 2008, PE filed its comprehensive plans for attempting to achieve those goals, asking the MDPSC to approve programs for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers, as well as a customer education program. The MDPSC ultimately approved the programs in August 2009 after certain modifications had been made as required by the MDPSC, and approved cost recovery for the programs in October 2009. Expenditures were estimated to be approximately $101 million and would be recovered over the following six years. Meanwhile, extensive meetings with the MDPSC Staff and other stakeholders to discuss details of PE’s plans for additional and improved programs for the period 2012-2014 began in April 2011 and those programs are to be filed by September 1, 2011.

In March 2009, the MDPSC issued an order suspending until further notice the right of all electric and gas utilities in the state to terminate service to residential customers for non-payment of bills. The MDPSC subsequently issued an order making various rule changes relating to terminations, payment plans, and customer deposits that make it more difficult for Maryland utilities to collect deposits or to terminate service for non-payment. The MDPSC is continuing to conduct hearings and collect data on payment plan and related issues and has adopted a set of proposed regulations that expand the summer and winter “severe weather” termination moratoria when temperatures are very high or very low, from one day, as provided by statute, to three days on each occurrence.

On March 24, 2011, the MDPSC held an initial hearing to discuss possible new regulations relating to service interruptions, storm response, call center metrics, and related reliability standards. The proposed rules included provisions for civil penalties for non-compliance. Numerous parties filed comments on the proposed rules and participated in the hearing, with many noting issues of cost and practicality relating to implementation. The Maryland legislature passed a bill on April 11, 2011, which requires the MDPSC to promulgate rules by July 1, 2012 that address service interruptions, downed wire response, customer communication, vegetation management, equipment inspection, and annual reporting. In crafting the regulations, the legislation directs the MDPSC to consider cost-effectiveness, and provides that the MDPSC may adopt different standards for different utilities based on such factors as system design and existing infrastructure, geography, and customer density. Beginning in July 2013, the MDPSC is to assess each utility’s compliance with the standards, and may assess penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation. The MDPSC has ordered that a working group of utilities, regulators, and other interested stakeholders meet to address the topics of the proposed rules, with proposed rules to be filed by September 15, 2011. Separately, on April 7, 2011, the MDPSC initiated a rulemaking with respect to issues related to contact voltage. On June 3, 2011, the MDPSC’s Staff issued a report and draft regulations. Comments on the draft regulations were submitted on June 17, 2011, and a hearing was held July 7, 2011. Final regulations related to contact voltage have not yet been adopted.

(C) NEW JERSEY

In March 2009 and again in February 2010, JCP&L filed annual SBC Petitions with the NJBPU that included a requested zero level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs based on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). In its order of June 15, 2011, the NJBPU adopted a Stipulation reached among JCP&L, the NJBPU Staff and the Division of Rate Counsel which resolved both Petitions, resulting in a net reduction in recovery of $0.8 million annually for all components of the SBC (including, as requested, a zero level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs).

(D) OHIO

The Ohio Companies operate under an ESP, which expires on May 31, 2014. The material terms of the ESP include: generation supplied through a CBP commencing June 1, 2011 (initial auctions held on October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); a load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to tranches assigned post-auction; a 6% generation discount to certain low income customers provided by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES (FES is one of the wholesale suppliers to the Ohio Companies); no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; and a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR), to recover a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery system. The Ohio Companies also agreed not to recover from retail customers certain costs related to transmission cost allocations by PJM as a result of ATSI’s integration into PJM for the longer of the five-year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2015 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, agreed to establish a $12 million fund to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP and agreed to additional matters related to energy efficiency and alternative energy requirements.

Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent to approximately 166,000 MWH in 2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with additional savings required through 2025. Utilities were also required to reduce peak demand in 2009 by 1%, with an additional 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018.

In December 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable from customers. The PUCO issued an Opinion and Order generally approving the Ohio Companies’ 3-year plan, and the Companies are in the process of implementing those programs included in the Plan. OE fell short of its statutory 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks and therefore, on January 11, 2011, it requested that its 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks be amended to actual levels achieved in 2010. The PUCO granted this request on May 19, 2011 for OE, finding that the motion was moot for CEI and TE. Moreover, because the PUCO indicated, when approving the 2009 benchmark request, that it would modify the Companies’ 2010 (and 2011 and 2012) energy efficiency benchmarks when addressing the portfolio plan, the Ohio Companies were not certain of their 2010 energy efficiency obligations. Therefore, CEI and TE (each of which achieved its 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction statutory benchmarks) also requested an amendment if and only to the degree one was deemed necessary to bring them into compliance with their yet-to-be-defined modified benchmarks. On June 2, 2011, the Companies filed an application for rehearing to clarify the decision related to CEI and TE. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may subject the companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a penalty. In addition to approving the programs included in the plan, with only minor modifications, the PUCO authorized the Companies to recover all costs related to the original CFL program that the Ohio Companies had previously suspended at the request of the PUCO. Applications for Rehearing were filed on April 22, 2011, regarding portions of the PUCO’s decision, including the method for calculating savings and certain changes made by the PUCO to specific programs. On May 4, 2011, the PUCO granted applications for rehearing for the purpose of further consideration; however, no substantive ruling has been issued.

Additionally under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve part of their load from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25% of the KWH they served in 2009 and 0.50% of the KWH they served in 2010. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RECs acquired through these two RFPs were used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In March 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market and reduced the Ohio Companies’ aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies acquired through their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Ohio Companies’ 2010 alternative energy requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO granted FES’ force majeure request for 2009 and increased its 2010 benchmark by the amount of SRECs that FES was short of in its 2009 benchmark. On April 15, 2011, the Ohio Companies filed an application seeking an amendment to each of their 2010 alternative energy requirements for solar RECs generated in Ohio on the basis that an insufficient quantity of solar resources are available in the market but reflecting solar RECs that they have obtained and providing additional information regarding efforts to secure solar RECs. Other parties to the proceeding filed comments asserting that the force majeure determination should not be granted, and others requesting the PUCO to review the costs the Ohio companies’ have incurred to comply with the renewable energy requirements. The PUCO has not yet acted on that application.

In February 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for all-electric customers. In March 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers be set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31, 2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect in March 2010. In April 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers to which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the associated additional amounts. The PUCO also stated that it expected that the new credit would remain in place through at least the 2011 winter season and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the issue. Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect in May 2010 and the proceeding remains open. The hearing on the matter was held in February 2011. The PUCO modified and approved the companies’ application on May 25, 2011, ruling that the new credit be phased out over an eight-year period and granting authority for the companies to recover deferred costs and associated carrying charges. OCC filed applications for rehearing on June 24, 2011 and the Ohio Companies filed their responses on July 5, 2011. The PUCO has not yet acted on the applications for rehearing.

(E) PENNSYLVANIA

The PPUC entered an Order on March 3, 2010 that denied the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, directed Met-Ed and Penelec to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and instructed Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all marginal transmission losses collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases beginning January 1, 2011. In March 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff supplements to end collection of costs for marginal transmission losses. The PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUC’s order, Met-Ed and Penelec filed plans to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and carrying charges. Pursuant to the plan approved by the PPUC, Met-Ed and Penelec began to refund those amounts to customers in January 2011, and the refunds will continue over a 29 month period until the full amounts previously recovered for marginal transmission loses are refunded. In April 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUC’s March 3, 2010 Order. On June 14, 2011, the Commonwealth Court issued an opinion and order affirming the PPUC’s Order to the extent that it holds that line loss costs are not transmission costs and, therefore, the approximately $254 million in marginal transmission losses and associated carrying charges for the period prior to January 1, 2011, are not recoverable under Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s TSC riders. Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and also a complaint seeking relief in federal district court. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, Met-Ed and Penelec believe that they should ultimately prevail through the judicial process and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $254 million ($189 million for Met-Ed and $65 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the period prior to January 1, 2011.

In May 2008, May 2009 and May 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s annual updates to their TSC rider for the annual periods between June 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010, including marginal transmission losses as approved by the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The PPUC’s approval in May 2010 authorized an increase to the TSC for Met-Ed’s customers to provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010.

In February 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. In July 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues. Although the PPUC’s Order approving the Joint Petition held that the provisions relating to the recovery of MISO exit fees and one-time PJM integration costs (resulting from Penn’s June 1, 2011 exit from MISO and integration into PJM) were approved, it made such provisions subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Therefore, Penn may not put these provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and PJM integration costs.

Pennsylvania adopted Act 129 in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction; generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other things, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load reduction plan, or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities’ plans to reduce energy consumption by a minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce peak demand by a minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. Act 129 also required utilities to file with the PPUC a Smart Meter Implementation Plan (SMIP).

The PPUC entered an Order in February 2010 giving final approval to all aspects of the EE&C Plans of Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010. On February 18, 2011, the companies filed a petition to approve their First Amended EE&C Plans. On June 28, 2011, a hearing on the petition was held before an administrative law judge.

WP filed its original EE&C Plan in June 2009, which the PPUC approved, in large part, by Opinion and Order entered in October 2009. In November 2009, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of the PPUC’s October Order. The OCA contends that the PPUC’s Order failed to include WP’s costs for smart meter implementation in the EE&C Plan, and that inclusion of such costs would cause the EE&C Plan to exceed the statutory cap for EE&C expenditures. The OCA also contends that WP’s EE&C plan does not meet the Total Resource Cost Test. The appeal remains pending but has been stayed by the Commonwealth Court pending possible settlement of WP’s SMIP. In September 2010, WP filed an amended EE&C Plan that is less reliant on smart meter deployment, which the PPUC approved in January 2011.

Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a SMIP with the PPUC in August 2009. This plan proposed a 24-month assessment period in which Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate assessment period costs of approximately $29.5 million, which the Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn, in their plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJ’s Initial Decision approved the SMIP as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUC’s Implementation Order; denying the recovery of interest through the automatic adjustment clause; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs net of resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and requiring that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be capitalized. The PPUC entered its Order in June 2010, consistent with the Chairman’s Motion. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUC’s Order regarding the future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates, which the PPUC granted in part by deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn from seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time. The costs to implement the SMIP could be material. However, assuming these costs satisfy a just and reasonable standard, they are expected to be recovered in a rider (Smart Meter Technologies Charge Rider) which was approved when the PPUC approved the SMIP.

In August 2009, WP filed its original SMIP, which provided for extensive deployment of smart meter infrastructure with replacement of all of WP’s approximately 725,000 meters by the end of 2014. In December 2009, WP filed a motion to reopen the evidentiary record to submit an alternative smart meter plan proposing, among other things, a less-rapid deployment of smart meters. In an Initial Decision dated April 29, 2010, an ALJ determined that WP’s alternative smart meter deployment plan, complied with the requirements of Act 129 and recommended approval of the alternative plan, including WP’s proposed cost recovery mechanism.

In light of the significant expenditures that would be associated with its smart meter deployment plans and related infrastructure upgrades, as well as its evaluation of recent PPUC decisions approving less-rapid deployment proposals by other utilities, WP re-evaluated its Act 129 compliance strategy, including both its plans with respect to smart meter deployment and certain smart meter dependent aspects of the EE&C Plan. In October 2010, WP and Pennsylvania’s OCA filed a Joint Petition for Settlement addressing WP’s smart meter implementation plan with the PPUC. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP proposed to decelerate its previously contemplated smart meter deployment schedule and to target the installation of approximately 25,000 smart meters in support of its EE&C Plan, based on customer requests, by mid-2012. The proposed settlement also contemplates that WP take advantage of the 30-month grace period authorized by the PPUC to continue WP’s efforts to re-evaluate full-scale smart meter deployment plans. WP currently anticipates filing its plan for full-scale deployment of smart meters in June 2012. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP would be permitted to recover certain previously incurred and anticipated smart-meter related expenditures through a levelized customer surcharge, with certain expenditures amortized over a ten-year period. Additionally, WP would be permitted to seek recovery of certain other costs as part of its revised SMIP that it currently intends to file in June 2012, or in a future base distribution rate case.

In December 2010, the PPUC directed that the SMIP proceeding be referred to the ALJ for further proceedings to ensure that the impact of the proposed merger with FirstEnergy is considered and that the Joint Petition for Settlement has adequate support in the record. On March 9, 2011, WP submitted an Amended Joint Petition for Settlement which restates the Joint Petition for Settlement filed in October 2010, adds the PPUC’s Office of Trial Staff as a signatory party, and confirms the support or non-opposition of all parties to the settlement. One party retained the ability to challenge the recovery of amounts spent on WP’s original smart meter implementation plan. The proposed settlement also obligates OCA to withdraw its November 2009 appeal of the PPUC’s Order in WP’s EE&C plan proceeding. A Joint Stipulation with the OSBA was also filed on March 9, 2011. On May 3, 2011, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision recommending that the PPUC approve the Amended Joint Petition for Full Settlement. The PPUC approved the Initial Decision by order entered June 30, 2011.

By Tentative Order entered in September 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement, which addressed how Met-Ed and Penelec were going to implement direct access to a competitive market for the generation of electricity, allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the Tentative Order, various parties filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.

In the PPUC Order approving the FirstEnergy and Allegheny merger, the PPUC announced that a separate statewide investigation into Pennsylvania’s retail electricity market will be conducted with the goal of making recommendations for improvements to ensure that a properly functioning and workable competitive retail electricity market exists in the state. On April 29, 2011, the PPUC entered an Order initiating the investigation and requesting comments from interested parties on eleven directed questions. Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power and West Penn submitted joint comments on June 3, 2011. FES also submitted comments on June 3, 2011. On June 8, 2011, the PPUC conducted an en banc hearing on these issues at which both the Pennsylvania Companies and FES participated and offered testimony.

(F) VIRGINIA

In September 2010, PATH-VA filed an application with the VSCC for authorization to construct the Virginia portions of the PATH Project. On February 28, 2011, PATH-VA filed a motion to withdraw the application. On May 24, 2011, the VSCC granted PATH-VA’s motion to withdraw its application for authorization to construct the Virginia portions of the PATH Project. See “Transmission Expansion” in the Federal Regulation and Rate Matters section for further discussion of this matter.

(G) WEST VIRGINIA

In August 2009, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a request to increase retail rates, which was amended through subsequent filings. MP and PE ultimately requested an annual increase in retail rates of approximately $95 million. In April 2010, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a Joint Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reached with the other parties in the proceeding that provided for:

•

a $40 million annualized base rate increase effective June 29, 2010;

•

a deferral of February 2010 storm restoration expenses in West Virginia over a maximum five-year period;

•

an additional $20 million annualized base rate increase effective in January 2011;

•

a decrease of $20 million in ENEC rates effective January 2011, which amount is deferred for later recovery in 2012; and

•

a moratorium on filing for further increases in base rates before December 1, 2011, except under specified circumstances.

The WVPSC approved the Joint Petition and Agreement of Settlement in June 2010.

In 2009, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act (Portfolio Act), which generally requires that a specified minimum percentage of electricity sold to retail customers in West Virginia by electric utilities each year be derived from alternative and renewable energy resources according to a predetermined schedule of increasing percentage targets, including ten percent by 2015, fifteen percent by 2020, and twenty-five percent by 2025. In November 2010, the WVPSC issued Rules Governing Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS Rules), which became effective on January 4, 2011. Under the RPS Rules, on or before January 1, 2011, each electric utility subject to the provisions of this rule was required to prepare an alternative and renewable energy portfolio standard compliance plan and file an application with the WVPSC seeking approval of such plan. MP and PE filed their combined compliance plan in December 2010. A hearing was held at the WVPSC on June 13, 2011. An order is expected by late September 2011.

Additionally, in January 2011, MP and PE filed an application with the WVPSC seeking to certify three facilities as Qualified Energy Resource Facilities. If the application is approved, the three facilities would then be capable of generating renewable credits which would assist the companies in meeting their combined requirements under the Portfolio Act. Further, in February 2011, MP and PE filed a petition with the WVPSC seeking an Order declaring that MP is entitled to all alternative and renewable energy resource credits associated with the electric energy, or energy and capacity, that MP is required to purchase pursuant to electric energy purchase agreements between MP and three non-utility electric generating facilities in WV. The City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates, each the owner of one of the contracted resources, has participated in the case in opposition to the Petition.

(H) FERC MATTERS

Rates for Transmission Service Between MISO and PJM

In November 2004, FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission service between the MISO and PJM regions. FERC also ordered MISO, PJM and the transmission owners within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate mechanism to recover lost transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to as SECA) during a 16-month transition period. In 2005, FERC set the SECA for hearing. The presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in August 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by MISO, PJM and the transmission owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision was subject to review and approval by FERC. In May 2010, FERC issued an order denying pending rehearing requests and an Order on Initial Decision which reversed the presiding ALJ’s rulings in many respects. Most notably, these orders affirmed the right of transmission owners to collect SECA charges with adjustments that modestly reduce the level of such charges, and changes to the entities deemed responsible for payment of the SECA charges. The Ohio Companies were identified as load serving entities responsible for payment of additional SECA charges for a portion of the SECA period (Green Mountain/Quest issue). FirstEnergy executed settlements with AEP, Dayton and the Exelon parties to fix FirstEnergy’s liability for SECA charges originally billed to Green Mountain and Quest for load that returned to regulated service during the SECA period. The AEP, Dayton and Exelon, settlements were approved by FERC in November 2010, and the relevant payments made. The subsidiaries of Allegheny entered into nine settlements to fix their liability for SECA charges with various parties. All of the settlements were approved by FERC and the relevant payments have been made for eight of the settlements. Payments due under the remaining settlement will be made as a part of the refund obligations of the Utilities that are under review by FERC as part of a compliance filing. Potential refund obligations of FirstEnergy and the Allegheny subsidiaries are not expected to be material. Rehearings remain pending in this proceeding.

PJM Transmission Rate

In April 2007, FERC issued an order (Opinion 494) finding that the PJM transmission owners’ existing “license plate” or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new transmission facilities, FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at 500 kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM footprint by means of a postage-stamp rate based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone. Costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a load flow methodology (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a “beneficiary pays” approach to allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities.

FERC’s Opinion 494 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which issued a decision in August 2009. The court affirmed FERC’s ratemaking treatment for existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate design issue back to FERC.

In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for a “paper hearing"— meaning that FERC called for parties to submit written comments pursuant to the schedule described in the order. FERC identified nine separate issues for comments and directed PJM to file the first round of comments on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments and then reply comments on later dates. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order. PJM’s filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the majority of the costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. This matter is awaiting action by FERC.

RTO Realignment

On June 1, 2011, ATSI and the ATSI zone entered into PJM. The move was performed as planned with no known operational or reliability issues for ATSI or for the wholesale transmission customers in the ATSI zone.

On February 1, 2011, ATSI in conjunction with PJM filed its proposal with FERC for moving its transmission rate into PJM’s tariffs. On April 1, 2011, the MISO Transmission Owners (including ATSI) filed proposed tariff language that describes the mechanics of collecting and administering MTEP costs from ATSI-zone ratepayers. From March 20, 2011 through April 1, 2011, FirstEnergy, PJM and the MISO submitted numerous filings for the purpose of effecting movement of the ATSI zone to PJM on June 1, 2011. These filings include amendments to the MISO’s tariffs (to remove the ATSI zone), submission of load and generation interconnection agreements to reflect the move into PJM, and submission of changes to PJM’s tariffs to support the move into PJM.

On May 31, 2011, FERC issued orders that address the proposed ATSI transmission rate, and certain parts of the MISO tariffs that reflect the mechanics of transmission cost allocation and collection. In its May 31, 2011 orders, FERC approved ATSI’s proposal to move the ATSI formula rate into the PJM tariff without significant change. Speaking to ATSI’s proposed treatment of the MISO’s exit fees and charges for transmission costs that were allocated to the ATSI zone, FERC required ATSI to present a cost-benefit study that demonstrates that the benefits of the move for transmission customers exceed the costs of any such move, which FERC had not previously required. Accordingly, FERC ruled that these costs must be removed from ATSI’s proposed transmission rates until such time as ATSI files and FERC approves the cost-benefit study. On June 30, 2011, ATSI submitted the compliance filing that removed the MISO exit fees and transmission cost allocation charges from ATSI’s proposed transmission rates. Also on June 30, 2011, ATSI requested rehearing of FERC’s decision to require a cost-benefit study analysis as part of FERC’s evaluation of ATSI’s proposed transmission rates. The compliance filing, and ATSI’s request for rehearing, are currently pending before FERC.

From late April 2011 through June 2011, FERC issued other orders that address ATSI’s move into PJM. These orders approve ATSI’s proposed interconnection agreements for large wholesale transmission customers and generators, and revisions to the PJM and MISO tariffs that reflect ATSI’s move into PJM. In addition, FERC approved an “Exit Fee Agreement” that memorializes the agreement between ATSI and MISO with regard to ATSI’s obligation to pay certain administrative charges to the MISO upon exit. Finally, ATSI and the MISO were able to negotiate an agreement of ATSI’s responsibility for certain charges associated with long term firm transmission rights — that, according to the MISO, were payable by the ATSI zone upon its departure from the MISO. ATSI did not and does not agree that these costs should be charged to ATSI but, in order to settle the case and all claims associated with the case, ATSI agreed to a one-time payment of $1.8 million to the MISO. This settlement agreement has been submitted for FERC’s review and approval. The final outcome of those proceedings that address the remaining open issues related to ATSI’s move into PJM and their impact, if any, on FirstEnergy cannot be predicted at this time.

MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal

In July 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed cost allocation methodology for certain new transmission projects. The new transmission projects—described as MVPs — are a class of transmission projects that are approved via MISO’s formal transmission planning process (the MTEP). The filing parties proposed to allocate the costs of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the MISO footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be “wheeled through” the MISO as well as to energy transactions that “source” in the MISO but “sink” outside of MISO. The filing parties expect that the MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring wind generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. The filing parties requested an effective date for the proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISO’s Board approved the first MVP project — the “Michigan Thumb Project.” Under MISO’s proposal, the costs of MVP projects approved by MISO’s Board prior to the June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergy’s integration into PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy. MISO estimated that approximately $15 million in annual revenue requirements would be allocated to the ATSI zone associated with the Michigan Thumb Project upon its completion.

In September 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to the MVP proposal arguing that MISO’s proposal to allocate costs of MVPs projects across the entire MISO footprint does not align with the established rule that cost allocation is to be based on cost causation (the “beneficiary pays” approach). FirstEnergy also argued that, in light of progress that had been made to date in the ATSI integration into PJM, it would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVP costs to the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous other parties filed pleadings on MISO’s MVP proposal.

In December 2010, FERC issued an order approving the MVP proposal without significant change. FERC’s order was not clear, however, as to whether the MVP costs would be payable by ATSI or load in the ATSI zone. FERC stated that the MISO’s tariffs obligate ATSI to pay all charges that attached prior to ATSI’s exit but ruled that the question of the amount of costs that are to be allocated to ATSI or to load in the ATSI zone were beyond the scope of FERC’s order and would be addressed in future proceedings.

On January 18, 2011, FirstEnergy filed for rehearing of FERC’s order. In its rehearing request, FirstEnergy argued that because the MVP rate is usage-based, costs could not be applied to ATSI, which is a stand-alone transmission company that does not use the transmission system. FirstEnergy also renewed its arguments regarding cost causation and the impropriety of allocating costs to the ATSI zone or to ATSI.

As noted above, on February 1, 2011, ATSI filed proposed transmission rates related to its move into PJM. The proposed rates included line items that were intended to recover all MVP costs (if any) that might be charged to ATSI or to the ATSI zone. In its May 31, 2011 order on ATSI’s proposed transmission rates FERC ruled that ATSI must submit a cost-benefit study before ATSI can recover the MVP costs. FERC further directed that ATSI remove the line-items from ATSI’s formula rate that would recover the MVP costs until such time as ATSI submits and FERC approves the cost- benefit study. ATSI requested a rehearing of these parts of FERC’s order and, pending this further legal process, has removed the MVP line items from its transmission rates.

FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.

California Claims Matters

In October 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California Energy Resource Scheduling division of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) during 2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190 million for these alleged overcharges. This proposal was made in the context of mediation efforts by FERC and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit has since remanded one of those proceedings to FERC, which arises out of claims previously filed with FERC by the California Attorney General on behalf of certain California parties against various sellers in the California wholesale power market, including AE Supply (the Lockyer case). AE Supply and several other sellers filed motions to dismiss the Lockyer case. In March 2010, the judge assigned to the case entered an opinion that granted the motions to dismiss filed by AE Supply and other sellers and dismissed the claims of the California Parties. On May 4, 2011, FERC affirmed the judge’s ruling.

In June 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a second complaint with FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply (the Brown case), again seeking refunds for trades in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted trades with CDWR are the basis for including AE Supply in this new complaint. AE Supply filed a motion to dismiss the Brown complaint that was granted by FERC on May 24, 2011. On June 23, 2011, the California Attorney General requested rehearing of the May 24, 2011 order. FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Transmission Expansion

TrAIL Project. TrAIL is a 500 kV transmission line extending from southwest Pennsylvania through West Virginia and into northern Virginia. Effective May 19, 2011, all segments of TrAIL were energized and in service.

PATH Project. The PATH Project is comprised of a 765 kV transmission line that was proposed to extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, modifications to an existing substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland.

PJM initially authorized construction of the PATH Project in June 2007. In December 2010, PJM advised that its 2011 Load Forecast Report included load projections that are different from previous forecasts and that may have an impact on the proposed in-service date for the PATH Project. As part of its 2011 RTEP, and in response to a January 19, 2011 directive by a Virginia Hearing Examiner, PJM conducted a series of analyses using the most current economic forecasts and demand response commitments, as well as potential new generation resources. Preliminary analysis revealed the expected reliability violations that necessitated the PATH Project had moved several years into the future. Based on those results, PJM announced on February 28, 2011 that its Board of Managers had decided to hold the PATH Project in abeyance in its 2011 RTEP and directed FirstEnergy and AEP, as the sponsoring transmission owners, to suspend current development efforts on the project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state, while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the need for the project as part of its continuing RTEP process. PJM stated that its action did not constitute a directive to FirstEnergy and AEP to cancel or abandon the PATH Project. PJM further stated that it will complete a more rigorous analysis of the PATH Project and other transmission requirements and its Board will review this comprehensive analysis as part of its consideration of the 2011 RTEP. On February 28, 2011, affiliates of FirstEnergy and AEP filed motions or notices to withdraw applications for authorization to construct the project that were pending before state commissions in West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland. Withdrawal was deemed effective upon filing the notice with the MDPSC. The WVPSC and VSCC have granted the motions to withdraw.

PATH, LLC submitted a filing to FERC to implement a formula rate tariff effective March 1, 2008. In a November 19, 2010 order addressing various matters relating to the formula rate, FERC set the project’s base return on equity for hearing and reaffirmed its prior authorization of a return on CWIP, recovery of start-up costs and recovery of abandonment costs. In the order, FERC also granted a 1.5% return on equity incentive adder and a 0.50% return on equity adder for RTO participation. These adders will be applied to the base return on equity determined as a result of the hearing. PATH, LLC is currently engaged in settlement discussions with the staff of FERC and intervenors regarding resolution of the base return on equity.

Seneca Pumped Storage Project Relicensing

The Seneca (Kinzua) Pumped Storage Project is a 451 MW hydroelectric project located in Warren County, Pennsylvania owned and operated by FGCO. FGCO holds the current FERC license that authorizes ownership and operation of the project. The current FERC license will expire on November 30, 2015. FERC’s regulations call for a five-year relicensing process. On November 24, 2010, and acting pursuant to applicable FERC regulations and rules, FGCO initiated the relicensing process by filing its notice of intent to relicense and pre-application document (PAD) in the license docket.

On November 30, 2010, the Seneca Nation of Indians filed its notice of intent to relicense and PAD documents necessary for them to submit a competing application. Section 15 of the FPA contemplates that third parties may file a ‘competing application’ to assume ownership and operation of a hydroelectric facility upon (i) relicensure and (ii) payment of net book value of the plant to the original owner/operator. Nonetheless, FGCO believes it is entitled to a statutory “incumbent preference” under Section 15.

The Seneca Nation and certain other intervenors have asked FERC to redefine the “project boundary” of the hydroelectric plant to include the dam and reservoir facilities operated by the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers. On May 16, 2011, FirstEnergy filed a Petition for Declaratory Order with FERC seeking an order to exclude the dam and reservoir facilities from the project. The Seneca Nation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Department of Interior each submitted responses to FirstEnergy’s petition, including motions to dismiss FirstEnergy’s petition. The “project boundary” issue is pending before FERC.

The next steps in the relicensing process are for FirstEnergy and the Seneca Nation to define and perform certain environmental and operational studies to support their respective applications. These steps are expected to run through approximately November of 2013. FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.