COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

NUCLEAR INSURANCE

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

In addition to the public liability insurance provided pursuant to the Price-Anderson Act, FirstEnergy has also obtained insurance coverage in limited amounts for economic loss and property damage arising out of nuclear incidents. FirstEnergy is a member of NEIL, which provides coverage (NEIL I) for the extra expense of replacement power incurred due to prolonged accidental outages of nuclear units. Under NEIL I, FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries have policies, renewable yearly, corresponding to their respective nuclear interests, which provide an aggregate indemnity of up to approximately $2 billion (OE-$168 million, NG-$1.7 billion, TE-$90 million) for replacement power costs incurred during an outage after an initial 26-week waiting period. Members of NEIL I pay annual premiums and are subject to assessments if losses exceed the accumulated funds available to the insurer. FirstEnergy’s present maximum aggregate assessment for incidents at any covered nuclear facility occurring during a policy year would be approximately $14 million (OE-$1 million and NG-$13 million).

FirstEnergy is insured as to its respective nuclear interests under property damage insurance provided by NEIL to the operating company for each plant. Under these arrangements, up to $2.75 billion of coverage for decontamination costs, decommissioning costs, debris removal and repair and/or replacement of property is provided. FirstEnergy pays annual premiums for this coverage and is liable for retrospective assessments of up to approximately $69 million (OE-$6 million, NG-$61 million and TE-$2 million).

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

The NRC requires nuclear power plant licensees to obtain minimum property insurance coverage of $1.06 billion or the amount generally available from private sources, whichever is less. The proceeds of this insurance are required to be used first to ensure that the licensed reactor is in a safe and stable condition and can be maintained in that condition so as to prevent any significant risk to the public health and safety. Within 30 days of stabilization, the licensee is required to prepare and submit to the NRC a cleanup plan for approval. The plan is required to identify all cleanup operations necessary to decontaminate the reactor sufficiently to permit the resumption of operations or to commence decommissioning. Any property insurance proceeds not already expended to place the reactor in a safe and stable condition must be used first to complete those decontamination operations that are ordered by the NRC. FirstEnergy is unable to predict what effect these requirements may have on the availability of insurance proceeds.

GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES

FirstEnergy has various financial and performance guarantees and indemnifications which are issued in the normal course of business. These contracts include performance guarantees, stand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and indemnifications. FirstEnergy enters into these arrangements to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties by enhancing the value of the transaction to the third party.

As of December 31, 2012, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $4.0 billion, consisting of parental guarantees ($0.9 billion), subsidiaries' guarantees ($2.4 billion) and other guarantees ($0.8 billion).

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

COLLATERAL AND CONTINGENT-RELATED FEATURES

As part of the normal course of business, FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries routinely enter into physical or financially settled contracts for the sale and purchase of electric capacity, energy, fuel, and emission allowances. Certain bilateral agreements and derivative instruments contain provisions that require FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries to post collateral. This collateral may be posted in the form of cash or credit support with thresholds contingent upon FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' credit rating from each of the major credit rating agencies. The collateral and credit support requirements vary by contract and by counterparty. The incremental collateral requirement allows for the offsetting of assets and liabilities with the same counterparty, where the contractual right of offset exists under applicable master netting agreements.

Bilateral agreements and derivative instruments entered into by FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have margining provisions that require posting of collateral. Based on FES' power portfolio exposure as of December 31, 2012, FES has posted collateral of $77 million. The Regulated Distribution segment has posted collateral of $9 million.

These credit-risk-related contingent features stipulate that if the subsidiary were to be downgraded or lose its investment grade credit rating (based on its senior unsecured debt rating), it would be required to provide additional collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required.

Subsequent to the occurrence of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BBB- and Moody's Baa3 and lower, or a “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of collateral or accelerated payments may be required of FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries. The following table discloses the additional credit contingent contractual obligations as of December 31, 2012:



Collateral Provisions	FES		AE Supply		Utilities		Total
	(In millions)
Split Rating (One rating agency's rating below investment grade)	$	372	$	6	$	35	$	413
BB+/Ba1 Credit Ratings	$	427	$	6	$	55	$	488
Full impact of credit contingent contractual obligations	$	628	$	55	$	90	$	773

Excluded above are potential collateral obligations due to affiliate transactions between the Regulated Distribution Segment and Competitive Energy Segment. As of December 31, 2012, neither FES nor AE Supply had any collateral posted with their affiliates. In the event of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BB- or Moody's Ba3, FES and AE Supply would be required to post $39 million and $9 million, respectively.

OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

FirstEnergy is a guarantor under a syndicated three-year senior secured term loan facility due October 18, 2015, under which Global Holding borrowed $350 million. Proceeds from the loan were used to repay Signal Peak's and Global Rail's maturing $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility. In addition to FirstEnergy each of, Signal Peak, Global Rail, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Coal Sales Group, LLC, each being a direct or indirect subsidiary of Global Holding, have also provided their joint and several guaranties of the obligations of Global Holding under the new facility.

In connection with the new facility, 69.99% of Global Holding's direct and indirect membership interests in Signal Peak, Global Rail and their affiliates along with FEV's and WMB Marketing Ventures, LLC's respective 33-1/3% membership interests in Global Holding, are pledged to the lenders under the new facility as collateral.

FirstEnergy, FEV and the other two co-owners of Global Holding, Pinesdale LLC, a Gunvor Group, Ltd. subsidiary, and WMB Marketing Ventures, LLC, have agreed to use their best efforts to refinance the new facility by December 31, 2013 on a non-recourse basis so that FirstEnergy's guaranty can be terminated and/or released. If that refinancing does not occur, FirstEnergy may require each co-owner to lend to Global Holding, on a pro rata basis, funds sufficient to prepay the new facility in full. In lieu of providing such funding, the co-owners, at FirstEnergy's option, may provide their several guaranties of Global Holding's obligations under the facility. FirstEnergy receives a fee for providing its guaranty, payable semiannually, which accrues at a rate of 4% through December 31, 2012, 5% from January 1 through December 31, 2013 and, thereafter, a rate per annum equal to the then current Merrill Lynch High Yield 100 index, in each case based upon the average daily outstanding aggregate commitments under the facility for such semiannual period.

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, utilizing combustion controls and post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower or non-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances.

In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs were filed against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner.” One complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a class with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FG believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In December 2007, the states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging NSR violations at the coal-fired Portland Generation Station against GenOn Energy, Inc. (formerly RRI Energy, Inc. and the current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from ME in 1999) and ME. Specifically, these suits allege that “modifications” at Portland Units 1 and 2 occurred between 1980 and 2005 without pre-construction 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. The Court dismissed New Jersey's and Connecticut's claims for injunctive relief against ME, but denied ME's motion to dismiss the claims for civil penalties. In February 2012, GenOn announced its plans to deactivate the Portland Station in January 2015 citing EPA emissions limits and compliance schedules to reduce SO₂ air emissions by approximately 81% at the Portland Station by January 6, 2015. On July 27, 2012, FirstEnergy filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the Plaintiff's remaining claims for civil penalties are barred by the statute of limitations. On November 1, 2012, the other defendants and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment regarding various claims. On February 22, 2013, the Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment and a jury trial regarding liability was set for April 23, 2013. The parties dispute the scope of ME's indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy. FirstEnergy believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

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

In January 2011, the U.S. DOJ filed a complaint against PN in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief against PN based on alleged “modifications” at the coal-fired Homer City generating plant during 1991 to 1994 without pre-construction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA's PSD and Title V permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, NYSEG, and various current owners of Homer City, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of New Jersey and New York intervened and filed separate complaints regarding Homer City seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. In October 2011, the Court dismissed all of the claims with prejudice of the U.S. DOJ and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of New Jersey and New York against all of the defendants, including PN. In December 2011, the U.S., the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of New Jersey and New York all filed notices appealing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which has scheduled oral argument on May 17, 2013. PN believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints. The parties dispute the scope of NYSEG's and PN's indemnity obligation to and from Edison International. PN is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the loss or possible range of loss.

In August 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and Ohio regulations, including the PSD, NNSR and Title V regulations, at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula coal-fired plants. The EPA's NOV alleges equipment replacements during maintenance outages dating back to 1990 triggered the pre-construction permitting requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs. 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. FG intends to comply with the CAA and Ohio regulations; but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In August 2000, AE received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA from the EPA requesting that it provide information and documentation relevant to the operation and maintenance of the following ten coal-fired plants, which collectively include 22 electric generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfield's Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island to determine compliance with the NSR provisions under the CAA, which can require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when a major modification of an existing facility results in an increase in emissions. In September 2007, AE received a NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Armstrong plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired Fort Martin and Willow Island plants in West Virginia. On June 29, 2012 and January 31, 2013, EPA issued additional CAA section 114 requests for the Harrison coal-fired plant seeking information and documentation relevant to its operation and maintenance, including capital projects undertaken since 2007. AE intends to comply with the CAA but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

In June 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply and the Allegheny Utilities in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania. A non-jury trial on liability only was held in September 2010. The parties are awaiting a decision from the District Court, but there is no deadline for that decision. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

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 decided that CAIR violated the CAA but 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 decision. In July 2011, the EPA finalized CSAPR, to replace CAIR, requiring reductions of NOx and SO₂ emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO₂ emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate trading of NOx and SO₂ emission allowances with some restrictions. On December 30, 2011, CSAPR was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and was ultimately vacated by the Court on August 21, 2012. On January 24, 2013, EPA and intervenors' petitions seeking rehearing or rehearing en banc were denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court has ordered EPA to continue administration of CAIR until it finalizes a valid replacement for CAIR. Depending on the outcome of these proceedings and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, FG's and AE Supply's future cost of compliance may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions

On December 21, 2011, the EPA finalized the MATS imposing emission limits for mercury, PM, and HCL for all existing and new coal-fired electric generating units effective in April 2015 with averaging of emissions from multiple units located at a single plant. Under the CAA, state permitting authorities can grant an additional compliance year through April 2016, as needed, including instances when necessary to maintain reliability where electric generating units are being closed. On December 28, 2012, the WVDEP granted a conditional exemption through April 16, 2016 for MATS compliance at the Fort Martin, Harrison and Pleasants Power stations. In addition, an EPA enforcement policy document contemplates up to an additional year to achieve compliance, through April 2017, under certain circumstances for reliability critical units. MATS has been challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by various entities, including FirstEnergy's challenge of the PM emission limit imposed on petroleum coke boilers, such as Bay Shore Unit 1. FirstEnergy and other entities have also petitioned EPA to reconsider and revise various regulatory requirements under MATS. Depending on the outcome of these proceedings and how the MATS are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergy's future cost of compliance with MATS is estimated to be approximately $975 million.

As of September 1, 2012, Albright, Armstrong, Bay Shore Units 2-4, Eastlake Units 4-5, R. Paul Smith, Rivesville and Willow Island have been deactivated. On April 25, 2012, PJM concluded its initial analysis of the reliability impacts from the previously announced plant deactivations and requested RMR arrangements for Eastlake Units 1-3, Ashtabula Unit 5 and Lake Shore Unit 18 through the spring of 2015. During the year ended December 31, 2012, FirstEnergy recognized pre-tax severance expense of approximately $14 million ($10 million by FES) as a result of deactivations. These costs are included in "other operating expenses" in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

FirstEnergy has various long-term coal transportation agreements, some of which run through 2025 and certain of which are related to the plants described above. Penalties for delivery shortfalls for 2012 under those agreements are approximately $60 million unless, as we believe, those delivery shortfalls are excused by the force majeure provisions of those agreements. However, if we fail to reach a resolution with the counterparties and were it ultimately determined that the force majeure provisions do not excuse those delivery shortfalls, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely impacted.

Climate Change

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

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

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

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

Clean Water Act

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

In 2004, the EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the CWA for reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing electric generating plants. The regulations call for reductions in impingement mortality (when aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system) and entrainment (which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facility's cooling water system). In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidated portions of the Section 316(b) performance standards and the EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment to minimize impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. In April 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuit's opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the CWA authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake structures. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation under Section 316(b) of the CWA to reduce fish impingement to a 12% annual average and determine site-specific controls, if any, to reduce entrainment of aquatic life following studies to be provided to permitting authorities. In July 2012, the period for finalizing the Section 316(b) regulation was extended to July 27, 2013. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness, including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore power plant's water intake channel to divert fish away from the plant's water intake system. Depending on the results of such studies and the EPA's further rulemaking and any final action taken by the states exercising best professional judgment, the future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.

In April 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FG that it is no longer considering prosecution under the CWA and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26, 2007 and February 27, 2007. On January 10, 2013, EPA posted for a 30-day public comment period executed Consent Agreements and unexecuted Final Orders requiring payment of a $125,000 civil penalty and the transfer of 195 acres of wetlands to a nature conservancy to resolve potential liabilities for the three petroleum spills at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants. Following consideration of public comments, EPA will take action on the Final Orders.

In October 2009, the WVDEP issued an NPDES water discharge permit for the Fort Martin Plant, which imposes TDS, sulfate concentrations and other effluent limitations for heavy metals, as well as temperature limitations. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin NPDES permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order setting deadlines for MP to meet certain of the effluent limits that were effective immediately under the terms of the NPDES permit. MP appealed, and a stay of certain conditions of the NPDES permit and order have been granted pending a final decision on the appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The Fort Martin NPDES permit could require an initial capital investment in excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits, which technology may also meet certain of the other effluent limits. Additional technology may be needed to meet certain other limits in the Fort Martin NPDES permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

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

In May 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the Sierra Club filed a CWA citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia alleging violations of arsenic limits in the NPDES water discharge permit for the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Station seeking unspecified civil penalties and injunctive relief. In June 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the Sierra Club served a 60-day Notice of Intent required prior to filing a citizen suit under the CWA for alleged failure to obtain a permit to construct the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Plant. MP filed an answer on July 11, 2011, and a motion to stay the proceedings on July 13, 2011. In April 2012, the parties reached a settlement to resolve these CWA citizen suit claims for an immaterial amount. On August 14, 2012, a Consent Decree was entered by the Court resolving these claims. MP is currently seeking relief from the arsenic limits through a WVDEP agency review.

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

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 December 2009, in an advance notice of public rulemaking, the EPA asserted that the large volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk to the industry. In May 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPA's hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management, beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. On July 27, 2012, the PA DEP filed a complaint against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania with claims under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management Act regarding the LBR CCB Impoundment and simultaneously proposed a Consent Decree between PA DEP and FG to resolve those claims. On December 14, 2012, a modified Consent Decree that addresses public comments received by PA DEP was entered by the court, requiring FG to conduct monitoring, studies and submit a closure plan to the PA DEP, no later than March 31, 2013, and discontinue disposal to LBR as currently permitted by December 31, 2016. The modified Consent Decree also requires payment of civil penalties of $800,000 to resolve claims under the Solid Waste Management Act. On January 23, 2013, FG announced a plan to ship the CCBs from the Bruce Mansfield Plant to the LaBelle coal mine reclamation project. On February 1, 2013, FG submitted a Feasibility Study analyzing various technical issues relevant to the closure of LBR. The Feasibility Study estimated that viable options for placing a final cap over LBR would require between 6 to 16 years with an estimated cost ranging from $78 million to $224 million. The Bruce Mansfield Plant is pursuing several options for its CCBs following December 31, 2016, including beneficial use of CCBs for mine reclamation in LaBelle, Pennsylvania. On December 20, 2012, the Environmental Integrity Project and others served FG with a citizen suit notice alleging CWA and PA Clean Streams Law Violations at LBR. At least 60 days must pass before a complaint can be filed.

FirstEnergy's future cost of compliance with any coal combustion residuals regulations that may be promulgated could be substantial and would depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the states. Compliance with those regulations could have an adverse impact on FirstEnergy's results of operations and financial condition.

Certain of FirstEnergy's utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the CERCLA. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2012, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, FE's and its subsidiaries' proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $124 million (including $88 million applicable to JCP&L) have been accrued through December 31, 2012. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $81 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. FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the possible losses or range of losses cannot be determined or reasonably estimated at this time.

OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Nuclear Plant Matters

Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As of December 31, 2012, FirstEnergy had approximately $2.2 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 guaranty, 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. FirstEnergy currently maintains a $95 million parental guaranty in support of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities which is expected to increase to approximately $135 million in 2013. In December 2012, FirstEnergy Corp. entered into an additional $11 million parental guaranty in support of the decommissioning of the spent fuel storage facilities located at its Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear facilities.

On October 1, 2011, Davis-Besse was safely shut down for a scheduled outage to install a new reactor vessel head and complete other maintenance activities. On October 10, 2011, following opening of the building for installation of the new reactor head, a sub-surface hairline crack was identified in one of the exterior architectural elements on the shield building. During investigation of the crack at the shield building opening, concrete samples and electronic testing found similar sub-surface hairline cracks in most of the building's architectural elements. FENOC's investigation also identified other sub-surface hairline cracks in the upper portion of the shield building and in the vicinity of the main steam line penetrations. A team of industry-recognized structural concrete experts and Davis-Besse engineers determined these conditions do not affect the facility's structural integrity or safety.

On December 2, 2011, the NRC issued a CAL which concluded that FENOC provided "reasonable assurance that the shield building remains capable of performing its safety functions." The CAL imposed a number of commitments from FENOC. On December 6, 2011, the Davis-Besse plant returned to service. By a letter dated November 7, 2012, the NRC concluded that FENOC satisfied all of the commitments contained in the CAL related to Davis-Besse Shield Building. FENOC continues to monitor the status of the Shield Building.

In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. An NRC ASLB granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application to a group of petitioners. The NRC subsequently narrowed the scope of admitted contentions in this proceeding to a challenge to the computer code used to model source terms in FENOC's SAMA analysis. On December 28, 2012, the ASLB issued two decisions that granted FENOC's motion for summary dismissal of the remaining SAMA contention and denied the Intervenors' request for a new contention on the Davis-Besse Shield Building. The ASLB declined to terminate the adjudication. In an earlier order dated August 7, 2012, the NRC stated that it will not issue final licensing decisions until it has appropriately addressed the challenges to the NRC Waste Confidence Decision and Temporary Storage Rule and all pending contentions on this topic should be held in abeyance until further order. In a September 6, 2012, staff requirements memorandum, the NRC directed the staff to publish a final rule and EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision and temporary storage rule within 24 months. The ASLB has suspended further consideration of the Intervenors' proposed contention on the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage in the Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding.

By a letter dated August 25, 2011, the NRC made a final significance determination (white) associated with a violation that occurred during the retraction of a source range monitor from the Perry reactor vessel. The NRC also placed Perry in the degraded cornerstone column (Column 3) of the NRC's Action Matrix governing the oversight of commercial nuclear reactors. As a result, the NRC staff conducted several supplemental inspections, including an inspection using Inspection Procedure 95002 to determine if the root cause and contributing causes of risk significant performance issues were understood, the extent of condition was identified, whether safety culture contributed to the performance issues, and if FENOC's corrective actions are sufficient to address the causes and prevent recurrence. On December 28, 2012, the NRC issued a report on the 95002 Inspection that concluded that FENOC "did not provide assurance that the corrective actions for performance issues associated with the Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness PI were sufficient to address the root and contributing causes and prevent recurrence." Moreover, the NRC also concluded that FENOC "did not adequately address corrective actions for the White NOV." As a result, the NRC will hold open both a parallel PI inspection finding on the occupational exposure issues and the White finding. The NRC will conduct a future inspection to verify the effectiveness of FENOC's corrective actions. Additional adverse findings by the NRC could result in additional NRC oversight and further inspection activities.

By a letter dated January 17, 2013, the NRC notified FENOC that the Perry plant would remain in Column 3 of the action matrix for the NRC reactor oversight process. It stated that although “Perry meets the definition in Inspection Manual Chapter 0305 for Multiple/Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone, Column 4, of the Action Matrix,” current performance issues are well understood and appear to be limited to occupational radiation safety, at present and thus the regulatory actions specified for Column 3 of the Action Matrix are more appropriate. The NRC also noted that Perry would move to Column 4 if: (1) the follow-up 95002 inspection, scheduled for completion in the May-July 2013 timeframe, identifies a significant weakness in Perry's performance; (2) Perry is unable to complete corrective actions necessary to permit the follow-up 95002 inspection to be completed before the end of July 2013; or (3) if another Greater-than-Green PI or finding is identified (other than a change of color for the current Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness PI issue). Additional adverse findings by the NRC could result in further inspection activities and/or other regulatory actions.

On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued orders requiring safety enhancements at U.S. reactors based on recommendations from the lessons learned Task Force review of the accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. These orders require additional mitigation strategies for beyond-design-basis external events, and enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels in spent fuel pools. The NRC also requested that licensees including FENOC: re-analyze earthquake and flooding risks using the latest information available; conduct earthquake and flooding hazard walkdowns at their nuclear plants; assess the ability of current communications systems and equipment to perform under a prolonged loss of onsite and offsite electrical power; and assess plant staffing levels needed to fill emergency positions. These and other NRC requirements adopted as a result of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi are likely to result in additional material costs from plant modifications and upgrades at FENOC's nuclear facilities.

On February 16, 2012, the NRC issued a request for information to the licensed operators of 11 nuclear power plants, including Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2, with respect to the modeling of fuel performance as it relates to "thermal conductivity degradation," which is the potential in higher burn up fuel for reduced capacity to transfer heat that could potentially change its performance during various accident scenarios, including loss of coolant accidents. The request for information indicated that this phenomenon has not been accounted for adequately in performance models for the fuel developed by the fuel manufacturer and that the NRC might consider imposing restrictions on reactor operating limits. On March 16, 2012, FENOC submitted its response to the NRC demonstrating that the NRC requirements are being met. After a detailed review of FENOC's submittal and in a January 25, 2013 evaluation, the NRC confirmed the FENOC's evaluation model remains adequate and determined that the schedule for re-analysis was acceptable. The plant remains compliant with regulations regarding fuel parameters. FENOC also agreed to submit to the NRC revised large break loss of coolant accident analyses by December 15, 2016, that further consider the effects of fuel pellet thermal conductivity degradation.

ICG Litigation

On December 28, 2006, AE Supply and MP filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against ICG, Anker WV, and Anker Coal. Anker WV entered into a long term Coal Sales Agreement with AE Supply and MP for the supply of coal to the Harrison generating facility. Prior to the time of trial, ICG was dismissed as a defendant by the Court, which issue can be the subject of a future appeal. As a result of defendants' past and continued failure to supply the contracted coal, AE Supply and MP have incurred and will continue to incur significant additional costs for purchasing replacement coal. A non-jury trial was held from January 10, 2011 through February 1, 2011. At trial, AE Supply and MP presented evidence that they have incurred in excess of $80 million in damages for replacement coal purchased through the end of 2010 and will incur additional damages in excess of $150 million for future shortfalls. Defendants primarily claim that their performance is excused under a force majeure clause in the coal sales agreement and presented evidence at trial that they will continue to not provide the contracted yearly tonnage amounts. On May 2, 2011, the court entered a verdict in favor of AE Supply and MP for $104 million ($90 million in future damages and $14 million for replacement coal / interest). On August 25, 2011, the Allegheny County Court denied all Motions for Post-Trial relief and the May 2, 2011 verdict became final. On August 26, 2011, the defendants posted bond and filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court. On August 13, 2012, the Superior Court affirmed the $14 million past damages award but vacated the $90 million future damages award. While the Superior Court found that the defendants still owed future damages, it remanded the calculation of those damages back to the trial court. The specific amount of those future damages is not known at this time, but they are expected to be calculated at a market price of coal that is significantly lower than the price used by the trial court. On August 27, 2012, AE Supply and MP filed an Application for Reargument En Banc with the Superior Court, which was denied on October 19, 2012. AE Supply and MP filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on November 19, 2012. A ruling by the Supreme Court on whether it will hear the case is expected in the second quarter of 2013. AE Supply and MP intend to vigorously pursue this matter through appeal.

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, and compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, 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 had been approved by the PUCO. The court granted the defendant companies' motion to dismiss which was affirmed on appeal on all counts except for one relating to an allegation of fraud which was remanded to the trial court. The defendant companies appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio on December 5, 2011, challenging this one aspect of the case. The Supreme Court of Ohio found in favor of the defendant companies on November 28, 2012, ruling that jurisdiction on the issue raised resides with the PUCO, not civil court.

On July 13, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas by Michael Goretzka, for wrongful death, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Plaintiff's decedent, Carrie Goretzka, was fatally electrocuted when she contacted a downed power line at her residence in Irwin, Pennsylvania. The trial resulted in a verdict against WP for $48 million in compensatory damages and $61 million in punitive damages. The parties have settled this matter and WP's portion of the settlement will be covered by insurance subject to the remainder of its deductible. On May 30, 2012, the PPUC's Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (I&E) filed a Formal Complaint at the PPUC regarding this matter. On February 13, 2013, WP and I&E filed a Joint Petition for Full Settlement that includes, among other things, WP's agreement to conduct an infrared inspection of its primary distribution system, modify certain training programs, and pay an $86,000 civil penalty. The settlement is subject to PPUC approval.

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 under Note 14, Regulatory Matters of the Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

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. In cases where FirstEnergy determines that it is not probable, but reasonably possible that it has a material obligation, it discloses such obligations and the possible loss or range of loss if such estimate can be made. If it were ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject to liability based on any of the matters referenced above, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.