REGULATORY MATTERS

STATE REGULATION

Each of the Utilities' retail rates, conditions of service, issuance of securities and other matters are subject to regulation in the states in which it operates - in Maryland by the MDPSC, in Ohio by the PUCO, in New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC. The transmission operations of PE in Virginia are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC. In addition, under Ohio law, municipalities may regulate rates of a public utility, subject to appeal to the PUCO if not acceptable to the utility.

As competitive retail electric suppliers serving retail customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and Maryland, FES and AE Supply are subject to state laws applicable to competitive electric suppliers in those states, including affiliate codes of conduct that apply to FES, AE Supply and their public utility affiliates. In addition, if FES, AE Supply or any of their subsidiaries were to engage in the construction of significant new generation facilities in any of those states, they would also be subject to state siting authority.

MARYLAND

PE provides SOS pursuant to a combination of settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and regulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is competitively procured in the form of rolling contracts of varying lengths through periodic auctions that are overseen by the MDPSC and a third party monitor. Although settlements with respect to residential SOS for PE customers expired on December 31, 2012, by statute, service continues in the same manner unless changed by order of the MDPSC. The settlement provisions relating to non-residential SOS have also expired, however, by MDPSC order, the terms of service remain in place unless PE requests or the MDPSC orders a change. PE recovers its costs plus a return for providing SOS.

The Maryland legislature in 2008 adopted a statute codifying the EmPOWER Maryland goals to reduce electric consumption by 10% and reduce electricity demand by 15%, in each case by 2015. Expenditures were originally estimated to be approximately $101 million for the PE programs for the period of 2009 to 2015 and would have been recovered over that six-year period. Maryland law only allows for the utility to recover lost distribution revenue attributable to energy efficiency or demand reduction programs through a base rate case proceeding, and to date such recovery has not been sought or obtained by PE. Meanwhile, after extensive meetings with the MDPSC Staff and other stakeholders, on August 31, 2011, PE filed a new comprehensive plan that includes additional and improved programs for the period 2012-2014. The plan is expected to cost approximately $66 million over the three-year period. On December 22, 2011, the MDPSC issued an order approving PE's plan with various modifications and follow-up assignments.

Pursuant to a bill passed by the Maryland legislature in 2011, the MDPSC proposed rules, based on the product of a working group of utilities, regulators and other interested stakeholders, that create specific requirements related to a utility's obligation to address service interruptions, downed wire response, customer communication, vegetation management, equipment inspection, and annual reporting. The bill requires that the MDPSC 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 will be required to assess each utility's compliance with the new rules, and may assess penalties of up to $25,000 per day, per violation. At a hearing on April 17, 2012, the MDPSC approved re-publication of the rules as final. The new rules set utility-specific SAIDI and SAIFI targets for 2012-2015; prescribe detailed tree-trimming requirements, outage restoration and downed wire response deadlines; and impose other reliability and customer satisfaction requirements. PE has advised the MDPSC that compliance with the new rules is expected to increase costs by approximately $106 million over the period 2012-2015.

Following a "derecho" storm through the region on June 29, 2012, the MDPSC convened a new proceeding to consider matters relating to the electric utilities' performance in responding to the storm. Hearings on the matter were conducted in September 2012. Concurrently, Maryland's governor convened a special panel to examine possible ways to improve the resilience of the electric distribution system. On October 3, 2012, that panel issued a report calling for various measures including: acceleration and expansion of some of the requirements contained in the reliability standards that the MDPSC approved on April 17, 2012, and which had become final on May 28, 2012; for selective increased investment in system hardening; for creation of separate recovery mechanisms for the costs of those changes and investments; and penalties or bonuses on returns earned by the utilities based on their reliability performance. The panel's report has been referred to the MDPSC for action.

NEW JERSEY

JCP&L currently provides BGS for retail customers who do not choose a third party EGS and for customers of third party EGSs that fail to provide the contracted service. The supply for BGS, which is comprised of two components, is provided through contracts procured through separate, annually held descending clock auctions, the results of which are approved by the NJBPU. One BGS component and auction, reflecting hourly real time energy prices, is available for larger commercial and industrial customers. The other BGS component and auction, providing a fixed price service, is intended for smaller commercial and residential customers. All New Jersey EDCs participate in this competitive BGS procurement process and recover BGS costs directly from customers as a charge separate from base rates.

On September 7, 2011, the Division of Rate Counsel filed a Petition with the NJBPU asserting that it has reason to believe that JCP&L is earning an unreasonable return on its New Jersey jurisdictional rate base. The Division of Rate Counsel requested that the NJBPU order JCP&L to file a base rate case petition so that the NJBPU may determine whether JCP&L's current rates for electric service are just and reasonable. In its written Order issued July 31, 2012, the NJBPU found that a base rate proceeding "will assure that JCP&L's rates are just and reasonable and that JCP&L is investing sufficiently to assure the provision of safe, adequate and proper utility service to its customers" and ordered JCP&L to file a base rate case using a historical 2011 test year. The rate case petition was filed on November 30, 2012. In the filing, JCP&L requested approval to increase its revenues by approximately $31.5 million and reserved the right to update the filing to include costs associated with the impact of Hurricane Sandy. The NJBPU has transmitted the case to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law for further proceedings and an ALJ has been assigned. Evidentiary hearings in the matter are currently anticipated to commence in September, 2013. On February 22, 2013, JCP&L updated its filing to request recovery of $603 million of distribution-related Hurricane Sandy restoration costs, resulting in increasing the total revenues requested to approximately $112 million.

Pursuant to a formal Notice issued by the NJBPU on September 14, 2011, public hearings were held in September 2011 to solicit comments regarding the state of preparedness and responsiveness of New Jersey's EDCs prior to, during, and after Hurricane Irene, with additional hearings held in October 2011. Additionally, the NJBPU accepted written comments through October 28, 2011 related to this inquiry. On December 14, 2011, the NJBPU Staff filed a report of its preliminary findings and recommendations with respect to the electric utility companies' planning and response to Hurricane Irene and the October 2011 snowstorm. The NJBPU selected a consultant to further review and evaluate the New Jersey EDCs' preparation and restoration efforts with respect to Hurricane Irene and the October 2011 snowstorm, and the consultant's report was submitted to and subsequently accepted by the NJBPU on September 12, 2012. JCP&L submitted written comments on the report. On January 24, 2013, based upon recommendations in its consultant's report, the NJBPU ordered the New Jersey EDCs to take a number of specific actions to improve their preparedness and responses to major storms. The order includes specific deadlines for implementation of measures with respect to preparedness efforts, communications, restoration and response, post event and underlying infrastructure issues. JCP&L is developing an appropriate plan to implement the required measures.

OHIO

The Ohio Companies primarily operate under an ESP, which expires on May 31, 2014. The material terms of the ESP include:


•	Generation supplied through a CBP;


•	A load cap of no less than 80%, so that no single supplier is awarded more than 80% of the tranches, 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, 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, 2016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million. The Ohio Companies have also agreed, subject to the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, 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.

On April 13, 2012, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO to essentially extend the terms of their current ESP for two years. The ESP 3 Application was approved by the PUCO on July 18, 2012. Several parties timely filed applications for rehearing, which the PUCO granted on September 12, 2012, solely for the purpose of giving the PUCO additional time to consider the issues raised in the applications for rehearing. The PUCO issued an Entry on Rehearing on January 30, 2013 denying all applications for rehearing.

As approved, the ESP 3 plan continues certain provisions from the current ESP including:


•	Continuing the current base distribution rate freeze through May 31, 2016;


•	Continuing to provide economic development and assistance to low-income customers for the two-year extension period at levels established in the existing ESP;


•	Providing Percentage of Income Payment Plan customers with a 6% generation rate discount;


•	Continuing to provide power to shopping and to non-shopping customers as part of the market-based price set through an auction process; and


•	Continuing Rider DCR that allows continued investment in the distribution system for the benefit of customers.

As approved, the ESP 3 plan will provide additional provisions, including:


•	Securing generation supply for a longer period of time by conducting an auction for a three-year period rather than a one-year period, in each of October 2012 and January 2013, to mitigate any potential price spikes for the Ohio Companies' utility customers who do not switch to a competitive generation supplier; and


•	Extending the recovery period for costs associated with purchasing RECs mandated by SB221 through the end of the new ESP 3 period. This is expected to initially reduce the monthly renewable energy charge for all non-shopping utility customers of the Ohio Companies by spreading out the costs over the entire ESP period.

Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of approximately 1,211 GWHs in 2012 (an increase of 416,000 MWHs over 2011 levels), 1,726 GWHs in 2013, 2,306 GWHs in 2014 and 2,903 GWHs for each year thereafter through 2025. The Ohio Companies 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 their three-year portfolio plan, as required by SB221, seeking approval for the programs they intended to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. In March 2011, the PUCO issued an Opinion and Order generally approving the Ohio Companies' 2010-2012 portfolio plan which provides for recovery of all costs associated with the programs, including lost revenues. The Ohio Companies have implemented those programs included in the plan. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may subject the Ohio Companies to an assessment of a penalty by the PUCO.

The Ohio Companies had filed an application for rehearing regarding portions of the PUCO's decision related to the Ohio Companies' three-year portfolio plan, which was later denied by the PUCO and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. In accordance with PUCO Rules and a PUCO directive, the Ohio Companies filed their next three-year portfolio plan for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015 on July 31, 2012. Estimated costs for the three Ohio Companies' plans total approximately $250 million over the three-year period. Hearings were held with the PUCO in October 2012. Because the next three year-plans would not be approved until after 2012, the Ohio Companies filed a motion with the PUCO to extend their existing energy efficiency programs and related cost recovery until the new plans are approved. This motion was approved on December 12, 2012.

Additionally, under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies in Ohio were required to serve part of their load in 2011 from renewable energy resources equivalent to 1.00% of the average of the KWH they served in 2008-2010; in 2012 from renewable energy resources equivalent to 1.50% of the average of the KWH they served in 2009-2011; and in 2013 from renewable energy resources equivalent to 2.00% of the average of the KWH they served in 2010-2012. In August and October 2009 and in August 2010, 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 August 2011, the Ohio Companies conducted two RFP processes to obtain RECs to meet the statutory benchmarks for 2011 and beyond. On September 20, 2011 the PUCO opened a new docket to review the Ohio Companies' alternative energy recovery rider. The PUCO selected auditors to perform a financial and management audit, and final audit reports were filed with the PUCO on August 15, 2012. While generally supportive of the Ohio Companies' approach to procurement of RECs, the management/performance auditor recommended the PUCO examine, for possible disallowance, certain costs associated with the procurement of In-State All Renewable obligations that the auditor characterized as excessive. A hearing for this matter commenced on February 19, 2013. In March 2012, the Ohio Companies conducted an RFP process to obtain SRECs to help meet the statutory benchmarks for 2012 and beyond. With the successful completion of this RFP, the Ohio Companies achieved their in-state solar compliance requirements for 2012. The Ohio Companies also held a short-term RFP process to obtain all state SRECs and both in-state and all state non-solar RECs to help meet the statutory benchmarks for 2012. With the successful completion of this RFP, the Ohio Companies also achieved their in-state and all-state solar compliance requirements for 2012. The Ohio Companies intend to conduct an RFP in 2013 to cover their all-state SREC and their in-state and all-state REC compliance obligations.

The PUCO instituted a statewide investigation on December 12, 2012 to evaluate the vitality of the competitive retail electric service market in Ohio. The PUCO provided interested stakeholders the opportunity to provide comments on twenty-two questions by March 1, 2013, with reply comments due on March 29, 2013. The questions posed are categorized as market design and corporate separation. The Ohio Companies plan to provide their comments by the deadline, but cannot predict the outcome of this investigation.

PENNSYLVANIA

The Pennsylvania Companies currently operate under DSPs that expire May 31, 2013, and provide for the competitive procurement of generation supply for customers that do not choose an alternative EGS or for customers of alternative EGSs that fail to provide the contracted service. The default service supply is currently provided by wholesale suppliers through a mix of long-term and short-term contracts procured through descending clock auctions, competitive requests for proposals and spot market purchases. On November 17, 2011, the Pennsylvania Companies filed a Joint Petition for Approval of their DSPs that will provide the method by which they will procure the supply for their default service obligations for the period of June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2015. The ALJ issued a Recommended Decision on June 15, 2012, that supported adoption of the Pennsylvania Companies' proposed wholesale procurement plans, denial of their proposed Market Adjustment Charge, and various modifications to the proposed competitive enhancements. The PPUC entered an opinion and order on August 16, 2012, which primarily resolved those issues related to procurement and rate design, but required the submission of revised proposals regarding the retail market enhancement programs. The Pennsylvania Companies filed revised proposals on the retail market enhancements on November 14, 2012. A final order was entered on February 15, 2013, which addressed minor changes to the Pennsylvania Companies' revised enhancement proposals and ordered two choices for cost recovery of those programs.

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, and directed ME and PN to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC. Pursuant to a plan approved by the PPUC, ME and PN began to refund those amounts to customers in January 2011, and the refunds are continuing over a 29-month period until the full amounts previously recovered for marginal transmission losses are refunded. In April 2010, ME and PN 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 ME's and PN's TSC riders. ME and PN filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was denied on February 28, 2012. On June 27, 2012, ME and PN filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The certiorari petition sought review of the Pennsylvania State Court decisions. On October 9, 2012, the Supreme Court denied that petition. On July 13, 2011, ME and PN also filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the purpose of obtaining an order that would enjoin enforcement of the PPUC and Pennsylvania court orders under a theory of federal preemption on the question of retail rate recovery of the marginal transmission loss charges. Proceedings in the U.S. District Court effectively were suspended until conclusion of the proceedings before the United States Supreme Court. When that court issued its ruling on October 9, 2012, the U.S. District Court proceedings returned to active status. Pursuant to procedural orders issued by U.S. District Court Judge Gardner, on December 21, 2012, the PPUC submitted its motion to dismiss the U.S. District Court proceedings. ME and PN submitted their answers on January 9, 2013, and subsequent pleadings were submitted by the PPUC, ME and PN. Oral argument on the PPUC motion to dismiss is scheduled for May 2013.

In each of May 2008, 2009 and 2010, the PPUC approved ME's and PN'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 transmission 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 ME's customers to provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, ME and PN believe that they should ultimately prevail through the judicial process and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $254 million in marginal transmission losses for the period prior to January 1, 2011.

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 (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 provides for potentially significant financial penalties to be assessed on utilities that fail to achieve the required reductions in consumption and peak demand. The Pennsylvania Companies submitted a final report on November 15, 2011, in which they reported on their compliance with statutory May 31, 2011, energy efficiency benchmarks. ME, PN and Penn achieved the 2011 benchmarks; however WP has been unable to provide final results because several customers are still accumulating necessary documentation for projects that may qualify for inclusion in the final results. Preliminary numbers indicate that WP did not achieve its 2011 benchmark and it is not known at this time whether WP will be subject to a fine for failure to achieve the benchmark. WP could be subject to a statutory penalty of up to $20 million and is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Pursuant to Act 129, the PPUC was charged with reviewing the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. The PPUC found the energy efficiency programs to be cost effective and in an Order entered on August 3, 2012, the PPUC directed all of the electric utilities in Pennsylvania to submit by November 1, 2012, a Phase II EE&C Plan that would be in effect for the period June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2016. Due to Hurricane Sandy, this deadline was extended until November 15, 2012. A hearing on the level of the Pennsylvania Companies' respective Phase II energy efficiency targets as established by the PPUC was held on October 19, 2012. The PPUC denied the Pennsylvania Companies' request for adjustments to these targets on December 5, 2012. The PPUC has deferred ruling on the need to create peak demand reduction targets until it receives more information from the EE&C statewide evaluator. The Pennsylvania Companies filed their Phase II plans and supporting testimony in November 2012. On January 16, 2013, the Pennsylvania Companies reached a settlement with all but one party on all but one issue. The settlement provides for the Pennsylvania Companies to meet with interested parties to discuss ways to expand upon the EE&C programs and incorporate any such enhancements after the plans are approved, provided that these enhancements will not jeopardize the Pennsylvania Companies' compliance with their required targets or exceed the statutory spending caps. On February 6, 2013, the Pennsylvania Companies filed revised Phase II EE&C Plans to conform the plans to the terms of the settlement. The remaining issue, raised by a natural gas company, involved the recommendation that the Pennsylvania Companies include in their plans incentives for natural gas space and water heating appliances. This issue was litigated on January 17, 2013. Initial and reply briefs were submitted on January 28, 2013 and February 6, 2013, respectively. The evidentiary record was certified on February 7, 2013, with an order on these plans expected to be issued by the PPUC no later than the end of the first quarter of 2013.

In addition, Act 129 required utilities to file a SMIP with the PPUC. 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 its previously approved smart meter deployment plan and certain smart meter dependent aspects of the EE&C Plan. 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. WP also proposed to 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 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. A joint settlement with all parties based on these terms, with one party retaining the ability to challenge the recovery of amounts spent on WP's original SMIP, was approved by the PPUC on June 30, 2011. Additionally, WP would be permitted to seek recovery of certain other costs as part of its revised SMIP or in a future base distribution rate case.

On December 31, 2012, the Pennsylvania Companies filed their Deployment Plan. A prehearing conference was held on February 19, 2013 and evidentiary hearings will commence on May 8, 2013. The Deployment Plan requests deployment over the period 2013 to 2019, with an estimated cost of completion of about $1.25 billion. Such costs are expected to be recovered through the Pennsylvania Companies' PPUC-approved Riders SMT-C.

In the PPUC Order approving the FirstEnergy and Allegheny merger, the PPUC announced that a separate statewide investigation into Pennsylvania's retail electricity market would 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 concerning retail markets in Pennsylvania to investigate both intermediate and long term plans that could be adopted to further foster the competitive markets, and to explore the future of default service in Pennsylvania following the expiration of the upcoming DSPs on May 31, 2015. A Tentative Order was entered by the PPUC on November 8, 2012, seeking comments regarding the end state of default service and related issues. The Pennsylvania Companies and FES filed comments on December 10, 2012. A final order was issued on February 15, 2013 providing recommendations on the entities to provide default service, the products to be offered, billing options, customer education, and licensing fees and assessments, among other items.

The PPUC issued a Proposed Rulemaking Order on August 25, 2011, which proposed a number of substantial modifications to the current Code of Conduct regulations that were promulgated to provide competitive safeguards to the competitive retail electricity market in Pennsylvania. The proposed changes include, but are not limited to: an EGS may not have the same or substantially similar name as the EDC or its corporate parent; EDCs and EGSs would not be permitted to share office space and would need to occupy different buildings; EDCs and affiliated EGSs could not share employees or services, except certain corporate support, emergency, or tariff services (the definition of "corporate support services" excludes items such as information systems, electronic data interchange, strategic management and planning, regulatory services, legal services, or commodities that have been included in regulated rates at less than market value); and an EGS must enter into a trademark agreement with the EDC before using its trademark or service mark. The Proposed Rulemaking Order was published on February 11, 2012, and comments were filed by the Pennsylvania Companies and FES on March 27, 2012. If implemented these rules could require a significant change in the ways FES and the Pennsylvania Companies do business in Pennsylvania, and could possibly have an adverse impact on their results of operations and financial condition. Pennsylvania's Independent Regulatory Review Commission subsequently issued comments on the proposed rulemaking on April 26, 2012, which called for the PPUC to further justify the need for the proposed revisions by citing a lack of evidence demonstrating a need for them. The House Consumer Affairs Committee of the Pennsylvania General Assembly also sent a letter to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission on July 12, 2012, noting its opposition to the proposed regulations as modified.

WEST VIRGINIA

In April 2010, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a Joint Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reached with the other parties in a proceeding for an annual increase in retail rates that provided for:


•	$40 million annualized base rate increases effective June 29, 2010;


•	Deferral of February 2010 storm restoration expenses over a maximum five-year period;


•	Additional $20 million annualized base rate increase effective in January 2011;


•	Decrease of $20 million in ENEC rates effective January 2011, providing for deferral of related costs for later recovery in 2012; and


•	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 February 2011, MP and PE filed a petition with the WVPSC seeking an order declaring that MP owns all RECs associated with the energy and capacity that MP is required to purchase pursuant to electric energy purchase agreements between MP and three NUG facilities in West Virginia. The City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates, each the owner of one of the contracted resources, have participated in the case in opposition to the petition. The WVPSC issued an order on November 22, 2011, granting ownership of all RECs produced by the facilities to MP, and holding that an electric utility that purchases electric energy and capacity under an electric power purchase agreement with a Qualifying Facility under PURPA owns the RECs associated with that purchase. The RECs are being used for compliance purposes. The West Virginia Supreme Court issued an Order on June 11, 2012, upholding the WVPSC's decision. The City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates filed petitions at FERC alleging the WVPSC order violated PURPA and requesting that FERC initiate an enforcement action. On April 24, 2012, FERC ruled that FERC jurisdictional contracts for the sale of Qualifying Facility capacity entered into under PURPA are intended to pay only for electric energy and capacity (and not for RECs), and that state law controlled on the issues of determining which entity owns RECs and how they are transferred between entities. FERC declined to act on the petitions and instead noted that the City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates could file complaints in the U.S. District Court. FERC also noted there may be language in the WVPSC order that is inconsistent with PURPA. MP and PE filed for rehearing of FERC's order taking the position that the WVPSC order is consistent with PURPA, which was denied by FERC on September 20, 2012. The City of New Martinsville filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on June 1, 2012, alleging that the WVPSC order violates PURPA. Morgantown Energy Associates has joined in filing a similar complaint and requesting damages in the same U.S. District Court. MP and PE filed for judgment on the pleadings in both cases on January 25, 2013.

The WVPSC has proceedings for each West Virginia electric utility to establish reliability targets for distribution performance. The parties entered into a settlement in September 2012 resolving all issues and revising performance targets beginning in 2014. The settlement has been approved by the WVPSC.

The WVPSC opened a general investigation into the June 29, 2012, derecho windstorm with data requests for all utilities. A public meeting for presentations on utility responses and restoration efforts was held on October 22, 2012 and two public input hearings have been held. The WVPSC issued an Order in this matter on January 23, 2013 closing the proceeding and directing electric utilities to file a vegetation management plan within six months and to propose a cost recovery mechanism. This Order also requires MP and PE to file a status report regarding improvements to their storm response procedures by the same date.

The West Virginia ENEC fuel case was filed by MP and PE at the WVPSC in August 2012 with a projected over-recovery of approximately $66 million under then current rates for the next year, January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. MP and PE proposed no change in overall rates on January 1, 2013; however, MP and PE proposed establishing a separate regulatory liability for the difference between the recommended 2013 ENEC rates and the current ENEC rates. This estimated $66 million liability was proposed to offset the rate relief MP and PE seek to become effective with the completion of a proposed generation resource acquisition transaction described below. A hearing was held in December 2012 in the ENEC fuel case and the WVPSC denied MP and PE's request to delay the $66 million rate decrease and ordered that the fuel rate decrease be implemented on January 1, 2013.

MP and PE filed their Resource Plan with the WVPSC in August 2012 detailing both supply and demand forecasts and noting a substantial capacity deficiency. MP and PE have filed a Petition for approval of a Generation Resource Transaction with the WVPSC in November 2012 that proposes a net ownership transfer of 1,476 MW of coal-fired generation capacity to MP by May 2013. The proposed transfer would involve MP's acquisition of the remaining ownership of the Harrison Power Station from AE Supply and the sale of MP's minority interest in the Pleasants Power Station to AE Supply. The proposed transfer would implement a cost-effective plan to assist MP in meeting its energy and capacity obligations with its own generation resources, eliminating the need to make unhedged electricity and capacity purchases from the spot market, which is expected to result in greater rate stability for MP's customers. The plan is expected to remedy MP's capacity and energy shortfalls, which are projected to worsen due to a projected increase in annual load growth of approximately 1.4%. MP and PE also filed with FERC for authorization to effect these transfers. MP and PE will file a base rate case no later than six months from the completion of the transaction. On February 11, 2013, the WVPSC issued an order adopting a procedural schedule for this matter with hearings scheduled for May 29-31, 2013.

RELIABILITY MATTERS

Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, AE Supply, FG, FENOC, ATSI and TrAIL. NERC is the ERO designated by FERC to establish and enforce these reliability standards, although NERC has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including RFC. All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the RFC region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and RFC stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by RFC.

FirstEnergy believes that it is in 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 RFC. Moreover, it is clear that the NERC, RFC 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. 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.

FERC MATTERS

PJM Transmission Rate

PJM and its stakeholders have been debating the proper method to allocate costs for new transmission facilities. While FirstEnergy and other parties advocated for a traditional "beneficiary pays" (or usage based) approach, others advocate for “socializing” the costs on a load-ratio share basis - each customer in the zone would pay based on its total usage of energy within PJM. This debate is framed by regulatory and court decisions. On August 6, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that FERC had not supported a prior FERC decision to allocate costs for new 500 kV and higher voltage facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on that finding, remanded the rate design issue to FERC. In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set this matter for a “paper hearing” and requested parties to submit written comments. FERC identified nine separate issues for comment and directed PJM to file the first round of comments. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, which demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain LSEs in PJM bearing the majority of the costs. Subsequently, numerous parties, including FirstEnergy, 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 utility commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Other utilities and state utility commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. On March 30, 2012, FERC issued an order on remand reaffirming its prior decision 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 (or socialization) rate based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone and concluding that such methodology is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. On April 30, 2012, FirstEnergy requested rehearing of FERC's March 30, 2012 order. FirstEnergy's request for rehearing remains pending before FERC.

Order No. 1000, issued by FERC on July 21, 2011, required the submission of a compliance filing by PJM or the PJM transmission owners demonstrating that the cost allocation methodology for new transmission projects directed by the PJM Board of Managers satisfied the principles set forth in the order. To demonstrate compliance with the regional cost allocation principles of the order, the PJM transmission owners, including FirstEnergy, submitted a filing to FERC on October 11, 2012, proposing a hybrid method of 50% beneficiary pays and 50% postage stamp to be effective for RTEP projects approved by the PJM Board of Managers on and after the effective date of the compliance filing. On January 31, 2013, FERC conditionally accepted the hybrid method to be effective on February 1, 2013, subject to refund and to a future order on PJM's separate Order No. 1000 compliance filing. FERC stated that it will address the merits of the PJM transmission owners' October 11, 2012 filing, including comments, protests and answers submitted in regard thereto, in its future order on PJM's compliance filing. Filings to demonstrate compliance with the interregional cost allocation principles of the order are due to FERC by April 2013.

RTO Realignment

On June 1, 2011, ATSI and the ATSI zone transferred from MISO to 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. While most of the matters involved with the move have been resolved, the question of ATSI's responsibility for certain costs for the “Michigan Thumb” transmission project continues to be disputed; the details of the dispute are discussed below under "MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal." In addition, FERC denied recovery of certain charges that collectively can be described as "exit fees" by means of ATSI's transmission rate totaling approximately $78.8 million until such time as ATSI submits a cost/benefit analysis that demonstrates net benefits to customers from the move. ATSI has asked for rehearing of FERC's orders that address the Michigan Thumb transmission project and the exit fee issue. On December 21, 2012, ATSI and other parties filed a proposed settlement agreement with FERC that, if accepted by FERC, should resolve certain of the exit fee issues. Thereafter, the OCC protested the December 21, 2012 settlement filing, which remains pending before FERC. In a prior order, FERC ruled that the costs for certain "legacy RTEP" transmission projects in PJM could be charged to transmission customers in the ATSI zone. ATSI sought rehearing of the question of whether the ATSI zone should pay these legacy RTEP charges and, on September 20, 2012, FERC denied ATSI's request for rehearing. On November 19, 2012, ATSI filed a petition for review with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of FERC's ruling on the "legacy RTEP" issue.

The 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 (not including ATSI or FirstEnergy) jointly filed with FERC a 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 MTEP process. Under MISO's proposal, the costs of “Michigan Thumb” MVP project that was 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 and charged to ATSI. MISO estimated that approximately $16 million in annual revenue requirements associated with the Michigan Thumb Project would be allocated to the ATSI zone upon completion of project construction.

FirstEnergy has filed pleadings in opposition to the MISO's efforts to “socialize” the costs of the Michigan Thumb Project onto ATSI or onto ATSI's customers. FirstEnergy asserts legal, factual and policy arguments. To date, FERC has responded in a series of orders that may require ATSI to absorb the charges for the Michigan Thumb Project pending the outcome of further regulatory proceedings and appeals. These further proceedings can be divided into two classes: litigation related to MISO's generic MVP cost allocation proposal; and litigation related to MISO's "Schedule 39" tariff that purports to charge the MVP costs to ATSI.

On October 31, 2011, FirstEnergy filed a Petition of Review of certain of FERC's orders that address the generic MVP tariffs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Other parties also filed appeals of those orders and, in November 2011, the cases were consolidated for briefing and disposition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Briefs were due from the parties through 2012 and early 2013, and oral arguments will be scheduled in 2013.

In February 2012, FERC accepted the MISO's proposed Schedule 39 tariff, subject to hearings and potential refund of MVP charges to ATSI. MISO's Schedule 39 tariff is the vehicle through which the MISO plans to charge the Michigan Thumb Project costs to ATSI. FERC set for hearing the question of whether it is just and reasonable for ATSI to pay the Michigan Thumb Project costs and, if so, the amount of and methodology for calculating ATSI's Michigan Thumb Project cost responsibility. The hearings are expected to start in April 2013.

FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

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 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 several 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 had previously remanded one of those proceedings to FERC, which dismissed the claims of the California Parties in May 2011, and affirmed the dismissal in June 2012. On June 20, 2012, the California Parties appealed FERC's decision back to the Ninth Circuit. The timing of further action by the Ninth Circuit is unknown.

In another proceeding, in June 2009, the California Attorney General on behalf of certain California parties, filed another complaint with FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply, again seeking refunds for transactions in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted transactions with CDWR are the basis for including AE Supply in this complaint. AE Supply filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by FERC in May 2011, and affirmed by FERC in June 2012. The California Attorney General has appealed FERC's dismissal of its complaint to the Ninth Circuit, which has consolidated the case with other pending appeals related to California refund claims, and stayed the proceedings pending further order.

FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of either of the above matters or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

PATH Transmission Project

The PATH project was proposed to be comprised of a 765 kV transmission line 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. On August 24, 2012, the PJM Board of Managers canceled the PATH project, which it had originally suspended in February 2011. All applications for authorization to construct the project filed with state commissions have been withdrawn. As a result, approximately $62 million and approximately $59 million in costs incurred by PATH-Allegheny and PATH-WV, respectively, were reclassified from net property, plant and equipment to a regulatory asset for future recovery. On September 28, 2012, those companies requested authorization from FERC to recover the costs with a proposed return on equity of 10.9% (10.4% base plus 0.5% RTO membership) from PJM customers over the next five years. Several parties protested the request. On November 30, 2012, FERC issued an order denying the 0.5% return on equity adder for RTO membership and allowing the tariff changes enabling recovery of these costs to become effective on December 1, 2012 subject to settlement judge procedures and hearing if the parties do not agree to a settlement. The issues subject to settlement include the prudence of the costs, the base return on equity and the period of recovery. Depending on the outcome of a possible settlement or hearing, if settlement is not achieved, PATH-Allegheny and PATH-WV may be required to refund certain amounts that have been collected under their formula rate.

PATH-Allegheny and PATH-WV have requested rehearing of FERC's denial of the 0.5% return on equity adder for RTO membership; that request for rehearing remains pending before FERC. In addition, FERC has consolidated for settlement judge procedures and hearing purposes two formal challenges to the PATH formula rate annual updates submitted to FERC in June 2010 and June 2011. FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Yards Creek

The Yards Creek Pumped Storage Project is a 400 MW hydroelectric project located in Warren County, New Jersey. JCP&L owns an undivided 50% interest in the project, and operates the project. PSEG Fossil, LLC owns the remaining interest in the plant. The project was constructed in the early 1960s, and became operational in 1965. FERC issued a license for authorization to operate the project. The existing license expires on February 28, 2013.

In February 2011, JCP&L and PSEG filed a joint application with FERC to renew the license for an additional forty years. The companies are pursuing relicensure through FERC's ILP. Under the ILP, FERC will assess the license applications, issue draft and final Environmental Assessments/Environmental Impact Studies (as required by the NEPA), and provide opportunities for intervention and protests by affected third parties. FERC may hold hearings during the five-year ILP licensure process. FirstEnergy expects FERC to issue the new license in the first quarter of 2013. To the extent that the license proceedings extend beyond the February 28, 2013 expiration date for the current license, the current license will be extended yearly as necessary to permit FERC to issue the new license.

On June 29, 2012, FERC Staff sent an 'Additional Information Request' to JCP&L. In the request, FERC Staff voiced concern about JCP&L's proposed 'fusegate' overflow structure, and asked for additional information and analysis that would support a FERC decision to authorize installation of this structure. JCP&L and FERC Staff subsequently agreed that JCP&L would install the proposed fusegate overflow structure. In spring 2012, the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office asked that JCP&L agree to additional measures to protect certain prehistoric sites that are located on the Yards Creek property. JCP&L was able to negotiate an agreement for such protections, which was executed as of February 5, 2013. At this time, we expect that JCP&L's license application will be uncontested and that FERC will renew the license in the first quarter of 2013.

Seneca

The Seneca Pumped Storage Project is a 451 MW hydroelectric project located in Warren County, Pennsylvania owned and operated by FG. FG 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, FG initiated the ILP relicensing process by filing its notice of intent to relicense and related documents in the license docket.

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. On November 30, 2010, the Seneca Nation filed its notice of intent to relicense and related documents necessary for the Seneca Nation to submit a competing application. FG believes it is entitled to a statutory “incumbent preference” under Section 15 and that it ultimately should prevail in these proceedings. Nevertheless, the Seneca Nation's pleadings reflect the Nation's apparent intent to obtain the license for the facility, and to assume ownership and operation of the facility as contemplated by the statute.

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.

On September 12, 2011, FirstEnergy and the Seneca Nation each filed “Revised Study Plan” documents. These documents describe the parties' respective proposals for the scope of the environmental studies that should be performed as part of the relicensing process. On January 7, 2013, FirstEnergy and the Seneca Nation submitted their respective reports for the 2012 study season. On January 31 and February 1, 2013, respectively, the Seneca Nation and FirstEnergy each submitted their respective proposed study plans for the 2013 study season. The study processes will extend through approximately November 2013.

MISO Capacity Portability

On June 11, 2012, FERC issued a Notice of Request for Comments regarding whether existing rules on transfer capability act as barriers to the delivery of capacity between MISO and PJM. FERC is responding to suggestions from MISO and the MISO stakeholders that PJM's rules regarding the criteria and qualifications for external generation capacity resources be changed to ease participation by resources that are located in MISO in PJM's RPM capacity auctions. FirstEnergy submitted comments on August 10, 2012, and reply comments on August 27, 2012. In the fall of 2012, FirstEnergy participated in certain stakeholder meetings to review various proposals advanced by MISO. Although none of MISO's proposals attracted significant stakeholder support, on January 3, 2013, MISO filed a pleading with FERC that renewed many of the arguments advanced in prior MISO filings and asked FERC to take expedited action to address MISO's allegations. On January 18, 2013, FirstEnergy and other parties submitted filings explaining that MISO's concerns largely are without foundation and suggesting that FERC order that the remaining concerns be addressed in the existing stakeholder process that is described in the PJM/MISO Joint Operating Agreement. Changes to the criteria and qualifications for participation in the PJM RPM capacity auctions could have a significant impact on the outcome of those auctions, including a negative impact on the prices at which those auctions would clear.

MOPR Reform

On December 7, 2012, PJM filed amendments to its tariff to revise the MOPR used in the RPM. PJM revised the MOPR to add two broad, categorical exemptions, eliminate an existing exemption, and to limit the applicability of the MOPR to certain capacity resources. The filing also included related and conforming changes to the RPM posting requirements and to those provisions describing the role of the Independent Market Monitor for the PJM Region. PJM proposed an effective date for these Tariff changes of February 5, 2013. FirstEnergy submitted comments on December 28, 2012, and reply comments on January 25, 2013. FERC has not issued an order on the proposed reforms. On February 5, 2013, FERC Staff issued a deficiency letter to PJM requesting additional information on certain components of the proposed MOPR reforms, including the exemptions and resources qualifying for the MOPR. PJM has 30 days to respond to FERC Staff’s requests. Changes to the MOPR could have a significant impact on the outcome of the RPM auctions, including a negative impact on the prices at which those auctions would clear.

Synchronous Condensers

On December 20, 2012, FERC approved the transfer by FG to ATSI of certain deactivated generation assets associated with Eastlake Units 1 through 5 and Lakeshore Unit 18 to facilitate their conversion to synchronous condensers to provide voltage support on the ATSI transmission system. The transfer price of the assets is approximately $21.5 million and the estimated conversion cost is approximately $60 million. The transfer of Eastlake Units 4 and 5 was completed on January 31, 2013 and ATSI's completion of the conversion of those units to synchronous condensers is expected to be completed by June 1, 2013 for Eastlake Unit 5 and by December 1, 2013 for Eastlake Unit 4. The transfer of the remaining units and their conversion to synchronous condensers will occur when the use of the units for RMR purposes is no longer required. On January 22, 2013, ATSI requested clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing with respect to a statement in the FERC order authorizing the transfer that ATSI's current formula rate does not include the accounts and components necessary to allow for recovery of the costs associated with acquisition of the transferred assets and that ATSI must make a filing under Section 205 of the FPA in order to recover those costs. ATSI believes its formula rate currently includes the necessary accounts and components to allow for such recovery and that a Section 205 filing is not required. That request for rehearing remains pending before FERC.

FTR Underfunding Complaint

In PJM, FTRs are a mechanism to hedge congestion and operate as a financial replacement for physical firm transmission service. FTRs are financially-settled instruments that entitle the holder to a stream of revenues based on the hourly congestion price differences across a specific transmission path in the PJM Day-ahead Energy Market. However, due to certain language in the PJM tariff, the funds that are set aside to pay FTRs can be diverted to other uses, resulting in “underfunding” of FTR payments. Since June of 2010, FES and AE Supply have lost more than $55 million in revenues that they are entitled to receive as FTR holders to hedge congestion costs. FES and AE Supply continue to experience significant underfunding.

On December 28, 2011, FES and AE Supply filed a complaint with FERC for the purpose of modifying certain provisions in the PJM tariff to eliminate FTR underfunding. On March 2, 2012, FERC issued an order dismissing the complaint. In its order, FERC ruled that it was not appropriate to initiate action at that time because of the unknown root causes of FTR underfunding.FERC directed PJM to convene stakeholder proceedings for the purpose of determining the root causes of the FTR underfunding. FERC went on to note that its dismissal of the complaint was without prejudice to FES and AE Supply or any other affected entity filing a complaint if the stakeholder proceedings proved unavailing. FES and AE Supply sought rehearing of FERC's order and, on July 19, 2012, FERC denied rehearing. In April, 2012, PJM issued a report on FTR underfunding. However, the PJM stakeholder process proved unavailing as the stakeholders were not willing to change the tariff to eliminate FTR underfunding. Accordingly, on February 15, 2013, FES and AE Supply refiled their complaint for the purpose of changing the PJM tariff to eliminate FTR underfunding. This complaint is pending before FERC.