COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

NUCLEAR INSURANCE

The Price-Anderson Act limits the public liability which can be assessed with respect to a nuclear power plant to $12.6 billion (assuming 104 units licensed to operate) for a single nuclear incident, which amount is covered by: (i) private insurance amounting to $375 million; and (ii) $12.2 billion provided by an industry retrospective rating plan required by the NRC pursuant thereto. Under such retrospective rating plan, in the event of a nuclear incident at any unit in the United States resulting in losses in excess of private insurance, up to $118 million (but not more than $18 million per unit per year in the event of more than one incident) must be contributed for each nuclear unit licensed to operate in the country by the licensees thereof to cover liabilities arising out of the incident. Based on their present nuclear ownership and leasehold interests, FirstEnergy’s maximum potential assessment under these provisions would be $470 million (OE-$40 million, NGC-$408 million, and TE-$22 million) per incident but not more than $70 million (OE-$6 million, NGC-$61 million, and TE-$3 million) in any one year for each incident.

In addition to the public liability insurance provided pursuant to the Price-Anderson Act, FirstEnergy has also obtained insurance coverage in limited amounts for economic loss and property damage arising out of nuclear incidents. FirstEnergy is a member of NEIL, which provides coverage (NEIL I) for the extra expense of replacement power incurred due to prolonged accidental outages of nuclear units. Under NEIL I, FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries have policies, renewable yearly, corresponding to their respective nuclear interests, which provide an aggregate indemnity of up to approximately $2.0 billion (OE-$168 million, NGC-$1.7 billion, TE-$90 million) for replacement power costs incurred during an outage after an initial 26-week waiting period. Members of NEIL I pay annual premiums and are subject to assessments if losses exceed the accumulated funds available to the insurer. FirstEnergy’s present maximum aggregate assessment for incidents at any covered nuclear facility occurring during a policy year would be approximately $13 million (OE-$1 million, NGC-$12 million, and TE-less than $1 million).

FirstEnergy is insured as to its respective nuclear interests under property damage insurance provided by NEIL to the operating company for each plant. Under these arrangements, up to $2.8 billion of coverage for decontamination costs, decommissioning costs, debris removal and repair and/or replacement of property is provided. FirstEnergy pays annual premiums for this coverage and is liable for retrospective assessments of up to approximately $66 million (OE-$6 million, NGC-$57 million, TE-$2 million, Met Ed, Penelec, and JCP&L-less than $1 million each) during a policy year.

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

The NRC requires nuclear power plant licensees to obtain minimum property insurance coverage of $1.1 billion or the amount generally available from private sources, whichever is less. The proceeds of this insurance are required to be used first to ensure that the licensed reactor is in a safe and stable condition and can be maintained in that condition so as to prevent any significant risk to the public health and safety. Within 30 days of stabilization, the licensee is required to prepare and submit to the NRC a cleanup plan for approval. The plan is required to identify all cleanup operations necessary to decontaminate the reactor sufficiently to permit the resumption of operations or to commence decommissioning. Any property insurance proceeds not already expended to place the reactor in a safe and stable condition must be used first to complete those decontamination operations that are ordered by the NRC. FirstEnergy is unable to predict what effect these requirements may have on the availability of insurance proceeds.

GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES

As part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy enters into various agreements on behalf of its subsidiaries to provide financial or performance assurances to third parties. FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions involving electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides credit support to various providers for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements include provisions for parent guarantees, surety bonds and/or LOCs to be issued by FirstEnergy on behalf of one or more of its subsidiaries. Additionally, certain contracts may contain collateral provisions that are contingent upon either FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings.

As of December 31, 2011, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $3.7 billion, consisting primarily of parental guarantees ($0.9 billion), subsidiaries’ guarantees ($2.5 billion), surety bonds and LOCs ($0.3 billion).

Most of FirstEnergy’s surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $151 million provide additional assurance to outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.

While the types of guarantees discussed above are normally parental commitments for the future payment of subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BBB- and Moody's Baa3 and lower, or a “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of collateral or accelerated payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of December 31, 2011, FirstEnergy’s exposure to additional credit contingent contractual obligations was $636 million, as shown below:



Collateral Provisions	FES		AE Supply		Utilities		Total
	(In millions)
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade ⁽¹⁾	$	468	$	8	$	57	$	533
Material adverse event ⁽²⁾	31		60		12		103
Total	$	499	$	68	$	69	$	636


⁽¹⁾	Includes $205 million and $47 million that are also considered accelerations of payment or funding obligations for FES and the Utilities, respectively.


⁽²⁾	Includes $31 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation at FES.

Certain bilateral non-affiliate contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy Services segment contain margining provisions that require posting of collateral. Based on FES' and AE Supply's power portfolios exposure as of December 31, 2011, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of $88 million and $1 million, respectively. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required.

Not included in the preceding information is potential collateral arising from the PSAs between FES or AE Supply and affiliated utilities in the Regulated Distribution Segment. As of December 31, 2011, neither FES nor AE Supply had any collateral posted with their affiliates. In the event of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BB- or Moody's Ba3, FES and AE Supply would be required to post $49 million and $24 million, respectively.

FES' debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, and FES guarantees the debt obligations of each of FGCO and NGC. Accordingly, present and future holders of indebtedness of FES, FGCO and NGC would have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC, regardless of whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.

Signal Peak and Global Rail are borrowers under a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility due in October 2012. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures, LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II, LLC, the entities that previously shared ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a guaranty of the borrowers' obligations under the facility. On October 18, 2011, FEV sold a portion of its ownership interest in Signal Peak and Global Rail (see Note 8, Variable Interest Entities). Following the sale, FirstEnergy, WMB Loan Ventures, LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II, LLC, together with Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Holding will continue to guarantee the borrowers' obligations until either the facility is replaced with non-recourse financing (no later than June 30, 2012) or replaced with appropriate recourse financing no earlier than September 4, 2012, that provides for separate guarantees from each owner in proportion with each equity owner's percentage ownership in the joint venture. In addition, FEV, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Holding, the entities that own direct and indirect equity interests in the borrowers, have pledged those interests to the lenders under the current facility as collateral.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water quality and other environmental matters. Compliance with environmental regulations could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's earnings and competitive position to the extent that FirstEnergy competes with companies that are not subject to such regulations and, therefore, do not bear the risk of costs associated with compliance, or failure to comply, with such regulations.

CAA Compliance

FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO₂ and NOx emissions regulations under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO₂ and NOx reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion controls and post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower or non-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances. Violations can result in the shutdown of the generating unit involved and/or civil or criminal penalties.

In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner,” one being a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other being a class action complaint seeking certification as a class action with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FGCO believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints.

The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at the coal-fired Portland Generation Station against GenOn Energy, Inc. (formerly RRI Energy, Inc. and the current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in 1999) and Met-Ed. Specifically, these suits allege that “modifications” at Portland Units 1 and 2 occurred between 1980 and 2005 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA's PSD program, and seek injunctive relief, penalties, attorney fees and mitigation of the harm caused by excess emissions. In September 2009, the Court granted Met-Ed's motion to dismiss New Jersey's and Connecticut's claims for injunctive relief against Met-Ed, but denied Met-Ed's motion to dismiss the claims for civil penalties. The parties dispute the scope of Met-Ed's indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy, and Met-Ed is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. alleging NSR violations at the coal-fired Portland Generation Station based on “modifications” dating back to 1986. The NOV also alleged NSR violations at the Keystone and Shawville coal-fired plants based on “modifications” dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L and Penelec are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In each of May and September 2010, New Jersey submitted interstate pollution transport petitions seeking to reduce Portland Generating Station air emissions under section 126 of the CAA. Based on the September 2010 petition, the EPA has finalized emissions limits and compliance schedules to reduce SO₂ air emissions by approximately 81% at the Portland Station by January 6, 2015. New Jersey's May 2010 petition is still under consideration by the EPA.

In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission alleging that “modifications” at the coal-fired Homer City Plant occurred from 1988 to the present without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA's PSD program. In May 2010, the EPA issued a second NOV to Mission, Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership interest in Homer City containing in all material respects allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV. In January 2011, the DOJ filed a complaint against Penelec in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief against Penelec based on alleged “modifications” at Homer City between 1991 to 1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA's PSD and Title V permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, NYSEG, and various current owners of Homer City, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate complaints regarding Homer City seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. In January 2011, another complaint was filed against Penelec and the other entities described above in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on Homer City's air emissions as well as certification as a class action and to enjoin Homer City from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner.” In October 2011, the Court dismissed all of the claims with prejudice of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey and New York and all of the claims of the private parties, without prejudice to re-file state law claims in state court, against all of the defendants, including Penelec. In December 2011, the U.S., the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey and New York all filed notices appealing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Penelec believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the loss or possible range of loss. Mission is seeking indemnification from NYSEG and Penelec, the co-owners of Homer City prior to its sale in 1999. On February 13, 2012, the Sierra Club notified the current owner and operator of Homer City, Homer City OL1-OL8 LLC and EME Homer City Generation L.P., that it intends to file a CAA citizen suit regarding its Title V permit and SO₂emissions from the Homer City Plant.

In August 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and Ohio regulations, including the PSD, NNSR and Title V regulations, at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula coal-fired plants. The EPA's NOV alleges equipment replacements during maintenance outages dating back to 1990 triggered the pre-construction permitting requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs. FGCO also received a request for certain operating and maintenance information and planning information for these same generating plants and notification that the EPA is evaluating whether certain maintenance at the Eastlake Plant may constitute a major modification under the NSR provisions of the CAA. Later in 2009, FGCO also received another information request regarding emission projections for the Eastlake Plant. In June 2011, EPA issued another Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and Ohio regulations, specifically opacity limitations and requirements to continuously operate opacity monitoring systems at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula coal-fired plants. Also, in June 2011, FirstEnergy received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA for certain operating, maintenance and planning information, among other information regarding these plants. FGCO intends to comply with the CAA, including the EPA's information requests but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In August 2000, AE received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA from the EPA requesting that it provide information and documentation relevant to the operation and maintenance of the following ten coal-fired plants, which collectively include 22 electric generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfield's Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island to determine compliance with the NSR provisions under the CAA, which can require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when a major modification of an existing facility results in an increase in emissions. AE has provided responsive information to this and a subsequent request but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In May 2004, AE, AE Supply, MP and WP received a Notice of Intent to Sue Pursuant to CAA §7604 from the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and from the PA DEP, alleging that Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions of the CAA at the following West Virginia coal-fired generation units: Albright Unit 3; Fort Martin Units 1 and 2; Harrison Units 1, 2 and 3; Pleasants Units 1 and 2 and Willow Island Unit 2. The Notice also alleged PSD violations at the Armstrong, Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell coal-fired plants in Pennsylvania and identifies PA DEP as the lead agency regarding those facilities. In September 2004, AE, AE Supply, MP and WP received a separate Notice of Intent to Sue from the Maryland Attorney General that essentially mirrored the previous Notice.

In June 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply, MP, PE and WP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania. On January 17, 2006, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. A non-jury trial on liability only was held in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in December 2010, Allegheny made its related filings in February 2011 and plaintiffs filed their responses in April 2011. The parties are awaiting a decision from the District Court, but there is no deadline for that decision and we are unable to predict the outcome or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In September 2007, Allegheny received a NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Armstrong plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired Fort Martin and Willow Island plants in West Virginia.

FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CAA matters described above but cannot predict their outcomes or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

State Air Quality Compliance

In early 2006, Maryland passed the Healthy Air Act, which imposes state-wide emission caps on SO₂ and NOx, requires mercury emission reductions and mandates that Maryland join the RGGI and participate in that coalition's regional efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland became the tenth state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith coal-fired plant for NOx, SO₂ and mercury, based on a 2006 PJM declaration that the plant is vital to reliability in the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area. Pursuant to the legislation, the MDE passed alternate NOx and SO₂ limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% which began in 2010. The statutory exemption does not extend to R. Paul Smith's CO₂ emissions. Maryland issued final regulations to implement RGGI requirements in February 2008. Fourteen RGGI auctions have been held through the end of calendar year 2011. RGGI allowances are also readily available in the allowance markets, affording another mechanism by which to secure necessary allowances. On March 14, 2011, MDE requested PJM perform an analysis to determine if termination of operation at R. Paul Smith would adversely impact the reliability of electrical service in the PJM region under current system conditions. On June 30, 2011, PJM notified MDE that termination of operation at R. Paul Smith would adversely impact the reliability of electrical service in the PJM region absent transmission system upgrades. On January 26, 2012, FirstEnergy announced that R. Paul Smith is among nine coal-fired plants it intends to retire by September 1, 2012, subject to review of reliability impacts by PJM. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In January 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at the Pleasants coal-fired plant. In August 2011, FirstEnergy and WVDEP resolved the NOV through a Consent Order requiring installation of a reagent injection system to reduce opacity by September 2012.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The EPA's CAIR requires reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and 2015), ultimately capping SO₂ emissions in affected states to 2.5 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated CAIR “in its entirety” and directed the EPA to “redo its analysis from the ground up.” In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and allowed CAIR to remain in effect to “temporarily preserve its environmental values” until the EPA replaces CAIR with a new rule consistent with the Court's opinion. The Court ruled in a different case that a cap-and-trade program similar to CAIR, called the “NOx SIP Call,” cannot be used to satisfy certain CAA requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for areas in non-attainment under the “8-hour” ozone NAAQS. In July 2011, the EPA finalized the CSAPR, to replace CAIR, requiring reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO₂ emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances with some restrictions. On February 21, 2012, the EPA revised certain CASPR state budgets (for Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin and new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas), certain generating unit allocations (for some units in Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee) for NOx and SO₂ emissions and delayed from 2012 to 2014 certain allowance penalties that could apply with respect to interstate trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances. On December 30, 2011, CSAPR was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending a decision on legal challenges raised in appeals filed by various stakeholders and scheduled to be argued before the Court on April 13, 2012. The Court ordered EPA to continue administration of CAIR until the Court resolves the CSAPR appeals. Depending on the outcome of these proceedings and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, FGCO's and AE Supply's future cost of compliance may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

During 2011, FirstEnergy recorded pre-tax impairment charges of approximately $6 million ($1 million for FES and $5 million for AE Supply) for NOx emission allowances that were expected to be obsolete after 2011 and approximately $21 million ($18 million for FES and $3 million for AE Supply) for excess SO₂ emission allowances in inventory that it expects will not be consumed in the future.

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions

On December 21, 2011, the EPA finalized the MATS to establish emission standards for mercury, hydrochloric acid and various metals for electric generating units. The MATS establishes emission limits for mercury, PM, and HCL for all existing and new coal-fired electric generating units effective in April 2015 and allows averaging of emissions from multiple units located at a single plant. Under the CAA, state permitting authorities can grant an additional compliance year through April 2016, as needed, including instances when necessary to maintain reliability where electric generating units are being closed. In addition, an EPA enforcement policy document contemplates up to an additional year to achieve compliance, through April 2017, under certain circumstances for reliability critical units. On January 26, 2012 and February 8, 2012, FGCO, MP and AE Supply announced the retirement by September 1, 2012 (subject to a reliability review by PJM) of nine coal-fired power plants (Albright, Armstrong, Ashtabula, Bay Shore except for generating unit 1, Eastlake, Lake Shore, R. Paul Smith, Rivesville and Willow Island) with a total capacity of 3,349 megawatts (generating, on average, approximately ten percent of the electricity produced by the companies over the past three years) due to MATS and other environmental regulations. In addition, MP will make a filing with the WVPSC to provide them with information regarding the retirement of its plants. Depending on how the MATS are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergy's future cost of compliance with MATS may be substantial and other changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

On February 24, 2012, PJM notified FirstEnergy of its preliminary analysis of the reliability impacts that may result from closure of the older competitive coal-fired generating units. PJM's preliminary analysis indicated that there would be significant reliability concerns that will need to be addressed. FirstEnergy intends to continue to actively engage in discussions with PJM regarding this notification, including the possible continued operation of certain plants.

Climate Change

There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state and international level. At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States, and the House of Representatives passed one such bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, in June 2009. Certain states, primarily the northeastern states participating in the RGGI and western states led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs.

In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that required FirstEnergy to measure and report GHG emissions commencing in 2010. In December 2009, the EPA released its final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.” The EPA's finding concludes that concentrations of several key GHGs increase the threat of climate change and may be regulated as “air pollutants” under the CAA. In April 2010, the EPA finalized new GHG standards for model years 2012 to 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles and clarified that GHG regulation under the CAA would not be triggered for electric generating plants and other stationary sources until January 2, 2011, at the earliest. In May 2010, the EPA finalized new thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the CAA's NSR program would be required. The EPA established an emissions applicability threshold of 75,000 tons per year of CO₂ equivalents effective January 2, 2011, for existing facilities under the CAA's PSD program.

At the international level, the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the U.S. in 1998 but never submitted for ratification by the U.S. Senate, was intended to address global warming by reducing the amount of man-made GHG, including CO₂, emitted by developed countries by 2012. A December 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen did not reach a consensus on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, but did take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding political agreement that recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius; includes a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30 billion over three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020; and establishes the “Green Climate Fund” to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related activities in developing countries. To the extent that they have become a party to the Copenhagen Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries, including Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification.A December 2011 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban, Africa, established a negotiating process to develop a new post-2020 climate change protocol, called the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”. This negotiating process contemplates developed countries, as well as developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, to undertake legally binding commitments post-2020. In addition, certain countries agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol for a second commitment period, commencing in 2013 and expiring in 2018 or 2020.

In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that had dismissed complaints alleging damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds. However, a subsequent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court dismissal of a complaint alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort claims, including public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global warming and result in property damages. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Second Circuit. On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit but failed to answer the question of the extent to which actions for damages based on GHG emissions may remain viable. The Court remanded to the Second Circuit the issue of whether the CAA preempted state common law nuisance actions.

FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO₂ emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations. The CO₂ emissions per KWH of electricity generated by FirstEnergy is lower than many of its regional competitors due to its diversified generation sources, which include low or non-CO₂ emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.

Clean Water Act

Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal CWA and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy's plants. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy's operations.

In 2004, the EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the CWA for reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing electric generating plants. The regulations call for reductions in impingement mortality (when aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system) and entrainment (which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facility's cooling water system). In 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidated portions of the Section 316(b) performance standards and the EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment to minimize impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. In April 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuit's opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the CWA authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake structures. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation under Section 316(b) of the CWA generally requiring fish impingement to be reduced to a 12% annual average and studies to be conducted at the majority of our existing generating facilities to assist permitting authorities to determine whether and what site-specific controls, if any, would be required to reduce entrainment of aquatic life. On July 19, 2011, the EPA extended the public comment period for the new proposed Section 316(b) regulation by 30 days but stated its schedule for issuing a final rule remains July 27, 2012. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness, including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore power plant's water intake channel to divert fish away from the plant's water intake system. Depending on the results of such studies and the EPA's further rulemaking and any final action taken by the states exercising best professional judgment, the future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.

In April 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is no longer considering prosecution under the CWA and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26, 2007 and February 27, 2007. On August 5, 2011, EPA issued an information request pursuant to Sections 308 and 311 of the CWA for certain information pertaining to the oil spills and spill prevention measures at FirstEnergy facilities. FirstEnergy responded on October 10, 2011. On February 1, 2012, FirstEnergy executed a tolling agreement with the EPA extending the statute of limitations to July 31, 2012. FGCO does not anticipate any losses resulting from this matter to be material.

In May 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the Sierra Club filed a CWA citizen suit alleging violations of arsenic limits in the NPDES water discharge permit for the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Station seeking unspecified civil penalties and injunctive relief. The MP filed an answer on July 11, 2011, and a motion to stay the proceedings on July 13, 2011. On January 3, 2012, the Court denied MP's motion to dismiss or stay the CWA citizen suit but without prejudice to re-filing in the future. MP is currently seeking relief from the arsenic limits through WVDEP agency review.

In June 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the Sierra Club served a 60-Day Notice of Intent required prior to filing a citizen suit under the CWA for alleged failure to obtain a permit to construct the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Plant.

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

Monongahela River Water Quality

In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including TDS and sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River, on new and modified sources, including the scrubber project at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry Plant. These criteria are reflected in the current PA DEP water discharge permit for that project. AE Supply appealed the PA DEP's permitting decision, which would require it to incur estimated costs in excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet TDS and sulfate limits in the permit or negatively affect its ability to operate the scrubbers as designed. The permit has been independently appealed by Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens Coal Council, which seeks to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. Those same parties have intervened in the appeal filed by AE Supply, and both appeals have been consolidated for discovery purposes. An order has been entered that stays the permit limits that AE Supply has challenged while the appeal is pending. A hearing on the parties' appeals was scheduled to begin in September 2011, however the Court stayed all prehearing deadlines on July 15, 2011 to allow the parties additional time to work out a settlement, and has rescheduled a hearing, if necessary, for July 2012. If these settlement discussions are successful, AE Supply anticipates that its obligations will not be material. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In a parallel rulemaking, the PA DEP recommended, and in August 2010, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board issued, a final rule imposing end-of-pipe TDS effluent limitations. FirstEnergy could incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the requirements of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of 2018, and then only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to such units.

In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its CWA 303(d) list to the EPA with a recommended sulfate impairment designation for an approximately 68 mile stretch of the Monongahela River north of the West Virginia border. In May 2011, the EPA agreed with PA DEP's recommended sulfate impairment designation. PA DEP's goal is to submit a final water quality standards regulation, incorporating the sulfate impairment designation for EPA approval by May, 2013. PA DEP will then need to develop a TMDL limit for the river, a process that will take approximately five years. Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant costs to reduce sulfate discharges into the Monongahela River from the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired Fort Martin Plant in West Virginia.

In October 2009, the WVDEP issued the water discharge permit for the Fort Martin Plant. Similar to the Hatfield's Ferry water discharge permit, the Fort Martin permit imposes effluent limitations for TDS and sulfate concentrations. The permit also imposes temperature limitations and other effluent limits for heavy metals that are not contained in the Hatfield's Ferry water discharge permit. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order that sets deadlines for MP to meet certain of the effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the permit. MP appealed the Fort Martin permit and the administrative order. The appeal included a request to stay certain of the conditions of the permit and order while the appeal is pending, which was granted pending a final decision on appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The appeals have been consolidated. MP moved to dismiss certain of the permit conditions for the failure of the WVDEP to submit those conditions for public review and comment during the permitting process. An agreed-upon order that suspends further action on this appeal, pending WVDEP's release for public review and comment on those conditions, was entered on August 11, 2010. The stay remains in effect during that process. The current terms of the Fort Martin permit would require MP to incur significant costs or negatively affect operations at Fort Martin. Preliminary information indicates an initial capital investment in excess of the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfield's Ferry in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the Fort Martin permit, which technology may also meet certain of the other effluent limits in the permit. Additional technology may be needed to meet certain other limits in the permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Regulation of Waste Disposal

Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. Certain fossil-fuel combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste disposal requirements pending the EPA's evaluation of the need for future regulation. In February 2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on options for regulating coal combustion residuals, including whether they should be regulated as hazardous or non-hazardous waste.

In December 2009, in an advance notice of public rulemaking, the EPA asserted that the large volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk to the industry. In May 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPA's hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management, beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FirstEnergy's future cost of compliance with any coal combustion residuals regulations that may be promulgated could be substantial and would depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the states. Compliance with those regulations could have an adverse impact on FirstEnergy's results of operations and financial condition.

LBR CCB impoundment is expected to run out of disposal capacity for disposal of CCBs from the BMP between 2016 and 2018. BMP is pursuing several CCB disposal options.

Certain of our utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2011, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Utility Registrants' proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $106 million (JCP&L - $70 million, TE - $1 million, CEI - $1 million, FGCO - $1 million and FE - $33 million) have been accrued through December 31, 2011. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $63 million for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC. On July 11, 2011, FirstEnergy was found to be a potentially responsible party under CERCLA, indirectly liable for a portion of past and future clean-up costs at certain legacy MGP sites, estimated to total approximately $59 million. FirstEnergy recognized an additional expense of $29 million during the second quarter of 2011; $30 million had previously been reserved prior to 2011. FirstEnergy determined that it is reasonably possible that it or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the possible losses or range of losses cannot be determined or reasonably estimated at this time.

OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Power Outages and Related Litigation

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L. Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of actions. On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court's decision decertifying the class. In November 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. The Court's order effectively ends the attempt to certify the class, and leaves only 9 plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual claims. The matter was referred back to the lower court, which set a trial date for February 13, 2012, for the remaining individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have accepted an immaterial amount in final settlement of all matters and the settlement documentation is being finalized for execution by all parties.

Nuclear Plant Matters

Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As of December 31, 2011, FirstEnergy had approximately $2 billion invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental guarantee, as appropriate. The values of FirstEnergy's NDT fluctuate based on market conditions. If the value of the trusts decline by a material amount, FirstEnergy's obligation to fund the trusts may increase. Disruptions in the capital markets and their effects on particular businesses and the economy could also affect the values of the NDT. On March 28, 2011, FENOC submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This submittal identified a total shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry of approximately $92.5 million. By letter dated December 29, 2011, FENOC informed the NRC staff that it had increased the parental guarantee to $95 million.

In January 2004, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking damages in connection with costs incurred at the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear facilities as a result of the DOE's failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on January 31, 1998. DOE was required to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 USC 10101 et seq) and the contracts entered into by the DOE and the owners and operators of these facilities pursuant to the Act. In January 2012, the applicable FirstEnergy affiliates reached a $48 million settlement of these claims.

In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. By an order dated April 26, 2011, a NRC ASLB granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application to a group of petitioners. By this order, the ASLB also admitted two contentions challenging whether FENOC's Environmental Report adequately evaluated (1) a combination of renewable energy sources as alternatives to the renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license, and (2) severe accident mitigation alternatives at Davis-Besse. On May 6, 2011, FENOC filed an appeal with the NRC from the order granting a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application. On January 10, 2012, intervenors petitioned the ASLB for a new contention on the cracking of the Davis-Besse shield building discussed below.

On October 1, 2011, Davis-Besse was safely shut down for a scheduled outage to install a new reactor vessel head and complete other maintenance activities. The new reactor head, which replaced a head installed in 2002, enhances safety and reliability, and features control rod nozzles made of material less susceptible to cracking. On October 10, 2011, following opening of the building for installation of the new reactor head, a sub-surface hairline crack was identified in one of the exterior architectural elements on the shield building. These elements serve as architectural features and do not have structural significance. During investigation of the crack at the shield building opening, concrete samples and electronic testing found similar sub-surface hairline cracks in most of the building's architectural elements. FENOC's investigation also identified other indications. Included among them were sub-surface hairline cracks in the upper portion of the shield building (above elevation 780') and in the vicinity of the main steam line penetrations. A team of industry-recognized structural concrete experts and Davis-Besse engineers has determined these conditions do not affect the facility's structural integrity or safety.

On December 2, 2011, the NRC issued a CAL which concluded that FENOC provided "reasonable assurance that the shield building remains capable of performing its safety functions." The CAL imposed a number of commitments from FENOC including, submitting a root cause evaluation and corrective actions to the NRC by February 28, 2012, and further evaluations of the shield building. On February 27, 2012, FENOC sent the root cause evaluation to the NRC. Finally, the CAL also stated that the NRC was still evaluating whether the current condition of the shield building conforms to the plant's licensing basis. On December 6, 2011, the Davis-Besse plant returned to service.

By letter dated August 25, 2011, the NRC made a final significance determination (white) associated with a violation that occurred during the retraction of a source range monitor from the Perry reactor vessel. The NRC also placed Perry in the degraded cornerstone column (Column 3) of the NRC's Action Matrix governing the oversight of commercial nuclear reactors. As a result, the NRC staff will conduct several supplemental inspections, culminating in an inspection using Inspection Procedure 95002 to determine if the root cause and contributing causes of risk significant performance issues are understood, the extent of condition has been identified, whether safety culture contributed to the performance issues, and if FENOC's corrective actions are sufficient to address the causes and prevent recurrence.

In light of the impacts of the earthquake and tsunami on the reactors in Fukushima, Japan, the NRC conducted inspections of emergency equipment at U.S. reactors. The NRC also established a Near-Term Task Force to review its processes and regulations in light of the incident, and, on July 12, 2011, the Task Force issued its report of recommendations for regulatory changes. On October 18, 2011, the NRC approved the Staff recommendations, and directed the Staff to implement its near-term recommendations without delay. Ultimately, the adoption of the Staff recommendations on near-term actions is likely to result in additional costs to implement plant modifications and upgrades required by the regulatory process over the next several years, which costs are likely to be material.

On February 16, 2012, the NRC issued a request for information to the licensed operators of 11 nuclear power plants, including Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2, with respect to the modeling of fuel performance as it relates to "thermal conductivity degradation," which is the potential in older fuel for reduced capacity to transfer heat that could potentially change its performance during various accident scenarios, including loss of coolant accidents. The request for information indicated that this phenomenon has not been accounted for adequately in performance models for the fuel developed by the fuel manufacturer. The NRC is requesting that FENOC provide an analysis to demonstrate that the NRC regulations are being met. Absent that demonstration, the request indicates that the NRC may consider imposing restrictions on reactor operating limits until the issue is satisfactorily resolved.

ICG Litigation

On December 28, 2006, AE Supply and MP filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against ICG, Anker WV, and Anker Coal. Anker WV entered into a long term Coal Sales Agreement with AE Supply and MP for the supply of coal to the Harrison generating facility. Prior to the time of trial, ICG was dismissed as a defendant by the Court, which issue can be the subject of a future appeal. As a result of defendants' past and continued failure to supply the contracted coal, AE Supply and MP have incurred and will continue to incur significant additional costs for purchasing replacement coal. A non-jury trial was held from January 10, 2011 through February 1, 2011. At trial, AE Supply and MP presented evidence that they have incurred in excess of $80 million in damages for replacement coal purchased through the end of 2010 and will incur additional damages in excess of $150 million for future shortfalls. Defendants primarily claim that their performance is excused under a force majeure clause in the coal sales agreement and presented evidence at trial that they will continue to not provide the contracted yearly tonnage amounts. On May 2, 2011, the court entered a verdict in favor of AE Supply and MP for $104 million ($90 million in future damages and $14 million for replacement coal / interest). Post-trial filings occurred in May 2011, with Oral Argument on June 28, 2011. On August 25, 2011, the Allegheny County Court denied all Motions for Post-Trial relief and the May 2, 2011 verdict became final. On August 26, 2011, ICG posted bond and filed a Notice of Appeal. Briefing on the Appeal is concluded with oral argument expected in May or June of 2012. AE Supply and MP intend to vigorously pursue this matter through appeal.

Other Legal Matters