Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

9. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

(A) 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. These agreements include contract guarantees, surety bonds and LOCs. As of June 30, 2011, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $3.8 billion, consisting of parental guarantees ($0.8 billion), subsidiaries’ guarantees ($2.6 billion), and surety bonds and LOCs ($0.4 billion).

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 guarantees to various providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements legally obligate FirstEnergy to fulfill the obligations of those subsidiaries directly involved in energy and energy-related transactions or financing where the law might otherwise limit the counterparties’ claims. If demands of a counterparty were to exceed the ability of a subsidiary to satisfy existing obligations, FirstEnergy’s guarantee enables the counterparty’s legal claim to be satisfied by other FirstEnergy assets. FirstEnergy believes the likelihood is remote that such parental guarantees of $0.2 billion (included in the $0.8 billion discussed above) as of June 30, 2011 would increase amounts otherwise payable by FirstEnergy to meet its obligations incurred in connection with financings and ongoing energy and energy-related activities.

While these types of guarantees are normally parental commitments for the future payment of subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a credit rating downgrade or “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of cash collateral, provision of an LOC or accelerated payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergy’s maximum exposure under these collateral provisions was $625 million, consisting of $522 million due to a below investment grade credit rating (of which $265 million is due to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation) and $103 million due to “material adverse event” contractual clauses. Additionally, stress case conditions of a credit rating downgrade or “material adverse event” and hypothetical adverse price movements in the underlying commodity markets would increase this amount to $666 million.

Most of FirstEnergy’s surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $136 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.

In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy Services segment, including power contracts with affiliates awarded through competitive bidding processes, typically contain margining provisions that require the posting of cash or LOCs in amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES’ and AE Supply’s power portfolios as of June 30, 2011 and forward prices as of that date, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of $138 million and $2 million, respectively. Under a hypothetical adverse change in forward prices (95% confidence level change in forward prices over a one-year time horizon), FES would be required to post an additional $17 million of collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required to be posted.

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 share ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a guaranty of the borrowers’ obligations under the facility. In addition, FEV and the other entities that directly own the equity interest in the borrowers have pledged those interests to the lenders under the term loan facility as collateral for the facility.

(B) 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-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 coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions. 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 three complaints.

The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at the 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.

In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. alleging NSR violations at the Portland coal-fired plant based on “modifications” dating back to 1986. On March 31, 2011, the EPA proposed emissions limits and compliance schedules to reduce SO2 air emissions by approximately 81% at the Portland Plant based on an interstate pollution transport petition submitted by New Jersey under Section 126 of the CAA. 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, as the former owner of 16.67% of Keystone, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of Shawville, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc. (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, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation 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, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, and various current owners of Homer City, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. 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.” Penelec believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in the complaint, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 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. Mission is seeking indemnification from Penelec, the co-owner and operator of Homer City prior to its sale in 1999. On April 21, 2011, Penelec and all other defendants filed Motions to Dismiss all of the federal claims and the various state claims. Responsive and Reply briefs were filed on May 26, 2011 and June 17, 2011, respectively. The scope of Penelec’s indemnity obligation to and from Mission is under dispute and Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

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 occurring during maintenance outages dating back to 1990 triggered the pre-construction permitting requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs. FGCO 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 provision of the CAA. Later in 2009, FGCO also received another information request regarding emission projections for 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.

In August 2000, AE received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA letter 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 CAA and related requirements, including potential application of the NSR standards under the CAA, which can require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when the 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.

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 plants: 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 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.

In September 2007, Allegheny also 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 Hatfield’s Ferry and Armstrong Plants in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island coal-fired plants in West Virginia.

FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CAA matters described above but cannot predict their outcomes.

State Air Quality Compliance

In early 2006, Maryland passed the Healthy Air Act, which imposes state-wide emission caps on SO₂ and NO_X, 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 10th state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith coal-fired plant for NO_X, SO₂ and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the plant is vital to reliability in the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area, which PJM determined in 2006. Pursuant to the legislation, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) passed alternate NO_X 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% beginning 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. Ten RGGI auctions have been held through the end of calendar year 2010. 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. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

In January 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at Allegheny’s Pleasants coal-fired plant. FirstEnergy is discussing with WVDEP steps to resolve the NOV including installing a reagent injection system to reduce opacity.

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 Circuit 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 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR, which remains in effect until CSAPR becomes effective (60 days after publication in the Federal Register). CSAPR requires 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. FGCO’s future cost of compliance may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy’s operations may result. Management is currently assessing the impact of CSAPR, other environmental proposals and other factors on FirstEnergy’s competitive fossil generating facilities, including but not limited to, the impact on value of our emissions allowances (currently reflected at $38 million on our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2011) and the operations of its coal-fired plants.

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions

On March 16, 2011, the EPA released its MACT proposal to establish emission standards for mercury, hydrochloric acid and various metals for electric generating units. Depending on the action taken by the EPA and how any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergy’s future cost of compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy’s operations may result.

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. The Senate continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. President Obama has announced his Administration’s “New Energy for America Plan” that includes, among other provisions, proposals to ensure that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012, to increase to 25% by 2025, to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. 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 GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and will require it to submit reports commencing in 2011. 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 (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2) effective January 2, 2011 for existing facilities under the CAA’s PSD program. Until July 1, 2011, this emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is triggered by non-CO₂ pollutants.

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 the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020; and establishes the “Copenhagen 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.

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. The Court remanded to the Second Circuit the issue of whether the CAA preempted state common law nuisance actions. The Court’s ruling also failed to answer the question of the extent to which actions for damages may remain viable. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, in June 2011, FirstEnergy received notice of a complaint alleging that the GHG emissions of 87 companies, including FirstEnergy, render them liable for damages to certain residents of Mississippi stemming from Hurricane Katrina. On July 27, 2011, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed FirstEnergy from this complaint.

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 Clean Water Act 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 Clean Water Act 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 Clean Water Act 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 Clean Water Act 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. In November 2010, the Ohio EPA issued a permit for the coal-fired Bay Shore Plant requiring installation of reverse louvers in its entire water intake channel by December 31, 2014. 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 Clean Water Act 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. This matter has been referred back to EPA for civil enforcement and FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

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 disposal site at the Albright coal-fired plant seeking unspecified civil penalties and injunctive relief. 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 another 60-Day Notice of Intent required prior to filing a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act for alleged failure to obtain a permit to construct the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Station.

FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CWA matters described above but cannot predict their outcomes.

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 Hatfield’s Ferry coal-fired 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 significant costs or negatively affect its ability to operate the scrubbers as designed. Preliminary studies indicate an initial capital investment in excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the permit. 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. The hearing is 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. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals.

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 Clean Water Act 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 its Hatfield’s Ferry and Mitchell facilities in Pennsylvania and its Fort Martin facility in West Virginia.

In October 2009, the WVDEP issued the water discharge permit for the Fort Martin generation facility. Similar to the Hatfield’s Ferry water discharge permit issued for the scrubber project, 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 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.

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 advanced 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.

The Little Blue Run (LBR) Coal Combustion By-products (CCB) impoundment is expected to run out of disposal capacity for disposal of CCBs from the Bruce Mansfield Plant between 2016 and 2018. In July 2011, BMP submitted a Phase I permit application to PA DEP for construction of a new dry CCB disposal facility adjacent to LBR. BMP anticipates submitting zoning applications for approval to allow construction of a new dry CCB disposal facility prior to commencing construction.

The Utility Registrants 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 June 30, 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 $133 million (JCP&L — $69 million, TE — $1 million, CEI — $1 million, FGCO — $1 million and FirstEnergy — $61 million) have been accrued through June 30, 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 additional expense of $29 million during the second quarter of 2011; $30 million had previously been reserved prior to 2011.

(C) 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. Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. In November 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court’s order effectively ends the class action attempt, and leaves only nine (9) plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual claims. The remaining individual plaintiffs have yet to take any affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims.

Nuclear Plant Matters

Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As of June 30, 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. The NRC issued guidance anticipating an increase in low-level radioactive waste disposal costs associated with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. 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. On June 24, 2011, FENOC submitted a $95 million parental guarantee to the NRC for its approval.

In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. By an order dated April 26, 2011, a NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (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 Commissioners from the order granting a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application.

On April 14, 2011, a group of environmental organizations petitioned the NRC Commissioners to suspend certain pending nuclear licensing proceedings, including the Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding, to ensure that any safety and environmental implications of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan are considered. By May 2, 2011, the NRC Staff, FENOC and much of the nuclear industry filed responses opposing the petition. On May 6, 2011, petitioners filed a supplemental reply.

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 failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on January 31, 1998. DOE was required to so commence 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. On January 18, 2011, the parties, FirstEnergy and DOJ, filed a joint status report that established a schedule for the litigation of these claims. FirstEnergy filed damages schedules and disclosures with the DOJ on February 11, 2011, seeking approximately $57 million in damages for delay costs incurred through September 30, 2010. The damage claim is subject to review and audit by DOE.

ICG Litigation

On December 28, 2006, AE Supply and MP filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against International Coal Group, Inc. (ICG), Anker West Virginia Mining Company, Inc. (Anker WV), and Anker Coal Group, Inc. (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. The parties expect a ruling sometime in the third quarter, at which time the judgment will be final. The parties have 30 days to appeal the final judgment. AE Supply and MP intend to vigorously pursue this matter through appeal if necessary but cannot predict its outcome.

Other Legal Matters

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount was approved by the PUCO. In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court granted the motion to dismiss on September 7, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, which has not yet rendered an opinion.

There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy’s normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.

FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. If it were ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject to liability based on the above matters, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy’s or its subsidiaries’ financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.