UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D. C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
| | |
þ | | QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
þ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 20112012
OR
| | |
o | | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
¨TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from ___________________ to ___________________ |
| | | | |
| Commission | | Registrant; State of Incorporation; | | I.R.S. Employer |
| File Number | | Address; and Telephone Number | | Identification No. |
| | | | | |
| 333-21011 | | FIRSTENERGY CORP.
| | 34-1843785 |
| | (An Ohio Corporation)
| | |
| | 76 South Main Street
| | |
| | Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402 | | 34-1843785 |
| | Telephone (800)736-3402 | | |
| | | | | |
| 000-53742 | | FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
| | 31-1560186 |
| | (An Ohio Corporation)
| | |
| | c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
| | |
| | 76 South Main Street
| | |
| | Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402 | | 31-1560186 |
| | Telephone (800)736-3402 | | |
| | | | | |
| 1-2578 | | OHIO EDISON COMPANY
(An Ohio Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402 | | 34-0437786 |
| | | (An Ohio Corporation) | | |
1-2323 | | THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
(An Ohio Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402 | | 34-0150020 |
| | | 76 South Main Street | | |
1-3583 | | THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
(An Ohio Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402 | | 34-4375005 |
| | Telephone (800)736-3402 | | |
| | | | | |
| 1-3141 | | JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
| | 21-0485010 |
| | (A New Jersey Corporation)
| | |
| | c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
| | |
| | 76 South Main Street
| | |
| | Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402 | | 21-0485010 |
| | Telephone (800)736-3402 | | |
| | | | | |
1-446 | | METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
(A Pennsylvania Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402 | | 23-0870160 |
| | | | |
1-3522 | | PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
(A Pennsylvania Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402 | | 25-0718085 |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
| | |
| | |
Yesþ Noo | | FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company,and Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
| | |
| | |
Yesþ Noo | | FirstEnergy Corp. |
| | |
|
Yeso Noo
| | , FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company,and Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, and Pennsylvania Electric Company |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
| | |
| |
Large Accelerated Filerþ | | FirstEnergy Corp. |
| | | |
Accelerated Filero | | N/A |
| | | |
Non-accelerated Filer (Do not check
if a smaller reporting company)þ | | FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company,and Jersey Central Power & Light Company Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company |
| | |
|
Smaller Reporting Companyo | | N/A |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
| | |
| | |
Yeso Noþ | | FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company,and Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company |
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date:
|
| | | | |
| | | OUTSTANDING | |
| CLASS | | AS OF April 29, 2011 | APRIL 30, 2012 |
| FirstEnergy Corp., $.10 par value | | | 418,216,437 |
|
| FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., no par value | | | 7 |
|
| Ohio Edison Company, no par value | | | 60 | |
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, no par value | | | 67,930,743 | |
The Toledo Edison Company, $5 par value | | | 29,402,054 |
|
| Jersey Central Power & Light Company, $10 par value | | | 13,628,447 | |
Metropolitan Edison Company, no par value | | | 740,905 | |
Pennsylvania Electric Company, $20 par value | | | 4,427,577 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. is the sole holder of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company,and Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company common stock.
This combined Form 10-Q is separately filed by FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company,and Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company. Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by such registrant on its own behalf. No registrant makes any representation as to information relating to any other registrant, except that information relating to any of the FirstEnergy subsidiary registrants is also attributed to FirstEnergy Corp.
FirstEnergy Web Site
Each of the registrants’ Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the SEC pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are also made available free of charge on or through FirstEnergy’s Internet web site at www.firstenergycorp.com.
These reports are posted on the web site as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with the SEC. Additionally, the registrants routinely post important information on FirstEnergy’s Internet web site and recognize FirstEnergy’s Internet web site as a channel of distribution to reach public investors and as a means of disclosing material non-public information for complying with disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD. Information contained on FirstEnergy’s Internet web site shall not be deemed incorporated into, or to be part of, this report.
OMISSION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company,and Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company meet the conditions set forth in General Instruction H(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-Q and are therefore filing this Form 10-Q with the reduced disclosure format specified in General Instruction H(2) to Form 10-Q.
Forward-Looking Statements:This Form 10-Q includes forward-looking statements based on information currently available to management. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. These statements include declarations regarding management’smanagement's intents, beliefs and current expectations. These statements typically contain, but are not limited to, the terms “anticipate,” “potential,” “expect,” “believe,” “estimate” and similar words. Forward-looking statements involve estimates, assumptions, known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
Actual results may differ materially due to:
The speed and nature of increased competition in the electric utility industry.
The impact of the regulatory process on the pending matters before FERC and in the various states in which we do business including, but not limited to, matters related to rates.
The status of the PATH project in light of PJM’sPJM's direction to suspend work on the project pending review of its planning process, its re-evaluation of the need for the project and the uncertainty of the timing and amounts of any related capital expenditures.
BusinessThe uncertainties of various cost recovery and regulatory impactscost allocation issues resulting from ATSI’sATSI's realignment into PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.PJM.
Economic or weather conditions affecting future sales and margins.
Changes in markets for energy services.
Changing energy and commodity market prices and availability.
Financial derivative reforms that could increase our liquidity needs and collateral costs.
Replacement power costs being higher than anticipated or inadequately hedged.
The continued ability of FirstEnergy’sour regulated utilities to collect transition and other costs.
Operation and maintenance costs being higher than anticipated.
Other legislative and regulatory changes, and revised environmental requirements, including possible GHG emission, water intake and coal combustion residual regulations, the potential impacts of any laws, rules or regulations that ultimately replace CAIR, including CSAPR which was stayed by the courts on December 30, 2011, and the effects of the EPA’s recently released MACT proposal to establish certain mercury and other emission standards for electric generating units.EPA's MATS rules.
The uncertainty of the timing and amounts of the capital expenditures that may arise in connection with any litigation, including NSR litigation or potential regulatory initiatives or rulemakings (including that such expenditures could result in our decision to shut down or idle certain generating units).
The uncertainties associated with our plan to retire our older unscrubbed regulated and competitive fossil units, including the impact on vendor commitments, and PJM's review of our plans for, and the timing of, those retirements.
Adverse regulatory or legal decisions and outcomes with respect to our nuclear operations (including, but not limited to the revocation or non-renewal of necessary licenses, approvals or operating permits) and oversightpermits by the NRC includingor as a result of the incident at Japan’sJapan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.
Plant).Issues that could result from our continuing evaluation of the indications of cracking in the Davis-Besse Plant shield building imposed by the CAL issued by the NRC.
Adverse legal decisions and outcomes related to Met-Ed’sME's and Penelec’sPN's ability to recover certain transmission costs through their transmission service charge appeal at the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.riders.
The continuing availability of generating units and changes in their ability to operate at or near full capacity.
Replacement power costs being higher than anticipated or inadequately hedged.
The ability to comply with applicable state and federal reliability standards and energy efficiency mandates.
Changes in customers’customers' demand for power, including but not limited to, changes resulting from the implementation of state and federal energy efficiency mandates.
The ability to accomplish or realize anticipated benefits from strategic goals.
Efforts and ourOur ability to improve electric commodity margins and the impact of, among other factors, the increased cost of coalfuel and coalfuel transportation on such margins.
The ability to experience growth in the distribution business.
The changingChanging market conditions that could affect the value of assets held in the registrants’ nuclear decommissioning trusts,our NDTs, pension trusts and other trust funds, and cause FirstEnergyus and our subsidiaries to make additional contributions sooner, or in amounts that are larger than currently anticipated.
The impact of changes to material accounting policies.
The ability to access the public securities and other capital and credit markets in accordance with FirstEnergy’sour financing plan,plans, the cost of such capital and overall condition of the capital and credit markets affecting the registrantsus and other FirstEnergyour subsidiaries.
Changes in general economic conditions affecting the registrantsus and other FirstEnergyour subsidiaries.
Interest rates and any actions taken by credit rating agencies that could negatively affect the registrants’us and our subsidiaries' access to financing, or theirincreased costs thereof, and increase requirements to post additional collateral to support outstanding commodity positions, LOCs and other financial guarantees.
The continuing uncertaintystate of the national and regional economy and its impact on the registrants’our major industrial and commercial customers and those of other FirstEnergy subsidiaries.customers.
Issues concerning the soundness of domestic and foreign financial institutions and counterparties with which the registrants and FirstEnergy’s other subsidiarieswe do business.
Issues arising from the recently completed merger of FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy, Inc. and the ongoing coordination of their combined operations including FirstEnergy’s ability to maintain relationships with customers, employees or suppliers, as well as the ability to successfully integrate the businesses and realize cost savings and any other synergies and the risk that the credit ratings of the combined company or its subsidiaries may be different from what the companies expect.
The risks and other factors discussed from time to time in the registrants’our SEC filings, and other similar factors.
Dividends declared from time to time on FirstEnergy’sFE's common stock during any annual period may in the aggregate vary from the indicated amount due to circumstances considered by FirstEnergy’sFE's Board of Directors at the time of the actual declarations. A security rating is not a recommendation to buy or hold securities and is subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating agency. Each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.
The foregoing review of factors should not be construed as exhaustive. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all such factors, nor assess the impact of any such factor on the registrants’FirstEnergy's business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. The registrants expressly disclaim any current intention to update, except as required by law, any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| |
| Page |
| | |
| Part I. Financial Information | |
| | |
Page | |
| |
| Item 1. Financial Statements | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | iii-v | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
FirstEnergy Corp. | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | 11 | |
| | | | |
| | | 12 | |
| | | | |
| | | 13 | |
| | | | |
The Toledo Edison Company
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | 14 | |
| | | | |
| | | 15 | |
| | | | |
| | | 16 | |
| | | | |
Jersey Central Power & Light Company
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | 17 | |
| | | | |
| | | 18 | |
| | | | |
| | | 19 | |
| | | | |
Metropolitan Edison Company
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | 20 | |
| | | | |
| | | 21 | |
| | | | |
| | | 22 | |
| | | | |
Pennsylvania Electric Company
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | 23 | |
| | | | |
| | | 24 | |
| | | | |
| | | 25 | |
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
ii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this report to identify FirstEnergy Corp. and its current and former subsidiaries:
| |
|
| |
| AE | | Allegheny Energy, Inc., a Maryland utility holding company that merged with a subsidiary of FirstEnergy on February 25, 2011 |
AESC | | Allegheny Energy Service Corporation, a subsidiary of AE |
| AE Supply | | Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, an unregulated generation subsidiary of AE |
AGCAET | Allegheny Energy Transmission, LLC, a subsidiary of AE, which is the parent of ATSI and TrAIL and has a joint venture in PATH |
| AGC | Allegheny Generating Company, a generation subsidiary of AE |
| Allegheny | | Allegheny Energy, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries |
AVE | | Allegheny Ventures, Inc. |
| ATSI | | American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, formerly a direct subsidiary of FE that became a subsidiary of AET in April 2012, which owns and operates transmission facilitiesfacilities. |
| CEI | | The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
FENOCFE | FirstEnergy Corp., a public utility holding company |
| FENOC | FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, which operates nuclear generating facilities |
| FES | | FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., which provides energy-related products and services |
| FESC | | FirstEnergy Service Company, which provides legal, financial and other corporate support services |
| FEV | | FirstEnergy Ventures Corp., which invests in certain unregulated enterprises and business ventures |
| FGCO | | FirstEnergy Generation Corp., a subsidiary of FES, which owns and operates non-nuclear generating facilities |
| FirstEnergy | | FirstEnergy Corp., together with its consolidated subsidiaries |
| Global Holding | Global Mining Holding Company, LLC, a public utility holding companyjoint venture between FEV, WMB Marketing Ventures, LLC and Gunvor Group, Ltd. that owns Global Rail and Signal Peak |
| Global Rail | | A joint venture between FEV, WMB Marketing Ventures, LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC,Gunvor Group, Ltd. that owns coal transportation operations near Roundup, Montana |
GPU | | GPU, Inc., former parent of JCP&L Met-Ed and Penelec, that merged with FirstEnergy on November 7, 2001 |
JCP&L | | Jersey Central Power & Light Company, a New Jersey electric utility operating subsidiary |
Met-Ed | ME | Metropolitan Edison Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary |
| MP | | Monongahela Power Company, a West Virginia electric utility operating subsidiary of AE |
| NGC | | FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., a subsidiary of FES, which owns nuclear generating facilities |
| OE | | Ohio Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
| Ohio Companies | | CEI, OE and TE |
| PATH | | Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC, a joint venture between Allegheny and a subsidiary of American Electric PowerAEP |
| PATH-Allegheny | PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, Inc.LLC |
| PATH-VA | | PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation |
| PE | | The Potomac Edison Company, a Maryland electric utility operating subsidiary of AE |
Penelec | PN | Pennsylvania Electric Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary |
| Penn | | Pennsylvania Power Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary of OE |
| Pennsylvania Companies | | Met-Ed, Penelec,ME, PN, Penn and WP |
| PNBV | | PNBV Capital Trust, a special purpose entity created by OE in 1996 |
| Shippingport | | Shippingport Capital Trust, a special purpose entity created by CEI and TE in 1997 |
| Signal Peak | | A joint venture between FEV, and WMB LoanMarketing Ventures, LLC and Gunvor Group, Ltd. that owns mining operations near Roundup, Montana |
| TE | | The Toledo Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
| TrAIL | | Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company, a subsidiary of AET, which owns and operates transmission facilities |
| Utilities | | OE, CEI, TE, Penn, JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec,ME, PN, MP, PE and WP |
Utility Registrants | | OE, CEI, TE, JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec |
| WP | | West Penn Power Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary of AE |
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used to identify frequently used terms in this report:
| | |
| The following abbreviations and acronyms are used to identify frequently used terms in this report: |
| ALJ | | Administrative Law Judge |
AOCLAnker WV | Anker West Virginia Mining Company, Inc. |
| Anker Coal | Anker Coal Group, Inc. |
| AOCI | Accumulated Other Comprehensive LossIncome |
| AEP | | American Electric Power Company, Inc. |
AQCAREPA | | Air Quality ControlAlternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act |
AROARR | Auction Revenue Right |
| ASLB | Asset Retirement ObligationAtomic Safety and Licensing Board |
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Continued
|
| |
| BGS | | Basic Generation Service |
CAABMP | Bruce Mansfield Plant |
| CAA | Clean Air Act |
CAIRCAL | Confirmatory Action Letter |
| CAIR | Clean Air Interstate Rule |
CAMR | | Clean Air Mercury Rule |
CATR | | Clean Air Transport Rule |
| CBP | | Competitive Bid Process |
CDWRCCB | Coal Combustion By-products |
| CDWR | California Department of Water Resources |
| CERCLA | Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 |
CO2 | | Carbon Dioxide |
CTCCSAPR | | Competitive Transition Charge |
iii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Cont’d.
| | Cross-State Air Pollution Rule |
| CWA | Clean Water Act |
| DCPD | | Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors |
DOEDCR | Delivery Capital Recovery Rider |
| DOE | United States Department of Energy |
| DOJ | | United States Department of Justice |
DPA | | Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel (New Jersey) |
| DSP | | Default Service Plan |
EDCPEDC | Electric Distribution Company |
| EDCP | Executive Deferred Compensation Plan |
| EE&C | | Energy Efficiency and Conservation |
EISEGS | | Energy Insurance Services, Inc.Electric Generation Supplier |
EMPEHB | | Energy Master PlanEnvironmental Hearing Board |
| ENEC | | Expanded Net Energy Cost |
| EPA | | United States Environmental Protection Agency |
ESOPERO | | Employee Stock Ownership PlanElectric Reliability Organization |
| ESP | | Electric Security Plan |
FASB | | Financial Accounting Standards Board |
| FERC | | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FMBFitch | Fitch Ratings |
| FMB | First Mortgage Bond |
| FPA | | Federal Power Act |
FRR | | Fixed Resource Requirement |
FTRs | FTR | Financial Transmission RightsRight |
| GAAP | | Accounting Principles Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States |
RGGI | | Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of America |
| GHG | | Greenhouse Gases |
IRSHCL | Hydrochloric Acid |
| ICG | International Coal Group Inc. |
| ILP | Integrated License Application Process |
| IRS | Internal Revenue Service |
JOA | | Joint Operating Agreement |
| kV | | Kilovolt |
| KWH | | Kilowatt-hoursKilowatt-hour |
LEDLBR | | Light-Emitting DiodeLittle Blue Run |
| LOC | | Letter of Credit |
LTIPLSE | Load Serving Entity |
| LTIP | Long-Term Incentive Plan |
MACTMATS | | Maximum Achievable Control TechnologyMercury and Air Toxics Standards |
| MDPSC | | Maryland Public Service Commission |
MEIUG | | Met-Ed Industrial Users Group |
| MISO | | Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. |
| Moody’s | | Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. |
MRO | | Market Rate Offer |
MSHA | | Mine Safety and Health Administration |
| MTEP | | MISO Regional Transmission Expansion Plan |
| MVP | Multi-value Project |
| MW | | MegawattsMegawatt |
| MWH | Megawatt-hour |
Megawatt-hoursGLOSSARY OF TERMS, Continued
|
NAAQS | |
| NCEA | National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNERC Compliance Enforcement Authority |
| NDT | | Nuclear Decommissioning TrustsTrust |
| NEPA | National Environmental Policy Act |
| NERC | | North American Electric Reliability Corporation |
| NJBPU | | New Jersey Board of Public Utilities |
| NNSR | | Non-Attainment New Source Review |
NOAC | | Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition |
NOPEC | | Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council |
| NOV | | Notice of Violation |
NOX
| NOx | Nitrogen Oxide |
NRCNPDES | National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System |
| NRC | Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
| NSR | | New Source Review |
| NUG | | Non-Utility Generation |
NUGCNYPSC | | Non-Utility Generation ChargeNew York State Public Service Commission |
| NYSEG | | New York State Electric and Gas |
OCC | | Ohio Consumers’ Counsel |
| OCI | | Other Comprehensive Income |
| OPEB | | Other Post-Employment Benefits |
OVECOTTI | Other Than Temporary Impairments |
| OVEC | Ohio Valley Electric Corporation |
PADEP | PA DEP | Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection |
| PCRB | | Pollution Control Revenue Bond |
PICA | | Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority |
| PJM | | PJM Interconnection L. L. C.LLC |
| PM | Particulate Matter |
| POLR | | Provider of Last Resort; an electric utility’s obligation to provide generation service to customers Whose alternative supplier fails to deliver serviceResort |
| PPUC | | Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission |
iv
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Cont’d.
| | |
|
PSCWV | | Public Service Commission of West Virginia |
| PSA | | Power Supply Agreement |
| PSD | | Prevention of Significant Deterioration |
| PUCO | | Public Utilities Commission of Ohio |
| PURPA | | Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 |
RECs | REC | Renewable Energy CreditsCredit |
| RFC | ReliabilityFirst |
| RFP | | Request for Proposal |
| RGGI | | Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative |
RTEPROE | Return on Equity |
| RTEP | Regional Transmission Expansion Plan |
RTC | | Regulatory Transition Charge |
| RTO | | Regional Transmission Organization |
| S&P | | Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service |
| SB221 | | Amended Substitute Senate Bill 221 |
| SBC | | Societal Benefits Charge |
| SEC | | U.S.United States Securities and Exchange Commission |
| SIP | | State Implementation Plan(s) Under the Clean Air Act |
| SMIP | | Smart Meter Implementation Plan |
SNCR | | Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction |
SO2 | | Sulfur Dioxide |
| SOS | | Standard Offer Service |
TBCSREC | | Transition Bond ChargeSolar Renewable Energy Credit |
| TDS | | Total Dissolved Solid |
| TMDL | | Total Maximum Daily Load |
| TMI-2 | | Three Mile Island Unit 2 |
| TSC | | Transmission Service Charge |
| VIE | | Variable Interest Entity |
| VSCC | | Virginia State Corporation Commission |
| WVDEP | | West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection |
| WVPSC | | Public Service Commission of West Virginia |
v
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| In millions, except per share amounts | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES: | | | | | | | | |
| Electric utilities | | $ | 2,332 | | | $ | 2,543 | |
| Unregulated businesses | | | 1,244 | | | | 756 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total revenues* | | | 3,576 | | | | 3,299 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | | 453 | | | | 334 | |
| Purchased power | | | 1,186 | | | | 1,238 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 1,033 | | | | 701 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 220 | | | | 193 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets | | | 132 | | | | 212 | |
| General taxes | | | 237 | | | | 205 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 3,261 | | | | 2,883 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME | | | 315 | | | | 416 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | 21 | | | | 16 | |
| Interest expense | | | (231 | ) | | | (213 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 18 | | | | 41 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total other expense | | | (192 | ) | | | (156 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 123 | | | | 260 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES | | | 78 | | | | 111 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | | 45 | | | | 149 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | (5 | ) | | | (6 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. | | $ | 50 | | | $ | 155 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK | | $ | 0.15 | | | $ | 0.51 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF BASIC SHARES OUTSTANDING | | | 342 | | | | 304 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK | | $ | 0.15 | | | $ | 0.51 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF DILUTED SHARES OUTSTANDING | | | 343 | | | | 306 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK | | $ | 0.55 | | | $ | 0.55 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions, except per share amounts) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | | | |
| REVENUES: | | | | |
| Electric utilities | | $ | 2,554 |
| | $ | 2,332 |
|
| Unregulated businesses | | 1,524 |
| | 1,244 |
|
| Total revenues* | | 4,078 |
| | 3,576 |
|
| | | | | |
| OPERATING EXPENSES: | | | | |
| Fuel | | 541 |
| | 453 |
|
| Purchased power | | 1,347 |
| | 1,186 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 812 |
| | 993 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 285 |
| | 225 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | 75 |
| | 132 |
|
| General taxes | | 272 |
| | 237 |
|
| Total operating expenses | | 3,332 |
| | 3,226 |
|
| | | | | |
| OPERATING INCOME | | 746 |
| | 350 |
|
| | | | | |
| OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | |
| Investment income | | 11 |
| | 21 |
|
| Interest expense | | (246 | ) | | (231 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | 17 |
| | 18 |
|
| Total other expense | | (218 | ) | | (192 | ) |
| | | | | |
| INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | 528 |
| | 158 |
|
| | | | | |
| INCOME TAXES | | 222 |
| | 111 |
|
| | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | 306 |
| | 47 |
|
| | | | | |
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | — |
| | (5 | ) |
| | | | | |
| EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. | | $ | 306 |
| | $ | 52 |
|
| | | | | |
| EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK: | | | | |
| Basic | | $ | 0.73 |
| | $ | 0.15 |
|
| Diluted | | $ | 0.73 |
| | $ | 0.15 |
|
| | | | | |
| WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING: | | | | |
| Basic | | 418 |
| | 342 |
|
| Diluted | | 420 |
| | 343 |
|
| | | | | |
| DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK | | $ | 0.55 |
| | $ | 0.55 |
|
| | |
| * | | Includes $119 and $109 million of excise tax collections of $121 million and $119 million in the three months ended March 31, 20112012 and 2010,2011, respectively. |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
1
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In millions) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 45 | | | $ | 149 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: | | | | | | | | |
| Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | 19 | | | | 13 | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative hedges | | | (6 | ) | | | 4 | |
| Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities | | | 9 | | | | 6 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income | | | 22 | | | | 23 | |
| Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income | | | 1 | | | | 7 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income, net of tax | | | 21 | | | | 16 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | 66 | | | | 165 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST | | | (5 | ) | | | (6 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. | | $ | 71 | | | $ | 171 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 306 |
| | $ | 47 |
|
| | | | | |
| OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSS: | | | | |
| Pensions and OPEB prior service costs | | (53 | ) | | (44 | ) |
| Amortized losses on derivative hedges | | (2 | ) | | (6 | ) |
| Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities | | 10 |
| | 9 |
|
| Other comprehensive loss | | (45 | ) | | (41 | ) |
| Income tax benefits on other comprehensive loss | | (24 | ) | | (19 | ) |
| Other comprehensive loss, net of tax | | (21 | ) | | (22 | ) |
| | | | | |
| COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | 285 |
| | 25 |
|
| | | | | |
| Comprehensive loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | — |
| | (5 | ) |
| | | | | |
| COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. | | $ | 285 |
| | $ | 30 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
2
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| (In millions) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 1,101 | | | $ | 1,019 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | |
| Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $38 in 2011 and $36 in 2010 | | | 1,636 | | | | 1,392 | |
| Other, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $10 in 2011 and $8 in 2010 | | | 229 | | | | 176 | |
| Materials and supplies | | | 852 | | | | 638 | |
| Prepaid taxes | | | 241 | | | | 199 | |
| Derivatives | | | 377 | | | | 182 | |
| Other | | | 210 | | | | 92 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 4,646 | | | | 3,698 | |
| | | | | | | |
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 38,168 | | | | 29,451 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 11,345 | | | | 11,180 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 26,823 | | | | 18,271 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 2,322 | | | | 1,517 | |
| Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net | | | 490 | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 29,635 | | | | 19,788 | |
| | | | | | | |
INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | 2,018 | | | | 1,973 | |
| Investments in lease obligation bonds | | | 422 | | | | 476 | |
| Nuclear fuel disposal trust | | | 207 | | | | 208 | |
| Other | | | 434 | | | | 345 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 3,081 | | | | 3,002 | |
| | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Goodwill | | | 6,527 | | | | 5,575 | |
| Regulatory assets | | | 2,084 | | | | 1,826 | |
| Intangible assets | | | 1,075 | | | | 256 | |
| Other | | | 818 | | | | 660 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 10,504 | | | | 8,317 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 47,866 | | | $ | 34,805 | |
| | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 1,385 | | | $ | 1,486 | |
| Short-term borrowings | | | 486 | | | | 700 | |
| Accounts payable | | | 1,080 | | | | 872 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 412 | | | | 326 | |
| Accrued compensation and benefits | | | 312 | | | | 315 | |
| Derivatives | | | 425 | | | | 266 | |
| Other | | | 1,062 | | | | 733 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 5,162 | | | | 4,698 | |
| | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholders’ equity- | | | | | | | | |
| Common stock, $0.10 par value, authorized 490,000,000 shares- 418,216,437 shares outstanding | | | 42 | | | | 31 | |
| Other paid-in capital | | | 9,779 | | | | 5,444 | |
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | | | (1,518 | ) | | | (1,539 | ) |
| Retained earnings | | | 4,426 | | | | 4,609 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total common stockholders’ equity | | | 12,729 | | | | 8,545 | |
| Noncontrolling interest | | | (40 | ) | | | (32 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Total equity | | | 12,689 | | | | 8,513 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 17,535 | | | | 12,579 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 30,224 | | | | 21,092 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | 4,832 | | | | 2,879 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 2,313 | | | | 1,868 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | 1,443 | | | | 1,407 | |
| Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction | | | 951 | | | | 959 | |
| Power purchase contract liability | | | 606 | | | | 466 | |
| Other | | | 2,335 | | | | 1,436 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 12,480 | | | | 9,015 | |
| | | | | | | |
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 47,866 | | | $ | 34,805 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| (In millions, except share amounts) | | March 31,
2012 | | December 31,
2011 |
| ASSETS | | | | |
| CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 74 |
| | $ | 202 |
|
| Receivables- | | | | |
| Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $35 in 2012 and $37 in 2011 | | 1,449 |
| | 1,525 |
|
| Other, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $8 in 2012 and $3 in 2011 | | 286 |
| | 269 |
|
| Materials and supplies | | 927 |
| | 811 |
|
| Prepaid taxes | | 213 |
| | 191 |
|
| Derivatives | | 346 |
| | 235 |
|
| Other | | 182 |
| | 122 |
|
| | | 3,477 |
| | 3,355 |
|
| PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: | | | | |
| In service | | 40,587 |
| | 40,122 |
|
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | 12,086 |
| | 11,839 |
|
| | | 28,501 |
| | 28,283 |
|
| Construction work in progress | | 2,065 |
| | 2,054 |
|
| | | 30,566 |
| | 30,337 |
|
| INVESTMENTS: | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | 2,135 |
| | 2,112 |
|
| Investments in lease obligation bonds | | 336 |
| | 402 |
|
| Other | | 1,011 |
| | 1,008 |
|
| | | 3,482 |
| | 3,522 |
|
| DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | |
| Goodwill | | 6,444 |
| | 6,441 |
|
| Regulatory assets | | 2,006 |
| | 2,030 |
|
| Other | | 1,716 |
| | 1,641 |
|
| | | 10,166 |
| | 10,112 |
|
| | | $ | 47,691 |
| | $ | 47,326 |
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION
| | | | |
| CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 1,772 |
| | $ | 1,621 |
|
| Short-term borrowings | | 1,075 |
| | — |
|
| Accounts payable | | 918 |
| | 1,174 |
|
| Accrued taxes | | 442 |
| | 558 |
|
| Accrued compensation and benefits | | 258 |
| | 384 |
|
| Derivatives | | 299 |
| | 218 |
|
| Other | | 1,009 |
| | 900 |
|
| | | 5,773 |
| | 4,855 |
|
| CAPITALIZATION: | | | | |
| Common stockholders’ equity- | | | | |
| Common stock, $0.10 par value, authorized 490,000,000 shares - 418,216,437 shares outstanding | | 42 |
| | 42 |
|
| Other paid-in capital | | 9,754 |
| | 9,765 |
|
| Accumulated other comprehensive income | | 405 |
| | 426 |
|
| Retained earnings | | 3,122 |
| | 3,047 |
|
| Total common stockholders’ equity | | 13,323 |
| | 13,280 |
|
| Noncontrolling interest | | 16 |
| | 19 |
|
| Total equity | | 13,339 |
| | 13,299 |
|
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | 15,527 |
| | 15,716 |
|
| | | 28,866 |
| | 29,015 |
|
| NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | 5,904 |
| | 5,670 |
|
| Retirement benefits | | 2,240 |
| | 2,823 |
|
| Asset retirement obligations | | 1,522 |
| | 1,497 |
|
| Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction | | 917 |
| | 925 |
|
| Adverse power contract liability | | 458 |
| | 469 |
|
| Other | | 2,011 |
| | 2,072 |
|
| | | 13,052 |
| | 13,456 |
|
| COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | |
| |
|
| | | $ | 47,691 |
| | $ | 47,326 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
3
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In millions) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 45 | | | $ | 149 | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 220 | | | | 193 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets | | | 132 | | | | 212 | |
| Nuclear fuel and lease amortization | | | 47 | | | | 41 | |
| Deferred purchased power and other costs | | | (58 | ) | | | (77 | ) |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | | 171 | | | | 59 | |
| Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability | | | (15 | ) | | | (17 | ) |
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | | (13 | ) | | | (81 | ) |
| Commodity derivative transactions, net | | | (25 | ) | | | 33 | |
| Pension trust contribution | | | (157 | ) | | | — | |
| Asset impairments | | | 31 | | | | 12 | |
| Cash collateral paid | | | (28 | ) | | | (46 | ) |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables | | | 164 | | | | 2 | |
| Materials and supplies | | | 40 | | | | (42 | ) |
| Prepayments and other current assets | | | 118 | | | | 33 | |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | | (90 | ) | | | (57 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | | (182 | ) | | | 7 | |
| Accrued interest | | | 76 | | | | 66 | |
| Other | | | 15 | | | | 19 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from operating activities | | | 491 | | | | 506 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| New financing- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | 217 | | | | — | |
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | (359 | ) | | | (109 | ) |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | (214 | ) | | | (295 | ) |
| Common stock dividend payments | | | (190 | ) | | | (168 | ) |
| Other | | | (4 | ) | | | (22 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for financing activities | | | (550 | ) | | | (594 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (449 | ) | | | (508 | ) |
| Proceeds from asset sales | | | — | | | | 114 | |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | 969 | | | | 733 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | (993 | ) | | | (755 | ) |
| Customer acquisition costs | | | (1 | ) | | | (101 | ) |
| Cash investments | | | 47 | | | | 49 | |
| Cash received in Allegheny merger | | | 590 | | | | — | |
| Other | | | (22 | ) | | | (8 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | | 141 | | | | (476 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | 82 | | | | (564 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | 1,019 | | | | 874 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 1,101 | | | $ | 310 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Non-cash transaction: merger with Allegheny, common stock issued | | $ | 4,354 | | | $ | — | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 306 |
| | $ | 47 |
|
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | 285 |
| | 225 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | 75 |
| | 132 |
|
| Nuclear fuel and lease amortization | | 58 |
| | 47 |
|
| Deferred purchased power and other costs | | (107 | ) | | (58 | ) |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | 265 |
| | 204 |
|
| Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability | | (23 | ) | | (15 | ) |
| Stock based compensation | | (29 | ) | | (9 | ) |
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | (162 | ) | | (53 | ) |
| Commodity derivative transactions, net | | (64 | ) | | (25 | ) |
| Pension trust contributions | | (600 | ) | | (157 | ) |
| Asset impairments | | 4 |
| | 31 |
|
| Cash collateral, net | | (28 | ) | | (28 | ) |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | |
| Receivables | | 59 |
| | 164 |
|
| Materials and supplies | | (118 | ) | | 40 |
|
| Prepayments and other current assets | | (19 | ) | | 118 |
|
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | (256 | ) | | (90 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | (116 | ) | | (182 | ) |
| Accrued interest | | 70 |
| | 76 |
|
| Other | | (13 | ) | | 24 |
|
| Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities | | (413 | ) | | 491 |
|
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| New Financing- | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | — |
| | 217 |
|
| Short-term borrowings, net | | 1,075 |
| | — |
|
| Redemptions and Repayments- | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | (16 | ) | | (359 | ) |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | — |
| | (214 | ) |
| Common stock dividend payments | | (230 | ) | | (190 | ) |
| Other | | (10 | ) | | (4 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities | | 819 |
| | (550 | ) |
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Property additions | | (589 | ) | | (449 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | 251 |
| | 969 |
|
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | (266 | ) | | (993 | ) |
| Cash investments | | 78 |
| | 47 |
|
| Cash received in Allegheny merger | | — |
| | 590 |
|
| Other | | (8 | ) | | (23 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | (534 | ) | | 141 |
|
| | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | (128 | ) | | 82 |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | 202 |
| | 1,019 |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 74 |
| | $ | 1,101 |
|
| | | | | |
| SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION: | | | | |
| Non-cash transaction: merger with Allegheny, common stock issued | | $ | — |
| | $ | 4,354 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
4
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES: | | | | | | | | |
| Electric sales to non-affiliates | | $ | 1,044,490 | | | $ | 668,685 | |
| Electric sales to affiliates | | | 260,874 | | | | 607,302 | |
| Other | | | 85,724 | | | | 112,106 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 1,391,088 | | | | 1,388,093 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | | 343,109 | | | | 328,221 | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | | 68,743 | | | | 60,953 | |
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | | 296,938 | | | | 450,216 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 495,935 | | | | 304,510 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 68,452 | | | | 62,918 | |
| General taxes | | | 29,105 | | | | 26,746 | |
| Impairment of long-lived assets | | | 13,800 | | | | 1,833 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 1,316,082 | | | | 1,235,397 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME | | | 75,006 | | | | 152,696 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | 5,861 | | | | 717 | |
| Miscellaneous income | | | 19,241 | | | | 3,143 | |
| Interest expense — affiliates | | | (1,017 | ) | | | (2,305 | ) |
| Interest expense — other | | | (52,960 | ) | | | (49,644 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 9,919 | | | | 19,690 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total other expense | | | (18,956 | ) | | | (28,399 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 56,050 | | | | 124,297 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES | | | 20,116 | | | | 44,371 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | | 35,934 | | | | 79,926 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | (76 | ) | | | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 36,010 | | | $ | 79,926 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 35,934 | | | $ | 79,926 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): | | | | | | | | |
| Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | 1,512 | | | | (9,834 | ) |
| Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative hedges | | | (8,879 | ) | | | 1,274 | |
| Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities | | | 7,807 | | | | 5,028 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income (loss) | | | 440 | | | | (3,532 | ) |
| Income tax benefit related to other comprehensive income | | | (2,362 | ) | | | (1,340 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax | | | 2,802 | | | | (2,192 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | 38,736 | | | | 77,734 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST | | | (76 | ) | | | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 38,812 | | | $ | 77,734 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | | | |
| STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | |
| REVENUES: | | | | |
| Electric sales to non-affiliates | | $ | 1,332 |
| | $ | 1,044 |
|
| Electric sales to affiliates | | 121 |
| | 261 |
|
| Other | | 63 |
| | 86 |
|
| Total revenues | | 1,516 |
| | 1,391 |
|
| | | | | |
| OPERATING EXPENSES: | | | | |
| Fuel | | 295 |
| | 343 |
|
| Purchased power from affiliates | | 117 |
| | 69 |
|
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | 487 |
| | 297 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 295 |
| | 465 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 63 |
| | 69 |
|
| General taxes | | 37 |
| | 29 |
|
| Impairment of long-lived assets | | — |
| | 14 |
|
| Total operating expenses | | 1,294 |
| | 1,286 |
|
| | | | | |
| OPERATING INCOME | | 222 |
| | 105 |
|
| | | | | |
| OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | |
| Investment income | | 6 |
| | 6 |
|
| Miscellaneous income | | 4 |
| | 4 |
|
| Interest expense — affiliates | | (2 | ) | | (1 | ) |
| Interest expense — other | | (41 | ) | | (53 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | 9 |
| | 10 |
|
| Total other income (expense) | | (24 | ) | | (34 | ) |
| | | | | |
| INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | 198 |
| | 71 |
|
| | | | | |
| INCOME TAXES | | 76 |
| | 26 |
|
| | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 122 |
| | $ | 45 |
|
| | | | | |
| STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 122 |
| | $ | 45 |
|
| | | | | |
| OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): | | | | |
| Pensions and OPEB prior service costs | | (5 | ) | | (10 | ) |
| Amortized losses on derivative hedges | | (5 | ) | | (9 | ) |
| Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities | | 10 |
| | 8 |
|
| Other comprehensive loss | | — |
| | (11 | ) |
| Income taxes (benefits) on other comprehensive income (loss) | | 2 |
| | (6 | ) |
| Other comprehensive loss, net of tax | | (2 | ) | | (5 | ) |
| | | | | |
| COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | $ | 120 |
| | $ | 40 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
5
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 6,839 | | | $ | 9,281 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | |
| Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $18,636 in 2011 and $16,591 in 2010 | | | 388,951 | | | | 365,758 | |
| Associated companies | | | 533,280 | | | | 477,565 | |
| Other, net of allowances for uncollectible accounts of $6,702 in 2011 and $6,765 in 2010 | | | 86,711 | | | | 89,550 | |
| Notes receivable from associated companies | | | 478,418 | | | | 396,770 | |
| Materials and supplies, at average cost | | | 488,997 | | | | 545,342 | |
| Derivatives | | | 328,156 | | | | 181,660 | |
| Prepayments and other | | | 50,938 | | | | 60,171 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 2,362,290 | | | | 2,126,097 | |
| | | | | | | |
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 11,239,565 | | | | 11,321,318 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 4,107,542 | | | | 4,024,280 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 7,132,023 | | | | 7,297,038 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 756,305 | | | | 1,062,744 | |
| Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net | | | 476,602 | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 8,364,930 | | | | 8,359,782 | |
| | | | | | | |
INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | 1,159,903 | | | | 1,145,846 | |
| Other | | | 9,744 | | | | 11,704 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,169,647 | | | | 1,157,550 | |
| | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Customer intangibles | | | 131,870 | | | | 133,968 | |
| Goodwill | | | 24,248 | | | | 24,248 | |
| Property taxes | | | 41,112 | | | | 41,112 | |
| Unamortized sale and leaseback costs | | | 90,803 | | | | 73,386 | |
| Derivatives | | | 211,223 | | | | 97,603 | |
| Other | | | 53,057 | | | | 48,689 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 552,313 | | | | 419,006 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 12,449,180 | | | $ | 12,062,435 | |
| | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 986,863 | | | $ | 1,132,135 | |
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 360,543 | | | | 11,561 | |
| Other | | | 661 | | | | — | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 499,936 | | | | 466,623 | |
| Other | | | 189,144 | | | | 241,191 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 66,493 | | | | 70,129 | |
| Derivatives | | | 380,744 | | | | 266,411 | |
| Other | | | 224,525 | | | | 251,671 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 2,708,909 | | | | 2,439,721 | |
| | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholders’ equity- | | | | | | | | |
| Common stock, without par value, authorized 750 shares- 7 shares outstanding | | | 1,487,565 | | | | 1,490,082 | |
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | | | (117,612 | ) | | | (120,414 | ) |
| Retained earnings | | | 2,454,587 | | | | 2,418,577 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total common stockholders’ equity | | | 3,824,540 | | | | 3,788,245 | |
| Noncontrolling interest | | | 16 | | | | (504 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Total equity | | | 3,824,556 | | | | 3,787,741 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 3,144,997 | | | | 3,180,875 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 6,969,553 | | | | 6,968,616 | |
| | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction | | | 950,726 | | | | 959,154 | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | 117,503 | | | | 57,595 | |
| Accumulated deferred investment tax credits | | | 53,181 | | | | 54,224 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | 866,643 | | | | 892,051 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 289,285 | | | | 285,160 | |
| Property taxes | | | 41,112 | | | | 41,112 | |
| Lease market valuation liability | | | 205,366 | | | | 216,695 | |
| Derivatives | | | 168,409 | | | | 81,393 | |
| Other | | | 78,493 | | | | 66,714 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 2,770,718 | | | | 2,654,098 | |
| | | | | | | |
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 12,449,180 | | | $ | 12,062,435 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| (In millions, except share amounts) | | March 31,
2012 | | December 31,
2011 |
| ASSETS | | | | |
| CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 7 |
| | $ | 7 |
|
| Receivables- | | | | |
| Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $16 in 2012 and 2011 | | 395 |
| | 424 |
|
| Affiliated companies | | 541 |
| | 600 |
|
| Other, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3 in 2012 and 2011 | | 122 |
| | 61 |
|
| Notes receivable from affiliated companies | | 12 |
| | 383 |
|
| Materials and supplies | | 551 |
| | 492 |
|
| Derivatives | | 322 |
| | 219 |
|
| Prepayments and other | | 24 |
| | 38 |
|
| | | 1,974 |
| | 2,224 |
|
| PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: | | | | |
| In service | | 11,002 |
| | 10,983 |
|
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | 4,214 |
| | 4,110 |
|
| | | 6,788 |
| | 6,873 |
|
| Construction work in progress | | 1,173 |
| | 1,014 |
|
| | | 7,961 |
| | 7,887 |
|
| INVESTMENTS: | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | 1,240 |
| | 1,223 |
|
| Other | | 7 |
| | 7 |
|
| | | 1,247 |
| | 1,230 |
|
| DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | |
| Customer intangibles | | 120 |
| | 123 |
|
| Goodwill | | 24 |
| | 24 |
|
| Property taxes | | 43 |
| | 43 |
|
| Unamortized sale and leaseback costs | | 120 |
| | 80 |
|
| Derivatives | | 117 |
| | 79 |
|
| Other | | 171 |
| | 129 |
|
| | | 595 |
| | 478 |
|
| | | $ | 11,777 |
| | $ | 11,819 |
|
| LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | |
| CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 905 |
| | $ | 905 |
|
| Accounts payable- | | | | |
| Affiliated companies | | 483 |
| | 436 |
|
| Other | | 190 |
| | 220 |
|
| Accrued Taxes | | 75 |
| | 227 |
|
| Derivatives | | 281 |
| | 189 |
|
| Other | | 245 |
| | 261 |
|
| | | 2,179 |
| | 2,238 |
|
| CAPITALIZATION: | | | | |
| Common stockholder's equity- | | | | |
| Common stock, without par value, authorized 750 shares- 7 shares outstanding | | 1,568 |
| | 1,570 |
|
| Accumulated other comprehensive income | | 74 |
| | 76 |
|
| Retained earnings | | 2,053 |
| | 1,931 |
|
| Total common stockholder's equity | | 3,695 |
| | 3,577 |
|
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | 2,797 |
| | 2,799 |
|
| | | 6,492 |
| | 6,376 |
|
| NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | |
| Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction | | 917 |
| | 925 |
|
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | 365 |
| | 286 |
|
| Asset retirement obligations | | 919 |
| | 904 |
|
| Retirement benefits | | 151 |
| | 356 |
|
| Lease market valuation liability | | 160 |
| | 171 |
|
| Other | | 594 |
| | 563 |
|
| | | 3,106 |
| | 3,205 |
|
| COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | |
| |
|
| | | $ | 11,777 |
| | $ | 11,819 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 35,934 | | | $ | 79,926 | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 68,452 | | | | 62,918 | |
| Nuclear fuel and lease amortization | | | 46,653 | | | | 42,118 | |
| Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability | | | (38,759 | ) | | | (40,869 | ) |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | | 61,268 | | | | 37,773 | |
| Asset impairments | | | 18,791 | | | | 11,439 | |
| Commodity derivative transactions, net | | | (35,293 | ) | | | 32,900 | |
| Cash collateral paid | | | (27,063 | ) | | | (21,411 | ) |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables | | | (76,069 | ) | | | (158,288 | ) |
| Materials and supplies | | | 60,633 | | | | (8,700 | ) |
| Prepayments and other current assets | | | 8,728 | | | | 13,516 | |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | | (18,734 | ) | | | (41,057 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | | (3,164 | ) | | | (16,300 | ) |
| Accrued interest | | | (11,845 | ) | | | (14,930 | ) |
| Other | | | 4,093 | | | | 12,069 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities | | | 93,625 | | | | (8,896 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| New financing- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | 150,190 | | | | — | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | 349,643 | | | | — | |
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | (331,428 | ) | | | (1,278 | ) |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | — | | | | (9,237 | ) |
| Other | | | (1,017 | ) | | | (731 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities | | | 167,388 | | | | (11,246 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (159,006 | ) | | | (301,603 | ) |
| Proceeds from asset sales | | | — | | | | 114,272 | |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | 215,620 | | | | 272,094 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | (230,912 | ) | | | (284,888 | ) |
| Loans from (to) associated companies, net | | | (81,647 | ) | | | 321,680 | |
| Customer acquisition costs | | | (1,103 | ) | | | (100,615 | ) |
| Other | | | (6,407 | ) | | | (799 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | | (263,455 | ) | | | 20,141 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | (2,442 | ) | | | (1 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | 9,281 | | | | 12 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 6,839 | | | $ | 11 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 122 |
| | $ | 45 |
|
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | 63 |
| | 69 |
|
| Nuclear fuel and lease amortization | | 57 |
| | 47 |
|
| Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability | | (47 | ) | | (39 | ) |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | 83 |
| | 67 |
|
| Asset impairments | | 3 |
| | 19 |
|
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | (10 | ) | | (16 | ) |
| Pension trust contribution | | (209 | ) | | — |
|
| Commodity derivative transactions, net | | (52 | ) | | (35 | ) |
| Cash collateral, net | | (25 | ) | | (27 | ) |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | |
| Receivables | | 28 |
| | (76 | ) |
| Materials and supplies | | (59 | ) | | 61 |
|
| Prepayments and other current assets | | 14 |
| | 8 |
|
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | 17 |
| | (18 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | (155 | ) | | (3 | ) |
| Other | | (8 | ) | | (8 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities | | (178 | ) | | 94 |
|
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| New financing- | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | — |
| | 150 |
|
| Short-term borrowings, net | | — |
| | 350 |
|
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | — |
| | (332 | ) |
| Other | | (3 | ) | | (1 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities | | (3 | ) | | 167 |
|
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Property additions | | (181 | ) | | (159 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | 83 |
| | 216 |
|
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | (90 | ) | | (231 | ) |
| Loans from (to) affiliated companies, net | | 371 |
| | (82 | ) |
| Other | | (2 | ) | | (7 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | 181 |
| | (263 | ) |
| | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | — |
| | (2 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | 7 |
| | 9 |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 7 |
| | $ | 7 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES: | | | | | | | | |
| Electric sales | | $ | 363,831 | | | $ | 479,925 | |
| Excise and gross receipts tax collections | | | 28,195 | | | | 28,475 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 392,026 | | | | 508,400 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | | 93,262 | | | | 153,677 | |
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | | 60,379 | | | | 94,231 | |
| Other operating costs | | | 101,462 | | | | 88,855 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 21,876 | | | | 21,880 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 774 | | | | 29,345 | |
| General taxes | | | 49,426 | | | | 47,492 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 327,179 | | | | 435,480 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME | | | 64,847 | | | | 72,920 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | 4,308 | | | | 5,244 | |
| Miscellaneous income (expense) | | | 290 | | | | (292 | ) |
| Interest expense | | | (22,145 | ) | | | (22,310 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 331 | | | | 208 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total other expense | | | (17,216 | ) | | | (17,150 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 47,631 | | | | 55,770 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES | | | 17,491 | | | | 19,609 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | | 30,140 | | | | 36,161 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Income attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | 116 | | | | 132 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 30,024 | | | $ | 36,029 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 30,140 | | | $ | 36,161 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): | | | | | | | | |
| Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | 339 | | | | 4,015 | |
| Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities | | | (22 | ) | | | 291 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income | | | 317 | | | | 4,306 | |
| Income tax expense (benefit) related to other comprehensive income | | | (1,496 | ) | | | 693 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income, net of tax | | | 1,813 | | | | 3,613 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | 31,953 | | | | 39,774 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST | | | 116 | | | | 132 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 31,837 | | | $ | 39,642 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | | | |
| STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | |
| REVENUES: | | | | |
| Electric sales | | $ | 359 |
| | $ | 364 |
|
| Excise and gross receipts tax collections | | 27 |
| | 28 |
|
| Total revenues | | 386 |
| | 392 |
|
| | | | | |
| OPERATING EXPENSES: | | | | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | 52 |
| | 93 |
|
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | 70 |
| | 60 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 121 |
| | 96 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 24 |
| | 23 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | — |
| | 1 |
|
| General taxes | | 50 |
| | 50 |
|
| Total operating expenses | | 317 |
| | 323 |
|
| | | | | |
| OPERATING INCOME | | 69 |
| | 69 |
|
| | | | | |
| OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | |
| Investment income | | 4 |
| | 5 |
|
| Interest expense | | (22 | ) | | (22 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | 1 |
| | — |
|
| Total other expense | | (17 | ) | | (17 | ) |
| | | | | |
| INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | 52 |
| | 52 |
|
| | | | | |
| INCOME TAXES | | 21 |
| | 20 |
|
| | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 31 |
|
| $ | 32 |
|
| | | | | |
| STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | |
| | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 31 |
| | $ | 32 |
|
| | | | | |
| OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSS: | | | | |
| Pensions and OPEB prior service costs | | (10 | ) | | (7 | ) |
| Other comprehensive loss | | (10 | ) | | (7 | ) |
| Income tax benefits on other comprehensive loss | | (5 | ) | | (4 | ) |
| Other comprehensive loss, net of tax | | (5 | ) | | (3 | ) |
| | | | | |
| COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | $ | 26 |
| | $ | 29 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
8
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 345,030 | | | $ | 420,489 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | |
| Customers (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,774 in 2011 and $4,086 in 2010) | | | 158,146 | | | | 176,591 | |
| Associated companies | | | 74,125 | | | | 118,135 | |
| Other | | | 17,290 | | | | 12,232 | |
| Notes receivable from associated companies | | | 16,762 | | | | 16,957 | |
| Prepayments and other | | | 29,366 | | | | 6,393 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 640,719 | | | | 750,797 | |
| | | | | | | |
UTILITY PLANT: | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 3,156,648 | | | | 3,136,623 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 1,217,827 | | | | 1,207,745 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,938,821 | | | | 1,928,878 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 48,302 | | | | 45,103 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,987,123 | | | | 1,973,981 | |
| | | | | | | |
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | |
| Investment in lease obligation bonds | | | 190,340 | | | | 190,420 | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | 126,826 | | | | 127,017 | |
| Other | | | 94,604 | | | | 95,563 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 411,770 | | | | 413,000 | |
| | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Regulatory assets | | | 385,005 | | | | 400,322 | |
| Pension assets | | | 59,104 | | | | 28,596 | |
| Property taxes | | | 71,331 | | | | 71,331 | |
| Unamortized sale and leaseback costs | | | 28,877 | | | | 30,126 | |
| Other | | | 16,007 | | | | 17,634 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 560,324 | | | | 548,009 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 3,599,936 | | | $ | 3,685,787 | |
| | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 1,424 | | | $ | 1,419 | |
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 103,071 | | | | 142,116 | |
| Other | | | 320 | | | | 320 | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 96,003 | | | | 99,421 | |
| Other | | | 25,515 | | | | 29,639 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 68,415 | | | | 78,707 | |
| Accrued interest | | | 25,334 | | | | 25,382 | |
| Other | | | 105,315 | | | | 74,947 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 425,397 | | | | 451,951 | |
| | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholders’ equity- | | | | | | | | |
| Common stock, without par value, authorized 175,000,000 shares- 60 shares outstanding | | | 951,802 | | | | 951,866 | |
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | | | (177,263 | ) | | | (179,076 | ) |
| Retained earnings | | | 71,645 | | | | 141,621 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total common stockholders’ equity | | | 846,184 | | | | 914,411 | |
| Noncontrolling interest | | | 5,796 | | | | 5,680 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total equity | | | 851,980 | | | | 920,091 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 1,152,171 | | | | 1,152,134 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 2,004,151 | | | | 2,072,225 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | 719,979 | | | | 696,410 | |
| Accumulated deferred investment tax credits | | | 9,799 | | | | 10,159 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 182,461 | | | | 183,712 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | 69,793 | | | | 74,456 | |
| Other | | | 188,356 | | | | 196,874 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,170,388 | | | | 1,161,611 | |
| | | | | | | |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 3,599,936 | | | $ | 3,685,787 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| (In millions, except share amounts) | | March 31,
2012 | | December 31,
2011 |
| ASSETS | | | | |
| CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | — |
| | $ | 26 |
|
| Receivables- | | | | |
| Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $4 in 2012 and 2011 | | 154 |
| | 163 |
|
| Affiliated companies | | 72 |
| | 86 |
|
| Other | | 37 |
| | 41 |
|
| Notes receivable from affiliated companies | | 259 |
| | 181 |
|
| Prepayments and other | | 11 |
| | 17 |
|
| | | 533 |
| | 514 |
|
| UTILITY PLANT: | | | | |
| In service | | 3,405 |
| | 3,358 |
|
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | 1,280 |
| | 1,267 |
|
| | | 2,125 |
| | 2,091 |
|
| Construction work in progress | | 85 |
| | 91 |
|
| | | 2,210 |
| | 2,182 |
|
| OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: | | | | |
| Investment in lease obligation bonds | | 162 |
| | 163 |
|
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | 137 |
| | 137 |
|
| Other | | 92 |
| | 90 |
|
| | | 391 |
| | 390 |
|
| DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | |
| Regulatory assets | | 362 |
| | 363 |
|
| Pension assets | | 6 |
| | 5 |
|
| Property taxes | | 80 |
| | 81 |
|
| Unamortized sale and leaseback costs | | 24 |
| | 25 |
|
| Other | | 16 |
| | 14 |
|
| | | 488 |
| | 488 |
|
| | | $ | 3,622 |
| | $ | 3,574 |
|
| LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | |
| CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 3 |
| | $ | 2 |
|
| Accounts payable- | | | | |
| Affiliated companies | | 110 |
| | 119 |
|
| Other | | 34 |
| | 35 |
|
| Accrued taxes | | 88 |
| | 88 |
|
| Accrued interest | | 25 |
| | 25 |
|
| Other | | 102 |
| | 79 |
|
| | | 362 |
| | 348 |
|
| CAPITALIZATION: | | | | |
| Common stockholder's equity- | | | | |
| Common stock, without par value, authorized 175,000,000 shares – 60 shares outstanding | | 747 |
| | 747 |
|
| Accumulated other comprehensive income | | 49 |
| | 54 |
|
| Accumulated deficit | | (53 | ) | | (84 | ) |
| Total common stockholder's equity | | 743 |
| | 717 |
|
| Noncontrolling interest | | 5 |
| | 5 |
|
| Total equity | | 748 |
| | 722 |
|
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | 1,156 |
| | 1,155 |
|
| | | 1,904 |
| | 1,877 |
|
| NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | 791 |
| | 787 |
|
| Accumulated deferred investment tax credits | | 8 |
| | 9 |
|
| Retirement benefits | | 213 |
| | 213 |
|
| Asset retirement obligations | | 73 |
| | 71 |
|
| Other | | 271 |
| | 269 |
|
| | | 1,356 |
| | 1,349 |
|
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | |
| |
|
| | | $ | 3,622 |
| | $ | 3,574 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
9
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 30,140 | | | $ | 36,161 | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 21,876 | | | | 21,880 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 774 | | | | 29,345 | |
| Purchased power cost recovery reconciliation | | | (4,926 | ) | | | (5,908 | ) |
| Amortization of lease costs | | | 32,933 | | | | 32,934 | |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | | 26,682 | | | | (2,489 | ) |
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | | (7,944 | ) | | | (12,160 | ) |
| Pension trust contribution | | | (27,000 | ) | | | — | |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables | | | 82,291 | | | | 65,141 | |
| Prepayments and other current assets | | | (22,973 | ) | | | (21,802 | ) |
| Decrease in operating liabilities- | | | | | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | | (19,625 | ) | | | (35,461 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | | (10,305 | ) | | | (15,849 | ) |
| Accrued interest | | | (48 | ) | | | (226 | ) |
| Other | | | 2,438 | | | | 9,647 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from operating activities | | | 104,313 | | | | 101,213 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | (110 | ) | | | (1,363 | ) |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | (39,045 | ) | | | (92,863 | ) |
| Common stock dividend payments | | | (100,000 | ) | | | (250,000 | ) |
| Other | | | — | | | | (113 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for financing activities | | | (139,155 | ) | | | (344,339 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (37,651 | ) | | | (35,680 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | 7,972 | | | | 2,424 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | (8,896 | ) | | | (2,971 | ) |
| Loan repayments from associated companies, net | | | 195 | | | | 14,469 | |
| Cash investments | | | (136 | ) | | | (384 | ) |
| Other | | | (2,101 | ) | | | 1,773 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for investing activities | | | (40,617 | ) | | | (20,369 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | (75,459 | ) | | | (263,495 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | 420,489 | | | | 324,175 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 345,030 | | | $ | 60,680 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 31 |
| | $ | 32 |
|
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | 24 |
| | 23 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | — |
| | 1 |
|
| Amortization of lease costs | | 33 |
| | 33 |
|
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | 11 |
| | 29 |
|
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | (17 | ) | | (13 | ) |
| Cash collateral, net | | (2 | ) | | — |
|
| Pension trust contributions | | — |
| | (27 | ) |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | |
| Receivables | | 27 |
| | 82 |
|
| Prepayments and other current assets | | 7 |
| | (23 | ) |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | (10 | ) | | (20 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | 1 |
| | (10 | ) |
| Other | | (5 | ) | | (3 | ) |
| Net cash provided from operating activities | | 100 |
| | 104 |
|
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Redemptions and Repayments- | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | — |
| | (39 | ) |
| Common stock dividend payments | | — |
| | (100 | ) |
| Other | | (1 | ) | | — |
|
| Net cash used for financing activities | | (1 | ) | | (139 | ) |
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Property additions | | (43 | ) | | (37 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | 37 |
| | 8 |
|
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | (38 | ) | | (9 | ) |
| Loans to affiliated companies, net | | (78 | ) | | — |
|
| Other | | (3 | ) | | (2 | ) |
| Net cash used for investing activities | | (125 | ) | | (40 | ) |
| | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | (26 | ) | | (75 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | 26 |
| | 420 |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | — |
| | $ | 345 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
10
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
10
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES: | | | | | | | | |
| Electric sales | | $ | 206,742 | | | $ | 312,497 | |
| Excise tax collections | | | 18,145 | | | | 17,573 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 224,887 | | | | 330,070 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | | 46,168 | | | | 109,393 | |
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | | 18,220 | | | | 37,398 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 35,036 | | | | 31,235 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 18,426 | | | | 18,111 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets | | | 23,370 | | | | 45,139 | |
| General taxes | | | 40,212 | | | | 38,489 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 181,432 | | | | 279,765 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME | | | 43,455 | | | | 50,305 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | 6,597 | | | | 7,547 | |
| Miscellaneous income | | | 636 | | | | 581 | |
| Interest expense | | | (33,078 | ) | | | (33,621 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 27 | | | | 26 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total other expense | | | (25,818 | ) | | | (25,467 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 17,637 | | | | 24,838 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES | | | 4,436 | | | | 10,843 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | | 13,201 | | | | 13,995 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Income attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | 366 | | | | 419 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 12,835 | | | $ | 13,576 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 13,201 | | | $ | 13,995 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): | | | | | | | | |
| Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | 2,967 | | | | (22,585 | ) |
| Income tax benefit related to other comprehensive income | | | (462 | ) | | | (8,277 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax | | | 3,429 | | | | (14,308 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) | | | 16,630 | | | | (313 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST | | | 366 | | | | 419 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 16,264 | | | $ | (732 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | | | |
| STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | |
| REVENUES: | | | | |
| Electric sales | | $ | 478 |
| | $ | 634 |
|
| Excise tax collections | | 10 |
| | 13 |
|
| Total revenues | | 488 |
| | 647 |
|
| | | | | |
| OPERATING EXPENSES: | | | | |
| Purchased power | | 264 |
| | 370 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 81 |
| | 80 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 30 |
| | 26 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | 20 |
| | 82 |
|
| General taxes | | 15 |
| | 18 |
|
| Total operating expenses | | 410 |
| | 576 |
|
| | | | | |
| OPERATING INCOME | | 78 |
| | 71 |
|
| | | | | |
| OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | |
| Miscellaneous income | | 1 |
| | 2 |
|
| Interest expense | | (31 | ) | | (30 | ) |
| Total other expense | | (30 | ) | | (28 | ) |
| | | | | |
| INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | 48 |
| | 43 |
|
| | | | | |
| INCOME TAXES | | 22 |
| | 20 |
|
| | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 26 |
| | $ | 23 |
|
| | | | | |
| STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | |
| | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 26 |
| | $ | 23 |
|
| | | | | |
| OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSS: | | | | |
| Pensions and OPEB prior service costs | | (6 | ) | | (6 | ) |
| Other comprehensive loss | | (6 | ) | | (6 | ) |
| Income tax benefits on other comprehensive loss | | (4 | ) | | (3 | ) |
| Other comprehensive loss, net of tax | | (2 | ) | | (3 | ) |
| | | | | |
| COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | $ | 24 |
| | $ | 20 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
11
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
11
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 30,244 | | | $ | 238 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | |
| Customers (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $3,018 in 2011 and $4,589 in 2010, respectively) | | | 107,418 | | | | 183,744 | |
| Associated companies | | | 34,819 | | | | 77,047 | |
| Other | | | 4,848 | | | | 11,544 | |
| Notes receivable from associated companies | | | 22,704 | | | | 23,236 | |
| Prepayments and other | | | 13,894 | | | | 3,656 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 213,927 | | | | 299,465 | |
| | | | | | | |
UTILITY PLANT: | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 2,407,827 | | | | 2,396,893 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 937,105 | | | | 932,246 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,470,722 | | | | 1,464,647 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 48,572 | | | | 38,610 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,519,294 | | | | 1,503,257 | |
| | | | | | | |
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | |
| Investment in lessor notes | | | 286,747 | | | | 340,029 | |
| Other | | | 10,035 | | | | 10,074 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 296,782 | | | | 350,103 | |
| | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Goodwill | | | 1,688,521 | | | | 1,688,521 | |
| Regulatory assets | | | 337,189 | | | | 370,403 | |
| Property taxes | | | 80,614 | | | | 80,614 | |
| Other | | | 11,176 | | | | 11,486 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 2,117,500 | | | | 2,151,024 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 4,147,503 | | | $ | 4,303,849 | |
| | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 174 | | | $ | 161 | |
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 23,303 | | | | 105,996 | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 43,564 | | | | 32,020 | |
| Other | | | 8,811 | | | | 14,947 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 75,771 | | | | 84,668 | |
| Accrued interest | | | 39,256 | | | | 18,555 | |
| Other | | | 40,862 | | | | 44,569 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 231,741 | | | | 300,916 | |
| | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholder’s equity- | | | | | | | | |
| Common stock, without par value, authorized 105,000,000 shares- 67,930,743 shares outstanding | | | 886,995 | | | | 887,087 | |
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | | | (149,758 | ) | | | (153,187 | ) |
| Retained earnings | | | 531,741 | | | | 568,906 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total common stockholder’s equity | | | 1,268,978 | | | | 1,302,806 | |
| Noncontrolling interest | | | 14,886 | | | | 18,017 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total equity | | | 1,283,864 | | | | 1,320,823 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 1,831,011 | | | | 1,852,530 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 3,114,875 | | | | 3,173,353 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | 631,507 | | | | 622,771 | |
| Accumulated deferred investment tax credits | | | 10,784 | | | | 10,994 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 60,682 | | | | 95,654 | |
| Other | | | 97,914 | | | | 100,161 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 800,887 | | | | 829,580 | |
| | | | | | | |
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 4,147,503 | | | $ | 4,303,849 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| (In millions, except share amounts) | | March 31,
2012 | | December 31,
2011 |
| ASSETS | | | | |
| CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | |
| Receivables- | | | | |
| Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3 in 2012 and $4 in 2011 | | $ | 202 |
| | $ | 235 |
|
| Affiliated companies | | 35 |
| | — |
|
| Other | | 16 |
| | 17 |
|
| Prepaid taxes | | 39 |
| | 33 |
|
| Other | | 24 |
| | 19 |
|
| | | 316 |
| | 304 |
|
| UTILITY PLANT: | | | | |
| In service | | 5,022 |
| | 4,872 |
|
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | 1,759 |
| | 1,743 |
|
| | | 3,263 |
| | 3,129 |
|
| Construction work in progress | | 119 |
| | 227 |
|
| | | 3,382 |
| | 3,356 |
|
| OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: | | | | |
| Nuclear fuel disposal trust | | 225 |
| | 219 |
|
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | 195 |
| | 193 |
|
| Other | | 2 |
| | 2 |
|
| | | 422 |
| | 414 |
|
| DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | |
| Goodwill | | 1,811 |
| | 1,811 |
|
| Regulatory assets | | 384 |
| | 408 |
|
| Other | | 32 |
| | 32 |
|
| | | 2,227 |
| | 2,251 |
|
| | | $ | 6,347 |
| | $ | 6,325 |
|
| LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | |
| CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 34 |
| | $ | 34 |
|
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | |
| Affiliated companies | | 300 |
| | 259 |
|
| Accounts payable- | | | | |
| Affiliated companies | | 3 |
| | 19 |
|
| Other | | 94 |
| | 101 |
|
| Accrued compensation and benefits | | 33 |
| | 41 |
|
| Customer deposits | | 24 |
| | 24 |
|
| Accrued interest | | 30 |
| | 18 |
|
| Other | | 41 |
| | 36 |
|
| | | 559 |
| | 532 |
|
| CAPITALIZATION: | | | | |
| Common stockholder's equity- | | | | |
| Common stock, $10 par value, authorized 16,000,000 shares, 13,628,447 shares outstanding | | 136 |
| | 136 |
|
| Other paid-in capital | | 2,011 |
| | 2,011 |
|
| Accumulated other comprehensive income | | 36 |
| | 39 |
|
| Retained earnings | | 146 |
| | 121 |
|
| Total common stockholder's equity | | 2,329 |
| | 2,307 |
|
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | 1,729 |
| | 1,736 |
|
| | | 4,058 |
| | 4,043 |
|
| NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | 908 |
| | 859 |
|
| Power purchase contract liability | | 136 |
| | 147 |
|
| Nuclear fuel disposal costs | | 197 |
| | 197 |
|
| Retirement benefits | | 163 |
| | 170 |
|
| Asset retirement obligations | | 117 |
| | 115 |
|
| Other | | 209 |
| | 262 |
|
| | | 1,730 |
| | 1,750 |
|
| COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | 1 |
|
| |
|
| | | $ | 6,347 |
| | $ | 6,325 |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
12
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
12
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 13,201 | | | $ | 13,995 | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 18,426 | | | | 18,111 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 23,370 | | | | 45,139 | |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | | 4,140 | | | | (13,627 | ) |
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | | 2,158 | | | | 2,282 | |
| Accrued regulatory obligations | | | (863 | ) | | | (26 | ) |
| Pension trust contribution | | | (35,000 | ) | | | — | |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables | | | 136,887 | | | | 70,633 | |
| Prepayments and other current assets | | | (10,236 | ) | | | (9,133 | ) |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | | 5,408 | | | | (14,387 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | | (8,898 | ) | | | (16,616 | ) |
| Accrued interest | | | 20,701 | | | | 20,795 | |
| Other | | | (3,870 | ) | | | (2,636 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from operating activities | | | 165,424 | | | | 114,530 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | (36 | ) | | | (26 | ) |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | (104,228 | ) | | | (126,334 | ) |
| Common stock dividend payments | | | (50,000 | ) | | | (100,000 | ) |
| Other | | | (3,497 | ) | | | (3,365 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for financing activities | | | (157,761 | ) | | | (229,725 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (29,334 | ) | | | (19,735 | ) |
| Loans to associated companies, net | | | 532 | | | | 1,426 | |
| Redemptions of lessor notes | | | 53,282 | | | | 48,606 | |
| Other | | | (2,137 | ) | | | (1,085 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from investing activities | | | 22,343 | | | | 29,212 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | 30,006 | | | | (85,983 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | 238 | | | | 86,230 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 30,244 | | | $ | 247 | |
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| (In millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 26 |
| | $ | 23 |
|
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | 30 |
| | 26 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | 20 |
| | 82 |
|
| Deferred purchased power and other costs | | (69 | ) | | (27 | ) |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | 52 |
| | 28 |
|
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | (22 | ) | | (11 | ) |
| Cash collateral, net | | 6 |
| | — |
|
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | |
| Receivables | | (2 | ) | | 86 |
|
| Prepaid taxes | | (6 | ) | | (2 | ) |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | (22 | ) | | (62 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | (5 | ) | | 13 |
|
| Accrued interest | | 12 |
| | 12 |
|
| Other | | 9 |
| | 14 |
|
| Net cash provided from operating activities | | 29 |
| | 182 |
|
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| New Financing- | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | 40 |
| | — |
|
| Redemptions and Repayments- | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | (8 | ) | | (7 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities | | 32 |
| | (7 | ) |
| | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | |
| Property additions | | (56 | ) | | (47 | ) |
| Loans to affiliated companies, net | | — |
| | (121 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | 95 |
| | 217 |
|
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | (99 | ) | | (222 | ) |
| Other | | (1 | ) | | (2 | ) |
| Net cash used for investing activities | | (61 | ) | | (175 | ) |
| | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | — |
| | — |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | — |
| | — |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
13
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
13
FIRSTENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES: | | | | | | | | |
| Electric sales | | $ | 106,325 | | | $ | 125,431 | |
| Excise tax collections | | | 7,302 | | | | 7,041 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 113,627 | | | | 132,472 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | | 35,517 | | | | 54,618 | |
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | | 13,988 | | | | 18,491 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 36,587 | | | | 25,545 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 7,931 | | | | 7,950 | |
| Deferral of regulatory assets, net | | | (11,478 | ) | | | (8,499 | ) |
| General taxes | | | 14,452 | | | | 13,461 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 96,997 | | | | 111,566 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME | | | 16,630 | | | | 20,906 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | 2,922 | | | | 3,800 | |
| Miscellaneous expense | | | (1,629 | ) | | | (1,406 | ) |
| Interest expense | | | (10,443 | ) | | | (10,487 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 102 | | | | 78 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total other expense | | | (9,048 | ) | | | (8,015 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 7,582 | | | | 12,891 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES | | | 1,735 | | | | 5,382 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | | 5,847 | | | | 7,509 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Income attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | 2 | | | | 3 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 5,845 | | | $ | 7,506 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 5,847 | | | $ | 7,509 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: | | | | | | | | |
| Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | 592 | | | | 296 | |
| Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities | | | 1,305 | | | | 369 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income | | | 1,897 | | | | 665 | |
| Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income | | | 334 | | | | 170 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income, net of tax | | | 1,563 | | | | 495 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | 7,410 | | | | 8,004 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST | | | 2 | | | | 3 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 7,408 | | | $ | 8,001 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
14
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 150,014 | | | $ | 149,262 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | |
| Customers (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1,209 in 2011 and $1 in 2010) | | | 45,749 | | | | 29 | |
| Associated companies | | | 56,913 | | | | 31,777 | |
| Other (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $343 in 2011 and $330 in 2010) | | | 18,752 | | | | 18,464 | |
| Notes receivable from associated companies | | | 35,489 | | | | 96,765 | |
| Prepayments and other | | | 8,302 | | | | 2,306 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 315,219 | | | | 298,603 | |
| | | | | | | |
UTILITY PLANT: | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 952,874 | | | | 947,203 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 449,791 | | | | 446,401 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 503,083 | | | | 500,802 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 12,647 | | | | 12,604 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 515,730 | | | | 513,406 | |
| | | | | | | |
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | |
| Investment in lessor notes | | | 82,133 | | | | 103,872 | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | 77,141 | | | | 75,558 | |
| Other | | | 1,469 | | | | 1,492 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 160,743 | | | | 180,922 | |
| | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Goodwill | | | 500,576 | | | | 500,576 | |
| Regulatory assets | | | 83,544 | | | | 72,059 | |
| Pension assets | | | 24,427 | | | | — | |
| Property taxes | | | 24,990 | | | | 24,990 | |
| Other | | | 36,167 | | | | 23,750 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 669,704 | | | | 621,375 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 1,661,396 | | | $ | 1,614,306 | |
| | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 191 | | | $ | 199 | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 36,055 | | | | 17,168 | |
| Other | | | 5,238 | | | | 7,351 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 23,043 | | | | 24,401 | |
| Accrued interest | | | 15,983 | | | | 5,931 | |
| Lease market valuation liability | | | 36,900 | | | | 36,900 | |
| Other | | | 54,905 | | | | 23,145 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 172,315 | | | | 115,095 | |
| | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholders’ equity- | | | | | | | | |
| Common stock, $5 par value, authorized 60,000,000 shares- 29,402,054 shares outstanding | | | 147,010 | | | | 147,010 | |
| Other paid-in capital | | | 178,122 | | | | 178,182 | |
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | | | (47,620 | ) | | | (49,183 | ) |
| Retained earnings | | | 108,379 | | | | 117,534 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total common stockholders’ equity | | | 385,891 | | | | 393,543 | |
| Noncontrolling interest | | | 2,591 | | | | 2,589 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total equity | | | 388,482 | | | | 396,132 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 600,508 | | | | 600,493 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 988,990 | | | | 996,625 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | 157,797 | | | | 132,019 | |
| Accumulated deferred investment tax credits | | | 5,822 | | | | 5,930 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 51,253 | | | | 71,486 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | 29,245 | | | | 28,762 | |
| Lease market valuation liability | | | 190,075 | | | | 199,300 | |
| Other | | | 65,899 | | | | 65,089 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 500,091 | | | | 502,586 | |
| | | | | | | |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 1,661,396 | | | $ | 1,614,306 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
15
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 5,847 | | | $ | 7,509 | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 7,931 | | | | 7,950 | |
| Deferral of regulatory assets, net | | | (11,478 | ) | | | (8,499 | ) |
| Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability | | | 6,141 | | | | 6,141 | |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | | 25,046 | | | | 11,287 | |
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | | (142 | ) | | | 837 | |
| Pension trust contribution | | | (45,000 | ) | | | — | |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables | | | (70,694 | ) | | | 45,376 | |
| Prepayments and other current assets | | | (5,996 | ) | | | (4,569 | ) |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | | 16,774 | | | | (35,414 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | | (1,358 | ) | | | (4,933 | ) |
| Accrued interest | | | 10,052 | | | | 10,050 | |
| Other | | | 6,098 | | | | (4,578 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities | | | (56,779 | ) | | | 31,157 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | (56 | ) | | | (56 | ) |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | — | | | | (225,975 | ) |
| Common stock dividend payments | | | (15,000 | ) | | | (130,000 | ) |
| Other | | | — | | | | (2 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for financing activities | | | (15,056 | ) | | | (356,033 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (9,507 | ) | | | (9,597 | ) |
| Loan repayments from (loans to) associated companies, net | | | 61,276 | | | | (33,587 | ) |
| Redemptions of lessor notes | | | 21,739 | | | | 20,509 | |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | 13,883 | | | | 31,067 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | (14,338 | ) | | | (31,705 | ) |
| Other | | | (466 | ) | | | (1,227 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | | 72,587 | | | | (24,540 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | 752 | | | | (349,416 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | 149,262 | | | | 436,712 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 150,014 | | | $ | 87,296 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
16
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES: | | | | | | | | |
| Electric sales | | $ | 634,023 | | | $ | 691,392 | |
| Excise tax collections | | | 12,487 | | | | 12,352 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 646,510 | | | | 703,744 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | |
| Purchased power | | | 370,168 | | | | 414,016 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 86,079 | | | | 95,660 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 25,314 | | | | 27,971 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 81,587 | | | | 69,448 | |
| General taxes | | | 17,411 | | | | 16,436 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 580,559 | | | | 623,531 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME | | | 65,951 | | | | 80,213 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | |
| Miscellaneous income | | | 1,910 | | | | 1,833 | |
| Interest expense | | | (30,657 | ) | | | (29,423 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 427 | | | | 133 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total other expense | | | (28,320 | ) | | | (27,457 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 37,631 | | | | 52,756 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES | | | 18,078 | | | | 23,530 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 19,553 | | | $ | 29,226 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 19,553 | | | $ | 29,226 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: | | | | | | | | |
| Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | 4,221 | | | | 15,928 | |
| Unrealized gain on derivative hedges | | | 69 | | | | 69 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income | | | 4,290 | | | | 15,997 | |
| Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income | | | 1,590 | | | | 6,558 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income, net of tax | | | 2,700 | | | | 9,439 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | $ | 22,253 | | | $ | 38,665 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
17
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 1 | | | $ | 4 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | |
| Customers (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,842 in 2011 and $3,769 in 2010) | | | 268,171 | | | | 323,044 | |
| Associated companies | | | 27,144 | | | | 53,780 | |
| Other | | | 21,269 | | | | 26,119 | |
| Notes receivable — associated companies | | | 298,274 | | | | 177,228 | |
| Prepaid taxes | | | 10,968 | | | | 10,889 | |
| Other | | | 16,357 | | | | 12,654 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 642,184 | | | | 603,718 | |
| | | | | | | |
UTILITY PLANT: | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 4,579,753 | | | | 4,562,781 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 1,667,017 | | | | 1,656,939 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 2,912,736 | | | | 2,905,842 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 78,819 | | | | 63,535 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 2,991,555 | | | | 2,969,377 | |
| | | | | | | |
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear fuel disposal trust | | | 206,833 | | | | 207,561 | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | 190,424 | | | | 181,851 | |
| Other | | | 2,111 | | | | 2,104 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 399,368 | | | | 391,516 | |
| | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Goodwill | | | 1,810,936 | | | | 1,810,936 | |
| Regulatory assets | | | 460,156 | | | | 513,395 | |
| Other | | | 25,243 | | | | 27,938 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 2,296,335 | | | | 2,352,269 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 6,329,442 | | | $ | 6,316,880 | |
| | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 32,855 | | | $ | 32,402 | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 16,983 | | | | 28,571 | |
| Other | | | 123,814 | | | | 158,442 | |
| Accrued compensation and benefits | | | 33,415 | | | | 35,232 | |
| Customer deposits | | | 23,494 | | | | 23,385 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 15,142 | | | | 2,509 | |
| Accrued interest | | | 29,926 | | | | 18,111 | |
| Other | | | 25,663 | | | | 22,263 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 301,292 | | | | 320,915 | |
| | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholders’ equity- | | | | | | | | |
| Common stock, $10 par value, authorized 16,000,000 shares- 13,628,447 shares outstanding | | | 136,284 | | | | 136,284 | |
| Other paid-in capital | | | 2,508,754 | | | | 2,508,874 | |
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | | | (250,842 | ) | | | (253,542 | ) |
| Retained earnings | | | 246,723 | | | | 227,170 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total common stockholder’s equity | | | 2,640,919 | | | | 2,618,786 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 1,762,365 | | | | 1,769,849 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 4,403,284 | | | | 4,388,635 | |
| | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | 729,478 | | | | 715,527 | |
| Power purchase contract liability | | | 238,677 | | | | 233,492 | |
| Nuclear fuel disposal costs | | | 196,843 | | | | 196,768 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 175,175 | | | | 182,364 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | 110,050 | | | | 108,297 | |
| Other | | | 174,643 | | | | 170,882 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,624,866 | | | | 1,607,330 | |
| | | | | | | |
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 6,329,442 | | | $ | 6,316,880 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
18
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 19,553 | | | $ | 29,226 | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 25,314 | | | | 27,971 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 81,587 | | | | 69,448 | |
| Deferred purchased power and other costs | | | (26,516 | ) | | | (32,775 | ) |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | | 25,560 | | | | (2,082 | ) |
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | | (4,776 | ) | | | (5,847 | ) |
| Cash collateral returned to suppliers | | | (250 | ) | | | (23,400 | ) |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables | | | 86,359 | | | | 33,257 | |
| Prepayments and other current assets | | | (1,687 | ) | | | 16,472 | |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | | (61,612 | ) | | | (40,992 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | | 12,631 | | | | 50,857 | |
| Accrued interest | | | 11,815 | | | | 11,816 | |
| Tax collections payable | | | 7,084 | | | | 14,544 | |
| Other | | | 7,448 | | | | 466 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from operating activities | | | 182,510 | | | | 148,961 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | (7,190 | ) | | | (6,773 | ) |
| Common stock dividend payments | | | — | | | | (90,000 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for financing activities | | | (7,190 | ) | | | (96,773 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (47,604 | ) | | | (37,338 | ) |
| Loans to associated companies, net | | | (121,046 | ) | | | (7,620 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | 217,103 | | | | 190,198 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | (221,695 | ) | | | (194,748 | ) |
| Other | | | (2,081 | ) | | | (2,706 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for investing activities | | | (175,323 | ) | | | (52,214 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | (3 | ) | | | (26 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | 4 | | | | 27 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 1 | | | $ | 1 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
19
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES: | | | | | | | | |
| Electric sales | | $ | 338,416 | | | $ | 451,560 | |
| Gross receipts tax collections | | | 18,800 | | | | 21,567 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 357,216 | | | | 473,127 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | | 49,889 | | | | 161,080 | |
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | | 153,043 | | | | 91,928 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 47,232 | | | | 101,983 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 12,423 | | | | 12,758 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 32,094 | | | | 48,800 | |
| General taxes | | | 22,150 | | | | 21,740 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 316,831 | | | | 438,289 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME | | | 40,385 | | | | 34,838 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | |
| Interest income | | | 93 | | | | 1,217 | |
| Miscellaneous income | | | 970 | | | | 2,173 | |
| Interest expense | | | (13,057 | ) | | | (13,773 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 147 | | | | 126 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total other expense | | | (11,847 | ) | | | (10,257 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 28,538 | | | | 24,581 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES | | | 5,951 | | | | 12,266 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 22,587 | | | $ | 12,315 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 22,587 | | | $ | 12,315 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: | | | | | | | | |
| Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | 1,963 | | | | 9,709 | |
| Unrealized gain on derivative hedges | | | 84 | | | | 84 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income | | | 2,047 | | | | 9,793 | |
| Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income | | | 763 | | | | 4,177 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income, net of tax | | | 1,284 | | | | 5,616 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | $ | 23,871 | | | $ | 17,931 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
20
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 117 | | | $ | 243,220 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | |
| Customers (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $3,841 in 2011 and $3,868 in 2010, respectively) | | | 159,801 | | | | 178,522 | |
| Associated companies | | | 23,110 | | | | 24,920 | |
| Other | | | 16,836 | | | | 13,007 | |
| Notes receivable from associated companies | | | 9,542 | | | | 11,028 | |
| Prepaid taxes | | | 40,883 | | | | 343 | |
| Other | | | 1,973 | | | | 2,289 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 252,262 | | | | 473,329 | |
| | | | | | | |
UTILITY PLANT: | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 2,260,156 | | | | 2,247,853 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 852,326 | | | | 846,003 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,407,830 | | | | 1,401,850 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 27,714 | | | | 23,663 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,435,544 | | | | 1,425,513 | |
| | | | | | | |
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | 303,906 | | | | 289,328 | |
| Other | | | 881 | | | | 884 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 304,787 | | | | 290,212 | |
| | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Goodwill | | | 416,499 | | | | 416,499 | |
| Regulatory assets | | | 285,300 | | | | 295,856 | |
| Power purchase contract asset | | | 107,055 | | | | 111,562 | |
| Other | | | 51,939 | | | | 31,699 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 860,793 | | | | 855,616 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 2,853,386 | | | $ | 3,044,670 | |
| | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 42,450 | | | $ | 28,760 | |
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 109,709 | | | | 124,079 | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 35,758 | | | | 33,942 | |
| Other | | | 47,450 | | | | 29,862 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 14,514 | | | | 60,856 | |
| Accrued interest | | | 11,738 | | | | 16,114 | |
| Other | | | 29,543 | | | | 29,278 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 291,162 | | | | 322,891 | |
| | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholders’ equity- | | | | | | | | |
| Common stock, without par value, authorized 900,000 shares- 740,905 shares outstanding | | | 1,046,970 | | | | 1,197,076 | |
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | | | (141,099 | ) | | | (142,383 | ) |
| Retained earnings | | | 29,994 | | | | 32,406 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total common stockholder’s equity | | | 935,865 | | | | 1,087,099 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 705,125 | | | | 718,860 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,640,990 | | | | 1,805,959 | |
| | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | 481,530 | | | | 473,009 | |
| Accumulated deferred investment tax credits | | | 6,761 | | | | 6,866 | |
| Nuclear fuel disposal costs | | | 44,465 | | | | 44,449 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | 195,883 | | | | 192,659 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 22,405 | | | | 29,121 | |
| Power purchase contract liability | | | 118,123 | | | | 116,027 | |
| Other | | | 52,067 | | | | 53,689 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 921,234 | | | | 915,820 | |
| | | | | | | |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 2,853,386 | | | $ | 3,044,670 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
21
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 22,587 | | | $ | 12,315 | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 12,423 | | | | 12,758 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 32,094 | | | | 48,800 | |
| Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets | | | (12,082 | ) | | | (18,276 | ) |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | | 1,304 | | | | (10,308 | ) |
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | | (1,433 | ) | | | (2,527 | ) |
| Cash collateral returned from (paid to) suppliers | | | 1,000 | | | | (700 | ) |
| Pension trust contributions | | | (35,000 | ) | | | — | |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables | | | 16,702 | | | | (5,083 | ) |
| Prepayments and other current assets | | | (40,225 | ) | | | (52,040 | ) |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | | 15,749 | | | | (7,279 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | | (46,006 | ) | | | 19,960 | |
| Accrued interest | | | (4,376 | ) | | | (5,674 | ) |
| Other | | | 6,337 | | | | 2,373 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for operating activities | | | (30,926 | ) | | | (5,681 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| New financing- | | | | | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | — | | | | 48,793 | |
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | — | | | | (100,000 | ) |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | (14,369 | ) | | | — | |
| Common stock | | | (150,000 | ) | | | — | |
| Common stock dividend payments | | | (25,000 | ) | | | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for financing activities | | | (189,369 | ) | | | (51,207 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (21,126 | ) | | | (25,526 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | 335,860 | | | | 143,713 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | (337,632 | ) | | | (146,056 | ) |
| Loans repayments from associated companies, net | | | 1,486 | | | | 85,383 | |
| Other | | | (1,396 | ) | | | (618 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | | (22,808 | ) | | | 56,896 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents | | | (243,103 | ) | | | 8 | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | 243,220 | | | | 120 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 117 | | | $ | 128 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
22
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES: | | | | | | | | |
| Electric sales | | $ | 308,316 | | | $ | 385,936 | |
| Gross receipts tax collections | | | 16,529 | | | | 17,524 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 324,845 | | | | 403,460 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | | 47,484 | | | | 168,400 | |
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | | 141,436 | | | | 91,423 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 41,328 | | | | 72,394 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 14,573 | | | | 14,682 | |
| Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net | | | 13,007 | | | | (9,966 | ) |
| General taxes | | | 20,736 | | | | 16,534 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 278,564 | | | | 353,467 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME | | | 46,281 | | | | 49,993 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | |
| Miscellaneous income | | | 25 | | | | 1,613 | |
| Interest expense | | | (17,234 | ) | | | (17,290 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 22 | | | | 140 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total other expense | | | (17,187 | ) | | | (15,537 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 29,094 | | | | 34,456 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES | | | 11,788 | | | | 17,157 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 17,306 | | | $ | 17,299 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 17,306 | | | $ | 17,299 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: | | | | | | | | |
| Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | 1,585 | | | | 8,547 | |
| Unrealized gain on derivative hedges | | | 16 | | | | 16 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income | | | 1,601 | | | | 8,563 | |
| Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income | | | 555 | | | | 3,284 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Other comprehensive income, net of tax | | | 1,046 | | | | 5,279 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | $ | 18,352 | | | $ | 22,578 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
23
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | 3 | | | $ | 5 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | |
| Customers (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,395 in 2011 and $3,369 in 2010) | | | 139,058 | | | | 148,864 | |
| Associated companies | | | 16,921 | | | | 54,052 | |
| Other | | | 12,142 | | | | 11,314 | |
| Notes receivable from associated companies | | | 12,334 | | | | 14,404 | |
| Prepaid taxes | | | 47,126 | | | | 14,026 | |
| Other | | | 1,843 | | | | 1,592 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 229,427 | | | | 244,257 | |
| | | | | | | |
UTILITY PLANT: | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 2,545,211 | | | | 2,532,629 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 939,247 | | | | 935,259 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,605,964 | | | | 1,597,370 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 40,799 | | | | 30,505 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,646,763 | | | | 1,627,875 | |
| | | | | | | |
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | 159,999 | | | | 152,928 | |
| Non-utility generation trusts | | | 80,275 | | | | 80,244 | |
| Other | | | 294 | | | | 297 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 240,568 | | | | 233,469 | |
| | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | |
| Goodwill | | | 768,628 | | | | 768,628 | |
| Regulatory assets | | | 179,092 | | | | 163,407 | |
| Power purchase contract asset | | | 4,169 | | | | 5,746 | |
| Other | | | 15,140 | | | | 19,287 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 967,029 | | | | 957,068 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 3,083,787 | | | $ | 3,062,669 | |
| | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 45,000 | | | $ | 45,000 | |
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 90,363 | | | | 101,338 | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 41,231 | | | | 35,626 | |
| Other | | | 33,125 | | | | 41,420 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 4,262 | | | | 5,075 | |
| Accrued interest | | | 24,069 | | | | 17,378 | |
| Other | | | 23,467 | | | | 22,541 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 261,517 | | | | 268,378 | |
| | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholders’ equity- | | | | | | | | |
| Common stock, $20 par value, authorized 5,400,000 shares- 4,427,577 shares outstanding | | | 88,552 | | | | 88,552 | |
| Other paid-in capital | | | 913,439 | | | | 913,519 | |
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | | | (162,480 | ) | | | (163,526 | ) |
| Retained earnings | | | 58,299 | | | | 60,993 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total common stockholder’s equity | | | 897,810 | | | | 899,538 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 1,072,339 | | | | 1,072,262 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,970,149 | | | | 1,971,800 | |
| | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | 393,088 | | | | 371,877 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 187,888 | | | | 187,621 | |
| Power purchase contract liability | | | 121,558 | | | | 116,972 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | 99,773 | | | | 98,132 | |
| Other | | | 49,814 | | | | 47,889 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | 852,121 | | | | 822,491 | |
| | | | | | | |
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 3,083,787 | | | $ | 3,062,669 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
24
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (In thousands) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income | | $ | 17,306 | | | $ | 17,299 | |
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- | | | | | | | | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 14,573 | | | | 14,682 | |
| Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net | | | 13,007 | | | | (9,966 | ) |
| Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets | | | (17,771 | ) | | | (20,461 | ) |
| Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net | | | 16,648 | | | | 21,772 | |
| Accrued compensation and retirement benefits | | | 1,551 | | | | (169 | ) |
| Cash collateral paid, net | | | (2,124 | ) | | | (400 | ) |
| Decrease (increase) in operating assets- | | | | | | | | |
| Receivables | | | 46,100 | | | | (4,641 | ) |
| Prepayments and other current assets | | | (33,350 | ) | | | (50,186 | ) |
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- | | | | | | | | |
| Accounts payable | | | (8,534 | ) | | | (1,348 | ) |
| Accrued taxes | | | (813 | ) | | | (2,142 | ) |
| Accrued interest | | | 6,691 | | | | 6,882 | |
| Other | | | 10,204 | | | | 7,162 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities | | | 63,488 | | | | (21,516 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| New financing- | | | | | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | — | | | | 51,334 | |
| Redemptions and repayments- | | | | | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | (10,975 | ) | | | — | |
| Common stock dividend payments | | | (20,000 | ) | | | — | |
| Other | | | 26 | | | | (6 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities | | | (30,949 | ) | | | 51,328 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (31,128 | ) | | | (27,388 | ) |
| Loan repayments from associated companies, net | | | 2,070 | | | | 279 | |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | 178,927 | | | | 93,057 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | (180,411 | ) | | | (94,464 | ) |
| Other | | | (1,999 | ) | | | (1,298 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for investing activities | | | (32,541 | ) | | | (29,814 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | (2 | ) | | | (2 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | 5 | | | | 14 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | 3 | | | $ | 12 | |
| | | | | | | |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
25
COMBINED NOTES TO THECONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
|
| | |
Note Number | | Page Number |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| Regulatory Matters | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
1. ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
FirstEnergy
Unless otherwise indicated, defined terms and abbreviations used herein have the meanings set forth in the accompanying Glossary of Terms.
FE is a diversified energy holding company that holds, directly or indirectly, all of the outstanding common stock of its principal subsidiaries: OE, CEI, TE, Penn (a wholly owned subsidiary of OE), ATSI, JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec,ME, PN, FENOC, AE and its principal subsidiaries (AE Supply, AGC, MP, PE, WP and TrAIL Company)AET), FES and its principal subsidiaries FGCO(FGCO and NGC,NGC), and FESC. AE merged with a subsidiary of FirstEnergy on February 25, 2011, with AE remainingcontinuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly-ownedwholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (See Note 2, Merger).FirstEnergy. Accordingly, consolidated results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011, include just one month of Allegheny results.
FirstEnergy
The consolidated financial statements of FE, FES, OE and JCP&L include the accounts of entities in which a controlling financial interest is held, after the elimination of intercompany transactions. A controlling financial interest is evidenced by either a voting interest greater than 50% or the result of an analysis that identifies FE or one of its subsidiaries followas the primary beneficiary of a VIE. Investments in which a controlling financial interest is not held are accounted for under the equity or cost method of accounting.
These interim financial statements have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC for Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Certain information and disclosures normally included in financial statements and notes prepared in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and complyregulations. These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the regulations, orders, policiesfinancial statements and practices prescribed bynotes included in the SEC,combined Annual Report on Form 10-K for the FERC,year ended December 31, 2011.
The accompanying interim financial statements are unaudited, but reflect all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, that, in the NERC and, as applicable,opinion of management, are necessary for a fair presentation of the PUCO, the PPUC, the MDPSC, the NYPSC, the WVPSC and the NJBPU.financial statements. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make periodic estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results could differ from these estimates. The reported results of operations are not indicative of results of operations for any future period. In preparing the financial statements, FirstEnergy and
As described in its subsidiaries have evaluated events and transactions for potential recognition or disclosure through the date the financial statements were issued.
These statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes included in the combined Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20102011, FE's consolidated financial statements for FirstEnergy, FESthe three months ended March 31, 2011, were revised to reflect a purchase accounting measurement adjustment identified during the fourth quarter of 2011 that decreased goodwill and the Utility Registrants, as applicable, and the Currentincreased income tax expense by approximately $20 million.
As described in its Annual Report on Form 8-K filed by FirstEnergy on February 25, 2011, as amended on April 19, 2011. The consolidated unaudited financial statements of FirstEnergy, FES and each of the Utility Registrants reflect all normal recurring adjustments that, in the opinion of management, are necessary to fairly present results of operations10-K for the interim periods. year ended December 31, 2011, during the fourth quarter of 2011, FE elected to change its method of accounting relating to its defined benefit pension and OPEB plans to recognize the change in fair value of plan assets and net actuarial gains and losses immediately, and applied this change retrospectively. Generally, these gains and losses are measured annually as of December 31, and accordingly, will be recorded during the fourth quarter.
Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Unless otherwise indicated, defined terms used herein have the meanings set forth in the accompanying Glossary of Terms.
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries consolidate all majority-owned subsidiaries over which they exercise control and, when applicable, entities for which they have a controlling financial interest. Intercompany transactions and balances are eliminated in consolidation. FirstEnergy consolidates a VIE when it is determined that it is the primary beneficiary (see Note 7, Variable Interest Entities). Investments in affiliates over which FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have the ability to exercise significant influence, but with respect to which are
New Accounting Pronouncements
New accounting pronouncements not the primary beneficiary and do not exercise control, follow the equity method of accounting. Under the equity method, the interest in the entity is reported as an investment in the Consolidated Balance Sheets and the percentage share of the entity’s earnings is reported in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
2. MERGER
Merger
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger among FirstEnergy, Element Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (Merger Sub), and AE, Merger Sub merged with and into AE, with AE continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. As part of the merger, AE shareholders received 0.667 of a share of FirstEnergy common stock for each share of AE common stock outstanding as of the date the merger was completed, and all outstanding AE equity-based employee compensation awards were converted into FirstEnergy equity-based awards on the same basis.
The merger created a combined company with increased scale and scope and greater diversification in energy delivery, generation and transmission. The combined company is the largest U.S. diversified electric utility by customers and operates one of the largest unregulated power generation fleets in the United States with FirstEnergy’s total current capacity of approximately 23,000 MW, which includes approximately 3,000 MW of regulated generation.
26
The total consideration in the merger was based on the closing price of a share of FirstEnergy common stock on February 24, 2011, the day prior to the date the merger was completed, and was calculated as follows (in millions, except per share data):
| | | | | |
|
| Shares of Allegheny common stock outstanding on February 24, 2011 | | | 170 | |
| Exchange ratio | | | 0.667 | |
| | | | |
| Number of shares of FirstEnergy common stock issued | | | 113 | |
| Closing price of FirstEnergy common stock on February 24, 2011 | | $ | 38.16 | |
| | | | |
| Fair value of shares issued by FirstEnergy | | $ | 4,327 | |
| Fair value of replacement share-based compensation awards relating to pre-merger service | | | 27 | |
| | | | |
| Total consideration transferred | | $ | 4,354 | |
| | | | |
The preliminary allocation of the total consideration transferred to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed includes adjustments for the fair value of coal contracts, energy supply contracts, emission allowances, unregulated property, plant and equipment, derivative instruments, goodwill, intangible assets, long-term debt and deferred income taxes. The preliminary allocation of the purchase price is as follows:
| | | | | |
| | | Preliminary | |
| | | Purchase Price | |
| (In millions) | | Allocation | |
| | | | | |
| Current assets | | $ | 1,509 | |
| Property, plant and equipment | | | 9,656 | |
| Investments | | | 138 | |
| Goodwill | | | 952 | |
| Other noncurrent assets | | | 1,262 | |
| Current liabilities | | | (714 | ) |
| Noncurrent liabilities | | | (3,453 | ) |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | (4,996 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | $ | 4,354 | |
| | | | |
Assumptions and estimates underlying the fair value adjustments are subject to change pending further review of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed.
The excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed was recognized as goodwill. The Allegheny delivery, transmission and generation businesses have been assigned to the Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and Competitive Energy Services segments, respectively. The preliminary estimate of goodwill from the merger of $952 million was assigned entirely to the Competitive Energy Services segment based on expected synergies from the merger. The goodwill is not deductible for tax purposes.
Total goodwill recognized by segment in FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheet is as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Competitive | | | Regulated | | | | | | | |
| | | Regulated | | | Energy | | | Independent | | | Other/ | | | | |
| (In millions) | | Distribution | | | Services | | | Transmission | | | Corporate | | | Consolidated | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Balance at December 31, 2010 | | $ | 5,551 | | | $ | 24 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 5,575 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Merger with Allegheny | | | — | | | | 952 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 952 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Balance at March 31, 2011 | | $ | 5,551 | | | $ | 976 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 6,527 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
27
The preliminary valuation of the additional intangible assets and liabilities recorded as result of the merger is as follows:
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Preliminary | | | Weighted Average | |
| (In millions) | | Valuation | | | Amortization Period | |
| Above market contracts: | | | | | | | | |
| Energy supply contracts | | $ | 189 | | | 10 years |
| NUG contracts | | | 124 | | | 25 years |
| Coal supply contracts | | | 525 | | | 8 years |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | 838 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Below market contracts: | | | | | | | | |
| NUG contracts | | | 143 | | | 13 years |
| Coal supply contracts | | | 86 | | | 7 years |
| Transportation contract | | | 35 | | | 8 years |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | 264 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 574 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
The fair value measurements of intangible assets and liabilities were primarily based on significant unobservable inputs and thus represent level 3 measurements as defined in accounting guidance for fair value measurements.
The fair value of Allegheny’s energy, NUG and gas transportation contracts, both above-market and below-market, were estimated based on the present value of the above/below market cash flows attributable to the contracts based on the contract type, discounted by a current market interest rate consistent with the overall credit quality of the portfolio. The above/below market cash flows were estimated by comparing the expected cash flow based on existing contracted prices and expected volumes with the cash flows from estimated current market contract prices for the same expected volumes. The estimated current market contract prices were derived considering current market prices, such as the price of energy and transmission, miscellaneous fees and a normal profit margin. The weighted average amortization period was determined based on the expected volumes to be delivered over the life of the contract.
The fair value of coal supply contracts was determined in a similar manner based on the present value of the above/below market cash flows attributable to the contracts. The fair value of these contracts will be amortized based on expected deliveries under each contract.
Total intangible assets recorded on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2011 are as follows:
| | | | | |
| | | Intangible | |
| (In millions) | | Assets | |
| Purchase contract assets | | | | |
| NUG | | $ | 241 | |
| OVEC | | | 52 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 293 | |
| | | | | |
| Intangible assets | | | | |
| Coal contracts | | | 520 | |
| FES customer intangible assets | | | 132 | |
| Energy contracts | | | 130 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 782 | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | $ | 1,075 | |
| | | | |
Other intangible assets acquired in the Allegheny merger include land easements and software, having a fair value of $126 million, are included in “Property, plant and equipment” on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2011.
In connection with the merger, FirstEnergy recorded approximately $82 million ($68 million net of tax) and $14 million ($10 million net of tax) of merger transaction costs during the first quarter of 2011 and 2010, respectively. These costs are included in “Other operating expenses” in the Consolidated Statement of Income. Merger transaction costs recognized in the first quarter of 2011 include $56 million ($47 net of tax) of change in control and other benefit payments to AE executives.
28
FirstEnergy also recorded approximately $75 million in merger integration costs during the first quarter of 2011, including an inventory valuation adjustment. In connection with the merger, FirstEnergy reviewed its inventory levels as a result of combining the inventory of both companies. Following this review FirstEnergy management determined the combined inventory stock contained excess and duplicative items. FirstEnergy management also adopted a consistent excess and obsolete inventory practice for the combined entity. Application of the revised practice, in conjunction with those items identified as excess and duplicative, resulted in an inventory valuation adjustment of $67 million ($42 million net of tax).
The amounts of revenue and earnings of Allegheny since the merger date included in FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Statement of Income for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 are as follows:
| | | | | |
| | | February 26 - | |
| (In millions, except per share amounts) | | March 31, 2011 | |
| | | | | |
| Total revenues | | $ | 437 | |
Net Income(1) | | | (46 | ) |
| | | | | |
| Basic Earnings Per Share | | $ | (0.13 | ) |
| Diluted Earnings Per Share | | $ | (0.13 | ) |
| | |
(1) | | Includes Allegheny’s after-tax merger costs of $52 million. |
Pro Forma Financial Information
The following unaudited pro forma financial information reflects the consolidated results of operations of FirstEnergy as if the merger with Allegheny had taken place on January 1, 2010. The unaudited pro forma information has been calculated after applying FirstEnergy’s accounting policies and adjusting Allegheny’s results to reflect the depreciation and amortization that would have been charged assuming fair value adjustments to property, plant and equipment, debt and intangible assets had been applied on January 1, 2010, together with the consequential tax effects.
FirstEnergy and Allegheny both incurred non-recurring costs directly related to the merger that have been included in the pro forma earnings presented below. Approximately $83 million and $27 million of combined pre-tax transaction costs were incurred in the three months ended March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2010, respectively. In addition, in the three months ended March 31, 2011, $75 million of pre-tax merger integration costs and $24 million of charges from merger settlements approved by regulatory agencies have been recognized. Charges resulting from merger settlementsyet effective are not expected to behave a material in future periods.
The unaudited pro forma financial information has been presented for illustrative purposes only and is not necessarily indicative of results of operations that would have been achieved had the pro forma events taken placeeffect on the dates indicated,financial statements of FE or the future consolidated results of operations of the combined company.its subsidiaries.
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| (Pro forma amounts in millions, except per share amounts) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Revenues | | $ | 4,786 | | | $ | 4,685 | |
| Net income attributable to FirstEnergy | | $ | 137 | | | $ | 255 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Basic Earnings Per Share | | $ | 0.33 | | | $ | 0.61 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Diluted Earnings Per Share | | $ | 0.33 | | | $ | 0.61 | |
| | | | | | | |
29
3.2. EARNINGS PER SHARE
Basic earnings per share of common stock are computed using the weighted average number of actual common shares outstanding during the relevant period as the denominator. The denominator for diluted earnings per share of common stock reflects the weighted average of common shares outstanding plus the potential additional common shares that would be issuedcould result if dilutive securities and other agreements to issue common stock were exercised. The following table reconciles basic and diluted earnings per share of common stock:
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| Reconciliation of Basic and Diluted | | March 31 | |
| Earnings per Share of Common Stock | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | (In millions, except per | |
| | | share amounts) | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. | | $ | 50 | | | $ | 155 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Weighted average number of basic shares outstanding(1) | | | 342 | | | | 304 | |
| Assumed exercise of dilutive stock options and awards | | | 1 | | | | 2 | |
| | | | | | | |
Weighted average number of diluted shares outstanding(1) | | | 343 | | | | 306 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Basic earnings per share of common stock | | $ | 0.15 | | | $ | 0.51 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Diluted earnings per share of common stock | | $ | 0.15 | | | $ | 0.51 | |
| | | | | | | |
15
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| Reconciliation of Basic and Diluted Earnings per Share of Common Stock | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | (In millions, except per share amounts) |
| | | | | |
| Weighted average number of basic shares outstanding | | 418 |
| | 342 |
|
Assumed exercise of dilutive stock options and awards(1) | | 2 |
| | 1 |
|
| Weighted average number of diluted shares outstanding | | 420 |
| | 343 |
|
| | | | | |
| Earnings Available to FirstEnergy Corp. | | $ | 306 |
| | $ | 52 |
|
| | | | | |
| Basic earnings per share of common stock | | $ | 0.73 |
| | $ | 0.15 |
|
| Diluted earnings per share of common stock | | $ | 0.73 |
| | $ | 0.15 |
|
| |
(1) | The number of potentially dilutive securities not included in the calculation of diluted shares outstanding due to their antidilutive effect were not significant for the three months endedMarch 31, 2012 and 2011. |
3. PENSIONS AND OTHER POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
FirstEnergy provides noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover substantially all of its employees and non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees. The plans provide defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels. In addition, FirstEnergy provides a minimum amount of noncontributory life insurance to retired employees in addition to optional contributory insurance. Health care benefits, which include certain employee contributions, deductibles and co-payments, are also available upon retirement to certain employees, their dependents and, under certain circumstances, their survivors. FirstEnergy recognizes the expected cost of providing pensions and OPEB to employees and their beneficiaries and covered dependents from the time employees are hired until they become eligible to receive those benefits. FirstEnergy also has obligations to former or inactive employees after employment, but before retirement, for disability-related benefits.
FirstEnergy’s funding policy is based on actuarial computations using the projected unit credit method. During the three months endedMarch 31, 2012, FirstEnergy made pre-tax contributions to its qualified pension plan of $600 million.
The components of the consolidated net periodic cost for pensions and OPEB costs (including amounts capitalized) were as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Components of Net Periodic Benefit Costs (Credits) | | Pensions | | OPEB |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | (In millions) |
| Service cost | | $ | 40 |
| | $ | 29 |
| | $ | 3 |
| | $ | 3 |
|
| Interest cost | | 97 |
| | 84 |
| | 12 |
| | 11 |
|
| Expected return on plan assets | | (121 | ) | | (102 | ) | | (9 | ) | | (10 | ) |
| Amortization of prior service cost | | 3 |
| | 4 |
| | (51 | ) | | (48 | ) |
| Other adjustments (settlements, curtailments, etc) | | — |
| | 7 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| Net periodic costs (credits) | | $ | 19 |
| | $ | 22 |
| | $ | (45 | ) | | $ | (44 | ) |
Pension and OPEB obligations are allocated to FE's subsidiaries employing the plan participants. The net periodic pension and OPEB costs (net of amounts capitalized) recognized in earnings by FE and its subsidiaries were as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net Periodic Benefit Costs (Credits) | | Pensions | | OPEB |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | (In millions) |
| FE Consolidated | | $ | 13 |
| | $ | 20 |
| | $ | (30 | ) | | $ | (32 | ) |
| FES | | 10 |
| | 7 |
| | (8 | ) | | (7 | ) |
| OE | | (1 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (5 | ) | | (6 | ) |
| JCP&L | | (1 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (3 | ) |
4. INCOME TAXES
FirstEnergy accounts for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in its financial statements. Accounting guidance prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for financial statement recognition and measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken on a company's tax return. During the first quarter of 2012, the federal government issued further guidance
related to the tax accounting of costs to repair and maintain fixed assets. This guidance provided a safe harbor method of tax accounting for AE companies and allowed these companies to reduce their amount of unrecognized tax benefits by $21 million, with a corresponding adjustment to accumulated deferred income taxes for this temporary tax item, with no resulting impact to FirstEnergy's effective tax rate in the first quarter of 2012. There were no other material changes to FirstEnergy's unrecognized income tax benefits during the first quarter of 2012 or 2011.
As of March 31, 2012, it is reasonably possible that approximately $45 million of unrecognized income tax benefits may be resolved within the next twelve months, of which approximately $10 million, if recognized, would affect FirstEnergy's effective tax rate. The potential decrease in the amount of unrecognized income tax benefits is primarily associated with issues related to the capitalization of certain costs and various state tax items.
FirstEnergy recognizes interest expense or income related to uncertain tax positions. That amount is computed by applying the applicable statutory interest rate to the difference between the tax position recognized and the amount previously taken or expected to be taken on the tax return. FirstEnergy includes net interest and penalties in the provision for income taxes. During the first quarter of 2012 and 2011, there were no material changes to the amount of accrued interest, except for a $6 million increase in accrued interest from the merger with AE in the first quarter of 2011. The net amount of interest accrued as of March 31, 2012 was $12 million, compared with $11 million as of December 31, 2011.
As a result of the non-deductible portion of merger transaction costs, FirstEnergy's effective tax rate was unfavorably impacted by $30 million in the first three months of 2011.
FirstEnergy has tax returns that are under review at the audit or appeals level by the IRS (2008-2010) and state tax authorities. FirstEnergy's tax returns for all state jurisdictions are open from 2008-2010, and additionally 2005-2007 for New Jersey. The IRS completed its audits of tax year 2008 in July 2010 and tax year 2009 in April 2011, with both tax years having one open item. Tax years 2010-2011 are under review by the IRS. Allegheny is currently under audit by the IRS for tax years 2007 and 2008. Allegheny has filed its 2009 and 2010 federal returns and such filings are subject to review. State tax returns for tax years 2008 through 2010 remain subject to review in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia for certain subsidiaries of AE. Management believes that adequate reserves have been recognized and final settlement of these audits is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's financial condition, results of operations, cash flow or liquidity.
5. VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES
FirstEnergy performs qualitative analyses to determine whether a variable interest gives FirstEnergy a controlling financial interest in a VIE. This analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a VIE as the enterprise that has both the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance and the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE. FE and its subsidiaries consolidate a VIE when it is determined that it is the primary beneficiary
VIEs included in FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements for the first quarter of 2012 are: the PNBV and Shippingport capital trusts that were created to refinance debt originally issued in connection with sale and leaseback transactions; wholly owned limited liability companies of JCP&L created to sell transition bonds to securitize the recovery of JCP&L’s bondable stranded costs associated with the previously divested Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station and JCP&L's supply of BGS, of which $270 million was outstanding as of March 31, 2012; and special purpose limited liabilities companies of MP and PE created to issue environmental control bonds that were used to construct environmental control facilities, of which $504 million was outstanding as of March 31, 2012.
The caption noncontrolling interest within the consolidated financial statements is used to reflect the portion of the VIE that FirstEnergy consolidates, but does not wholly own. The change in noncontrolling interest within the Consolidated Balance Sheets during the three months endedMarch 31, 2012, was primarily due to a $3 million distribution to owners.
In order to evaluate contracts for consolidation treatment and entities for which FirstEnergy has an interest, FirstEnergy aggregated variable interests into the following categories based on similar risk characteristics and significance.
Mining Operations
On October 18, 2011, a subsidiary of Gunvor Group, Ltd. purchased a one-third interest in the Signal Peak joint venture in which FEV held a 50% interest. FEV retained a 33-1/3% equity ownership in the joint venture. Prior to the sale, FirstEnergy consolidated this joint venture since FEV was determined to be the primary beneficiary of the VIE. As a result of the sale, FEV was no longer determined to be the primary beneficiary and its retained 33-1/3% interest is subsequently accounted for using the equity method of accounting.
PATH-WV
PATH was formed to construct, through its operating companies, the PATH Project, which is a high-voltage transmission line that was proposed to extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, including modifications to an existing substation in
Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland as directed by PJM. PATH is a series limited liability company that is comprised of multiple series, each of which has separate rights, powers and duties regarding specified property and the series profits and losses associated with such property. A subsidiary of AE owns 100% of the Allegheny Series (PATH-Allegheny) and 50% of the West Virginia Series (PATH-WV), which is a joint venture with a subsidiary of AEP. FirstEnergy is not the primary beneficiary of PATH-WV, as it does not have control over the significant activities affecting the economics of the portion of the PATH Project to be constructed by PATH-WV.
Because of the nature of PATH-WV’s operations and its FERC approved rate mechanism, FirstEnergy’s maximum exposure to loss, through AE, consists of its equity investment in PATH-WV, which was $30 million as of March 31, 2012.
Power Purchase Agreements
FirstEnergy evaluated its power purchase agreements and determined that certain NUG entities may be VIEs to the extent that they own a plant that sells substantially all of its output to the applicable utilities if the contract price for power is correlated with the plant’s variable costs of production. FirstEnergy, through its subsidiaries JCP&L, ME, PN, PE, WP and MP, maintains 22 long-term power purchase agreements with NUG entities that were entered into pursuant to PURPA. FirstEnergy was not involved in the creation of, and has no equity or debt invested in, these entities.
FirstEnergy has determined that for all but three of these NUG entities, its subsidiaries do not have variable interests in the entities or the entities do not meet the criteria to be considered a VIE. JCP&L, PE and WP may hold variable interests in the remaining three entities; however, FirstEnergy applied the scope exception that exempts enterprises unable to obtain the necessary information to evaluate entities. One of JCP&L's NUG contracts, to which the scope exception was applied, expired during 2011.
Because JCP&L, PE and WP have no equity or debt interests in the NUG entities, their maximum exposure to loss relates primarily to the above-market costs incurred for power. FirstEnergy expects any above-market costs incurred by its subsidiaries to be recovered from customers, except as described further below. Purchased power costs related to the three contracts that may contain a variable interest that were held by FirstEnergy subsidiaries during the three months endedMarch 31, 2012, were $12 million, $32 million and $16 million for JCP&L, PE and WP, respectively. Purchased power costs related to the four contracts that may contain a variable interest that were held by JCP&L, PE and WP, respectively, during the three months endedMarch 31, 2011 were $65 million, $11 million, and $5 million, respectively.
In 1998 the PPUC issued an order approving a transition plan for WP that disallowed certain costs, including an estimated amount for an adverse power purchase commitment related to the NUG entity wherein WP may hold a variable interest, for which WP has taken the scope exception. As of March 31, 2012, WP’s reserve for this adverse purchase power commitment was $51 million, including a current liability of $11 million, and is being amortized over the life of the commitment.
Loss Contingencies
FirstEnergy has variable interests in certain sale and leaseback transactions. FirstEnergy is not the primary beneficiary of these interests as it does not have control over the significant activities affecting the economics of the arrangement.
FES, OE and other FE subsidiaries are exposed to losses under their applicable sale and leaseback agreements upon the occurrence of certain contingent events. The maximum exposure under these provisions represents the net amount of casualty value payments due upon the occurrence of specified casualty events. Net discounted lease payments would not be payable if the casualty loss payments were made. The following table discloses each company’s net exposure to loss based upon the casualty value provisions mentioned above as of March 31, 2012:
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | Maximum Exposure | | Discounted Lease Payments, net(1) | | Net Exposure |
| | (In millions) |
| FES | 1,384 |
| | 1,179 |
| | 205 |
|
| OE | 583 |
| | 426 |
| | 157 |
|
| Other FE Subsidiaries | 643 |
| | 383 |
| | 260 |
|
| |
(1) | The net present value of FirstEnergy’s consolidated sale and leaseback operating lease commitments is $1.6 billion. |
6. FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
RECURRING AND NONRECURRING FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
On January 1, 2012, FirstEnergy adopted an amendment to the authoritative accounting guidance regarding fair value measurements. The amendment was applied prospectively and expanded disclosure requirements for fair value measurements, particularly for Level 3 measurements, among other changes.
Authoritative accounting guidance establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. This
hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 1 measurements and the lowest priority to Level 3 measurements. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy and a description of the valuation techniques for Level 2 and Level 3 are as follows:
|
| | |
| Level 1 | - | Quoted prices for identical instruments in active market |
| | | |
(1)Level 2 | - | Quoted prices for similar instruments in active market |
| | Includes 113 million shares issued to AE stockholders- | Quoted prices for the period subsequentidentical or similar instruments in markets that are not active |
| - | Model-derived valuations for which all significant inputs are observable market data |
Models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors and current market and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures.
|
| | |
| Level 3 | - | Valuation inputs are unobservable and significant to the merger date. (Seefair value measurement |
FirstEnergy produces a long-term power and capacity price forecast annually with periodic updates as market conditions change. When underlying prices are not observable, prices from the long-term price forecast, which has been reviewed and approved by the Risk Policy Committee, are used to measure fair value. A more detailed description of FirstEnergy's valuation process for FTRs and NUGs are as follows.
FTRs are financial instruments that entitle the holder to a stream of revenues (or charges) based on the hourly day-ahead congestion price differences across transmission paths. FTRs are acquired by FirstEnergy in the annual, monthly and long-term RTO auctions and are initially recorded using the auction clearing price less cost. After initial recognition, FTRs' carrying values are subsequently adjusted to fair value using a mark-to-model methodology on a monthly basis, which approximates market. The primary inputs into the model, that are generally less observable from objective sources, are the most recent RTO auction clearing prices and the FTRs' remaining hours. The model calculates the fair value by multiplying the most recent auction clearing price by the remaining FTR hours less the prorated FTR cost. Generally, significant increases or decreases in inputs in isolation could result in a higher or lower fair value measurement. See Note 7, Derivative Instruments, for additional information regarding FirstEnergy's FTRs.
NUG contracts represent purchased power agreements with third-party non-utility generators that are transacted to satisfy certain obligations under PURPA. NUG contract carrying values are recorded at fair value using a mark-to-model methodology on a monthly basis, which approximates market. The primary unobservable inputs into the model are regional power prices and generation MWH. Monthly pricing for the NUG contracts is a combination of market prices for the current year and next three years based on observable data and internal models using historical trends and market data for the remaining years under contract. The internal models use forecasted energy purchase prices as an input when prices are not defined by the contract. Forecasted market prices are based on IntercontinentalExchange quotes and management assumptions. Generation MWH reflects data provided by contractual arrangements and historical trends. The model calculates the fair value by multiplying the prices by the generation MWH. Generally, significant increases or decreases in inputs in isolation could result in a higher or lower fair value measurement.
FirstEnergy primarily applies the market approach for recurring fair value measurements using the best information available. Accordingly, FirstEnergy maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs. There were no changes in valuation methodologies used as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The determination of the fair value measures takes into consideration various factors, including but not limited to, nonperformance risk, counterparty credit risk and the impact of credit enhancements (such as cash deposits, LOCs and priority interests). The impact of these forms of risk was not significant to the fair value measurements.
Transfers between levels are recognized at the end of the reporting period. There were no significant transfers between levels during the 2012 and 2011 periods. The following tables set forth the recurring and nonrecurring assets and liabilities that are accounted for at fair value by level within the fair value hierarchy.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FE CONSOLIDATED | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Recurring Fair Value Measurements | March 31, 2012 | December 31, 2011 |
| | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | Total | | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | Total |
| Assets | (In millions) |
| Corporate debt securities | $ | — | | | $ | 1,561 | | | $ | — | | | 1,561 |
| | $ | — | | | $ | 1,544 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,544 |
|
| Derivative assets - commodity contracts | 1 | | | 415 | | | — | | | 416 |
| | — | | | 264 | | | — | | | 264 |
|
| Derivative assets - FTRs | — | | | — | | | 1 | | | 1 |
| | — | | | — | | | 1 | | | 1 |
|
Derivative assets - NUG contracts(1) | — | | | — | | | 42 | | | 42 |
| | — | | | — | | | 56 | | | 56 |
|
Equity securities(2) | 289 | | | — | | | — | | | 289 |
| | 259 | | | — | | | — | | | 259 |
|
| Foreign government debt securities | — | | | — | | | — | | | — |
| | — | | | 3 | | | — | | | 3 |
|
| U.S. government debt securities | — | | | 138 | | | — | | | 138 |
| | — | | | 148 | | | — | | | 148 |
|
| U.S. state debt securities | — | | | 313 | | | — | | | 313 |
| | — | | | 314 | | | — | | | 314 |
|
Other(3) | 54 | | | 167 | | | — | | | 221 |
| | 49 | | | 225 | | | — | | | 274 |
|
| Total assets | 344 | | | 2,594 | | | 43 | | | 2,981 |
| | 308 | |
| 2,498 | |
| 57 | | | 2,863 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Liabilities | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts | (2 | ) | | (347 | ) | | — | | | (349 | ) | | — | | | (247 | ) | | — | | | (247 | ) |
| Derivative liabilities - FTRs | — | | | — | | | (15 | ) | | (15 | ) | | — | | | — | | | (23 | ) | | (23 | ) |
Derivative liabilities - NUG contracts(1) | — | | | — | | | (342 | ) | | (342 | ) | | — | | | — | | | (349 | ) | | (349 | ) |
| Total liabilities | (2 | ) | | (347 | ) | | (357 | ) | | (706 | ) | | — | | | (247 | ) | | (372 | ) | | (619 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(4) | $ | 342 | | | $ | 2,247 | | | $ | (314 | ) | | $ | 2,275 |
| | $ | 308 | | | $ | 2,251 | | | $ | (315 | ) | | $ | 2,244 |
|
| |
(1) | NUG contracts are generally subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
| |
(2) | NDT funds hold equity portfolios whose performance is benchmarked against the Alerian MLP Index. |
| |
(3) | Primarily consists of short-term cash investments. |
| |
(4) | Excludes $2 Merger)million and $(52) million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, of receivables, payables, taxes and accrued income associated with financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
4. FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTSRollforward of Level 3 Measurements
(A) LONG-TERM DEBT AND OTHER LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS
All borrowings with initial maturities of less than one year are defined as short-term financial instruments under GAAP and are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at cost, which approximates their fair market value, in the caption “short-term borrowings.” The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the approximate fair value and related carrying amounts of long-term debt and other long-term obligations as of March 31, 2011 and December 31 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, 2011 | | | December 31, 2010 | |
| | | Carrying | | | Fair | | | Carrying | | | Fair | |
| | | Value | | | Value | | | Value | | | Value | |
| | | (In millions) | |
FirstEnergy(1) | | $ | 18,743 | | | $ | 19,776 | | | $ | 13,928 | | | $ | 14,845 | |
| FES | | | 4,099 | | | | 4,227 | | | | 4,279 | | | | 4,403 | |
| OE | | | 1,159 | | | | 1,334 | | | | 1,159 | | | | 1,321 | |
| CEI | | | 1,831 | | | | 2,035 | | | | 1,853 | | | | 2,035 | |
| TE | | | 600 | | | | 666 | | | | 600 | | | | 653 | |
| JCP&L | | | 1,802 | | | | 1,980 | | | | 1,810 | | | | 1,962 | |
| Met-Ed | | | 742 | | | | 826 | | | | 742 | | | | 821 | |
| Penelec | | | 1,120 | | | | 1,190 | | | | 1,120 | | | | 1,189 | |
| | |
(1) | | Includes debt assumed in the Allegheny merger (See Note 2) with a carrying value and a fair value as of March 31, 2011 of $4,995 million and $5,004 million, respectively. |
The fair values of long-term debt and other long-term obligations reflect the present value of the cash outflows relating to those obligations based on the current call price, the yield to maturity or the yield to call, as deemed appropriate at the end of each respective period. The yields assumed were based on debt with similar characteristics offeredNUG contracts held by corporations with credit ratings similar to those of FirstEnergy, FES, the Utilities and other subsidiaries.FTRs held by FirstEnergy and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ended March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | NUG Contracts | | FTRs |
| | Derivative Assets(1) | | Derivative Liabilities(1) | | Net(1) | | Derivative Assets(1) | | Derivative Liabilities(1) | | Net(1) |
| | | | | | | | (In millions) |
| January 1, 2011 Balance | $ | 122 |
| | $ | (466 | ) | | $ | (344 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | |
| Realized gain (loss) | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | (58 | ) | | (144 | ) | | (202 | ) | | 2 | | | (27 | ) | | (25 | ) |
| Purchases | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 13 | | | (4 | ) | | 9 | |
| Issuances | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Sales | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Settlements | (7 | ) | | 261 |
| | 254 |
| | (14 | ) | | 20 | | | 6 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| |
| | | (12 | ) | | (12 | ) |
| December 31, 2011 Balance | $ | 57 |
| | $ | (349 | ) | | $ | (292 | ) | | $ | 1 | | | $ | (23 | ) | | $ | (22 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | (14 | ) | | (65 | ) | | (79 | ) | | — | | | (3 | ) | | (3 | ) |
| Purchases | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Issuances | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Sales | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Settlements | (1 | ) | | 72 |
| | 71 |
| | — | | | 11 | | | 11 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — | | | — | | | — | |
| March 31, 2012 Balance | $ | 42 |
| | $ | (342 | ) | | $ | (300 | ) | | $ | 1 | | | $ | (15 | ) | | $ | (14 | ) |
| |
(1) | Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are generally subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
Level 3 Quantitative Information
The following table provides quantitative information for NUG contracts and FTRs that are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the period ended March 31, 2012:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Fair Value as of March 31, 2012 (In millions) | | Valuation Technique | | Significant Input | | Range | | Weighted Average | | Units |
| FTRs | | $ | (14 | ) | | Model | | RTO auction clearing prices | | ($4.18) to $9.81 | | $ | 1.51 |
| | Dollars/MWH |
| NUG Contracts | | $ | (300 | ) | | Model | | Generation Power regional prices | | 500 to 6,809,000 $58.71 to $84.92 | | 2,547,000 $66.77 |
| | MWH Dollars/MWH |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FES | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Recurring Fair Value Measurements | March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
| | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | Total | | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | Total |
| Assets | (In millions) |
| Corporate debt securities | $ | — | | | $ | 1,017 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,017 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,010 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,010 | |
| Derivative assets - commodity contracts | 1 | | | 391 | | | — | | | 392 | | | — | | | 248 | | | — | | | 248 | |
| Derivative assets - FTRs | — | | | — | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | — | | | — | | | 1 | | | 1 | |
Equity securities(1) | 150 | | | — | | | — | | | 150 | | | 124 | | | — | | | — | | | 124 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 3 | | | — | | | 3 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | — | | | 5 | | | — | | | 5 | | | — | | | 7 | | | — | | | 7 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 5 | | | — | | | 5 | |
Other(2) | — | | | 66 | | | — | | | 66 | | | — | | | 132 | | | — | | | 132 | |
| Total assets | 151 | | | 1,479 | | | 1 | | | 1,631 | | | 124 | | | 1,405 | | | 1 | | | 1,530 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts | (2 | ) | | (340 | ) | | — | | | (342 | ) | | — | | | (234 | ) | | — | | | (234 | ) |
| Derivative liabilities - FTRs | — | | | — | | | (5 | ) | | (5 | ) | | — | | | — | | | (7 | ) | | (7 | ) |
| Total liabilities | (2 | ) | | (340 | ) | | (5 | ) | | (347 | ) | �� | — | | | (234 | ) | | (7 | ) | | (241 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | $ | 149 | | | $ | 1,139 | | | $ | (4 | ) | | $ | 1,284 | | | $ | 124 | | | $ | 1,171 | | | $ | (6 | ) | | $ | 1,289 | |
| |
(1) | NDT funds hold equity portfolios whose performance of which is benchmarked against the Alerian MLP Index. |
| |
(2) | Primarily consists of short-term cash investments. |
| |
(3) | Excludes $2 million and $(58) million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, of receivables, payables, taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of FTRs held by FES and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ended March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Derivative Asset FTRs | | Derivative Liability FTRs | | Net FTRs |
| | | (In millions) |
| January 1, 2011 Balance | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | |
| Realized gain (loss) | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | 4 | | | (8 | ) | | (4 | ) |
| Purchases | | 2 | | | (1 | ) | | 1 | |
| Issuances | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Sales | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Settlements | | (5 | ) | | 2 | | | (3 | ) |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| December 31, 2011 Balance | | $ | 1 | | | $ | (7 | ) | | $ | (6 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | — | | | (1 | ) | | (1 | ) |
| Purchases | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Issuances | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Sales | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Settlements | | — | | | 4 | | | 4 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| March 31, 2012 Balance | | $ | 1 | | | $ | (4 | ) | | $ | (3 | ) |
Level 3 Quantitative Information
The following table provides quantitative information for FTRs held by FES that are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the period ended March 31, 2012:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Fair Value as of March 31, 2012 (In millions) | | Valuation Technique | | Significant Input | | Range | | Weighted Average | | Units |
| FTRs | | $ | (3 | ) | | Model | | RTO auction clearing prices | | ($4.18) to $8.03 | | $ | 0.76 |
| | Dollars/MWH |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| OE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Recurring Fair Value Measurements | March 31, 2012 | December 31, 2011 |
| | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | Total | | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | Total |
| Assets | (In millions) |
| Corporate debt securities | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 3 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 3 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | — | | | 133 | | | — |
| | 133 |
| | — |
| | 132 |
| | — |
| | 132 | |
Other(1) | — | | | 3 | | | — |
| | 3 |
| | — |
| | 2 |
| | — |
| | 2 | |
Total assets(2) | $ | — | | | $ | 136 | | | $ | — |
| | $ | 136 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 137 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 137 | |
| |
(1) | Primarily consists of short-term cash investments. |
| |
(2) | Excludes $1 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, of receivables, payables, taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| JCP&L | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Recurring Fair Value Measurements | March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
| | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | Total | | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | Total |
| Assets | (In millions) |
| Corporate debt securities | $ | — | | | $ | 148 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 148 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 144 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 144 | |
Derivative assets - NUG contracts(1) | — | | | — | | | 4 | | | 4 | | | — | | | — | | | 4 | | | 4 | |
Equity securities(2) | 31 | | | — | | | — | | | 31 | | | 30 | | | — | | | — | | | 30 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 2 | | | — | | | 2 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | — | | | 225 | | | — | | | 225 | | | — | | | 219 | | | — | | | 219 | |
Other(3) | — | | | 16 | | | — | | | 16 | | | — | | | 15 | | | — | | | 15 | |
| Total assets | 31 | | | 389 | | | 4 | | | 424 | | | 30 | | | 380 | | | 4 | | | 414 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivative liabilities - NUG contracts(1) | — | | | — | | | (136 | ) | | (136 | ) | | — | | | — | | | (147 | ) | | (147 | ) |
| Total liabilities | — | | | — | | | (136 | ) | | (136 | ) | | — | | | — | | | (147 | ) | | (147 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(4) | $ | 31 | | | $ | 389 | | | $ | (132 | ) | | $ | 288 | | | $ | 30 | | | $ | 380 | | | $ | (143 | ) | | $ | 267 | |
| |
(1) | NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
| |
(2) | NDT funds hold equity portfolios whose performance is benchmarked against the Alerian MLP Index. |
| |
(3) | Primarily consists of short-term cash investments. |
| |
(4) | Excludes $2 million as of December 31, 2011 of receivables, payables, taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by JCP&L and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ended March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Derivative Asset NUG Contracts(1) | | Derivative Liability NUG Contracts(1) | | Net NUG Contracts(1) |
| | | (In millions) |
| January 1, 2011 Balance | | $ | 6 | | | (233 | ) | | (227 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | (2 | ) | | (11 | ) | | (13 | ) |
| Purchases | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Issuances | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Sales | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Settlements | | — | | | 97 | | | 97 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| December 31, 2011 | | $ | 4 | | | $ | (147 | ) | | $ | (143 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | — | | | (6 | ) | | (6 | ) |
| Purchases | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Issuances | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Sales | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Settlements | | — | | | 17 | | | 17 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| March 31, 2012 | | $ | 4 | | | $ | (136 | ) | | $ | (132 | ) |
| |
(1) | Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
Level 3 Quantitative Information
The following table provides quantitative information for NUG contracts held by JCP&L that are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the period ended March 31, 2012:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Fair Value as of March 31, 2012 (In millions) | | Valuation Technique | | Significant Input | | Range | | Weighted Average | | Units |
| NUG Contracts | | $ | (132 | ) | Model | | Generation Power regional prices | | 69,000 to 736,000 $58.71 to $84.92 | | 157,000 $68.65 | | MWH Dollars/MWH |
INVESTMENTS
All temporary cash investments purchased with an initial maturity of three months or less are reported as cash equivalents on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at cost, which approximates their fair market value. Investments other than cash and cash equivalents include held-to-maturity securities and available-for-sale securitiessecurities.
FE and notes receivable.
30
FES and the Utilitiesits subsidiaries periodically evaluate their investments for other-than-temporary impairment. They first consider their intent and ability to hold an equity investment until recovery and then consider, among other factors, the duration and the extent to which the security’ssecurity's fair value has been less than cost and the near-term financial prospects of the security issuer when evaluating an investment for impairment. For debt securities, FESFE and the Utilitiesits subsidiaries consider their intent to hold the security, the likelihood that they will be required to sell the security before recovery of their cost basis and the likelihood of recovery of the security’ssecurity's entire amortized cost basis.
Available-For-Sale Securities
FES and the Utilities hold debt and equity securities within their nuclear decommissioning trusts, nuclear fuel disposal trusts and NUG trusts. These trust investments are considered as available-for-sale at fair market value. FES and the Utilities have no securities held for trading purposes.
The following table summarizes the amortized cost basis, unrealized gains and losses and fair values of investments held in nuclear decommissioning trusts, nuclear fuel disposal trusts and NUG trusts as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, 2011(1) | | | December 31, 2010(2) | |
| | | Cost | | | Unrealized | | | Unrealized | | | Fair | | | Cost | | | Unrealized | | | Unrealized | | | Fair | |
| | | Basis | | | Gains | | | Losses | | | Value | | | Basis | | | Gains | | | Losses | | | Value | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Debt securities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FirstEnergy | | $ | 1,985 | | | $ | 32 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 2,017 | | | $ | 1,699 | | | $ | 31 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,730 | |
| FES | | | 1,012 | | | | 18 | | | | — | | | | 1,030 | | | | 980 | | | | 13 | | | | — | | | | 993 | |
| OE | | | 124 | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 125 | | | | 123 | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 124 | |
| TE | | | 51 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 51 | | | | 42 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 42 | |
| JCP&L | | | 358 | | | | 7 | | | | — | | | | 365 | | | | 281 | | | | 9 | | | | — | | | | 290 | |
| Met-Ed | | | 240 | | | | 4 | | | | — | | | | 244 | | | | 127 | | | | 4 | | | | — | | | | 131 | |
| Penelec | | | 200 | | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | 202 | | | | 145 | | | | 4 | | | | — | | | | 149 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Equity securities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FirstEnergy | | $ | 186 | | | $ | 7 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 193 | | | $ | 268 | | | $ | 69 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 337 | |
| FES | | | 88 | | | | 5 | | | | — | | | | 93 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| TE | | | 24 | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 25 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| JCP&L | | | 21 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 21 | | | | 80 | | | | 17 | | | | — | | | | 97 | |
| Met-Ed | | | 33 | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 34 | | | | 125 | | | | 35 | | | | — | | | | 160 | |
| Penelec | | | 20 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 20 | | | | 63 | | | | 16 | | | | — | | | | 79 | |
| | |
(1) | | Excludes cash investments, receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income: FirstEnergy — $97 million; FES — $37 million; OE — $2 million; TE — $1 million; JCP&L — $12 million; Met-Ed — $27 million and Penelec — $18 million. |
|
(2) | | Excludes cash investments, receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income: FirstEnergy — $193 million; FES — $153 million; OE — $3 million; TE — $34 million; JCP&L — $3 million; Met-Ed — $(3) million and Penelec — $4 million. |
31
Proceeds from the sale of investments in available-for-sale securities, realized gains and losses on those sales net of adjustments recorded, and interest and dividend income for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Interest and | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Sales Proceeds | | | Realized Gains | | | Realized Losses | | | Dividend Income | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| FirstEnergy | | $ | 970 | | | $ | 100 | | | $ | (29 | ) | | $ | 24 | |
| FES | | | 216 | | | | 12 | | | | (15 | ) | | | 15 | |
| OE | | | 8 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1 | |
| TE | | | 14 | | | | 1 | | | | (1 | ) | | | 1 | |
| JCP&L | | | 217 | | | | 22 | | | | (4 | ) | | | 4 | |
| Met-Ed | | | 336 | | | | 43 | | | | (5 | ) | | | 2 | |
| Penelec | | | 179 | | | | 22 | | | | (4 | ) | | | 1 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Interest and | |
| March 31, 2010 | | Sales Proceeds | | | Realized Gains | | | Realized Losses | | | Dividend Income | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| FirstEnergy | | $ | 733 | | | $ | 37 | | | $ | (51 | ) | | $ | 22 | |
| FES | | | 272 | | | | 13 | | | | (24 | ) | | | 13 | |
| OE | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1 | |
| TE | | | 31 | | | | 1 | | | | (1 | ) | | | 1 | |
| JCP&L | | | 190 | | | | 8 | | | | (8 | ) | | | 4 | |
| Met-Ed | | | 144 | | | | 9 | | | | (11 | ) | | | 2 | |
| Penelec | | | 93 | | | | 6 | | | | (7 | ) | | | 1 | |
Unrealized gains applicable to the decommissioning trusts of FES OE and TEOE are recognized in OCI because fluctuations in fair value will eventually impact earnings while unrealized losses are recorded to earnings. The decommissioning trusts of JCP&L Met-Ed and Penelec are subject to regulatory accounting. Net unrealized gains and losses are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities because the difference between investments held in the trust and the decommissioning liabilities will be recovered from or refunded to customers.
The investment policy for the nuclear decommissioning trustNDT funds restricts or limits the plans’trusts' ability to hold certain types of assets including private or direct placements, warrants, securities of FirstEnergy, investments in companies owning nuclear power plants, financial derivatives, preferred stocks, securities convertible into common stock and securities of the trust fund’sfunds' custodian or managers and their parents or subsidiaries.
FirstEnergy recognized $3 millionAvailable-For-Sale Securities
FES, OE and $11 millionJCP&L hold debt and equity securities within their NDT, nuclear fuel disposal trusts and NUG trusts. These trust investments are considered available-for-sale securities at fair market value. FES, OE and JCP&L have no securities held for trading purposes.
The following table summarizes the amortized cost basis, unrealized gains and losses and fair values of net realized losses for the three-month period ended investments held in NDT, nuclear fuel disposal trusts and NUG trusts as of March 31, 20112012 and 2010, respectively, resultingDecember 31, 2011:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, 2012(1) | | December 31, 2011(2) |
| | | Cost Basis | | Unrealized Gains | | Unrealized Losses | | Fair Value | | Cost Basis | | Unrealized Gains | | Unrealized Losses | | Fair Value |
| | | (In millions) |
| Debt securities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FE Consolidated | | 1,967 | | | 42 | | | — | | | 2,009 |
| | 1,980 |
| | 25 |
| 25 |
| — |
| — |
| 2,005 |
|
| FES | | 1,001 | | | 21 | | | — | | | 1,022 |
| | 1,012 |
| | 13 |
| | — |
| | 1,025 |
|
| OE | | 133 | | | — | | | — | | | 133 |
| | 134 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 134 |
|
| JCP&L | | 359 | | | 12 | | | — | | | 371 |
| | 356 |
| | 7 |
| | — |
| | 363 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Equity securities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FE Consolidated | | 246 | | | 42 | | | — | | | 288 |
| | 222 |
| | 36 |
| | — |
| | 258 |
|
| FES | | 127 | | | 23 | | | — | | | 150 |
| | 104 |
| | 20 |
| | — |
| | 124 |
|
| JCP&L | | 27 | | | 4 | | | — | | | 31 |
| | 27 |
| | 3 |
| | — |
| | 30 |
|
| |
(1) | Excludes short-term cash investments: FE Consolidated - $160 million; FES - $68 million; OE - $4 million; JCP&L - $19 million. |
| |
(2) | Excludes short-term cash investments: FE Consolidated - $164 million; FES - $74 million; OE - $2 million; JCP&L - $19 million. |
Proceeds from the sale of investments in available-for-sale securities, held in nuclear decommissioning trusts.realized gains and losses on those sales and interest and dividend income for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 were as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2012 | | Sales Proceeds | | Realized Gains | | Realized Losses | | Interest and Dividend Income |
| | | (In millions) |
| FE Consolidated | | $ | 251 | | | $ | 19 | | | $ | (17 | ) | | $ | 15 | |
| FES | | 83 | | | 12 | | | (11 | ) | | 7 | |
| OE | | 37 | | | — | | | — | | | 1 | |
| JCP&L | | 95 | | | 1 | | | (1 | ) | | 4 | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Sales Proceeds | | Realized Gains | | Realized Losses | | Interest and Dividend Income |
| | | (In millions) |
| FE Consolidated | | $ | 969 | | | $ | 100 | | | $ | (29 | ) | | $ | 24 | |
| FES | | 216 | | | 12 | | | (15 | ) | | 15 | |
| OE | | 8 | | | — | | | — | | | 1 | |
| JCP&L | | 217 | | | 22 | | | (4 | ) | | 4 | |
Held-To-Maturity Securities
The following table provides the amortized cost basis, unrealized gains and losses, and approximate fair values of investments in held-to-maturity securities as of March 31, 20112012 and December 31, 2010:2011:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, 2011 | | | December 31, 2010 | |
| | | Cost | | | Unrealized | | | Unrealized | | | Fair | | | Cost | | | Unrealized | | | Unrealized | | | Fair | |
| | | Basis | | | Gains | | | Losses | | | Value | | | Basis | | | Gains | | | Losses | | | Value | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Debt Securities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FirstEnergy | | $ | 422 | | | $ | 79 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 501 | | | $ | 476 | | | $ | 91 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 567 | |
| OE | | | 190 | | | | 45 | | | | — | | | | 235 | | | | 190 | | | | 51 | | | | — | | | | 241 | |
| CEI | | | 287 | | | | 33 | | | | — | | | | 320 | | | | 340 | | | | 41 | | | | — | | | | 381 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
| | | Cost Basis | | Unrealized Gains | | Fair Value | | Cost Basis | | Unrealized Gains | | Fair Value |
| | | (In millions) |
| Debt Securities | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FE Consolidated | | 336 | | | 41 | | | 377 | | | 402 | | | 50 |
| | 452 | |
| OE | | 162 | | | 19 | | | 181 | | | 163 | | | 21 |
| | 184 | |
Investments in emission allowances, employee benefitsbenefit trusts and cost and equity method investments totaling $345$689 million as of March 31, 20112012, and $259$693 million as of December 31, 2010 are not required to be disclosed and2011, are excluded from the amounts reported above.
32
Notes Receivable
LONG-TERM DEBT AND OTHER LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS
All borrowings with initial maturities of less than one year are defined as short-term financial instruments under GAAP and are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at cost, which approximates their fair market value, in the caption “Short-term borrowings.” The following table below provides the approximate fair value and related carrying amounts of notes receivablelong-term debt and other long-term obligations, excluding capital lease obligations and net unamortized premiums and discounts, as of March 31, 20112012 and December 31, 2010. 2011:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
| | Carrying Value | | Fair Value | | Carrying Value | | Fair Value |
| | (In millions) |
| FE Consolidated | $ | 17,130 |
| | $ | 19,321 |
| | $ | 17,165 |
| | $ | 19,320 |
|
| FES | 3,674 |
| | 3,944 |
| | 3,675 |
| | 3,931 |
|
| OE | 1,158 |
| | 1,469 |
| | 1,157 |
| | 1,434 |
|
| JCP&L | 1,770 |
| | 2,071 |
| | 1,777 |
| | 2,080 |
|
The fair valuevalues of notes receivable representslong-term debt and other long-term obligations reflect the present value of the cash inflowsoutflows relating to those securities based on the current call price, the yield to maturity.maturity or the yield to call, as deemed appropriate at the end of each respective period. The yields assumed were based on financial instrumentssecurities with similar characteristics offered by corporations with credit ratings similar to those of FirstEnergy and terms. The maturity dates range from 2013 to 2021.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, 2011 | | | December 31, 2010 | |
| | | Carrying | | | Fair | | | Carrying | | | Fair | |
| | | Value | | | Value | | | Value | | | Value | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Notes Receivable | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FirstEnergy | | $ | 7 | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | 7 | | | $ | 8 | |
| TE | | | 82 | | | | 94 | | | | 104 | | | | 118 | |
(C) RECURRING FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Fair value is the price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between willing market participants on the measurement date. A fair value hierarchy has been established that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1)its subsidiaries listed above. FirstEnergy classified short-term borrowings, long-term debt and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy areother long-term obligations as follows:
Level 1 — Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.
Level 2 — Pricing inputs are either directly or indirectly observable in the market as of the reporting date, other than quoted prices in active markets included in Level 1. Additionally, Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued using models or other valuation methodologies based on assumptions that are observable in the marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument and can be derived from observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace. These models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. Instruments in this category may include non-exchange-traded derivatives such as forwards and certain interest rate swaps.
Level 3 — Pricing inputs include inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources. These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value. FirstEnergy develops its view of the future market price of key commodities through a combination of market observation and assessment (generally for the short term) and fundamental modeling (generally for the long term). Key fundamental electricity model inputs are generally directly observable in the market or derived from publicly available historic and forecast data. Some key inputs reflect forecasts published by industry leading consultants who generally employ similar fundamental modeling approaches. Fundamental model inputs and results, as well as the selection of consultants, reflect the consensus of appropriate FirstEnergy management. Level 3 instruments include those that may be more structured or otherwise tailored to customers’ needs.
FirstEnergy utilizes market data and assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated, or generally unobservable. FirstEnergy primarily applies the market approach for recurring fair value measurements using the best information available. Accordingly, FirstEnergy maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs.
The determination of the fair value measures takes into consideration various factors. These factors include nonperformance risk, including counterparty credit risk and the impact of credit enhancements (such as cash deposits, LOCs and priority interests). The impact of nonperformance risk was immaterial in the fair value measurements.
The following tables set forth financial assets and liabilities that are accounted for at fair value by level within the fair value hierarchy as of March 31, 20112012 and December 31, 2010. Assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. FirstEnergy’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the fair valuation of assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels. The fair value of financial assets and liabilities as of March 31, 2011 assumed in the merger with Allegheny totaled $52 million and $51 million, respectively. There were no significant transfers between Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010..
33
FirstEnergy Corp.
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of March��31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:25
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 877 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 877 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | 524 | | | | — | | | | 524 | |
| Derivative assets — FTRs | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | |
| Derivative assets — interest rate swaps | | | — | | | | 4 | | | | — | | | | 4 | |
Derivative assets — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 117 | | | | 117 | |
Equity securities(2) | | | 194 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 194 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | | | — | | | | 150 | | | | — | | | | 150 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 681 | | | | — | | | | 681 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 297 | | | | — | | | | 297 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Other(4) | | | — | | | | 148 | | | | — | | | | 148 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 194 | | | $ | 2,681 | | | $ | 118 | | | $ | 2,993 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative liabilities — commodity contracts | | $ | — | | | $ | (583 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | (583 | ) |
| Derivative liabilities — FTRs | | | — | | | | — | | | | (12 | ) | | | (12 | ) |
| Derivative liabilities — interest rate swaps | | | — | | | | (5 | ) | | | — | | | | (5 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivative liabilities — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (478 | ) | | | (478 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | (588 | ) | | $ | (490 | ) | | $ | (1,078 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | | $ | 194 | | | $ | 2,093 | | | $ | (372 | ) | | $ | 1,915 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 597 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 597 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | 250 | | | | — | | | | 250 | |
Derivative assets — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 122 | | | | 122 | |
Equity securities(2) | | | 338 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 338 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | | | — | | | | 149 | | | | — | | | | 149 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 595 | | | | — | | | | 595 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 379 | | | | — | | | | 379 | |
Other(4) | | | — | | | | 219 | | | | — | | | | 219 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 338 | | | $ | 2,189 | | | $ | 122 | | | $ | 2,649 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative liabilities — commodity contracts | | $ | — | | | $ | (348 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | (348 | ) |
Derivative liabilities — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (466 | ) | | | (466 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | (348 | ) | | $ | (466 | ) | | $ | (814 | ) |
| | | | | �� | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | | $ | 338 | | | $ | 1,841 | | | $ | (344 | ) | | $ | 1,835 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) | | NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) | | Excludes $(31) million and $(7) million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
(4) | | Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
34
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by the Utilities and FTRs held by FirstEnergy and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ending March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Derivative Asset(1) | | | Derivative Liability(1) | | | Net(1) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| January 1, 2011 Balance | | $ | 122 | | | $ | (466 | ) | | $ | (344 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | (1 | ) | | | (89 | ) | | | (90 | ) |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | (3 | ) | | | 77 | | | | 74 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | (12 | ) | | | (12 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 Balance | | $ | 118 | | | $ | (490 | ) | | $ | (372 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| January 1, 2010 Balance | | $ | 200 | | | $ | (643 | ) | | $ | (443 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | (71 | ) | | | (110 | ) | | | (181 | ) |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | (7 | ) | | | 287 | | | | 280 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 Balance | | $ | 122 | | | $ | (466 | ) | | $ | (344 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on FES’ Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 567 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 567 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | 476 | | | | — | | | | 476 | |
| Derivative assets — FTRs | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | |
Equity securities(3) | | | 93 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 93 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | | | — | | | | 148 | | | | — | | | | 148 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 304 | | | | — | | | | 304 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 8 | | | | — | | | | 8 | |
Other(2) | | | — | | | | 43 | | | | — | | | | 43 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 93 | | | $ | 1,546 | | | $ | 1 | | | $ | 1,640 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative liabilities — commodity contracts | | $ | — | | | $ | (549 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | (549 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | (549 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | (549 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(1) | | $ | 93 | | | $ | 997 | | | $ | 1 | | | $ | 1,091 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
35
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 528 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 528 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | 241 | | | | — | | | | 241 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | | | — | | | | 147 | | | | — | | | | 147 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 308 | | | | — | | | | 308 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 6 | | | | — | | | | 6 | |
Other(2) | | | — | | | | 148 | | | | — | | | | 148 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,378 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,378 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative liabilities – commodity contracts | | $ | — | | | $ | (348 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | (348 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | (348 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | (348 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,030 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,030 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Excludes $(3) million and $7 million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
(2) | | Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
|
(3) | | NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of FTRs held by FES and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the period ending March 31, 2011:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Derivative Asset | | | Derivative Liability | | | Net | |
| | | FTRs | | | FTRs | | | FTRs | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| January 1, 2011 Balance | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 1 | |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 Balance | | $ | 1 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Ohio Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on OE’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 125 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 125 | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 6 | | | | — | | | | 6 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | 131 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 131 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 124 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 124 | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | 2 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | 126 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 126 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Excludes $(3) million and $1 million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
36
Toledo Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on TE’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 16 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 16 | |
Equity securities(3) | | | 25 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 25 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 32 | | | | — | | | | 32 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | 2 | |
Other(2) | | | — | | | | 3 | | | | — | | | | 3 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets(1) | | $ | 25 | | | $ | 53 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 78 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 7 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 7 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 33 | | | | — | | | | 33 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 1 | |
Other(2) | | | — | | | | 35 | | | | — | | | | 35 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | 76 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 76 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Excludes $(1) million and $2 million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
(2) | | Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
|
(3) | | NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
Jersey Central Power & Light Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on JCP&L’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 92 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 92 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
Derivative assets — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6 | | | | 6 | |
Equity securities(2) | | | 21 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 21 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | | | — | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 1 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 60 | | | | — | | | | 60 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 214 | | | | — | | | | 214 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 16 | | | | — | | | | 16 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 21 | | | $ | 383 | | | $ | 6 | | | $ | 410 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivative liabilities – NUG contracts(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (239 | ) | | $ | (239 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (239 | ) | | $ | (239 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | | $ | 21 | | | $ | 383 | | | $ | (233 | ) | | $ | 171 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
37
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 23 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 23 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | 2 | |
Derivative assets — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6 | | | | 6 | |
Equity securities(2) | | | 96 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 96 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 33 | | | | — | | | | 33 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 236 | | | | — | | | | 236 | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 4 | | | | — | | | | 4 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 96 | | | $ | 298 | | | $ | 6 | | | $ | 400 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivative liabilities – NUG contracts(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (233 | ) | | $ | (233 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (233 | ) | | $ | (233 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | | $ | 96 | | | $ | 298 | | | $ | (227 | ) | | $ | 167 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) | | NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) | | Excludes $(8) million and $(3) million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by JCP&L and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ending March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Derivative Asset | | | Derivative Liability | | | Net | |
| | | NUG Contracts(1) | | | NUG Contracts(1) | | | NUG Contracts(1) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| January 1, 2011 Balance | | $ | 6 | | | $ | (233 | ) | | $ | (227 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | (42 | ) | | | (42 | ) |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | — | | | | 36 | | | | 36 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 Balance | | $ | 6 | | | $ | (239 | ) | | $ | (233 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| January 1, 2010 Balance | | $ | 8 | | | $ | (399 | ) | | $ | (391 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | (1 | ) | | | 36 | | | | 35 | |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | ��� | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | (1 | ) | | | 130 | | | | 129 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 Balance | | $ | 6 | | | $ | (233 | ) | | $ | (227 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
38
Metropolitan Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on Met-Ed’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 131 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 131 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
Derivative assets — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 107 | | | | 107 | |
Equity securities(2) | | | 34 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 34 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | | | — | | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | 2 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 100 | | | | — | | | | 100 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | 2 | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 37 | | | | — | | | | 37 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 34 | | | $ | 272 | | | $ | 107 | | | $ | 413 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivative liabilities – NUG contracts(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (118 | ) | | $ | (118 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (118 | ) | | $ | (118 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | | $ | 34 | | | $ | 272 | | | $ | (11 | ) | | $ | 295 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 32 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 32 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | 5 | | | | — | | | | 5 | |
Derivative assets — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 112 | | | | 112 | |
Equity securities(2) | | | 160 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 160 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | | | — | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 1 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 88 | | | | — | | | | 88 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | 2 | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 14 | | | | — | | | | 14 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 160 | | | $ | 142 | | | $ | 112 | | | $ | 414 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivative liabilities – NUG contracts(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (116 | ) | | $ | (116 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (116 | ) | | $ | (116 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | | $ | 160 | | | $ | 142 | | | $ | (4 | ) | | $ | 298 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) | | NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) | | Excludes $(1) million and $(9) million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
39
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by Met-Ed and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ending March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Derivative Asset | | | Derivative Liability | | | Net | |
| | | NUG Contracts(1) | | | NUG Contracts(1) | | | NUG Contracts(1) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| January 1, 2011 Balance | | $ | 112 | | | $ | (116 | ) | | $ | (4 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | (2 | ) | | | (16 | ) | | | (18 | ) |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | (3 | ) | | | 14 | | | | 11 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 Balance | | $ | 107 | | | $ | (118 | ) | | $ | (11 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| January 1, 2010 Balance | | $ | 176 | | | $ | (143 | ) | | $ | 33 | |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | (59 | ) | | | (38 | ) | | | (97 | ) |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | (5 | ) | | | 65 | | | | 60 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 Balance | | $ | 112 | | | $ | (116 | ) | | $ | (4 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
Pennsylvania Electric Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on Penelec’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 70 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 70 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
Derivative assets — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4 | | | | 4 | |
Equity securities(2) | | | 20 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 20 | |
| Foreign government debt securities | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 60 | | | | — | | | | 60 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 72 | | | | — | | | | 72 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 32 | | | | — | | | | 32 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 20 | | | $ | 234 | | | $ | 4 | | | $ | 258 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivative liabilities – NUG contracts(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (122 | ) | | $ | (122 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (122 | ) | | $ | (122 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | | $ | 20 | | | $ | 234 | | | $ | (118 | ) | | $ | 136 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
40
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 | | Level 1 | | | Level 2 | | | Level 3 | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate debt securities | | $ | — | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 8 | |
| Derivative assets — commodity contracts | | | — | | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | 2 | |
Derivative assets — NUG contracts(1) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4 | | | | 4 | |
Equity securities(2) | | | 81 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 81 | |
| U.S. government debt securities | | | — | | | | 9 | | | | — | | | | 9 | |
| U.S. state debt securities | | | — | | | | 133 | | | | — | | | | 133 | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 5 | | | | — | | | | 5 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 81 | | | $ | 157 | | | $ | 4 | | | $ | 242 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivative liabilities – NUG contracts(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (117 | ) | | $ | (117 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total liabilities | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (117 | ) | | $ | (117 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net assets (liabilities)(3) | | $ | 81 | | | $ | 157 | | | $ | (113 | ) | | $ | 125 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) | | NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) | | Excludes $(15) million and $(3) million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, of receivables, payables and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG and commodity contracts held by Penelec and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ended March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Derivative Asset | | | Derivative Liability | | | Net | |
| | | NUG Contracts(1) | | | NUG Contracts(1) | | | NUG Contracts(1) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| January 1, 2011 Balance | | $ | 4 | | | $ | (117 | ) | | $ | (113 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | (30 | ) | | | (30 | ) |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | — | | | | 25 | | | | 25 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 Balance | | $ | 4 | | | $ | (122 | ) | | $ | (118 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| January 1, 2010 Balance | | $ | 16 | | | $ | (101 | ) | | $ | (85 | ) |
| Realized gain (loss) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Unrealized gain (loss) | | | (11 | ) | | | (108 | ) | | | (119 | ) |
| Purchases | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Issuances | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Sales | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Settlements | | | (1 | ) | | | 92 | | | | 91 | |
| Transfers in (out) of Level 3 | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, 2010 Balance | | $ | 4 | | | $ | (117 | ) | | $ | (113 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
41
5.7. DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS
FirstEnergy is exposed to financial risks resulting from fluctuating interest rates and commodity prices, including prices for electricity, natural gas, coal and energy transmission. To manage the volatility relating to these exposures, FirstEnergy established aFirstEnergy’s Risk Policy Committee, comprised of members of senior management, which provides general management oversight for risk management activities throughout FirstEnergy. The Risk Policy Committee is responsible for promoting the effective design and implementation of sound risk management programs and oversees compliance with corporate risk management policies and established risk management practice. FirstEnergy also uses a variety of derivative instruments for risk management purposes including forward contracts, options, futures contracts and swaps. In addition to derivatives, FirstEnergy also enters into master netting agreements with certain third parties.
FirstEnergy accounts for derivative instruments on its Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value unless they meet the normal purchases and normal sales criteria. Derivatives that meet those criteria are accounted for under the accrual method of accounting, and their effects are included in earnings at the time of contract performance. Changes in the fair value of derivative instruments that qualifyqualified and arewere designated as cash flow hedge instruments are recorded to AOCL. Changein AOCI. Changes in the fair value of derivative instruments that are not designated as cash flow hedge instruments are recorded in thenet income statement on a mark-to-market basis. FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy has these contractual derivative agreements through December 2018.2018.
Cash Flow Hedges
FirstEnergy has used cash flow hedges for risk management purposes to manage the volatility related to exposures associated with fluctuating interest rates and commodity prices. The effective portion of gains and losses on thea derivative contract are reported as a component of AOCLAOCI with subsequent reclassification to earnings in the period during which the hedged forecasted transaction affects earnings.
As of December 31, 2010, commodity derivative contracts designated in cash flow hedging relationships were $104 million of assets and $101 million of liabilities. In February 2011, FirstEnergy elected to dedesignate all outstanding cash flow hedge relationships, therefore, as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, there were no commodity derivative contracts designated in cash flow hedging relationships. Total net unamortized lossesgains included in AOCLAOCI associated with dedesignated cash flow hedges totaled $6$14 million and $19 million as of March 31, 2011.2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Since the forecasted transactions remain probable of occurring, these amounts were “frozen” in AOCL and will be amortized into earnings over the life of the hedging instruments. Reclassifications from AOCLAOCI into other operating expense totaled $5expenses were $5 million for of income and $5 million of loss during the three-monthsthree months ended March 31, 2011.2012 and 2011, respectively. Approximately $16$7 million will is expected to be amortized to earnings as expenseincome during the next twelve months.
FirstEnergy has used forward starting swap agreements to hedge a portion of the consolidated interest rate risk associated with anticipated issuances of fixed-rate, long-term debt securities of its subsidiaries. These derivatives were treated as cash flow hedges, protecting against the risk of changes in future interest payments resulting from changes in benchmark U.S. Treasury rates between the date of hedge inception and the date of the debt issuance. As of March 31, 2011, 2012, no forward starting swap agreements were outstanding. Total unamortized losses included in AOCLAOCI associated with prior interest rate cash flow hedges totaled $87$77 million ($57 million net of tax) as of March 31, 2011.2012. Based on current estimates, approximately $10$9 million will be amortized to interest expense during the next twelve months. Reclassifications from AOCLAOCI into interest expense totaled $3$2 million for and $3 million during the three-monthsthree months ended March 31, 20112012 and 2010.2011, respectively.
Fair Value Hedges
FirstEnergy has used fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements to hedge a portion of the consolidated interest rate risk associated with the debt portfolio of its subsidiaries. These derivative instruments were treated as fair value hedges of fixed-rate, long-term debt issues, protecting against the risk of changes in the fair value of fixed-rate debt instruments due to lower interest rates. As of March 31, 2011, 2012, no fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements were outstanding.
As of March 31, 2010, FirstEnergy held fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements with combined notional amounts of $950 million. The gains included in interest expense related to interest rate swaps totaled $1 million and the fair value of the derivative instruments totaled $(3) million. There was no impact on the results of operations as a result of ineffectiveness from fair value hedges.
Total unamortizedUnamortized gains included in long-term debt associated with prior fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements totaled $118$96 million ($77 million net of tax) as of March 31, 2011.2012. Based on current estimates, approximately $22$23 million will be amortized to interest expense during the next twelve months. Reclassifications from long-term debt into interest expense totaled approximately $5$6 million and $1$5 million for during the three-monthsthree months ended March 31, 20112012 and 2010,2011, respectively.
Commodity Derivatives
FirstEnergy uses both physically and financially settled derivatives to manage its exposure to volatility in commodity prices. Commodity derivatives are used for risk management purposes to hedge exposures when it makes economic sense to do so, including circumstances where the hedging relationship does not qualify for hedge accounting.
42
Electricity forwards are used to balance expected sales with expected generation and purchased power. Natural gas futures are entered into based on expected consumption of natural gas primarily natural gas usedfor use in FirstEnergy’s peaking units. Heating oil futures are entered into based on expected consumption of oil and the financial risk in FirstEnergy’s coal transportation contracts. Interest rate swaps include two interest rate swap agreements that expire during 2011 with an aggregate notional value of $200 million that were entered into during 2003 to substantially offset two existing interest rate swaps with the same counterparty. The 2003 agreements effectively locked in a net liability and substantially eliminated future income volatility from the interest rate swap positions but do not qualify for cash flow hedge accounting. Derivative instruments are not used in quantities greater than forecasted needs.
As of March 31, 2011,2012, FirstEnergy’s net liabilityasset position under commodity derivative contracts was $59$66 million, which primarily related to FES and AE Supply positions. Under these commodity derivative contracts, FES posted $120$44 million and AlleghenyAE Supply posted $1$1 million in of collateral. Certain commodity derivative contracts include credit risk related contingent features that would require FES to post $24 $16
million and AE Supply to post $3 million of additional collateral if the credit rating for its debt were to fall below investment grade.
Based on commodity derivative contracts held as of March 31, 2011,2012, an adverse 10% change in commodity prices would decrease net income by approximately $12$2 million ($7 million net of tax) during the next twelve months.
FTRs
FirstEnergy holds FTRs that generally represent an economic hedge of future congestion charges that will be incurred in connection with FirstEnergy’s load obligations. These future obligations are reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets; and have not been designated as cash flow hedge instruments. FirstEnergy acquires the majority of its FTRs in an annual auction through a self-scheduling process involving the use of auction revenue rightsARRs allocated to members of an RTO that have load serving obligations.obligations and through the direct allocation of FTRs from the PJM RTO. The PJM RTO has a rule that allows directly allocated FTRs to be granted to LSEs in zones that have newly entered PJM. For the first two planning years, PJM permits the LSEs to request a direct allocation of FTRs in these new zones at no cost as opposed to receiving ARRs. The directly allocated FTRs differ from traditional FTRs in that the ownership of all or part of the FTRs may shift to another LSE if customers choose to shop with the other LSE.
The future obligations for the FTRs acquired at auction are reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and have not been designated as cash flow hedge instruments. FirstEnergy initially records these FTRs at the FTR auction price less the obligation due to the RTO, and subsequently adjusts the carrying value of remaining FTRs to their estimated fair value at the end of each accounting period prior to settlement. Changes in the fair value of FTRs held by FirstEnergy’s unregulated subsidiaries are included in other operating expenses as unrealized gains or losses. Unrealized gains or losses on FTRs held by FirstEnergy’s regulated subsidiaries are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities. Directly allocated FTRs are accounted for under the accrual method of accounting, and their effects are included in earnings at the time of contract performance.
The following tables summarize the fair value of derivative instruments inon FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets:
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments as of March 31, 2011:| | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative Assets | | |
| | | Fair Value | | |
| | | March 31, | | December 31, | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments: | | Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments: |
| Derivative Assets | | Derivative Assets | | Derivative Liabilities |
| | | 2011 | | 2010 | | Fair Value | | | Fair Value |
| | | (In millions) | | March 31,
2012 | | December 31,
2011 | | | March 31,
2012 | | December 31,
2011 |
| | | (In millions) | | | (In millions) |
| Power Contracts | | | | | | Power Contracts | | | |
| Current Assets | | $ | 332 | | $ | 151 | | $ | 300 |
| | $ | 185 |
| | Current Liabilities | $ | (282 | ) | | $ | (196 | ) |
| Noncurrent Assets | | 192 | | 89 | | 115 |
| | 79 |
| | Noncurrent Liabilities | (66 | ) | | (51 | ) |
| FTRs | | | | | | FTRs | | | |
| Current Assets | | 1 | | — | | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | Current Liabilities | (15 | ) | | (22 | ) |
| Noncurrent Assets | | — | | — | | — |
| | — |
| | Noncurrent Liabilities | — |
| | (1 | ) |
| NUGs | | 42 | | 56 | | NUGs | (342 | ) | | (349 | ) |
| Current Assets | | 3 | | 3 | | |
| Noncurrent Assets | | 114 | | 119 | | |
| Interest Rate Swaps | | |
| Current Assets | | 4 | | — | | |
| Noncurrent Assets | | — | | — | | |
| Other | | | | | | Other | | | |
| Current Assets | | — | | 10 | | 1 |
| | — |
| | Current Liabilities | (2 | ) | | — |
|
| Noncurrent Assets | | — | | — | | — |
| | — |
| | Noncurrent Liabilities | — |
| | — |
|
| | | | | | | |
| Total Derivatives | | $ | 646 | | $ | 372 | | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total Derivatives Assets | | $ | 459 |
| | $ | 321 |
| | Total Derivatives Liabilities | $ | (707 | ) | | $ | (619 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative Liabilities | |
| | | Fair Value | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | |
| | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Power Contracts | | | | | | | | |
| Current Liabilities | | $ | 408 | | | $ | 266 | |
| Noncurrent Liabilities | | | 175 | | | | 81 | |
| FTRs | | | | | | | | |
| Current Liabilities | | | 12 | | | | — | |
| Noncurrent Liabilities | | | — | | | | — | |
| NUGs | | | | | | | | |
| Current Liabilities | | | 277 | | | | 229 | |
| Noncurrent Liabilities | | | 202 | | | | 238 | |
| Interest Rate Swaps | | | | | | | | |
| Current Liabilities | | | 5 | | | | — | |
| Noncurrent Liabilities | | | — | | | | — | |
| Other | | | | | | | | |
| Current Liabilities | | | — | | | | — | |
| Noncurrent Liabilities | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| Total Derivatives | | $ | 1,079 | | | $ | 814 | |
| | | | | | | |
43
The following table summarizes the volume ofvolumes associated with FirstEnergy’s outstanding derivative transactions as of March 31, 2011:2012:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Purchases | | | Sales | | | Net | | | Units |
| | | (In thousands) | |
| Power Contracts | | | 83,603 | | | | (100,407 | ) | | | (16,804 | ) | | MWH |
| FTRs | | | 18,199 | | | | (130 | ) | | | 18,069 | | | MWH |
| Interest Rate Swaps | | | 200,000 | | | | (200,000 | ) | | | — | | | notional dollars |
| NUGs | | | 29,824 | | | | — | | | | 29,824 | | | MWH |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | Purchases | | Sales | | Net | | Units |
| | (In millions) |
| Power Contracts | 33 |
| | 47 |
| | (14 | ) | | MWH |
| FTRs | 17 |
| | — |
| | 17 |
| | MWH |
| NUGs | 23 |
| | — |
| | 23 |
| | MWH |
| Natural Gas Futures | 11 |
| | — |
| | 11 |
| | Million British Thermal Units |
The effect of derivative instruments on the consolidated statementsConsolidated Statements of incomeIncome during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, are summarized in the following tables:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Three Months Ended March 31 |
| | Power Contracts | | FTRs | | Other | | Total |
| | (In millions) |
| Derivatives in a Hedging Relationship | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 2012 | | | | | | | |
| Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCI (Effective Portion) | $ | (5 | ) | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | (5 | ) |
| | | | | | | | |
| 2011 | | | | | | | |
| Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCI (Effective Portion) | $ | (9 | ) | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | (9 | ) |
| Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: | | | | | | | |
| Purchased Power Expense | 16 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 16 |
|
| Revenues | (12 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (12 | ) |
| Fuel Expense | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 2012 | | | | | | | |
| Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: | | | | | | | |
| Purchased Power Expense | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
|
| Other Operating Expense | 55 |
| | 5 |
| | (2 | ) | | 58 |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: | | | | | | | |
| Purchased Power Expense | (117 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (117 | ) |
| Revenues | 112 |
| | 6 |
| | — |
| | 118 |
|
| Other Operating Expense | — |
| | (24 | ) | | — |
| | (24 | ) |
| | | | | | | | |
| 2011 | | | | | | | |
| Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: | | | | | | | |
| Purchased Power Expense | $ | 29 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 29 |
|
| Other Operating Expense | (20 | ) | | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | (18 | ) |
| | | | | | | | |
| Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: | | | | | | | |
| Purchased Power Expense | (37 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (37 | ) |
| Revenue | 10 |
| | 3 |
| | (1 | ) | | 12 |
|
| Other Operating Expense | — |
| | (15 | ) | | — |
| | (15 | ) |
The unrealized and realized gains (losses) on FirstEnergy’s NUG contracts and regulated FTRs not in a hedging relationship for the three months ended March 31, 2012 were ($7) million and $3 million, respectively. The unrealized and realized gains (losses) on FirstEnergy’s NUG contracts and other derivative contracts not in a hedging relationship for the three months ended March 31, 2011 were ($17) millionand 2010,($10) million, respectively. These unrealized and realized gains (losses) on NUG contracts and regulated FTRs are summarized in the following tables:subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31, | |
| | | Power | | | | | | | Interest | | | | | | | |
| | | Contracts | | | FTRs | | | Rate Swaps | | | Other | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Derivatives in a Hedging Relationship | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2011 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) | | $ | (9 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | | — | | | $ | (9 | ) |
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Purchase Power Expense | | | 14 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14 | |
| Wholesale Revenue | | | (3 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (3 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2010 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) | | $ | (2 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3 | | | $ | 1 | |
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Purchase Power Expense | | | 2 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2 | |
| Fuel Expense | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4 | | | | 4 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2011 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Purchase Power Expense | | $ | 29 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | $ | 29 | |
| Wholesale Revenue | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Other Operating Expense | | | (20 | ) | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (19 | ) |
| |
| Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Purchase Power Expense | | | (19 | ) | | | (2 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (21 | ) |
| Wholesale Revenue | | | (2 | ) | | | — | | | | (1 | ) | | | — | | | | (3 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2010 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Purchase Power Expense | | $ | (27 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | $ | (27 | ) |
| |
| Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Purchase Power Expense | | | (25 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (25 | ) |
44
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivatives Not in a Hedging | | Three Months Ended March 31, | |
| Relationship with Regulatory Offset(2) | | NUGs | | | Other | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
2011 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Unrealized Loss to NUG Liability: | | $ | (89 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | (89 | ) |
| Unrealized Gain to Regulatory Assets: | | | 89 | | | | — | | | | 89 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Realized Gain to NUG Liability: | | | 72 | | | | — | | | | 72 | |
| Realized Loss to Regulatory Assets: | | | (72 | ) | | | — | | | | (72 | ) |
| Realized Loss to Deferred Charges | | | — | | | | (10 | ) | | | (10 | ) |
| Realized Gain to Regulatory Assets: | | | — | | | | 10 | | | | 10 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2010 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Unrealized Loss to NUG Liability: | | $ | (224 | ) | | | — | | | $ | (224 | ) |
| Unrealized Gain to Regulatory Assets: | | | 224 | | | | — | | | | 224 | |
| |
| Realized Gain to NUG Liability: | | | 78 | | | | — | | | | 78 | |
| Realized Loss to Regulatory Assets: | | | (78 | ) | | | — | | | | (78 | ) |
| Realized Loss to Deferred Charges | | | — | | | | (9 | ) | | | (9 | ) |
| Realized Gain to Regulatory Assets: | | | — | | | | 9 | | | | 9 | |
| | |
(1) | | The ineffective portion was immaterial. |
|
(2) | | Changes in the fair value of certain contracts are deferred for future recovery from (or refund to) customers. |
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of certain contracts that are deferred for future recoverrecovery from (or refundcredit to) customers.customers during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31, | |
| Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship with Regulatory Offset(1) | | NUGs | | | Other | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Outstanding net asset (liability) as of January 1, 2011 | | $ | (345 | ) | | $ | 10 | | | $ | (335 | ) |
| Additions/Change in value of existing contracts | | | (89 | ) | | | — | | | | (89 | ) |
| Settled contracts | | | 72 | | | | (10 | ) | | | 62 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Outstanding net asset (liability) as of March 31, 2011 | | $ | (362 | ) | | $ | — | | | $ | (362 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Outstanding net asset (liability) as of January 1, 2010 | | $ | (444 | ) | | $ | 19 | | | $ | (425 | ) |
| Additions/Change in value of existing contracts | | | (224 | ) | | | — | | | | (224 | ) |
| Settled contracts | | | 78 | | | | (9 | ) | | | 69 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Outstanding net asset (liability) as of March 31, 2010 | | $ | (590 | ) | | $ | 10 | | | $ | (580 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship with Regulatory Offset(1) | | NUGs | | Other | | Total |
| | | (In millions) |
| Outstanding net asset (liability) as of January 1, 2012 | | $ | (293 | ) | | $ | (8 | ) | | $ | (301 | ) |
| Additions/Change in value of existing contracts | | (79 | ) | | (1 | ) | | (80 | ) |
| Settled contracts | | 72 |
| | 4 |
| | 76 |
|
| Outstanding net asset (liability) as of March 31, 2012 | | $ | (300 | ) | | $ | (5 | ) | | $ | (305 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| Outstanding net asset (liability) as of January 1, 2011 | | $ | (345 | ) | | $ | 10 |
| | $ | (335 | ) |
| Additions/Change in value of existing contracts | | (89 | ) | | — |
| | (89 | ) |
| Settled contracts | | 72 |
| | (10 | ) | | 62 |
|
| Outstanding net asset (liability) as of March 31, 2011 | | $ | (362 | ) | | $ | — |
| | $ | (362 | ) |
| | |
(1) | | Changes in the fair value of certain contracts are deferred for future recovery from (or refundcredited to) customers. |
6. PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
8. REGULATORY MATTERS
FirstEnergy provides noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover substantially all
STATE REGULATION
Each of its employees and non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees. The plans provide defined benefits based on yearsthe Utilities' retail rates, conditions of service, and compensation levels.
FirstEnergy provides a portionissuance of non-contributory pre-retirement basic life insurance for employees who are eligible to retire. Health care benefits, which include certain employee contributions, deductibles and co-payments, are also available upon retirement to certain employees, their dependents and, under certain circumstances, their survivors. FirstEnergy also has obligations to former or inactive employees after employment, but before retirement, for disability-related benefits.
45
FirstEnergy’s funding policy is based on actuarial computations using the projected unit credit method. During the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy made a $157 million contribution to its qualified pension plans. FirstEnergy intends to make additional contributions of $220 million and $6 million to its qualified pension plans and postretirement benefit plans, respectively, in the last three quarters of 2011.
FirstEnergy measured the funded status of the Allegheny pension plans and postretirement benefit plans other than pensions as of the merger closing date using discount rates of 5.50% and 5.25%, respectively. As a result of the fair value measurement, FirstEnergy recorded accumulated benefit obligation reductions to the Allegheny pension plans and postretirement benefits other than pensions in the amount of $6 million and $2 million, respectively. The expected returns on plan assets used to calculate net period costs for the month ended March 31, 2011 was 8.25% for the Allegheny qualified pension plan and 5.00% for the Allegheny postretirement benefit plans other than pension plans.
The fair values of plan assets for Allegheny’s pension plans and postretirement benefit plans other than pensions at the date of the merger were $954 million and $75 million, respectively, and the actuarially determined benefit obligations for such plans at that date were $1,341 million and $272 million, respectively.
FirstEnergy’s net pension and OPEB expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were $28 million and $24 million, respectively. The components of FirstEnergy’s net pension and OPEB (including amounts capitalized) for the three months ended March 30, 2011 and 2010, consisted of the following:
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| Pension Benefit Cost (Credit) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Service cost | | $ | 29 | | | $ | 25 | |
| Interest cost | | | 84 | | | | 78 | |
| Expected return on plan assets | | | (102 | ) | | | (90 | ) |
| Amortization of prior service cost | | | 4 | | | | 3 | |
| Recognized net actuarial loss | | | 49 | | | | 47 | |
Curtailments (1) | | | (2 | ) | | | — | |
Special termination benefits (1) | | | 9 | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net periodic cost | | $ | 71 | | | $ | 63 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Represents costs (credits) incurred related to change in control provision payments to certain executives who were terminated or were expected to be terminated as a result of the merger. |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| Other Postretirement Benefit Cost (Credit) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Service cost | | $ | 3 | | | $ | 2 | |
| Interest cost | | | 11 | | | | 11 | |
| Expected return on plan assets | | | (10 | ) | | | (9 | ) |
| Amortization of prior service cost | | | (48 | ) | | | (48 | ) |
| Recognized net actuarial loss | | | 14 | | | | 15 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Net periodic cost | | $ | (30 | ) | | $ | (29 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
46
Pensionsecurities and other postretirement benefit obligations are allocated to FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries employing the plan participants. The net periodic pension costs and net periodic other postretirement benefit costs (including amounts capitalized) recognized by FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| Pension Benefit Cost (Credit) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| FES | | $ | 22 | | | $ | 22 | |
| OE | | | 5 | | | | 6 | |
| CEI | | | 5 | | | | 5 | |
| TE | | | 1 | | | | 2 | |
| JCP&L | | | 5 | | | | 6 | |
| Met-Ed | | | 3 | | | | 2 | |
| Penelec | | | 5 | | | | 5 | |
| Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries | | | 25 | | | | 15 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 71 | | | $ | 63 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | |
| | | March 31 | |
| Other Postretirement Benefit Cost (Credit) | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| FES | | $ | (6 | ) | | $ | (7 | ) |
| OE | | | (6 | ) | | | (6 | ) |
| CEI | | | (2 | ) | | | (1 | ) |
| TE | | | — | | | | (1 | ) |
| JCP&L | | | (2 | ) | | | (2 | ) |
| Met-Ed | | | (3 | ) | | | (2 | ) |
| Penelec | | | (3 | ) | | | (2 | ) |
| Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries | | | (8 | ) | | | (8 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | (30 | ) | | $ | (29 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
7. VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries perform qualitative analyses to determine whether a variable interest gives FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries a controlling financial interest in a VIE. This analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a VIE as the enterprise that has both the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance and the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE.
VIE’s included in FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements are: FEV’s joint venture in the Signal Peak mining and coal transportation operations; the PNBV and Shippingport bond trusts that were created to refinance debt originally issued in connection with sale and leaseback transactions; and wholly owned limited liability companies of JCP&L created to sell transition bonds to securitize the recovery of JCP&L’s bondable stranded costs associated with the previously divested Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, of which $302 million was outstanding as of March 31, 2011.
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries reflect the portion of VIEs not owned by them in the caption noncontrolling interest within the consolidated financial statements. The change in noncontrolling interest within the consolidated balance sheets is the result of net losses of the noncontrolling interests ($5 million) and distributions to owners ($3 million) for the three months ended March 31, 2011.
In order to evaluate contracts for consolidation treatment and entities for which FirstEnergy has an interest, FirstEnergy aggregated variable interests into the following categories based on similar risk characteristics and significance as follows:
47
PATH-WV
PATH, LLC was formed to construct, through its operating companies, a portion of the PATH Project, which is a high-voltage transmission line that is proposed to extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, including modifications to an existing substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland as directed by PJM. PATH, LLC is a series limited liability company that is comprised of multiple series, each of which has separate rights, powers and duties regarding specified property and the series profits and losses associated with such property. A subsidiary of AE owns 100% of the Allegheny Series and 50% of the West Virginia Series (PATH-WV), which is a joint venture with a subsidiary of AEP. FirstEnergy is not the primary beneficiary of PATH-WV, as it does not have control over the significant activities affecting the economics of the portion of the PATH Project to be constructed by PATH-WV.
Because of the nature of PATH-WV’s operations and its FERC approved rate mechanism, FirstEnergy’s maximum exposure to loss, through AE, consists of its equity investment in PATH-WV, which was $26 million at March 31, 2011.
Power Purchase Agreements
FirstEnergy evaluated its power purchase agreements and determined that certain NUG entities may be VIEs to the extent that they own a plant that sells substantially all of its output to the Utilities if the contract price for power is correlated with the plant’s variable costs of production. FirstEnergy, through its subsidiaries JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, PE, WP and MP, maintains 23 long-term power purchase agreements with NUG entities. The agreements were entered into pursuant to PURPA. FirstEnergy was not involved in the creation of, and has no equity or debt invested in, these entities.
FirstEnergy has determined that for all but four of these NUG entities, its subsidiaries do not have variable interests in the entities or the entities do not meet the criteria to be considered a VIE. JCP&L, PE and WP may hold variable interests in the remaining four entities; however, FirstEnergy applied the scope exception that exempts enterprises unable to obtain the necessary information to evaluate entities.
Because JCP&L, PE and WP have no equity or debt interests in the NUG entities, their maximum exposure to loss relates primarily to the above-market costs incurred for power. FirstEnergy expects any above-market costs incurred by its subsidiaries to be recovered from customers. Purchased power costs related to the four contracts that may contain a variable interest that were held by FirstEnergy subsidiaries during the three months ended March 31, 2011, were $65 million, $11 million and $5 million for JCP&L, PE and WP, respectively. Purchased power costs related to the two contracts that may contain a variable interest that were held by JCP&L during the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $64 million.
In 1998 the PPUC issued an order approving a transition plan for WP that disallowed certain costs, including an estimated amount for an adverse power purchase commitment related to the NUG entity that WP may hold a variable interest, for which WP has taken the scope exception. As of March 31, 2011, WP’s reserve for this adverse purchase power commitment was $61 million, including a current liability of $18 million, and is being amortized over the life of the commitment.
Loss Contingencies
FirstEnergy has variable interests in certain sale-leaseback transactions. FirstEnergy is not the primary beneficiary of these interests as it does not have control over the significant activities affecting the economics of the arrangement.
48
FES and the Ohio Companies are exposed to losses under their applicable sale-leaseback agreements upon the occurrence of certain contingent events. The maximum exposure under these provisions represents the net amount of casualty value payments due upon the occurrence of specified casualty events. Net discounted lease payments would not be payable if the casualty loss payments were made. The following table discloses each company’s net exposure to loss based upon the casualty value provisions mentioned above as of March 31, 2011:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Maximum | | | Discounted Lease | | | Net | |
| | | Exposure | | | Payments, net(1) | | | Exposure | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| FES | | $ | 1,376 | | | $ | 1,187 | | | $ | 189 | |
| OE | | | 644 | | | | 485 | | | | 159 | |
CEI(2) | | | 664 | | | | 68 | | | | 596 | |
TE(2) | | | 664 | | | | 351 | | | | 313 | |
| | |
(1) | | The net present value of FirstEnergy’s consolidated sale and leaseback operating lease commitments is $1.7 billion. |
|
(2) | | CEI and TE are jointly and severally liable for the maximum loss amounts under certain sale-leaseback agreements. |
8. INCOME TAXES
FirstEnergy accounts for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in its financial statements. Accounting guidance prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for financial statement recognition and measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken on a company’s tax return. As a result of the merger with Allegheny in the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy’s unrecognized tax benefits increased by $97 million. There were no other material changes to FirstEnergy’s unrecognized tax benefits during the first three months of 2011. After reaching a tentative agreement with the IRS on a tax item at appeals related to the capitalization of certain costs in the first quarter of 2010, FirstEnergy reduced the amount of unrecognized tax benefits by $57 million, with a corresponding adjustment to accumulated deferred income taxes for this temporary tax item. There was no impact on FirstEnergy’s effective tax rate for this tax item in the first three months of 2010.
As of March 31, 2011, it is reasonably possible that approximately $48 million of unrecognized benefits may be resolved within the next twelve months, of which approximately $6 million, if recognized, would affect FirstEnergy’s effective tax rate. The potential decrease in the amount of unrecognized tax benefits is primarily associated with issues related to the capitalization of certain costs and various state tax items.
FirstEnergy recognizes interest expense or income related to uncertain tax positions. That amount is computed by applying the applicable statutory interest rate to the difference between the tax position recognized and the amount previously taken or expected to be taken on the tax return. FirstEnergy includes net interest and penalties in the provision for income taxes. During the first three months of 2011, there were no material changes to the amount of accrued interest, except for a $6 million increase in accrued interest from Allegheny. The reversal of accrued interest associated with the $57 million in recognized tax benefits in 2010 favorably affected FirstEnergy’s effective tax rate by $5 million in the first quarter of 2010. The net amount of interest accrued as of March 31, 2011 was $10 million, compared with $3 million as of December 31, 2010.
As a result of the non-deductible portion of merger transaction costs, FirstEnergy’s effective tax rate was unfavorably impacted by $30 million in the first quarter of 2011.
As a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act signed into law in March 2010, beginning in 2013 the tax deduction available to FirstEnergy will be reduced to the extent that drug costs are reimbursed under the Medicare Part D retiree subsidy program. As retiree healthcare liabilities and related tax impacts under prior law were already reflected in FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements, the change resulted in a charge to FirstEnergy’s earnings in the first quarter of 2010 of approximately $13 million and a reduction in accumulated deferred tax assets associated with these subsidies. That charge reflected the anticipated increase in income taxes that will occur as a result of the change in tax law.
Allegheny recorded as deferred income tax assets the effect of net operating losses and tax credits that will more likely than not be realized through future operations and through the reversal of existing temporary differences. The tax effected net operating loss carryforwards consisted of $152 million of state net operating loss carryforwards that expire from 2019 through 2029 and $53 million of federal net operating loss carryforwards that expire from 2023 to 2029. Federal Alternative Minimum Tax credits of $25 million have an indefinite carryforward period.
Allegheny is currently under audit by the IRS for tax years 2007 and 2008. The 2009 federal return was filed and is subject to review. State tax returns for tax years 2006 through 2009 remain subject to review in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia for certain subsidiaries of AE. FirstEnergy has tax returns that are under review at the audit or appeals level by the IRS (2008-2010) and state tax authorities. Tax returns for all state jurisdictions are open from 2006-2009. The IRS began auditing the year 2008 in February 2008 and the audit was completed in July 2010 with one item under appeal. The 2009 tax year audit began in February 2009 and the 2010 tax year audit began in February 2010. Management believes that adequate reserves have been recognized and final settlement of these audits is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy’s financial condition or results of operations.
49
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 March 31, 2011, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $3.8 billion, consisting primarily of parental guarantees ($0.8 billion), subsidiaries’ guarantees ($2.6 billion), 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 views as remote the likelihood that such parental guarantees of $0.2 billion (included in the $0.8 billion discussed above) as of March 31, 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 March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy’s maximum exposure under these collateral provisions was $557 million, consisting of $433 million due to a below investment grade credit rating (of which $184 million is due to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation) and $124 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 $623 million, consisting of $494 million due to a below investment grade credit rating (of which $184 million is related to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation) and $129 million due to “material adverse event” contractual clauses.
Most of FirstEnergy’s surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $138 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 portfolio as of March 31, 2011 and forward prices as of that date, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of $158 million and $5 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 $52 million of collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required to be posted.
In connection with FES’ obligations to post and maintain collateral under the two-year PSA entered into by FES and the Ohio Companies following the CBP auction on May 13-14, 2009, NGC entered into a Surplus Margin Guaranty in an amount up to $500 million. The Surplus Margin Guaranty is secured by an NGC FMB issued in favor of the Ohio Companies.
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 will 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. 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.
50
(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.
The Sammis, Eastlake and Mansfield coal-fired plants are operated under a consent decree with the EPA and DOJ that requires reductions of NOx and SO2 emissions through the installation of pollution control devices or repowering. OE and Pennmatters are subject to stipulated penalties for failure to install and operate such pollution controlsregulation in accordance with that agreement.
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 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 Generation Station based on “modifications” dating back to 1986 and also alleged NSR violations at the Keystone and Shawville Stations based on “modifications” dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L, as the former owner of 16.67% of the Keystone Station, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of the Shawville Station, 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 Homer City Power Station 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 the Homer City Power Station containing in all material respects allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission, Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station a notification that was required 60 days prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA. 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 the Homer City Power Station 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 the Homer City Station, 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 the Homer City Station’s air emissions as well as certification as a class action and to enjoin the Homer City Station 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 the Homer City Station seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. Mission is seeking indemnification from Penelec, the co-owner and operator of the Homer City Power Station prior to its sale in 1999. 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.
51
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 generating 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 generating 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 the Eastlake generating plant. 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 a letter from the EPA requesting that it provide information and documentation relevant to the operation and maintenance of the following ten electric generation facilities, which collectively include 22 generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfield’s Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island. The letter requested information under Section 114 of the CAA 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 facilities: 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 generation facilities 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 facilities in Pennsylvania. On January 17, 2006, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. In May 2006, the District Court denied Allegheny’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2006, the Court determined that discovery would proceed regarding liability issues, but not remedies. Discovery on the liability phase closed on December 31, 2007, and summary judgment briefing was completed during the first quarter of 2008. In November 2008, the District Court issued a Memorandum Order denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. In December 2009, a new trial judge was assigned to the case, who then entered an order granting a motion to reconsider the rulings in the November 2008 Memorandum Order. In April 2010, the new judge issued an opinion, again denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. The 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 generation facilities in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island generation facilities 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 NOX, requires mercury emission reductions and mandates that Maryland join the RGGI and participate in that coalition’s regional efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland became the 10th state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith power station for NOX, SO2 and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the station 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 NOX and SO2 limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% 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.
52
In January 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at Allegheny’s Pleasants generating facility. 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 2010, the EPA proposed the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) to replace CAIR, which remains in effect until the EPA finalizes CATR. CATR requires reductions of NOx and SO2 emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.6 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. The EPA proposed a preferred regulatory approach that allows trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and severely limits interstate trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances. The EPA also requested comment on two alternative approaches—the first eliminates interstate trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances and the second eliminates trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances in its entirety. Depending on the actions taken by the EPA with respect to CATR, the proposed MACT regulations discussed below and any future regulations that are ultimately implemented, FGCO’s future cost of compliance may be substantial. Management is currently assessing the impact of these environmental proposals and other factors on FGCO’s facilities, particularly on the operation of its smaller, non-supercritical units. For example, as disclosed herein, management decided to idle certain units or operate them on a seasonal basis until developments clarify.
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 (CO2e) 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.
53
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. Oral argument was held on April 19, 2011, and a decision is expected by July 2011. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, FirstEnergy and/or one or more of its subsidiaries could be named in actions making similar allegations.
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 FirstEnergyit operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy’s operations.
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). 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. 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 Bay Shore power 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 takenMaryland 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 OfficeMDPSC, 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.
54
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 generation facility. 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 on September 13, 2011. 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. EPA has not acted on PA DEP’s recommendation. If the designation is approved, Pennsylvania will then need to develop a TMDL limit for the river, a process that will take about 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.
55
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 March 31, 2011, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Utility Registrants proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $104 million (JCP&L — $69 million, TE — $1 million, CEI — $1 million, FGCO — $1 million and FirstEnergy — $32 million) have been accrued through March 31, 2011. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $64 million for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder facilitiesPUCO, in New Jersey which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC.
(C) OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Power Outagesthe NJBPU, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC 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 CourtYork by the NYPSC. The transmission operations of PE in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages dueVirginia are subject to certain regulations of the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs’ claims for consumer fraud, commonVSCC. In addition, under Ohio law, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breachmunicipalities may regulate rates 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 leavepublic utility, subject 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 havePUCO if not taken 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 March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy had approximately $2 billion invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. FirstEnergy provides an additional $15 million parental guarantee associated with the funding of decommissioning costs for these units. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental guarantee, as appropriate. The values of FirstEnergy’s nuclear decommissioning trusts 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 nuclear decommissioning trusts. The NRC issued guidance anticipating an increase in low-level radioactive waste disposal costs associated with the decommissioning of FirstEnergy’s nuclear facilities. On March 28, 2011, FENOC submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning fundingacceptable 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. This estimate encompasses the shortfall covered by the existing $15 million parental guarantee. FENOC agreedutility.
MARYLAND
PE provides SOS pursuant to increase the parental guarantee to $95 million within 90 days of the submittal.
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, the 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 regarding (1) a combination of renewable alternatives to the renewal of Davis-Besse’s operating license,settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and (2) the cost of mitigating a severe accident at Davis-Besse. FENOCregulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is currently evaluating these developments and considering an appropriate response. On April 14, 2011, a group of environmental organizations petitioned the NRC Commissioners to suspend all pending nuclear license renewal proceedings, including the Davis-Besse proceeding, to ensure that any safety and environmental implications of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station event in Japan are considered.
In January 2004, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy filed a lawsuitcompetitively procured in the U.S. Courtform of Federal Claims seeking damages in connection with costs incurred at the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry Nuclear facilities as a resultrolling contracts of the DOE failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on January 31, 1998. DOE was required to so commence accepting spent nuclear fuelvarying lengths through periodic auctions overseen by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 USC 10101 et seq)MDPSC 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.third party monitor. The damage claim is subject to review and audit by DOE.
56
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.
10. REGULATORY MATTERS
(A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVES
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, FGCO, FENOC, and ATSI and TrAIL Company. The NERC, as the ERO is charged with establishing and enforcing these reliability standards, although it has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirstCorporation. All of FirstEnergy’s facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirstregion. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and ReliabilityFirststakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirstCorporation.
FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such items are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the item and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an item to ReliabilityFirst. Moreover, it is clear that the NERC, ReliabilityFirstand the FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time; however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the new reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on FirstEnergy’s part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&L’s Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&L’s contribution to the electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what actions, if any, that the NERC may takesettlements with respect to this matter.
On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported to ReliabilityFirsta vegetation encroachment event on a Met-Ed 230 kV line. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirstissued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirston September 27, 2010. In March 2011, ReliabilityFirstsubmitted its proposed findings and settlement. At this time, FirstEnergy is evaluating ReliabilityFirst’s proposal and is unable to predict the final outcome of this investigation.
Allegheny has been subject to routine audits with respect to its compliance with applicable reliability standards and has settled certain related issues. In addition, ReliabilityFirstis currently conducting certain violation investigations with regard to matters of compliance by Allegheny.
57
(B) MARYLAND
In 1999, Maryland adopted electric industry restructuring legislation, which gave PE’s Maryland retail electricresidential SOS for PE customers the right to choose their electricity generation suppliers. PE remained obligated to provide standard offer generation service (SOS) at capped rates to residential and non-residential customers for various periods. The longest such period, for residential customers, expiredexpire on December 31, 2008.2012, but by statute service will continue in the same manner unless changed by order of the MDPSC. The settlement provisions relating to non-residential service have expired but, by MDPSC order, the terms of service remain in place unless PE implementedrequests or the MDPSC orders a rate stabilization plan in 2007 that was designed to transition customers from capped generation rates to rates based on market prices and that concluded on December 31, 2010. PE’s transmission and distribution rates for all customers are subject to traditional regulated utility ratemaking (i.e., cost-based rates).
By statute enacted in 2007, the obligation of Maryland utilities to provide SOS to residential and small commercial customers, in exchange for recovery of theirchange. PE recovers its costs plus a reasonable profit, was extended indefinitely. The legislation also established a five-year cycle (to begin in 2008)return for the MDPSC to report to the legislature on the status ofproviding SOS. In August 2007, PE filed a plan for seeking bids to serve its Maryland residential load for the period after the expiration of rate caps. The MDPSC approved the plan and PE now conducts rolling auctions to procure the power supply necessary to serve its customer load. However, the terms on which PE will provide SOS to residential customers after the settlement beyond 2012 will depend on developments with respect to SOS in Maryland between now and then, including but not limited to possible MDPSC decisions in the proceedings discussed below.
The MDPSC opened a new docket in August 2007 to consider matters relating to possible “managed portfolio” approaches to SOS and other matters. “Phase II” of the case addressed utility purchases or construction of generation, bidding for procurement of demand response resources and possible alternatives if the TrAIL and PATH projects were delayed or defeated. It is unclear when the MDPSC will issue its findings in this and other SOS-related pending proceedings discussed below.
InOn September 29, 2009, the MDPSC opened a new proceeding to receive and consider proposals for construction of new generation resources in Maryland. In December 2009, Governor Martin O’MalleyO'Malley filed a letter in this proceeding in which he characterized the electricity market in Maryland as a “failure” and urged the MDPSC to use its existing authority to order the construction of new generation in Maryland, vary the means used by utilities to procure generation and include more renewables in the generation mix. In August 2010, the MDPSC opened another new proceeding to solicit comments on the PJM RPM process. Public hearings on the comments were held in October 2010. In December 2010, the MDPSC issued an order soliciting comments on a model request for proposalRFP for solicitation of long-term energy commitments by Maryland electric utilities. PE and numerous other parties filed comments, and at this time no further proceedings have been set by the MDPSC in this matter.
In September 2007,subsequently the MDPSC issued an order that requiredrequiring the Maryland utilities to file detailed plans for how they will meetissue the “EmPOWER Maryland” proposalRFP crafted by the MDPSC. The RFPs were issued by the utilities as ordered by the MDPSC. The order, as amended, indicated that inbids were due by January 20, 2012, and that the MDPSC would be the entity evaluating all bids.On April 12, 2012, the MDPSC issued an order requiring certain Maryland electric consumptionutilities, but not PE, to enter into a contract for differences, an electricity hedging arrangement, with respect to a 661 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle generation plant to be reduced by 10% and electricity demand be reduced by 15%,built in each case by 2015. In October 2007, PE filed its initial report on energy efficiency, conservation and demand reduction plans in connection with this order. The MDPSC conducted hearings on PE’s and other utilities’ plans in November 2007 and May 2008.Charles County, Maryland.
In a related development, the
The Maryland legislature in 2008 adopted a statute codifying the EmPOWER Maryland goals.goals to reduce electric consumption by10%and reduce electricity demand by15%, in each case by 2015. In 2008, PE filed its comprehensive plans for attempting to achieve those goals, asking the MDPSC to approve programs for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers, as well as a customer education program, and a pilot deployment of Advanced Utility Infrastructure (AUI) that Allegheny had previously tested in West Virginia.program. The MDPSC ultimately approved the programs in August 2009 after certain modifications had been made as required by the MDPSC, and approved cost recovery for the programs in October 2009. Expenditures were estimated to be approximately $101$101 millionfor the PE programs for the period of 2009 to 2015 and would be recovered over thatsix-year period. Maryland law only allows for the following six years. The AUI pilot was placed onutility to recover lost distribution revenue attributable to the energy efficiency or demand reduction programs through a separate trackbase rate case proceeding, and to be re-examineddate such recovery has not been sought or obtained by PE. Meanwhile, after further discussion with the Staff of the MDPSC and other stakeholders. Meanwhile, extensive meetings with the MDPSC Staff and other stakeholders, to discuss details of PE’sPE's plans for additional and improved programs for the period 2012-2014 beganwere filed on August 31, 2011. The MDPSC held hearings on PE and the other utilities' plans in April 2011.
In March 2009, the Maryland PSCOctober 2011, and on December 22, 2011, issued an order suspending until further notice the right of all electricapproving PE's plan with various modifications and gas utilities in the statefollow-up assignments.
Pursuant to terminate service to residential customers for non-payment of bills. The MDPSC subsequently issued an order making various rule changes relating to terminations, payment plans, and customer deposits that make it more difficult for Maryland utilities to collect deposits or to terminate service for non-payment. PE and several other utilities filed requests for reconsideration of various parts of the order, which were denied. The MDPSC is continuing to conduct hearings and collect data on payment plan and related issues and has adopted a set of proposed regulations that expand the summer and winter “severe weather” termination moratoria when temperatures are very high or very low, from one day, as providedbill passed by statute, to three days on each occurrence.
58
On March 24, 2011, the MDPSC held an initial hearing to discuss possible new regulations relating to service interruptions, storm response, call center metrics, and related reliability standards. The proposed rules included provisions for civil penalties for non-compliance. Numerous parties filed comments on the proposed rules and participated in the hearing, with many noting issues of cost and practicality relating to implementation. Concurrently, the Maryland legislature, is considering a bill addressing the same topics. The final bill passed on April 11, 2011, requires the MDPSC proposed rules, based on the product of a working group of
utilities, regulators, and other interested stakeholders, that create specific requirements related to promulgate rules by July 1, 2012 thata utility's obligation to address service interruptions, downed wire response, customer communication, vegetation management, equipment inspection, and annual reporting. In crafting the regulations,The bill requires that the MDPSC is directed to consider cost-effectiveness, and provides that the MDPSC may adopt different standards for different utilities based on such factors as system design and existing infrastructure, geography, and customer density. Beginning in July 2013, the MDPSC is required to assess each utility’sutility's compliance with the standards,new rules, and may assess penalties of up to $25,000 $25,000per day per violation. TheFurther comments were filed regarding the proposed rules on March 26, 2012, and at a hearing on April 17, 2012, the MDPSC has ordered that a working group of utilities, regulators, and other interested stakeholders meet to address the topicsapproved re-publication of the proposed rules.rules as final.
In December 2009, PE filed an application with
NEW JERSEY
JCP&L currently provides BGS for retail customers that do not choose a third party electric generation supplier and for customers of third party electric generation suppliers, that fail to provide the MDPSCcontracted service. The supply for authorization to construct the Maryland portions of the PATH Project to be owned by PATH Allegheny Maryland Transmission Company, LLC,BGS, which is ownedcomprised of two components, is provided through contracts procured through separate, annually held descending clock auctions, the results of which are approved by Potomac Edisonthe NJBPU. One BGS component and PATH-Allegheny. On February 28, 2011, PE withdrew its application. See “Transmission Expansion”auction, reflecting hourly real time energy prices, is available for larger commercial and industrial customers. The other BGS component and auction, providing a fixed price service, is intended for smaller commercial and residential customers. All New Jersey EDCs participate in the Federal Regulationthis competitive BGS procurement process and Rate Matters section for further discussion of this matter.
(C) NEW JERSEY
JCP&L is permitted to defer for future collectionrecover BGS costs directly from customers as a charge separate from base rates. The most recent BGS auction results, for supply commencing June 1, 2012, were approved by the amounts by which its costs of supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUG rates and market sales of NUG energy and capacity. As of March 31,NJBPU on February 9, 2012.
On September 8, 2011, the accumulated deferred cost balance was a creditDivision of approximately $102 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, in July 2010, JCP&LRate Counsel filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by $180 million annually, which the NJBPU approved, allowing the change in rates to become effective March 1, 2011.
In March 2009 and again in February 2010, JCP&L filed annual SBC PetitionsPetition with the NJBPU asserting that includedit has reason to believe that JCP&L is earning an unreasonable return on its New Jersey jurisdictional rate base. The Division of Rate Counsel requested that the NJBPU order JCP&L to file a requested zero levelbase rate case petition so that the NJBPU may determine whether JCP&L's current rates for electric service are just and reasonable. JCP&L filed an answer to the Petition stating, inter alia, that the Division of recoveryRate Counsel analysis upon which it premises its Petition contains errors and inaccuracies, that JCP&L's achieved return on equity is currently within a reasonable range, and that there is no reason for the NJBPU to require JCP&L to file a base rate case at this time. On November 30, 2011, the NJBPU ordered that the matter be assigned to the NJBPU President to act as presiding officer to, among other things, set and modify the schedule, decide upon motions, and otherwise control the conduct of TMI-2 decommissioning costs basedthis case, subject to subsequent NJBPU ratification.The schedule in the proceeding provides for briefs to be filed by the parties, the initial brief was filed by the parties on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). Both matters are currently pending beforeApril 26, 2012. A decision is expected to be issued in June 2012. JCP&L is unable to predict the NJBPU.outcome of this matter or estimate any possible loss or range of loss.
(D) OHIO
Pursuant to a formal Notice issued by the NJBPU on September 14, 2011, public hearings were held to solicit comments regarding the state of preparedness and responsiveness of the EDCs prior to, during, and after Hurricane Irene, with additional hearings held in October 2011. Additionally, the NJBPU accepted written comments through October 31, 2011 related to this inquiry. On December 14, 2011, the NJBPU Staff filed a report of its preliminary findings and recommendations with respect to the electric utility companies' planning and response to Hurricane Irene and the October 2011 snowstorm. The NJBPU selected a consultant to further review and evaluate the New Jersey EDCs' preparation and restoration efforts with respect to Hurricane Irene and the October 2011 snowstorm, and the report of the consultant is due to be submitted to the NJBPU in July 2012.The NJBPU has not indicated what additional action, if any, may be taken as a result of information obtained through this process.
OHIO
The Ohio Companies operate under an ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, that provides for generation supplied through a CBP. The ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the Ohio Companies through the May 2009 CBP. The PUCO approved a $136.6 million distribution rate increase for the Ohio Companies in January 2009, which went into effect on January 23, 2009 for OE ($68.9 million) and TE ($38.5 million) and on May 1, 2009 for CEI ($29.2 million).
In March 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP, which the PUCO approved in August 2010, with certain modifications. The new ESP will go into effect on June 1, 2011 and conclude on May 31, 2014. The material terms of the new ESP include:
generation supplied through a CBP similar to the one used in May 2009 and the one proposed on the October 2009 MRO filing (initial auctions held on October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); commencing June 1, 2011;
a load cap of no less than80%, so that no single supplier is awarded more than80%of the tranches, which also applies to tranches assigned post-auction;
a6%generation discount to certain low income customers provided by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES; FES (FES is one of the wholesale suppliers to the Ohio Companies);
no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; and
a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR),DCR, to recover a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery system. Rider DCR substitutes for Rider DSI which terminates under the current ESP.
The Ohio Companies also agreed not to recover from retail customers certain costs related to the companies’transmission cost allocations by PJM as a result of ATSI's integration into PJM for the longer of the five-year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 20152016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360$360 milliondependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, agreed to establish a $12$12 million fund fund to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP and agreed to additional matters related to energy efficiency and alternative energy requirements. Many
The Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO to essentially extend their current ESP for two more years. The Ohio Companies requested PUCO approval by May 2, 2012, so that they may bid megawatts of PJM-qualified energy efficiency and demand response resources into the May 7, 2012, PJM capacity auction for the 2015-2016 planning year or in the alternate by June 20, 2012, which would allow adequate time to implement changes to the bidding schedule to capture a greater amount of generation at historically lower prices for the benefit of customers. The PUCO has set an evidentiary hearing for May 21, 2012; therefore approval by May 2, 2012, is not expected.
As proposed, the extended ESP would maintain the substantial benefits from the current ESP including:
Freezing current base distribution rates through May 31, 2016;
Continuing to provide economic development and assistance to low-income customers for the two-year extension period at the levels established in the existing ESP;
Providing Percentage of Income Payment Plan customers with a 6 percent generation rate discount;
Continuing to provide capacity to shopping and non-shopping customers at a market-based price set through an auction process; and
Continuing Rider DCR that allows continued investment in the distribution system for the benefit of customers.
As proposed, the extended ESP would provide additional new benefits, including:
Securing generation supply over a longer period of time to mitigate any potential price spikes for FirstEnergy Ohio utility customers who do not switch to a competitive generation supplier; and
Extending the recovery period for costs associated with purchasing renewable energy credits mandated by SB 221 through the end of the existing riders approved in the previous ESP remain in effect, with some modifications. The new ESP resolved proceedings pending atperiod. This will reduce the monthly renewable energy charge for all FirstEnergy Ohio utility customers.
The filing is supported by19parties including: Industrial Energy Users, Ohio Energy Group, PUCO regarding corporate separation, elementsStaff, the City of Akron, Ohio Manufacturers Association, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, and the smart grid proceeding and expenses related to the ESP.Council of Smaller Enterprises (COSE).
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent toof approximately166,000MWH in 2009,290,000MWH in 2010,410,000MWH in 2011,470,000MWH in 2012 and530,000MWH in 2013, with additional savings required through 2025. Utilities arewere also required to reduce peak demand in 2009 by1%, with an additional0.75% reduction reduction each year thereafter through 2018.
59
In December 2009, the Ohio Companies filed thetheirthree-year portfolio plan, as required three year portfolio planby SB221, seeking approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable from customers. The PUCO issued an Opinion and Order generally approving the Ohio Companies’ 3-yearCompanies'three-year plan andwhich provides for recovery of all costs associated with the programs, including lost revenues. The Ohio Companies are in the process of implementing those programs included in the Plan. Because ofplan, and requested that the delay in issuingPUCO amend the Order, the launch of the programs included in the plan for 2010 was delayed and will launch during the second quarter of this year. As a result, OE fell short of its statutory 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks. Therefore, on January 11,On May 19, 2011, it requested that itsthe PUCO granted the request to reduce the 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks be amendedreductions to actual levelsthe level achieved in 2010. Moreover, because2010 for OE, while finding that the PUCO indicated, when approving the 2009 benchmark request, that it would modify the Companies’ 2010 (and 2011issue was moot for CEI and 2012) energy efficiency benchmarks when addressing the portfolio plan, theTE. The Ohio Companies were not certain of their 2010 energy efficiency obligations. Therefore, CEI and TE (each offiled an application for rehearing, which achieved its 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction statutory benchmarks) also requested an amendment if and only to the degree one was deemed necessary to bring these them into compliance with their yet-to-be-defined modified benchmarks.later denied. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may subject the Ohio Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a penalty. In addition to approving the programs included in the plan, with only minor modifications, the PUCO authorized the Companies to recover all costs related to the original CFL program that the Ohio Companies had previously suspended at the request ofpenalty by the PUCO. Applications for Rehearing were filed by the Ohio Companies, Ohio Energy Group and Nucor Steel Marion, Inc. on April 22, 2011, regarding portions of the PUCO’sPUCO's decision related to the Ohio Companies'threeyear portfolio plan, including the method for calculating savings and certain changes made by the PUCO to specific programs. The PUCO denied those applications for rehearing, and in that entry included a new standard for compliance with the statutory energy efficiency benchmarks by requiring electric distribution companies to offer “all available cost effective energy efficiency opportunities” regardless of their level of compliance with the benchmarks as set forth in the statute. The Ohio Companies, the Industrial Energy Users - Ohio, and the Ohio Energy Group filed applications for rehearing, arguing that the PUCO's new standard is unlawful. The Ohio Companies also asked the PUCO to withdraw its amendment of CEI's and TE's 2010 energy efficiency benchmarks. The PUCO did not rule on the Applications for Rehearing within thirty days, thus denying them by operation of law. On December 30, 2011, the Ohio Companies filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, challenging the PUCO's new standard. On March 2, 2012, the PUCO moved to dismiss the Companies' appeal. The Companies filed their Memorandum in Opposition to the PUCO's Motion, along with their merit brief on March 9, 2012. The PUCO filed its brief on April 27, 2012. The Company now has twenty days to file its reply brief. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
Additionally, under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve part of their load in 2011 from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25%1.00%of the average of the KWH they served in 2009.2008-2010; in 2012 from renewable energy resources equivalent to1.50%of the average of the KWH they served in 2009-2011; and in 2013 from renewable energy resources equivalent to2.00%of the average of the KWH they served in 2010-2012. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RFPs sought RECs, including solar RECs and RECs generated in Ohio in order to meet the Ohio Companies’ alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The RECs acquired through thesetwoRFPs were used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In March 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. The PUCO reduced the Ohio Companies’ aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies acquired through their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Ohio Companies’ 2010 alternative energy requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO granted FES’ force majeure request for 2009 and increased its 2010 benchmark by the amount of SRECs that FES was short of in its 2009 benchmark. In July 2010, the Ohio Companies initiated an additional RFP to secure RECs and solar RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies’ alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for 2010 and 2011 and executed related contracts in August 2010. On April 15, 2011, the Ohio Companies filed an application seeking an amendmentconducted two RFP processes to each of their 2010obtain RECs to meet the statutory benchmarks for 2011 and beyond. On September 20, 2011 the PUCO opened a new docket to review the Ohio Companies' alternative energy requirements for solar RECs generated in Ohio on the basis that an insufficient quantity of solar resources are available in the market but reflecting solar RECs that they have obtained and providing additional information regarding efforts to secure solar RECs.recovery rider. The PUCO has not yet acted on that application.
In February 2010, OEselected auditors to perform a financial and CEIa management audit, and final audit reports are currently scheduled to be filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for all-electric customers.by May 15, 2012. In March 2010,2012, the PUCO orderedOhio Companies conducted an RFP process to obtain SRECs to help meet the statutory benchmarks for 2012 and beyond. With the successful completion of this RFP, the Ohio Companies have achieved their in-state solar compliance requirements for 2012.
PENNSYLVANIA
The Pennsylvania Companies currently operate under DSPs that ratesexpire May 31, 2013, and provide for the affectedcompetitive procurement of generation supply for customers be set atthat do not choose an alternative electric generation supplier or for customers of alternative electric generation suppliers that fail to provide the contracted service. The default service supply is currently provided by wholesale suppliers through a levelmix of long-term and short-term contracts procured through descending clock auctions, competitive requests
for proposals and spot market purchases. On November 17, 2011, ME, PN, Penn and WP filed a Joint Petition for Approval of their DSP that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31, 2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect in March 2010. In April 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers tomethod by which the new credit would apply and authorized deferralPennsylvania Companies will procure the supply for their default service obligations for the associated additional amounts. The PUCO also stated that it expected thatperiod June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2015. A final order must be entered by the new credit would remain in place through at least the 2011 winter season, and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the issue. Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect in May 2010 and the proceeding remains open. The hearing on the matter was held in February 2011. The matter has now been briefed and the Ohio Companies await the PUCO’s decision.
60
(E) PENNSYLVANIAPPUC by August 17, 2012.
The PPUC entered an Order on March 3, 2010 that denied the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and directed Met-EdME and PenelecPN to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and instructed Met-Ed and PenelecTSC. Pursuant to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation toplan approved by the PPUC, regardingME and PN began to refund those amounts to customers in January 2011, and the establishment ofrefunds are continuing over a separate account29 month period until the full amounts previously recovered for all marginal transmission losses collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases beginning January 1, 2011. In March 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff supplements to end collection of costs for marginal transmission losses. The PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUC’s order, Met-Ed and Penelec filed plans to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and carrying charges and for the use of these funds to mitigate future generation rate increases which the PPUC approved.are refunded. In April 2010, Met-EdME and PenelecPN filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUC’sPPUC's March 3, 2010 Order. The argument beforeOn June 14, 2011, the Commonwealth Court en banc, was held in December 2010. Althoughissued an opinion and order affirming the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, Met-Ed and Penelec believePPUC's Order to the extent that they should prevail in the appealit holds that line loss costs are not transmission costs and, therefore, expect to fully recover the approximately $252.7$254 million ($188.0 million for Met-Ed and $64.7 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses and associated carrying charges for the period prior to January 1, 2011.2011, are not recoverable under ME and PN TSC riders. ME and PN filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and also a complaint seeking relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which was subsequently amended. The PPUC filed a Motion to Dismiss ME and PN Amended Complaint on September 15, 2011 to which ME and PN responded and which remains pending.On February 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the Petition for Allowance of Appeal.
In each of May 2008, May 2009 and May 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Ed’sME's and Penelec’sPN's annual updates to their TSC rider for the annual periods between June 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010, including marginal transmission losses as approved by the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal transmission losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The PPUC’sPPUC's approval in May 2010 authorized an increase to the TSC for Met-Ed’sME's customers to provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010.
Met-Ed Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, ME and Penelec filed withPN believe that they should ultimately prevail through the PPUC a generation procurement plan coveringjudicial process and therefore expect to fully recover the period January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service through a prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply with a staggered procurement schedule that varies by customer class, using a descending clock auction. In August 2009, the parties to the proceeding filed a settlement agreement of all but two issues, and the PPUC entered an Order approving the settlement and the generation procurement plan approximately$254 millionin November 2009. Generation procurement began in January 2010.
In February 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Planmarginal transmission losses for the period Juneprior to January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. In July 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues. Although the PPUC’s Order approving the Joint Petition held that the provisions relating to the recovery of MISO exit fees and one-time PJM integration costs (resulting from Penn’s June 1, 2011 exit from MISO and integration into PJM) were approved, it made such provisions subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Therefore, Penn may not put these provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and PJM integration costs.2011.
Pennsylvania adopted Act 129 in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction; generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other things, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load reduction plan or EE(EE&C Plan,Plan) by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities’utilities' plans to reduce energy consumption by a minimum of1%and3%by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce peak demand by a minimum of4.5%by May 31, 2013. Act 129 alsoprovides for potentially significant financial penalties to be assessed upon utilities that fail to achieve the required reductions in consumption and peak demand. The Pennsylvania Companies submitted a final report on November 15, 2011, in which they reported on their compliance with statutory May 31, 2011, energy efficiency benchmarks. ME, PN and Penn achieved the 2011 benchmarks; however WP has been unable to provide final results because several customers are still accumulating necessary documentation for projects that may qualify for inclusion in the final results. Preliminary numbers indicate that WP did not achieve its 2011 benchmark and it is not known at this time whether WP will be subject to a fine for failure to achieve the benchmark. WP is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate any possible loss or range of loss.
On August 9, 2011, WP filed a petition to approve its Second Amended EE&C Plan. The proposed Second Revised Plan includes measures and a new program and implementation strategies consistent with the successful EE&C programs of ME, PN and Penn that are designed to enable WP to achieve the post-2011 Act 129 EE&C requirements. On January 6, 2012, a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues was filed by the parties to the proceeding, and the ALJ's Recommended Decision was issued on April 19, 2012, recommending that the Joint Settlement be adopted as filed.
In addition, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC a Smart Meter Implementation Plan (SMIP).
The PPUC entered an Order in February 2010 giving final approval to all aspects of the EE&C Plans of Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010.
WP filed its original EE&C Plan in June 2009, which the PPUC approved, in large part, by Opinion and Order entered in October 2009. In November 2009, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of the PPUC’s October Order. The OCA contends that the PPUC’s Order failed to include WP’s costs for smart meter implementation in the EE&C Plan, and that inclusion of such costs would cause the EE&C Plan to exceed the statutory cap for EE&C expenditures. The OCA also contends that WP’s EE&C plan does not meet the Total Resource Cost Test. The appeal remains pending but has been stayed by the Commonwealth Court pending possible settlement of WP’s SMIP. In September, 2010, WP filed an amended EE&C Plan that is less reliant on smart meter deployment, which the PPUC approved in January 2011.
61
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a SMIP with the PPUC in August 2009. This plan proposed a 24-month assessment period in which the Pennsylvania Companies will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate assessment period costs of approximately $29.5 million, which the Pennsylvania Companies, in their plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJ’s Initial Decision approved the SMIP as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUC’s Implementation Order; denying the recovery of interest through the automatic adjustment clause; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs net of resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and requiring that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be capitalized. In April 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman Cawley that modified the ALJ’s initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the SMIP for Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn. The PPUC entered its Order in June 2010, consistent with the Chairman’s Motion. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUC’s Order regarding the future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates, which the PPUC granted in part by deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn from seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time. The costs to implement the SMIP could be material. However, assuming these costs satisfy a just and reasonable standard, they are expected to be recovered in a rider (Smart Meter Technologies Charge Rider) which was approved when the PPUC approved the SMIP.
In August 2009, WP filed its original SMIP, which provided for extensive deployment of smart meter infrastructure with replacement of all of WP’s approximately 725,000 meters by the end of 2014. In December 2009, WP filed a motion to reopen the evidentiary record to submit an alternative smart meter plan proposing, among other things, a less-rapid deployment of smart meters. In an Initial Decision dated April 29, 2010, an ALJ determined that WP’s alternative smart meter deployment plan, which contemplated deployment of 375,000 smart meters by May 2012, complied with the requirements of Act 129 and recommended approval of the alternative plan, including WP’s proposed cost recovery mechanism.
PPUC. In light of the significant expenditures that would be associated with its smart meter deployment plans and related infrastructure upgrades, as well as its evaluation of recent PPUC decisions approving less-rapid deployment proposals by other utilities, WP re-evaluated its Act 129 compliance strategy, including both its plans with respect to its previously approved smart meter deployment plan and certain smart meter dependent aspects of the EE&C Plan. In October 2010, WP and Pennsylvania’s Office of Consumer Advocate filed a Joint Petition for Settlement addressing WP’s smart meter implementation plan with the PPUC. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP proposed to decelerate its previously contemplated smart meter deployment schedule and to target the installation of approximately25,000smart meters in support of its EE&C Plan, based on customer requests, by mid-2012. TheWP also proposed settlement also contemplates that WPto take advantage of the30-month grace period authorized by the PPUC to continue WP’sWP's efforts to re-evaluate full-scale smart meter deployment plans. WP currently anticipates filing its plan for full-scale deployment of smart meters in June 2012. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP would be permitted to recover certain previously incurred and anticipated smart-meter related expenditures through a levelized customer surcharge, with certain expenditures amortized over a ten-year period. A joint settlement with all parties based on these terms, with one party retaining the ability to challenge the recovery of amounts spent on WP's original smart meter implementation plan, was approved by the PPUC on June 30, 2011. Additionally, WP would be permitted to seek recovery of certain other costs as part of its revised SMIP that it currently intends to file in June 2012, or in a future base distribution rate case.
In December 2010, the PPUC directed that the SMIP proceeding be referred to the ALJ for further proceedings to ensure that the impact of the proposed merger with FirstEnergy is considered and that the Joint Petition for Settlement has adequate support in the record. On March 9, 2011, WP submitted an Amended Joint Petition for Settlement which restates the Joint Petition for Settlement filed in October 2010, adds the PPUC’s Office of Trial Staff as a signatory party, and confirms the support or non-opposition of all parties to the settlement. The proposed settlement also obligates OCA to withdraw its November 2009 appeal of the PPUC’s Order in WP’s EE&C plan proceeding. A Joint Stipulation with the OSBA was also filed on March 9, 2011. The proposed settlement remains subject to review by the ALJ, who will prepare an Initial Decision for consideration by the PPUC.
By Tentative Order entered in September 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement, which addressed how Met-Ed and Penelec were going to implement direct access to a competitive market for the generation of electricity, allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the Tentative Order, various parties filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.
In the PPUC Order approving the FirstEnergy and Allegheny merger, the PPUC announced that a separate statewide investigation into Pennsylvania’sPennsylvania's retail electricity market will be conducted with the goal of making recommendations for improvements to ensure that a properly functioning and workable competitive retail electricity market exists in the state. On April 29, 2011, the PPUC entered an Order initiating the investigation and requesting comments from interested parties on eleven directed questions concerning retail markets in Pennsylvania to investigate both intermediate and long term plans that could be adopted to further foster the competitive markets, and to explore the future of default service in Pennsylvania following the expiration of the upcoming DSPs on May 31, 2015. Following the issuance of a Tentative Order and comments filed by numerous parties, the PPUC entered a final order on
December 16, 2011, providing recommendations for components to be included in upcoming DSPs, including: the duration of the programs and the length of associated energy contracts; a customer referral program; a retail opt-in auction; time-of-use rate options provided through contracts with electric generation suppliers; and periodic rate adjustments.Following the issuance of a Tentative Order and comments filed by various parties, the PPUC entered a final order on March 2, 2012 outlining an intermediate work plan. Several suggested models for long-range default service have been presented and were the topic of a March 2012 en banc hearing. It is expected that a tentative order will be issued for comment with a final long-range proposal.
The PPUC hasissued a Proposed Rulemaking Order on August 25, 2011, which proposed a number of substantial modifications to the current Code of Conduct regulations that were promulgated to provide competitive safeguards to the competitive retail electric market in Pennsylvania. The proposed changes include, but are not yet initiatedlimited to: an EGS may not have the same or substantially similar name as the EDC or its corporate parent; EDCs and EGSs would not be permitted to share office space and would need to occupy different buildings; EDCs and affiliated EGSs could not share employees or services, except certain corporate support, emergency, or tariff services (the definition of "corporate support services" excludes items such as information systems, electronic data interchange, strategic management and planning, regulatory services, legal services, or commodities that investigation.
62
(F) VIRGINIA
In September 2010, PATH-VA filed an application with the Virginia SCC for authorization to construct the Virginia portions of the PATH Project. On February 28, 2011, PATH-VA filed a motion to withdraw the application. See “Transmission Expansion” in the Federal Regulation and Rate Matters section for further discussion of this matter.
(G) WEST VIRGINIA
In August 2009, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a request to increase retail rates by approximately $122.1 million annually, effective June 10, 2010. In January 2010, MP and PE filed supplemental testimony discussing a tax treatment change that would result in a revenue requirement approximately $7.7 million lower than the requirement included in the original filing. In addition, in December 2009, subsidiaries of MP and PE completed a securitization transaction to finance certain costs associated with the installation of scrubbers at the Fort Martin generating station, which costs would otherwise have been included in regulated rates at less than market value); and an EGS must enter into a trademark agreement with the request for rate recovery. Consequently, MPEDC before using its trademark or service mark. The Proposed Rulemaking Order was published on February 11, 2012, and PE ultimately requestedcomments were filed by ME, PN, Penn, WP and FES on March 27, 2012. If implemented these rules could require a significant change in the ways FES, ME, PN, Penn and WP do business in Pennsylvania, and could possibly have an annual increase in retail ratesadverse impact on their results of approximately $95 million, rather than $122.1 million. operations and financial condition.
WEST VIRGINIA
In April 2010, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a Joint Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reached with the other parties in thea proceeding for an annual increase in retail rates that provided for:
a $40$40 millionannualized base rate increaseincreases effective June 29, 2010;
a deferralDeferral of February 2010 storm restoration expenses in West Virginia over a maximumfive-year period;
an additional $20Additional$20 millionannualized base rate increase effective in January 2011;
a decreaseDecrease of $20$20 millionin ENEC rates effective January 2011, which amount is deferredproviding for deferral of related costs for later recovery in 2012; and
a moratoriumMoratorium on filing for further increases in base rates before December 1, 2011, except under specified circumstances.
The WVPSC approved the Joint Petition and Agreement of Settlement in June 2010.
In 2009, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act (Portfolio Act), which generally requires that a specified minimum percentage of electricity sold to retail customers in West Virginia by electric utilities each year be derived from alternative and renewable energy resources according to a predetermined schedule of increasing percentage targets, including ten percent by 2015, fifteen percent by 2020, and twenty-five percent by 2025. In November 2010, the WVPSC issued Rules Governing Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS Rules), which became effective on January 4, 2011. Under the RPS Rules, on or before January 1, 2011, each electric utility subject to the provisions of this rule was required to prepare an alternative and renewable energy portfolio standard compliance plan and file an application with the WVPSC seeking approval of such plan. MP and PE filed their combined compliance plan in December 2010. Additionally, in January 2011, MP and PE filed an application with the WVPSC seeking to certifythreefacilities as Qualified Energy Resource Facilities. IfFacilities for purposes of compliance with their approved plan pursuant to AREPA. The application was approved and the application is approved, the threefacilities would then beare capable of generating renewable credits which wouldwill assist the companies in meeting their combined requirements under the Portfolio Act.AREPA. Further, in February 2011, MP and PE filed a petition with the WVPSC seeking an Orderorder declaring that MP is entitled to all alternative &and renewable energy resource credits associated with the electric energy, or energy and capacity, that MP is required to purchase pursuant to electric energy purchase agreements between MP andthree non-utility electric generatingNUG facilities in WV.West Virginia. The City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates, each the owner of one of the contracted resources, has filed anhave participated in the case in opposition to the Petition.petition. The WVPSC issued an order granting ownership of all RECs produced by the facilities to MP. The WVPSC order was appealed, and the order was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Oral arguments were heard at the West Virginia Supreme Court on April 10, 2012. Should MP be unsuccessful in the appeal, it will have to procure the requisite RECs to comply with AREPA from other sources. MP expects to recover such costs from customers.
63
The City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates have also filed complaints at FERC. On April 24, 2012, the FERC ruled that the FERC-jurisdictional contracts are intended to pay only for electric energy and capacity (and not for RECs), and that state law controlled on the issues of determining which entity owns RECs and how they are transferred between entities. The FERC declined to act on the complaints and instead noted that the City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates could file complaints in the U.S. District Court. MP is evaluating whether to seek rehearing of the FERC's order.
RELIABILITY MATTERS
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, AE Supply, FGCO, FENOC, ATSI and TrAIL. The NERC is the ERO designated by FERC to establish and enforce these reliability standards, although NERC has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including RFC. All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the RFC region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and RFC stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by RFC.
FirstEnergy believes that it is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such items are found, FirstEnergy
develops information about the item and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an item to RFC. Moreover, it is clear that the NERC, RFC and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with future new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time; however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the future reliability standards be recovered in rates. Any future inability on FirstEnergy's part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&L's Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, NERC initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&L's contribution to the electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests.On March 22, 2012, NERC concluded the investigation of the matter and forwarded it to NCEA for further review. NCEA is currently evaluating the findings of the investigation. JCP&L is not able to predict what actions, if any, NERC may take with respect to this matter.
In 2011, RFC performed routine compliance audits of parts of FirstEnergy's bulk-power system and generally found the audited systems and processes to be in full compliance with all audited reliability standards. RFC will perform additional audits in 2012.
FERC MATTERS
Rates
PJM Transmission Rate
PJM and its stakeholders have been debating the proper method to allocate costs for Transmission Service Between MISOnew transmission facilities - the matter is contentious because costs for facilities built in one transmission zone often are allocated to customers in other transmission zones. During recent years, the debate has focused on the question of the methodology for determining the transmission zones and PJM
customers who benefit from a given facility and, if so, whether the methodology can determine the pro rata share of each zone's benefit. While FirstEnergy and other parties argue for a traditional "beneficiary pays" approach, others advocate for “socializing” the costs on a load-ratio share basis - each customer in the zone would pay based on its total usage of energy within PJM. This debate is framed by regulatory and court decisions.In November 2004,2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that FERC had not supported a prior FERC decision to allocate costs for new500kV and higher voltage facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on that finding, remanded the rate design issue to FERC. In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set this matter for a “paper hearing” and requested parties to submit written comments. FERC identifiednineseparate issues for comment and directed PJM to file the first round of comments. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, which demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain load serving entities in PJM bearing the majority of the costs. Subsequently, numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state utility commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Other utilities and state utility commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis.On March 30, 2012, FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission service between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC’s intent was to eliminate multiple transmission charges for a single transaction between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC also ordered MISO, PJM and the transmission owners within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate mechanism to recover lost transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to as SECA) during a 16-month transition period. In 2005, the FERC set the SECA for hearing. The presiding ALJ issued an initialon remand reaffirming its prior decision in August 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by MISO, PJM and the transmission owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision was subject to review and approval by the FERC. In May 2010, FERC issued an order denying pending rehearing requests and an Order on Initial Decision which reversed the presiding ALJ’s rulings in many respects. Most notably, these orders affirmed the right of transmission owners to collect SECA charges with adjustments that modestly reduce the level of such charges, and changes to the entities deemed responsible for payment of the SECA charges. The Ohio Companies were identified as load serving entities responsible for payment of additional SECA charges for a portion of the SECA period (Green Mountain/Quest issue). FirstEnergy executed settlements with AEP, Dayton and the Exelon parties to fix FirstEnergy’s liability for SECA charges originally billed to Green Mountain and Quest for load that returned to regulated service during the SECA period. The AEP, Dayton and Exelon, settlements were approved by the FERC in November 2010, and the relevant payments made. The Utilities have refund obligations that are under review by FERC as part of a compliance filing. Potential refund obligations of FirstEnergy are not expected to be material. Rehearings remain pending in this proceeding.
PJM Transmission Rate
In April 2007, FERC issued an order (Opinion 494) finding that the PJM transmission owners’ existing “license plate” or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new transmission facilities, FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at500kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM footprint by means of a postage-stamp rate based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone. Costs for new transmission facilitieszone and concluding that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a load flowsuch methodology (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a “beneficiary pays” approach to allocating the costjust and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. On April 30, 2012, FirstEnergy requested rehearing of high voltage transmission facilities.FERC's March 30, 2012 order.
The FERC’s Opinion 494 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which issued a decision in August 2009. The court affirmed FERC’s ratemaking treatment for existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate design issue back to FERC.
In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for “paper hearings”— meaning that FERC called for parties to submit comments or written testimony pursuant to the schedule described in the order. FERC identified nine separate issues for comments and directed PJM to file the first round of comments on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments and then reply comments on later dates. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order. PJM’s filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the majority of the costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. This matter is awaiting action by the FERC.
RTO Realignment
On FebruaryJune 1, 2011, ATSI in conjunction with PJM filed its proposal with FERC for moving its transmission rate into PJM’s tariffs. FirstEnergy expects ATSI to enter PJM on June 1, 2011, and that if legal proceedings regarding its rate are outstanding at that time, ATSI will be permitted to start charging its proposed rates, subject to refund. On April 1, 2011, the MISO Transmission Owners (including ATSI) filed proposed tariff language that describes the mechanics of collecting and administering MTEP costs from ATSI-zone ratepayers. From March 20, 2011 through April 1, 2011, FirstEnergy, PJM and the MISO submitted numerous filings for the purpose of effecting movement of the ATSI zone transferred from MISO to PJM on June 1, 2011. These filings include clean-upPJM. The move was performed as planned with no known operational or reliability issues for ATSI or for the wholesale transmission customers in the ATSI zone. While most of the MISO’s tariffs (to remove the ATSI zone), submission of load and generation interconnection agreements to reflectmatters involved with the move into PJM, and submissionhave been resolved, the question of changesATSI's responsibility for certain costs for the “Michigan Thumb” transmission project continues to PJM’s tariffs to supportbe disputed; the move into PJM.
details of which dispute are discussed below in the "MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal." In addition, FERC proceedings are pending in which ATSI’sdenied certain exit fees of ATSI's transmission rate until such time as ATSI submits a cost/benefit analysis that demonstrates net benefits to customers from the move. ATSI has asked for rehearing of FERC's orders that address the Michigan Thumb transmission project, and the exit fee payableissue.
ATSI's filings and requests for rehearing on these matters, as well as the pleadings submitted by parties that oppose ATSI's position are currently pending before FERC. Finally, a negotiated agreement that requires ATSI to MISO, transmission cost allocations and costs associated withpay a one-time charge of$1.8 millionfor long term firm transmission rights payable by the ATSI zone upon its departure fromthat - according to the MISO are under review. - were payable upon ATSI's exit, is pending before FERC.
The final outcome of thesethose proceedings that address the remaining open issues related to ATSI's move into PJM and their impact, if any, on FirstEnergy cannot be predicted.predicted at this time.
64
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
In July 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners (not including ATSI or First Energy) jointly filed with FERC theira proposed
cost allocation methodology for certain new transmission projects. The new transmission projects—projects - described as MVPs—MVPs - are a class of MTEP projects. The filing parties proposed to allocate the costs of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the MISO footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be “wheeled through” the MISO as well as to energy transactions that “source” in the MISO but “sink” outside of MISO. The filing parties expect that the MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring wind generation fromthat are approved via the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. The filing parties requested an effective date for the proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISO’s Board approved the first MVP project — the “Michigan Thumb Project.”MISO's MTEP process. Under MISO’sMISO's proposal, the costs of “Michigan Thumb” MVP projects that were approved by MISO’sMISO's Board prior to the anticipated June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy's integration into PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy.and charged to ATSI. MISO estimated that approximately $15$15 millionin annual revenue requirements associated with the Michigan Thumb Project would be allocated to the ATSI zone associated withupon completion of project construction.
FirstEnergy has filed pleadings in opposition to the MISO's efforts to “socialize” the costs of the Michigan Thumb Project upon its completion.onto ATSI or onto ATSI's customers that assert legal, factual and policy arguments.To date, FERC has responded in a series of orders that require ATSI to absorb the charges for the Michigan Thumb Project.
In September 2010,
On October 31, 2011, FirstEnergy filed a protestPetition of Review of certain of the FERC's orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Other parties also filed appeals of those orders and, in November 2011, the cases were consolidated for briefing and disposition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
On February 27, 2012, FERC issued its most recent order (February 2012 Order) regarding the Michigan Thumb Project, in which FERC accepted the MISO's proposed Schedule 39 tariff, subject to the MVP proposal arguing that MISO’s proposal to allocate costshearings and potential refund of MVP projects acrosscharges to ATSI. MISO's Schedule 39 tariff is the entirevehicle through which the MISO footprint does not align withplans to charge the established rule that cost allocation is to be based on cost causation (the “beneficiary pays” approach). FirstEnergy also argued that, in light of progress to date in the ATSI integration into PJM, it would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVPMichigan Thumb project costs to ATSI.In the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous other parties filed pleadings on MISO’s MVP proposal.
In December 2010,February 2012 Order, FERC issued an order approving the MVP proposal without significant change. FERC’s order was not clear, however, as to whether the MVP costs would be payable by ATSI or load in the ATSI zone. FERC stateddirected that the MISO’s tariffs obligate ATSI to pay all charges that attach prior to ATSI’s exit but ruled that the question of the amount of costs that are to be allocated to ATSI or to load in the ATSI zone were beyond the scope of FERC’s order and would be addressed in future proceedings.
settlement negotiations occur. On January 18, 2011,March 28, 2012, FirstEnergy filed for clarification and rehearing of FERC’s order. In its rehearingthe February 2012 Order, and such request FirstEnergy argued that becauseis pending before the MVP rate is usage-based, costs could not be applied to ATSI, which is a stand-alone transmission company that does not use the transmission system. FirstEnergy also renewed its arguments regarding cost causation and the impropriety of allocating costs to the ATSI zone or to ATSI. FERC.
FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
PJM Calculation ErrorUnderfunding FTR Complaint
In March 2010, MISO
On December 28, 2011, FES and AE Supply filed two complaints ata complaint with FERC against PJM relatingchallenging the ongoing underfunding of FTR contracts, which exist to hedge against transmission congestion in the day-ahead markets. The underfunding is a previously-reported modeling errorresult of PJM's practice of using the funds that are intended to pay the holders of FTR contracts to pay instead for congestion costs that occur in PJM’s system that impacted the manner in which market-to-market power flow calculations were made between PJM and MISO since April 2005. MISO claimed that this errorreal time markets. Underfunding of the FTR contracts resulted in PJM underpaying MISO bylosses of approximately $130$35 million over the time period in question. Additionally, MISO alleged that PJM did not properly trigger market-to-market settlements between PJMto FES and MISO during times when it was required to do so, which MISO claimed may have cost it $5 million or more. As PJM market participants, AE Supply and MP mayin the 2010-2011 Delivery Year. Losses for the 2011-2012 Delivery Year, through March 31, 2012, are estimated to be liable for a portion of any refunds ordered in this case. PJM, Allegheny and other PJM market participants filed responses to MISO complaints andapproximately$6 million.
On January 13, 2012, PJM filed a related complaint at FERC against MISO claiming that MISO improperly called for market-to-market settlements several times duringcomments describing changes to the same time period covered by the two MISO complaints filed against PJM which PJM claimed may have cost PJM market participants $25 million or more. On January 4, 2011, an Offer of Settlement was filed at FERCtariff that, if approved, would resolve all pending issues inadopted, should remedy the dispute. The Offer of Settlement calls for the withdrawal of all pending complaints with no payments being made by any parties. Initial comments on the Offer of Settlement were filed at FERC on January 24, 2011. FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energyunderfunding issue. Many parties also filed comments supporting FES' and AE Supply's position. Other parties, generally representatives of end-use customers who will have to pay the proposed settlement. Acharges, filed in opposition to the complaint. On March 2, 2012, FERC dismissed the complaint without prejudice, pending PJM's publication for stakeholder review and discussion, a report on the partially contested settlement was issued bycauses of the settlement judgeFTR underfunding and potential improvements, including modeling, which could be made to minimize the revenue inadequacy. On March 30, 2012, FES and AE Supply requested rehearing and reconsideration of the March 2, 2012 order, arguing that FERC erred in dismissing the complaint because the root cause of the FTR underfunding is irrelevant to the FERC on March 9, 2011. relief requested in the complaint. That request remains pending before FERC.
FTR Allocation Complaint
On March 16, 2011,26, 2012, FES and AE Supply filed a complaint with FERC against PJM challenging PJM's FTR allocation rules. PJM allocates FTRs to load-serving entities in an annual allocation process, up to each LSE's peak load, based on the settlement judge terminatedexpected transmission capability for the settlement proceedings and forwardedupcoming planning year. If a transmission facility is scheduled to be out of service for a significant part of the partially contested settlementyear, it can result in LSEs' FTR allocations being reduced in the annual allocation. When these transmission facilities return to service during the year PJM will create monthly FTRs to reflect the increased transmission capability during that month. However, instead of allocating these new monthly FTRs to the FERCLSEs that were unable to obtain their full allocation of FTRs in the annual allocation process, PJM's rules instead require PJM to auction off these new monthly FTRs in the market. The complaint seeks a change to the PJM rules such that the new FTRs created each month by transmission lines returning to service would first be allocated to those LSEs that were denied a full allocation of their FTR entitlement in the annual allocation process before they are auctioned off in the market. On April 16, 2012, PJM filed its answer to the complaint. Also, on that date, Exelon Corporation filed a protest to, and several parties filed comments on, FES' and AE Supply's complaint, which remains pending before FERC. On April 30, 2012, FES and AE Supply filed a motion for review. The case is awaiting a decision byleave to answer and answer to the FERC.various pleadings filed on April 16, 2012.
California Claims Matters
In October 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California Energy Resource Scheduling division of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR)CDWR during 2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190$190 millionfor these alleged overcharges. This proposal was made in the context of mediation efforts by the FERC and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit has since remandedoneof those proceedings to the FERC, which arises out of claims previously filed with the FERC by the California Attorney General on behalf of certain California parties against various sellers
in the California wholesale power market, including AE Supply (the Lockyer case). AE Supply and several other sellers have filed motions to dismiss the Lockyer case. In March 2010, the judge assigned to the case entered an opinion that granted the motions to dismiss filed by AE Supply and other sellers and dismissed the claims of the California Parties. In April 2010,On May 4, 2011, FERC affirmed the judge's ruling. On June 3, 2011, the California parties filed exceptions torequested rehearing of the judge’s ruling with the FERC, and briefing is complete on those exceptions.May 4, 2011 order. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the FERC on the exceptions.request for rehearing remains pending.
65
In June 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a second lawsuitcomplaint with the FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply (the Brown case), again seeking refunds for trades in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted trades with CDWR are the basis for the joining ofincluding AE Supply in this new lawsuit.complaint. AE Supply has filed a motion to dismiss the Brown casecomplaint that is pending beforewas granted by FERC on May 24, 2011. On June 23, 2011, the FERC. No scheduling order has been entered inCalifornia Attorney General requested rehearing of the Brown case. Allegheny intends to vigorously defend against these claims butMay 24, 2011 order. That request for rehearing also remains pending. FirstEnergy cannot predict their outcome.the outcome of either of the above matters or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
PATH Transmission ExpansionProject
TrAIL Project.TrAIL is a 500kV transmission line currently under construction that will extend from southwest Pennsylvania through West Virginia and into northern Virginia. On April 15, 2011, the TrAIL 500 kV line segment from Meadowbrook substation to Loudoun substation in Virginia was successfully energized and is carrying load. The other segments are planned to be energized in May. The entire TrAIL line is scheduled to be completed and placed in service no later than June 2011.
PATH Project.The PATH Project is comprised of a765kV transmission line that iswas proposed to extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, modifications to an existing substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland.
PJM initially authorized construction of the PATH Project in June 2007 and, on June 17, 2010, requested that PATH, LLC proceed with all efforts related to the PATH Project, including state regulatory proceedings, assuming a required in-service date of June 1, 2015.2007. In December 2010, PJM advised that its 2011 Load Forecast Report included load projections that are different from previous forecasts and that may have an impact on the proposed in-service date for the PATH Project. As part of its 2011 RTEP, and in response to a January 19, 2011, directive by a Virginia Hearing Examiner, PJM conducted a series of analyses using the most current economic forecasts and demand response commitments, as well as potential new generation resources. Preliminary analysis revealed the expected reliability violations that necessitated the PATH Project had moved several years into the future. Based on those results, PJM announced on February 28, 2011, that its Board of Managers had decided to hold the PATH Project in abeyance in its 2011 RTEP and directed FirstEnergy and AEP, as the sponsoring transmission owners, to suspend current development efforts on the project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state, while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the potential need for the project as part of its continuing RTEP process. PJM stated that its action did not constitute a directive to FirstEnergy and AEP to cancel or abandon the PATH Project. PJM further stated that it will complete a more rigorous analysis of the PATH Project and other transmission requirements and its Board will review this comprehensive analysis as part of its consideration of the 2011 RTEP. On February 28, 2011, affiliates of FirstEnergy and AEP filed motions or notices to withdraw applications for authorization to construct the project that were pending before state commissions in West Virginia, Virginiathe WVPSC, the VSCC and Maryland.MDPSC. Withdrawal was deemed effective upon filing the notice with the MDPSCMDPSC. The WVPSC and VSCC have granted the motions to withdraw.
Yards Creek
The Yards Creek Pumped Storage Project is a400MW hydroelectric project located in Warren County, New Jersey. JCP&L owns an undivided50%interest in the project, and operates the project. PSEG Fossil, LLC, a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, owns the remaining interest in the plant. The project was constructed in the early 1960s, and became operational in 1965. FERC issued a license for authorization to operate the project. The existing license expires on February 28, 2013.
In February 2011, JCP&L and PSEG filed a joint application with FERC to renew the license for an additional forty years. The companies are pursuing relicensure through FERC's ILP. Under the ILP, FERC will assess the license applications, issue draft and final Environmental Assessments/Environmental Impact Studies (as required by NEPA), and provide opportunities for intervention and protests by affected third parties. FERC may hold hearings during the five-year ILP licensure process. FirstEnergy expects FERC to issue the new license before February 28, 2013. To the extent, however, that the license proceedings extend beyond the February 28, 2013 expiration date for the current license, the current license will be extended yearly as necessary to permit FERC to issue the new license.
Seneca
The Seneca Pumped Storage Project is a451MW hydroelectric project located in Warren County, Pennsylvania owned and operated by FGCO. FGCO holds the current FERC license that authorizes ownership and operation of the project. The current FERC license will expire on November 30, 2015. FERC's regulations call for a five-year relicensing process. On November 24, 2010, and acting pursuant to applicable FERC regulations and rules, FGCO initiated the relicensing process by filing its notice of intent to relicense and related documents in the license docket.
On November 30, 2010, the Seneca Nation filed its notice of intent to relicense and related documents necessary for the Seneca Nation to submit a competing application. Section 15 of the FPA contemplates that third parties may file a "competing application" to assume ownership and operation of a hydroelectric facility upon (i) relicensure and (ii) payment of net book value of the plant to the original owner/operator. Nonetheless, FGCO believes it is entitled to a statutory “incumbent preference” under Section 15.
The Seneca Nation and certain other intervenors have asked FERC to redefine the “project boundary” of the hydroelectric plant to include the dam and reservoir facilities operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. On May 16, 2011, FirstEnergy filed a Petition for Declaratory Order with FERC seeking an order to exclude the dam and reservoir facilities from the project. The Seneca Nation,
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the WVPSC has grantedU.S. Department of Interior each submitted responses to FirstEnergy's petition, including motions to dismiss FirstEnergy's petition. The “project boundary” issue is pending before FERC.
On September 12, 2011, FirstEnergy and the motion to withdraw. The VSCC has not ruled onSeneca Nation each filed “Revised Study Plan” documents. These documents describe the motion to withdraw.
PATH, LLC submittedparties' respective proposals for the scope of the environmental studies that should be performed as part of the relicensing process. On October 11, 2011, FERC Staff issued a filing to FERC to implement a formula rate tariff effective March 1, 2008. In a November 19, 2010letter order addressing various matters relating tothat addressed the formula rate, FERC set the project’s base return on equity for hearing and reaffirmed its prior authorization of a return on CWIP, recovery of start-up costs and recovery of abandonment costs.Revised Study Plans. In the order, FERC also grantedStaff approved FirstEnergy's Revised Study Plan, subject to a 1.5% returnfinding that the Project is located on equity incentive adder and a 0.50% return on equity adder for RTO participation. These adders will be applied to the base return on equity determined as a result“aboriginal lands” of the hearing. PATH, LLC is currently engaged in settlement discussionsSeneca Nation. Based on this finding, FERC Staff directed FirstEnergy to consult with the staff of FERCSeneca Nation and intervenors regarding resolutionother parties about the data set, methodology and modeling of the base returnhydrological impacts of project operations.In March of 2012, FirstEnergy hosted a meeting as part of the consultation process. In that meeting, FirstEnergy reviewed its proposed methodology for conducting the hydrological impacts study and answered questions from third parties about the methodology. On April 11, 2012, the Seneca Nation and other parties filed comments on equity. the proposed hydrologic impacts study.The study processes, including the discrete hydrological impacts study, will extend through approximately November 2013.
FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of this proceedingmatter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
9. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES
GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES
As part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy enters into various agreements on behalf of its subsidiaries to provide financial or performance assurances to third parties. FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions involving electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides credit support to various providers for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements include provisions for parent guarantees, surety bonds and/or LOCs to be issued by FirstEnergy on behalf of one or more of its subsidiaries. Additionally, certain contracts may contain collateral provisions that are contingent upon either FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings.
As of March 31, 2012, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $4.1 billion, consisting of parental guarantees ($0.9 billion), subsidiaries' guarantees ($2.5 billion), and other guarantees ($0.7 billion).
Most of FirstEnergy’s surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $151 million provide additional assurance to outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.
While the types of guarantees discussed above are normally parental commitments for the future payment of subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BBB- and Moody's Baa3 and lower, or a “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of collateral or accelerated payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of March 31, 2012, FirstEnergy’s exposure to additional credit contingent contractual obligations was $671 million, as shown below:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Collateral Provisions | | FES | | AE Supply | | Utilities | | Total |
| | | (In millions) |
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade (1) | | $ | 439 |
| | $ | 8 |
| | $ | 59 |
| | $ | 506 |
|
Material adverse event (2) | | 91 |
| | 60 |
| | 14 |
| | 165 |
|
| Total | | $ | 530 |
| | $ | 68 |
| | $ | 73 |
| | $ | 671 |
|
| |
(1) | Includes $222 million and $40 million that are also considered accelerations of payment or funding obligations for FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
| |
(2) | Includes $42 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation for FES. |
Certain bilateral non-affiliate contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy Services segment contain margining provisions that require posting of collateral. Based on FES' and AE Supply's power portfolio exposures as of March 31, 2012, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of $84 million and $1 million, respectively. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required.
Not included in the preceding information is potential collateral arising from the PSAs between FES or AE Supply and affiliated utilities in the Regulated Distribution Segment. As of March 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 $54 million and $18 million, respectively.
FES' debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, and FES guarantees the debt obligations of each of FGCO and NGC. Accordingly, present and future holders of indebtedness of FES, FGCO and NGC would have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC, regardless of whether ittheir 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 originally shared ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a guaranty of the borrowers' obligations under the facility. Following the sale of a portion of FEV's ownership interest in Signal Peak and Global Rail in the fourth quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy, WMB Loan Ventures, LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II, LLC, together with Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Holding, continue to guarantee the borrowers' obligations until either the facility is replaced with non-recourse financing (no later than June 30, 2012) or replaced with appropriate recourse financing no earlier than September 4, 2012, that provides for separate guarantees from each owner in proportion with each equity owner's percentage ownership in the joint venture. In addition, FEV, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Holding, the entities that own direct and indirect equity interests in the borrowers, have pledged those interests to the lenders under the current facility as collateral. In March 2012, after an evaluation of its current operations, business plan and market conditions, the Global Rail Board of Managers opted to focus first on extending its current senior secured term loan facility due in October 2012, before replacing that facility with non-recourse financing. There can be no assurance that the term loan facility will be extended on satisfactory terms or at all.
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 impactadverse effect on its operating results.
SalesFirstEnergy's earnings and competitive position to Affiliates
FES has received authorization from the FERCextent that FirstEnergy competes with companies that are not subject to make wholesale power sales to affiliated regulated utilities in New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FES actively participates in auctions conducted by or on behalf the regulated affiliates to obtain power necessary to meet the utilities’ POLR obligations. AE Supply, a merchant affiliate acquired in the FirstEnergy-Allegheny merger, also participates in these auctions, and obtains prior FERC authorization when necessary to make sales to FE affiliates.
11. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION PLANS
FirstEnergy has four types of stock-based compensation programs including LTIP, EDCP, ESOP and DCPD, as described below.
In addition, Allegheny’s stock-based awards were converted into First Energy stock-based awards as of the date of the merger. These awards, referred to below as converted Allegheny awards, were adjusted in terms of the number of awards and where applicable, the exercise price thereof, to reflect the merger’s common stock exchange ratio of 0.667 of a share of FirstEnergy common stock for each share of Allegheny common stock.
66
(A) LTIP
FirstEnergy’s LTIP includes four forms of stock-based compensation awards — stock options, performance shares, restricted stock and restricted stock units.
Under FirstEnergy’s LTIP, total awards cannot exceed 29.1 million shares of common stock or their equivalent. Only stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units have currently been designated to be settled in common stock, with vesting periods ranging from two months to ten years. Performance share awards are currently designated to be paid in cash rather than common stocksuch regulations and, therefore, do not countbear the risk of costs associated with compliance, or failure to comply, with such regulations.
CAA Compliance
FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO2and NOx emissions regulations under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO2and NOx reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion controls and post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower or non-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances.
In July 2008,threecomplaints representing multiple plaintiffs were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant.Twoof 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 oftwenty-oneindividuals and the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a class with theeightnamed plaintiffs as the class representatives. FGCO believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the limit on stock-based awards. There were 6.3 million shares availableallegations made in these complaints.
In December 2007, the states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in the U.S. District Court for future awards asthe Eastern District of March 31, 2011.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 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. 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. The parties dispute the scope of ME's indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy. In February 2012, GenOn announced its plans to retire the Portland Station in January 2015 citing EPA emissions limits and compliance schedules to reduce SO2air emissions by approximately81%at the Portland Station by January 6, 2015. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units
Restricted common stock (restricted stock) and restricted stock unit (stock unit) activity was as follows:
| | | | |
| | Three Months | |
| | Ended | |
| | March 31, 2011 | |
|
Restricted stock and stock units outstanding as of January 1, 2011 | | | 1,878,022 | |
Granted | | | 223,161 | |
Converted Allegheny restricted stock | | | 645,197 | |
Exercised | | | (422,031 | ) |
Forfeited | | | (37,182 | ) |
| | | |
Restricted stock and stock units outstanding as of March 31, 2011 | | | 2,287,167 | |
| | | |
The 223,161 shares of restricted common stock granted duringIn January 2009, the three months ended March 31, 2011 hadEPA issued a grant-date fair value of $8.2 million and a weighted-average vesting period of 1.86 years.
Restricted stock units include awards that will be settled in a specific number of shares of stock afterNOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. alleging NSR violations at the service condition has been met. Restricted stock units also include performance-based awards that will be settled after the service condition has been met in a specified number of shares of stockcoal-fired Portland Generation Station based on FirstEnergy’s performance compared“modifications” dating back to annual target performance metrics.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.
Compensation expense recognized
In January 2011, the U.S. DOJ filed a complaint against PN in the U.S. District Court for the three months ended March 31,Western District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief against PN based on alleged “modifications” at the coal-fired Homer City generating plant between 1991 to 1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA's PSD and Title V permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, NYSEG, and various current owners of Homer City, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate complaints regarding Homer City seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. In October 2011, the Court dismissed all of the claims with prejudice of the U.S. and 2010 for restricted stockthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and restricted stock units, netthe states of amounts capitalized, was approximately $16 millionNew Jersey and $6 million, respectively.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. PN believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the loss or possible range of loss. The parties dispute the scope of NYSEG's and PN's indemnity obligation to and from Edison International.
Stock OptionsIn 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. FGCO 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 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 followingtencoal-fired plants, which collectively include22electric 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. FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against these CAA matters, but cannot predict their outcomes 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, MP, PE and WP in the U.S. District Court for the three months ended March 31,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 SO2emissions intwophases (2009/2010 and 2015), ultimately capping SO2emissions in affected states to2.5 milliontons annually and NOx emissions to1.3 milliontons 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 SO2emissions intwophases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO2emissions in affected states to2.4 milliontons annually and NOx emissions to1.2 milliontons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO2emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate trading of NOx and SO2emission allowances with some restrictions. On February 21, 2012, the EPA revised certain CASPR state budgets (for Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin and new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas), certain generating unit allocations (for some units in Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee) for NOx and SO2emissions and delayed from 2012 to 2014 certain allowance penalties that could apply with respect to interstate trading of NOx and SO2emission allowances. On December 30, 2011, CSAPR was as follows:
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Weighted | |
| | | | | | | Average | |
| | | Number of | | | Exercise | |
| Stock Option Activities | | Shares | | | Price | |
| |
| Stock options outstanding as of January 1, 2011 (all exercisable) | | | 2,889,066 | | | $ | 35.18 | |
| Options granted | | | 662,122 | | | | 37.75 | |
| Converted Allegheny options | | | 1,805,811 | | | | 41.75 | |
| Options exercised | | | (182,422 | ) | | | 29.56 | |
| Options forfeited/expired | | | (6,670 | ) | | | 69.36 | |
| | | | | | | |
| Stock options outstanding as of March 31, 2011 | | | 5,167,907 | | | $ | 37.96 | |
| | | | | | | |
| (4,505,785 options exercisable) | | | | | | | | |
Compensation expense recognizedstayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for stock options during the three months ended March 31, 2011 was $0.1 million. No expense was recognized duringDistrict of Columbia Circuit pending a decision on legal challenges argued before the three months ending March 31, 2010. Options granted duringCourt on April 13, 2012. The Court ordered EPA to continue administration of CAIR until the three months ended March 31, 2011 had a grant-date fair value of $3.3 million and an expected weighted-average vesting period of 3.79 years.
67
Options outstanding by exercise price as of March 31, 2011 were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Weighted | | | Remaining | |
| | | Shares Under | | | Average | | | Contractual | |
| Exercise Prices | | Options | | | Exercise Price | | | Life in Years | |
| |
| $20.02 – $30.74 | | | 1,305,563 | | | $ | 26.72 | | | | 2.01 | |
| $30.89 – $40.93 | | | 3,378,866 | | | | 37.22 | | | | 4.79 | |
| $42.72 – $51.82 | | | 37,233 | | | | 44.40 | | | | 0.24 | |
| $53.06 – $62.97 | | | 54,559 | | | | 56.15 | | | | 3.27 | |
| $64.52 – $71.82 | | | 54,778 | | | | 68.52 | | | | 1.09 | |
| $73.39 – $80.47 | | | 327,570 | | | | 80.19 | | | | 6.01 | |
| $81.19 – $89.59 | | | 9,338 | | | | 83.51 | | | | 1.92 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | | 5,167,907 | | | $ | 37.96 | | | | 4.07 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Performance Shares
Performance shares will be settled in cash and are accounted for as liability awards. Compensation expense (income) recognized for performance shares duringCourt resolves the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, net of amounts capitalized, totaled $1 million and $(3) million, respectively. No performance shares under the FirstEnergy LTIP were settled during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.
(B) ESOP
During 2011 shares of FirstEnergy common stock were purchasedCSAPR appeals. Depending on the open marketoutcome of these proceedings and contributedhow any final rules are ultimately implemented, FGCO's and AE Supply's future cost of compliance may be substantial and changes to participants’ accounts. Total ESOP-related compensation expenseFirstEnergy'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. In addition, an EPA enforcement policy document contemplates up to an additional year to achieve compliance, through April 2017, under certain circumstances for reliability critical units. On January 26, 2012 and February 8, 2012, FGCO, MP and AE Supply announced the retirement by September 1, 2012 (subject to a reliability review by PJM) ofninecoal-fired power plants (Albright, Armstrong, Ashtabula, Bay Shore except for generating unit 1, Eastlake, Lake Shore, R. Paul Smith, Rivesville and Willow Island) with a total capacity of3,349MW (generating, on average, approximatelytenpercent of the electricity produced by the companies over the past three months endedyears) due to MATS and other environmental regulations. Depending on how the MATS are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergy's future cost of compliance with MATS may be substantial and other changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.
On March 31, 20118, 2012, FGCO filed an application for a feasibility study with PJM to install and 2010, netinterconnect to the transmission system approximately 800 megawatts of amounts capitalized and dividends on common stock were $7 million and $5 million, respectively.
(C) EDCP
Compensation expense (income) recognized on EDCP stock units, for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, net of amounts capitalized, was not material.
(D) DCPD
DCPD expenses recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were approximately $1 million and $1 million. The net liability recognized for DCPD of approximately $5 million as of March 31, 2011 is includednew combustion turbine peaking generation at its existing Eastlake Plant in Eastlake, Ohio, to help ensure reliable electric service in the caption “Retirement benefits” onregion. On April 25, 2012, PJM concluded its initial analysis of the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Of the 1.7 million stock units authorized under the EDCPreliability impacts from our previously announced plant retirements and DCPD, 1,076,779 stock units were availablerequested Reliability Must-Run arrangements for future awards as of March 31, 2011.
12. NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Eastlake 1-3, Ashtabula 5 and Lake Shore 18. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, there were no new accounting standards or interpretations issued, but not effective that would materially affect FirstEnergy’s financial statements.
13. SEGMENT INFORMATION
With the completion2012, FirstEnergy recognized pre-tax severance expense of approximately $7 million (including$4 million by FES) as a result of the Allegheny mergerclosures.
On March 9, 2012, to assist the WVPSC with inquiries from public officials and the public, MP provided information to the WVPSC in the first quarterform of a closed entry filing in the ENEC case related to the plant deactivations. On April 2, 2012, the WVPSC issued an order requesting additional information from MP related to the Albright, Rivesville and Willow Island plant deactiviation
announcements. On April 30, 2012, MP provided the WVPSC with additional information regarding the plant deactivations. We anticipate deactivating these units by September 1, 2012.
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 preconstruction permits would be required including an emissions applicability threshold of75,000tons per year of CO2equivalents 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 belowtwodegrees Celsius; includes a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching$30 billionover three years with a goal of increasing to$100 billionby 2020; and establishes the “Green Climate Fund” to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related activities in developing countries. To the extent that they have become a party to the Copenhagen Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries, including Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification. A December 2011 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban, Africa, established a negotiating process to develop a new post-2020 climate change protocol, called the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”. This negotiating process contemplates developed countries, as well as developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, to undertake legally binding commitments post-2020. In addition, certain countries agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol for a second commitment period, commencing in 2013 and expiring in 2018 or 2020.
FirstEnergy reorganized its management structure, which resultedcannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operating segmentsoperations. The CO2emissions 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-CO2emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.
Clean Water Act
Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal CWA and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy's plants. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy's operations.
In 2004, the EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the CWA for reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing electric generating plants. The regulations call for reductions in impingement mortality (when aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system) and entrainment (which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facility's cooling water system). In 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidated portions of the Section 316(b) performance standards and the EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment to minimize impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. In April 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuit's opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the CWA authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake structures. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation under Section 316(b) of the CWA to reduce fish impingement to a12%annual average and determine site-specific controls, if any, to reduce entrainment of aquatic life following studies to be consistentprovided to permitting authorities. On July 19, 2011, the EPA extended the public comment period for the new proposed Section 316(b) regulation by30days but stated its schedule for issuing a final rule remains July 27, 2012. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness, including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore power plant's water intake channel to divert fish away from the plant's water intake system. Depending on the results of such studies and the EPA's further rulemaking and any final action taken by the states exercising best professional judgment, the future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.
In April 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is no longer considering prosecution under the CWA and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26, 2007 and February 27, 2007. On February 1, 2012, FirstEnergy executed a tolling agreement with the mannerEPA extending the statute of limitations for civil liability claims for those petroleum spills to July 31, 2012. FGCO does not anticipate any losses resulting from this matter to be material.
In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including TDS and sulfate concentrations in which management views the business. TheMonongahela River, on new structure supportsand modified sources, including the combined company’s primary operations — distribution, transmission, generation andscrubber project at the marketing and sale of its products. The external segment reporting is consistent withcoal-fired Hatfield's Ferry Plant. These criteria are reflected in the internal financial reporting utilizedNPDES water discharge permit issued by FirstEnergy’s chief executive officer (its chief operatingPA DEP for that project. In January 2009, AE Supply appealed the PA DEP's permitting decision maker) to regularly assess the performance of the business and allocate resources. FirstEnergy now has three reportable operating segments — Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and Competitive Energy Services.
68
Prior to the changeEHB, due to estimated costs in compositionexcess of business segments, FirstEnergy’s business was comprised of two reportable operating segments. The Energy Delivery Services segment included FirstEnergy’s then eight existing utility operating companies that transmit$150 million in order to install technology to meet TDS and distribute electricity to customers and purchase power to serve their POLR and default service requirements. The Competitive Energy Services segment was comprised of FES, which supplies electric power to end-use customers through retail and wholesale arrangements. The “Other” segment consisted of corporate items and other businesses that were below the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure. Disclosures for FirstEnergy’s operating segments for 2010 have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation.
The changes in FirstEnergy’s reportable segments during the first quarter of 2011 consisted primarily of the following:
Energy Delivery Services was renamed Regulated Distribution and the operations of MP, PE and WP, which were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny, and certain regulatory asset recovery mechanisms formerly includedsulfate limits in the “Other” segment, were placed into this segment.
A new Regulated Independent Transmission segmentNPDES permit. Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens Coal Council also appealed the NPDES permit seeking to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. In April 2012, a joint motion was created consistingfiled by the parties informing the EHB of ATSI,a proposed settlement and seeking the operations of TrAIL Company and FirstEnergy’s interest in PATH; TrAIL and PATH were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny. The transmission assets and operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, MP, PE and WP remain within the Regulated Distribution segment.
AE Supply, an operator of generation facilities that was acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny, was placed into the Competitive Energy Services segment.
Financial information for each of FirstEnergy’s reportable segments is presented in the table below, which includes financial results for Allegheny beginning February 25, 2011. FES and the Utilities do not have separate reportable operating segments.
The Regulated Distribution segment distributes electricity through FirstEnergy’s ten utility operating companies, serving approximately 6 million customers within 67,000 square miles of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York, and purchases power for its POLR and default service requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This segment also includes the transmission operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, WP, MP and PE and the regulated electric generation facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey which MP and JCP&L, respectively, own or contractually control.
The Regulated Distribution segment’s revenues are primarily derived from the delivery of electricity within FirstEnergy’s service areas, cost recovery of regulatory assets and the sale of electric generation service to retail customers who have not selected an alternative supplier (POLR or default service) in its Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania franchise areas. Its results reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and AE Supply and from non-affiliated power suppliers and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
The Regulated Independent Transmission segment transmits electricity through transmission lines and its revenues are primarily derived from the formula rate recovery of costs and a return on debt and equity for capital expenditures in connection with TrAIL, PATH and other projects and revenues from providing transmission services to electric energy providers, power marketers and receiving transmission-related revenues from operationlifting of a portion of the EHB's stay of certain terms of the Hatfield's Ferry Plant's NPDES permit. The joint motion was granted by the EHB on April 27, 2012. The parties intend to memorialize the settlement in a Consent Decree to be lodged with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Consent Decree, if entered by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, will resolve the disputes concerning the Hatfield's Ferry Plant NPDES permit, including TDS and sulphate limits.
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 transmission system. Its results reflectcould incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the net PJMrequirements of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of 2018, and MISO transmission expenses relatedthen would apply only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to such units.
In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its CWA 303(d) list to the deliveryEPA with a recommended sulfate impairment designation for an approximately68mile stretch of the respective generation loads.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 approximatelyfiveyears. Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant costs to reduce sulfate discharges into the Monongahela River from the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired Fort Martin Plant in West Virginia.
In October 2009, the WVDEP issued 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 that sets deadlines for MP to meet certain of the effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the NPDES permit. MP has 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 the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfield's Ferry 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 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. The MP filed an answer on July 11, 2011, and a motion to stay the proceedings on July 13, 2011. On January 3, 2012, the Court denied MP's motion to dismiss or stay the CWA citizen suit but without prejudice to re-filing in the future. In April 2012, the parties reached a settlement requiring MP to resolve these CWA citizen suit claims for an immaterial amount. If approved by the Court, a Consent Decree will be entered by the Court to resolve these claims. 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 a60-day Notice of Intent required prior to filing a citizen suit under the CWA for alleged failure to obtain a permit to construct the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Plant.
FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CWA matters described above but, except as indicated above, cannot predict their outcomes or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
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 proposedtwooptions 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. The LBR CCB impoundment is expected to run out of disposal capacity for disposal of CCBs from the BMP between 2016 and 2018. BMP is pursuing several CCB disposal options.
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 our 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 ofMarch 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$106 million(including$70 millionapplicable to JCP&L) have been accrued throughMarch 31, 2012. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately$63 millionfor 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 ofMarch 31, 2012, 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. FirstEnergy Corp. currently maintains a $95 millionparental guaranty in support of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities.
In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. By an order dated April 26, 2011, a NRC ASLB granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application to a group of petitioners. 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 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives analysis. On January 10, 2012, intervenors petitioned the ASLB for a new contention on the cracking of the Davis-Besse shield building discussed below.The ASLB scheduled a May 18, 2012, oral argument on the petitioner's request for a new contention, but has yet to rule on the admission of this contention.
On October 1, 2011, Davis-Besse was safely shut down for a scheduled outage to install a new reactor vessel head and complete other maintenance activities. The new reactor head, which replaced a head installed in 2002, enhances safety and reliability, and features control rod nozzles made of material less susceptible to cracking. On October 10, 2011, following opening of the ATSI transmission assets currently dedicated to MISO are scheduled to be integrated intobuilding for installation of the PJM market. This integration brings allnew reactor head, a sub-surface hairline crack was identified in one of FirstEnergy’s assets into one RTO.
The Competitive Energy Services segment, through FES, supplies electric power to end-use customers through retailthe exterior architectural elements on the shield building. These elements serve as architectural features and wholesale arrangements, including associated company power sales to meet all or ado not have structural significance. During investigation of the crack at the shield building opening, concrete samples and electronic testing found similar sub-surface hairline cracks in most of the building's architectural elements. FENOC's investigation also identified other indications. Included among them were sub-surface hairline cracks in the upper portion of the POLRshield building (above elevation 780') and default service requirements of FirstEnergy’s Ohio and Pennsylvania utility subsidiaries and competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey. FES purchases the entire outputvicinity of the 18 generating facilitiesmain steam line penetrations. A team of industry-recognized structural concrete experts and Davis-Besse engineers has determined these conditions do not affect the facility's structural integrity or safety.
On December 2, 2011, the NRC issued a CAL which concluded that FENOC provided "reasonable assurance that the shield building remains capable of performing its safety functions." The CAL imposed a number of commitments from FENOC including, submitting a root cause evaluation and corrective actions to the NRC by February 28, 2012, and further evaluations of the shield building. On February 27, 2012, FENOC sent the root cause evaluation to the NRC. Finally, the CAL also stated that the NRC was still evaluating whether the current condition of the shield building conforms to the plant's licensing basis. On December 6, 2011, the Davis-Besse plant returned to service.
By letter dated August 25, 2011, the NRC made a final significance determination (white) associated with a violation that occurred during the retraction of a source range monitor from the Perry reactor vessel. The NRC also placed Perry in the degraded cornerstone column (Column 3) of the NRC's Action Matrix governing the oversight of commercial nuclear reactors. As a result, the NRC staff will conduct several supplemental inspections, culminating in an inspection using Inspection Procedure 95002 to determine if the
root cause and contributing causes of risk significant performance issues are understood, the extent of condition has been identified, whether safety culture contributed to the performance issues, and if FENOC's corrective actions are sufficient to address the causes and prevent recurrence.
On March 12, 2012, the NRC Staff 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 of11nuclear power plants, including Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2, with respect to the modeling of fuel performance as it owns and operates through its FGCO subsidiary (fossil and hydroelectric generating facilities) and owns, through its NGC subsidiary, FirstEnergy’s nuclear generating facilities. FENOC, a separate subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains NGC’s nuclear generating facilities as well asrelates to "thermal conductivity degradation," which is the output relating to leasehold interests of OE and TEpotential in certain of those facilities that are subject to sale and leaseback arrangements with non-affiliates, pursuant to full output, cost-of-service PSAs.
The Competitive Energy Services segment also includes Allegheny’s unregulated electric generation operations, including AE Supply and AE Supply’s interest in AGC. AE Supply owns, operates and controls the electric generation capacity of its 18 facilities. AGC owns and sells generationhigher 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. 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 which own approximately 59% and 41% of AGC, respectively. AGC’s sole asset isfiled a 40% undivided interestcomplaint in the BathCourt of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Virginia pumped-storage hydroelectric generation facilityPennsylvania against ICG, Anker WV, and its connecting transmission facilities. All of AGC’s revenues are derived from sales of its 1,109 MW share of generation capacity from the Bath County generation facility toAnker Coal. Anker WV entered into a long term Coal Sales Agreement with AE Supply and MP.
This business segment controls approximately 20,000 MWsMP for the supply of capacity and also purchases electricity to meet sales obligations. The segment’s net income is primarily derived from affiliated and non-affiliated electric generation sales less the related costs of electricity generation, including purchased power and net transmission (including congestion) and ancillary costs charged by PJM and MISO to deliver energycoal to the segment’s customers.
69
The Other segment contains corporate items and other businesses that are belowHarrison generating facility. Prior to the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosuretime of trial, ICG was dismissed as a reportable segment.
Segment Financial Information
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Competitive | | | Regulated | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Regulated | | | Energy | | | Independent | | | Other/ | | | Reconciling | | | | |
| Three Months Ended | | Distribution | | | Services | | | Transmission | | | Corporate | | | Adjustments | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In millions) | |
March 31, 2011 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| External revenues | | $ | 2,268 | | | $ | 1,254 | | | $ | 67 | | | $ | (23 | ) | | $ | (22 | ) | | $ | 3,544 | |
| Internal revenues | | | — | | | | 343 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (311 | ) | | | 32 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 2,268 | | | | 1,597 | | | | 67 | | | | (23 | ) | | | (333 | ) | | | 3,576 | |
| Depreciation and amortization | | | 245 | | | | 88 | | | | 13 | | | | 6 | | | | — | | | | 352 | |
| Investment income (loss), net | | | 25 | | | | 6 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (10 | ) | | | 21 | |
| Net interest charges | | | 131 | | | | 68 | | | | 9 | | | | 19 | | | | (14 | ) | | | 213 | |
| Income taxes | | | 56 | | | | 3 | | | | 7 | | | | (20 | ) | | | 32 | | | | 78 | |
| Net income (loss) | | | 96 | | | | 5 | | | | 13 | | | | (35 | ) | | | (34 | ) | | | 45 | |
| Total assets | | | 27,165 | | | | 17,308 | | | | 2,479 | | | | 914 | | | | — | | | | 47,866 | |
| Total goodwill | | | 5,551 | | | | 976 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6,527 | |
| Property additions | | | 177 | | | | 214 | | | | 27 | | | | 31 | | | | — | | | | 449 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
March 31, 2010 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| External revenues | | $ | 2,484 | | | $ | 719 | | | $ | 57 | | | $ | (22 | ) | | $ | (6 | ) | | $ | 3,232 | |
| Internal revenues | | | — | | | | 674 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (607 | ) | | | 67 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | | 2,484 | | | | 1,393 | | | | 57 | | | | (22 | ) | | | (613 | ) | | | 3,299 | |
| Depreciation and amortization | | | 313 | | | | 77 | | | | 12 | | | | 3 | | | | — | | | | 405 | |
| Investment income (loss), net | | | 26 | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 1 | | | | (12 | ) | | | 16 | |
| Net interest charges | | | 124 | | | | 33 | | | | 5 | | | | 13 | | | | (3 | ) | | | 172 | |
| Income taxes | | | 62 | | | | 42 | | | | 7 | | | | (12 | ) | | | 12 | | | | 111 | |
| Net income (loss) | | | 103 | | | | 69 | | | | 12 | | | | (19 | ) | | | (16 | ) | | | 149 | |
| Total assets | | | 21,535 | | | | 10,950 | | | | 995 | | | | 598 | | | | — | | | | 34,078 | |
| Total goodwill | | | 5,551 | | | | 24 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5,575 | |
| Property additions | | | 152 | | | | 329 | | | | 14 | | | | 13 | | | | — | | | | 508 | |
Reconciling adjustments to segment operating results from internal management reporting to consolidated external financial reporting primarily consist of elimination of intersegment transactions.
14. IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS
FirstEnergy reviews long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate thatdefendant by the carrying value of such assets may notCourt, which issue can be recoverable. The recoverabilitythe subject of a long-lived asset is measured by comparing its carrying value to the sum of undiscounted future cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. If the carrying value is greater than the undiscounted cash flows, impairment exists and a loss is recognized for the amount by which the carrying value of the long-lived asset exceeds its estimated fair value. Two events occurred during the first quarter of 2011 that indicated the carrying value of certain assets may not be recoverable as described in the sections below.
Fremont Energy Center
On March 11, 2011, FirstEnergy and American Municipal Power, Inc., (AMP) entered into an agreement for the sale of Fremont Energy Center, which includes two natural gas combined-cycle combustion turbines and a steam turbine capable of producing 544 MW of load-following capacity and 163 MW of peaking capacity. The agreement provides, among other things, for a targeted closing date in July 2011. The execution of this agreement triggered a need to evaluate the recoverability of the carrying value of the assets associated with the Fremont Energy Center. The estimated fair value of the Fremont Energy Center was based on the purchase price outlined in the sale agreement with American Municipal Power, Inc. The result of this evaluation indicated that the carrying cost of the Fremont Energy Center was not fully recoverable.appeal. As a result of defendants' past and continued failure to supply the recoverability evaluation, FirstEnergy recorded an impairment chargecontracted 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 $11$80 million to operating income during the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On April 19, 2011, FGCO filed an section 203 application with the FERCin damages for authorization to sell the Fremont Energy Center, including related capacity supply obligations, to AMP. Comments are due on the filing on or before May 10, 2011. FGCO requested FERC action by June 17, 2011.
70
Peaking Facilities
During the three months ended March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy assessed the carrying values of certain peaking facilities that will more likely than not be sold or disposed of beforereplacement coal purchased through the end of 2010 and will incur additional damages in excess of$150 millionfor future shortfalls. Defendants primarily claim that their useful lives.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 millionin 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, ICG posted bond and filed a Notice of Appeal.Briefing on the Appeal is concluded with oral argument scheduled for May 16, 2012. 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, 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 estimated fair valuesreduction in the discount had been approved by the PUCO. In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint by the Court of Common Pleas on all counts except for one relating to an allegation of fraud which it remanded to the trial court. The Companies timely filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio on December 5, 2011, challenging this one aspect of the Court of Appeals opinion. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to hear the appeal.
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 8, Regulatory Matters to the Combined Notes to the 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 and 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 estimated sales prices quoted in an active market. The result of this evaluation indicated that the carrying costsany of the peaking facilities were not fully recoverable. Asmatters referenced above, it could have a resultmaterial adverse effect on FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of the recoverability evaluation, FirstEnergy recorded an impairment charge of $14 million to the operating income of its Competitive Energy Services segment during the quarter ended March 31, 2011.operations and cash flows.
15. ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
FirstEnergy has recognized applicable legal obligations for AROs and their associated cost for nuclear power plant decommissioning, reclamation of sludge disposal ponds and closure of coal ash disposal sites. In addition, FirstEnergy has recognized conditional asset retirement obligations (primarily for asbestos remediation).43
The ARO liabilities for FES and OE include the decommissioning of the Perry nuclear generating facilities. FES and OE use an expected cash flow approach to measure the fair value of their nuclear decommissioning AROs.
During the first quarter of 2011, studies were completed to update the estimated cost of decommissioning the Perry nuclear generating facility. The cost studies resulted in a revision to the estimated cash flows associated with the ARO liabilities of FES and OE and reduced the liability for each subsidiary in the amounts of $40 million and $6 million, respectively, as of March 31, 2011.
The revision to the estimated cash flows had no significant impact on accretion of the obligation during the first quarter of 2011 when compared to the first quarter of 2010.
16.10. SUPPLEMENTAL GUARANTOR INFORMATION
On July 13,In 2007, FGCO completed a sale and leaseback transaction for its 93.825% undivided interest in Bruce Mansfield Unit 1. FES has fully, unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed all of FGCO’s obligations under each of the leases. The related lessor notes and pass through certificates are not guaranteed by FES or FGCO, but the notes are secured by, among other things, each lessor trust’s undivided interest in Unit 1, rights and interests under the applicable lease and rights and interests under other related agreements, including FES’ lease guaranty. This transaction is classified as an operating lease under GAAP for FES and FirstEnergy and as a financing for FGCO.
The condensed consolidating statementsCondensed Consolidating Statements of incomeIncome and Comprehensive Income for the three month periods ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, consolidating balance sheets as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and consolidating statements of cash flows for the three months endedMarch 31, 20112012 and 20102011, Consolidating Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 and Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 for FES (parent and guarantor), FGCO and NGC (non-guarantor) are presented below. Investments in wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted for by FES using the equity method. Results of operations for FGCO and NGC are, therefore, reflected in FES’ investment accounts and earnings as if operating lease treatment was achieved. The principal elimination entries eliminate investments in subsidiaries and intercompany balances and transactions and the entries required to reflect operating lease treatment associated with the 2007 Bruce Mansfield Unit 1 sale and leaseback transaction.
71
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited) AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 | | FES | | | FGCO | | | NGC | | | Eliminations | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In thousands) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES | | $ | 1,366,899 | | | $ | 742,638 | | | $ | 467,967 | | | $ | (1,186,416 | ) | | $ | 1,391,088 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | | 1,203 | | | | 293,862 | | | | 48,044 | | | | — | | | | 343,109 | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | | 1,184,606 | | | | 1,772 | | | | 68,743 | | | | (1,186,378 | ) | | | 68,743 | |
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | | 296,733 | | | | 205 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 296,938 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 177,529 | | | | 118,245 | | | | 188,009 | | | | 12,152 | | | | 495,935 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 879 | | | | 31,539 | | | | 37,333 | | | | (1,299 | ) | | | 68,452 | |
| General taxes | | | 12,263 | | | | 9,453 | | | | 7,389 | | | | — | | | | 29,105 | |
| Impairment of long-lived assets | | | — | | | | 13,800 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 13,800 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 1,673,213 | | | | 468,876 | | | | 349,518 | | | | (1,175,525 | ) | | | 1,316,082 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) | | | (306,314 | ) | | | 273,762 | | | | 118,449 | | | | (10,891 | ) | | | 75,006 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | 676 | | | | 232 | | | | 4,953 | | | | — | | | | 5,861 | |
| Miscellaneous income, including net income from equity investees | | | 247,859 | | | | 584 | | | | — | | | | (229,202 | ) | | | 19,241 | |
| Interest expense — affiliates | | | (50 | ) | | | (451 | ) | | | (516 | ) | | | — | | | | (1,017 | ) |
| Interest expense — other | | | (24,133 | ) | | | (27,758 | ) | | | (16,836 | ) | | | 15,767 | | | | (52,960 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 131 | | | | 4,826 | | | | 4,962 | | | | — | | | | 9,919 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total other income (expense) | | | 224,483 | | | | (22,567 | ) | | | (7,437 | ) | | | (213,435 | ) | | | (18,956 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | (81,831 | ) | | | 251,195 | | | | 111,012 | | | | (224,326 | ) | | | 56,050 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) | | | (117,841 | ) | | | 93,129 | | | | 42,374 | | | | 2,454 | | | | 20,116 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | | 36,010 | | | | 158,066 | | | | 68,638 | | | | (226,780 | ) | | | 35,934 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | — | | | | (76 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (76 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT | | $ | 36,010 | | | $ | 158,142 | | | $ | 68,638 | | | $ | (226,780 | ) | | $ | 36,010 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
72
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 | | FES | | FGCO | | NGC | | Eliminations | | Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| REVENUES | | $ | 1,490 |
| | $ | 542 |
| | $ | 394 |
| | $ | (910 | ) | | $ | 1,516 |
|
OPERATING EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | — |
| | 240 |
| | 55 |
| | — |
| | 295 |
|
| Purchased power from affiliates | | 965 |
| | — |
| | 62 |
| | (910 | ) | | 117 |
|
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | 487 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 487 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 76 |
| | 92 |
| | 116 |
| | 11 |
| | 295 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 1 |
| | 30 |
| | 34 |
| | (2 | ) | | 63 |
|
| General taxes | | 20 |
| | 10 |
| | 7 |
| | — |
| | 37 |
|
| Total operating expenses | | 1,549 |
| | 372 |
| | 274 |
| | (901 | ) | | 1,294 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) | | (59 | ) | | 170 |
| | 120 |
| | (9 | ) | | 222 |
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | 1 |
| | 4 |
| | 5 |
| | (4 | ) | | 6 |
|
| Miscellaneous income, including net income from equity investees | | 258 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (254 | ) | | 4 |
|
| Interest expense — affiliates | | (4 | ) | | (1 | ) | | (1 | ) | | 4 |
| | (2 | ) |
| Interest expense — other | | (23 | ) | | (26 | ) | | (7 | ) | | 15 |
| | (41 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | — |
| | 1 |
| | 8 |
| | — |
| | 9 |
|
| Total other income (expense) | | 232 |
| | (22 | ) | | 5 |
| | (239 | ) | | (24 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | 173 |
| | 148 |
| | 125 |
| | (248 | ) | | 198 |
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) | | 51 |
| | (1 | ) | | 23 |
| | 3 |
| | 76 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 122 |
| | $ | 149 |
| | $ | 102 |
| | $ | (251 | ) | | $ | 122 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 122 |
| | $ | 149 |
| | $ | 102 |
| | $ | (251 | ) | | $ | 122 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): | | | | | | | | | | |
| Pensions and OPEB prior service costs | | (5 | ) | | (4 | ) | | — |
| | 4 |
| | (5 | ) |
| Amortized loss on derivative hedges | | (5 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (5 | ) |
| Change in unrealized gain on available for sale securities | | 10 |
| | — |
| | 10 |
| | (10 | ) | | 10 |
|
| Other comprehensive income (loss) | | — |
| | (4 | ) | | 10 |
| | (6 | ) | | — |
|
| Income taxes (benefits) on other comprehensive income (loss) | | 2 |
| | (2 | ) | | 4 |
| | (2 | ) | | 2 |
|
| Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax | | (2 | ) | | (2 | ) | | 6 |
| | (4 | ) | | (2 | ) |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | $ | 120 |
| | $ | 147 |
| | $ | 108 |
| | $ | (255 | ) | | $ | 120 |
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited) AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 | | FES | | | FGCO | | | NGC | | | Eliminations | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In thousands) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
REVENUES | | $ | 1,367,025 | | | $ | 568,364 | | | $ | 426,320 | | | $ | (973,616 | ) | | $ | 1,388,093 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | | 5,097 | | | | 280,863 | | | | 42,261 | | | | — | | | | 328,221 | |
| Purchased power from affiliates | | | 968,537 | | | | 5,079 | | | | 60,953 | | | | (973,616 | ) | | | 60,953 | |
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | | 450,216 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 450,216 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 53,125 | | | | 99,776 | | | | 139,420 | | | | 12,189 | | | | 304,510 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 790 | | | | 26,527 | | | | 36,910 | | | | (1,309 | ) | | | 62,918 | |
| General taxes | | | 5,498 | | | | 14,600 | | | | 6,648 | | | | — | | | | 26,746 | |
| Impairment of long-lived assets | | | — | | | | 1,833 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1,833 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total expenses | | | 1,483,263 | | | | 428,678 | | | | 286,192 | | | | (962,736 | ) | | | 1,235,397 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) | | | (116,238 | ) | | | 139,686 | | | | 140,128 | | | | (10,880 | ) | | | 152,696 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income (loss) | | | 1,897 | | | | 54 | | | | (1,234 | ) | | | — | | | | 717 | |
| Miscellaneous income (expense), including net income from equity investees | | | 166,373 | | | | 200 | | | | (101 | ) | | | (163,329 | ) | | | 3,143 | |
| Interest expense — affiliates | | | (58 | ) | | | (1,812 | ) | | | (435 | ) | | | — | | | | (2,305 | ) |
| Interest expense — other | | | (23,373 | ) | | | (26,506 | ) | | | (15,763 | ) | | | 15,998 | | | | (49,644 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 100 | | | | 16,333 | | | | 3,257 | | | | — | | | | 19,690 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total other income (expense) | | | 144,939 | | | | (11,731 | ) | | | (14,276 | ) | | | (147,331 | ) | | | (28,399 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES | | | 28,701 | | | | 127,955 | | | | 125,852 | | | | (158,211 | ) | | | 124,297 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) | | | (51,225 | ) | | | 48,043 | | | | 45,013 | | | | 2,540 | | | | 44,371 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 79,926 | | | $ | 79,912 | | | $ | 80,839 | | | $ | (160,751 | ) | | $ | 79,926 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
73
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 | | FES | | FGCO | | NGC | | Eliminations | | Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| STATEMENTS OF INCOME | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| REVENUES | | $ | 1,366 |
| | $ | 743 |
| | $ | 469 |
| | $ | (1,187 | ) | | $ | 1,391 |
|
OPERATING EXPENSES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | 1 |
| | 294 |
| | 48 |
| | — |
| | 343 |
|
| Purchased power from affiliates | | 1,185 |
| | 2 |
| | 69 |
| | (1,187 | ) | | 69 |
|
| Purchased power from non-affiliates | | 297 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 297 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 162 |
| | 111 |
| | 180 |
| | 12 |
| | 465 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 1 |
| | 32 |
| | 38 |
| | (2 | ) | | 69 |
|
| General taxes | | 10 |
| | 11 |
| | 8 |
| | — |
| | 29 |
|
| Impairment of long-lived assets | | — |
| | 14 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 14 |
|
| Total operating expenses | | 1,656 |
| | 464 |
| | 343 |
| | (1,177 | ) | | 1,286 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) | | (290 | ) | | 279 |
| | 126 |
| | (10 | ) | | 105 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | 1 |
| | — |
| | 5 |
| | — |
| | 6 |
|
| Miscellaneous income, including net income from equity investees | | 242 |
| | 1 |
| | — |
| | (239 | ) | | 4 |
|
| Interest expense — affiliates | | (1 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (1 | ) |
| Interest expense — other | | (24 | ) | | (28 | ) | | (17 | ) | | 16 |
| | (53 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | — |
| | 5 |
| | 5 |
| | — |
| | 10 |
|
| Total other income (expense) | | 218 |
| | (22 | ) | | (7 | ) | | (223 | ) | | (34 | ) |
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES
| | (72 | ) | | 257 |
| | 119 |
| | (233 | ) | | 71 |
|
| INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) | | (117 | ) | | 96 |
| | 45 |
| | 2 |
| | 26 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
NET INCOME | | $ | 45 |
| | $ | 161 |
| | $ | 74 |
| | $ | (235 | ) | | $ | 45 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| NET INCOME | | $ | 45 |
| | $ | 161 |
| | $ | 74 |
| | $ | (235 | ) | | $ | 45 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | | | | | | | | | |
| Pensions and OPEB prior service costs | | (10 | ) | | (4 | ) | | (6 | ) | | 10 |
| | (10 | ) |
| Amortized loss on derivative hedges | | (9 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (9 | ) |
| Change in unrealized gain on available for sale securities | | 8 |
| | — |
| | 8 |
| | (8 | ) | | 8 |
|
| Other comprehensive income (loss) | | (11 | ) | | (4 | ) | | 2 |
| | 2 |
| | (11 | ) |
| Income taxes (benefits) on other comprehensive income (loss) | | (6 | ) | | (2 | ) | | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | (6 | ) |
| Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax | | (5 | ) | | (2 | ) | | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | (5 | ) |
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME | | $ | 40 |
| | $ | 159 |
| | $ | 75 |
| | $ | (234 | ) | | $ | 40 |
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| As of March 31, 2011 | | FES | | | FGCO | | | NGC | | | Eliminations | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In thousands) | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | — | | | $ | 6,831 | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 6,839 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Customers | | | 388,951 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 388,951 | |
| Associated companies | | | 621,241 | | | | 500,097 | | | | 269,750 | | | | (857,808 | ) | | | 533,280 | |
| Other | | | 27,966 | | | | 7,617 | | | | 51,128 | | | | — | | | | 86,711 | |
| Notes receivable from associated companies | | | 5,742 | | | | 389,312 | | | | 83,364 | | | | — | | | | 478,418 | |
| Materials and supplies, at average cost | | | 46,747 | | | | 251,190 | | | | 191,060 | | | | — | | | | 488,997 | |
| Derivatives | | | 328,156 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 328,156 | |
| Prepayments and other | | | 41,403 | | | | 9,093 | | | | 948 | | | | (506 | ) | | | 50,938 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,460,206 | | | | 1,164,140 | | | | 596,258 | | | | (858,314 | ) | | | 2,362,290 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 99,899 | | | | 6,102,623 | | | | 5,421,719 | | | | (384,676 | ) | | | 11,239,565 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 17,918 | | | | 2,035,726 | | | | 2,230,588 | | | | (176,690 | ) | | | 4,107,542 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 81,981 | | | | 4,066,897 | | | | 3,191,131 | | | | (207,986 | ) | | | 7,132,023 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 8,139 | | | | 147,546 | | | | 600,620 | | | | — | | | | 756,305 | |
| Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net | | | — | | | | 476,602 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 476,602 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 90,120 | | | | 4,691,045 | | | | 3,791,751 | | | | (207,986 | ) | | | 8,364,930 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1,159,903 | | | | — | | | | 1,159,903 | |
| Investment in associated companies | | | 5,175,787 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (5,175,787 | ) | | | — | |
| Other | | | 371 | | | | 9,171 | | | | 202 | | | | — | | | | 9,744 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 5,176,158 | | | | 9,171 | | | | 1,160,105 | | | | (5,175,787 | ) | | | 1,169,647 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income tax benefits | | | 32,544 | | | | 376,182 | | | | — | | | | (408,726 | ) | | | — | |
| Customer intangibles | | | 131,870 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 131,870 | |
| Goodwill | | | 24,248 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 24,248 | |
| Property taxes | | | — | | | | 16,463 | | | | 24,649 | | | | — | | | | 41,112 | |
| Unamortized sale and leaseback costs | | | — | | | | 23,288 | | | | — | | | | 67,515 | | | | 90,803 | |
| Derivatives | | | 211,223 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 211,223 | |
| Other | | | 26,661 | | | | 75,647 | | | | 8,157 | | | | (57,408 | ) | | | 53,057 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 426,546 | | | | 491,580 | | | | 32,806 | | | | (398,619 | ) | | | 552,313 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 7,153,030 | | | $ | 6,355,936 | | | $ | 5,580,920 | | | $ | (6,640,706 | ) | | $ | 12,449,180 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 785 | | | $ | 373,550 | | | $ | 632,106 | | | $ | (19,578 | ) | | $ | 986,863 | |
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 321,133 | | | | 39,410 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 360,543 | |
| Other | | | — | | | | 661 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 661 | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 769,133 | | | | 290,902 | | | | 208,889 | | | | (768,988 | ) | | | 499,936 | |
| Other | | | 92,874 | | | | 96,270 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 189,144 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 2,721 | | | | 98,597 | | | | 65,919 | | | | (100,744 | ) | | | 66,493 | |
| Derivatives | | | 380,744 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 380,744 | |
| Other | | | 31,698 | | | | 119,402 | | | | 26,282 | | | | 47,143 | | | | 224,525 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,599,088 | | | | 1,018,792 | | | | 933,196 | | | | (842,167 | ) | | | 2,708,909 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholder’s equity | | | 3,824,540 | | | | 2,673,372 | | | | 2,487,105 | | | | (5,160,461 | ) | | | 3,824,556 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 1,488,455 | | | | 2,113,043 | | | | 793,250 | | | | (1,249,751 | ) | | | 3,144,997 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 5,312,995 | | | | 4,786,415 | | | | 3,280,355 | | | | (6,410,212 | ) | | | 6,969,553 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 950,726 | | | | 950,726 | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | — | | | | — | | | | 456,556 | | | | (339,053 | ) | | | 117,503 | |
| Accumulated deferred investment tax credits | | | — | | | | 32,511 | | | | 20,670 | | | | | | | | 53,181 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | — | | | | 27,114 | | | | 839,529 | | | | — | | | | 866,643 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 48,818 | | | | 240,467 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 289,285 | |
| Property taxes | | | — | | | | 16,463 | | | | 24,649 | | | | — | | | | 41,112 | |
| Lease market valuation liability | | | — | | | | 205,366 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 205,366 | |
| Derivatives | | | 168,409 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 168,409 | |
| Other | | | 23,720 | | | | 28,808 | | | | 25,965 | | | | — | | | | 78,493 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 240,947 | | | | 550,729 | | | | 1,367,369 | | | | 611,673 | | | | 2,770,718 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 7,153,030 | | | $ | 6,355,936 | | | $ | 5,580,920 | | | $ | (6,640,706 | ) | | $ | 12,449,180 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
74
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| As of March 31, 2012 | | FES | | FGCO | | NGC | | Eliminations | | Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| ASSETS | | | | | | | | | | |
| CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | — |
| | $ | 7 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 7 |
|
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Customers | | 395 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 395 |
|
| Affiliated companies | | 472 |
| | 439 |
| | 241 |
| | (611 | ) | | 541 |
|
| Other | | 50 |
| | 19 |
| | 53 |
| | — |
| | 122 |
|
| Notes receivable from affiliated companies | | 81 |
| | 1,369 |
| | 44 |
| | (1,482 | ) | | 12 |
|
| Materials and supplies, at average cost | | 62 |
| | 283 |
| | 206 |
| | — |
| | 551 |
|
| Derivatives | | 322 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 322 |
|
| Prepayments and other | | 7 |
| | 17 |
| | 1 |
| | (1 | ) | | 24 |
|
| | | 1,389 |
| | 2,134 |
| | 545 |
| | (2,094 | ) | | 1,974 |
|
| PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: | | | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | 84 |
| | 5,614 |
| | 5,689 |
| | (385 | ) | | 11,002 |
|
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | 29 |
| | 1,843 |
| | 2,524 |
| | (182 | ) | | 4,214 |
|
| | | 55 |
| | 3,771 |
| | 3,165 |
| | (203 | ) | | 6,788 |
|
| Construction work in progress | | 31 |
| | 171 |
| | 971 |
| | — |
| | 1,173 |
|
| | | 86 |
| | 3,942 |
| | 4,136 |
| | (203 | ) | | 7,961 |
|
| INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | — |
| | — |
| | 1,240 |
| | — |
| | 1,240 |
|
| Investment in affiliated companies | | 5,956 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (5,956 | ) | | — |
|
| Other | | — |
| | 7 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 7 |
|
| | | 5,956 |
| | 7 |
| | 1,240 |
| | (5,956 | ) | | 1,247 |
|
| DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income tax benefits | | — |
| | 274 |
| | — |
| | (274 | ) | | — |
|
| Customer intangibles | | 120 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 120 |
|
| Goodwill | | 24 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 24 |
|
| Property taxes | | — |
| | 20 |
| | 23 |
| | — |
| | 43 |
|
| Unamortized sale and leaseback costs | | — |
| | 21 |
| | — |
| | 99 |
| | 120 |
|
| Derivatives | | 117 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 117 |
|
| Other | | 123 |
| | 111 |
| | 2 |
| | (65 | ) | | 171 |
|
| | | 384 |
| | 426 |
| | 25 |
| | (240 | ) | | 595 |
|
| | | $ | 7,815 |
| | $ | 6,509 |
| | $ | 5,946 |
| | $ | (8,493 | ) | | $ | 11,777 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | | | |
| CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 1 |
| | $ | 411 |
| | $ | 514 |
| | $ | (21 | ) | | $ | 905 |
|
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Affiliated companies | | 1,413 |
| | 69 |
| | — |
| | (1,482 | ) | | — |
|
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Affiliated companies | | 663 |
| | 175 |
| | 256 |
| | (611 | ) | | 483 |
|
| Other | | 69 |
| | 121 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 190 |
|
| Accrued Taxes | | 31 |
| | 33 |
| | 24 |
| | (13 | ) | | 75 |
|
| Derivatives | | 281 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 281 |
|
| Other | | 38 |
| | 111 |
| | 24 |
| | 72 |
| | 245 |
|
| | | 2,496 |
| | 920 |
| | 818 |
| | (2,055 | ) | | 2,179 |
|
| CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total equity | | 3,695 |
| | 3,244 |
| | 2,697 |
| | (5,941 | ) | | 3,695 |
|
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | 1,482 |
| | 1,903 |
| | 641 |
| | (1,229 | ) | | 2,797 |
|
| | | 5,177 |
| | 5,147 |
| | 3,338 |
| | (7,170 | ) | | 6,492 |
|
| NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 917 |
| | 917 |
|
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | 18 |
| | — |
| | 532 |
| | (185 | ) | | 365 |
|
| Asset retirement obligations | | — |
| | 28 |
| | 891 |
| | — |
| | 919 |
|
| Retirement benefits | | 31 |
| | 120 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 151 |
|
| Lease market valuation liability | | — |
| | 160 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 160 |
|
| Other | | 93 |
| | 134 |
| | 367 |
| | — |
| | 594 |
|
| | | 142 |
| | 442 |
| | 1,790 |
| | 732 |
| | 3,106 |
|
| | | $ | 7,815 |
| | $ | 6,509 |
| | $ | 5,946 |
| | $ | (8,493 | ) | | $ | 11,777 |
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| As of December 31, 2010 | | FES | | | FGCO | | | NGC | | | Eliminations | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In thousands) | |
ASSETS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | — | | | $ | 9,273 | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 9,281 | |
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Customers | | | 365,758 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 365,758 | |
| Associated companies | | | 333,323 | | | | 356,564 | | | | 125,716 | | | | (338,038 | ) | | | 477,565 | |
| Other | | | 21,010 | | | | 55,758 | | | | 12,782 | | | | — | | | | 89,550 | |
| Notes receivable from associated companies | | | 34,331 | | | | 188,796 | | | | 173,643 | | | | — | | | | 396,770 | |
| Materials and supplies, at average cost | | | 40,713 | | | | 276,149 | | | | 228,480 | | | | — | | | | 545,342 | |
| Derivatives | | | 181,660 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 181,660 | |
| Prepayments and other | | | 47,712 | | | | 11,352 | | | | 1,107 | | | | — | | | | 60,171 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 1,024,507 | | | | 897,892 | | | | 541,736 | | | | (338,038 | ) | | | 2,126,097 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | | 96,371 | | | | 6,197,776 | | | | 5,411,852 | | | | (384,681 | ) | | | 11,321,318 | |
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | | 17,039 | | | | 2,020,463 | | | | 2,162,173 | | | | (175,395 | ) | | | 4,024,280 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 79,332 | | | | 4,177,313 | | | | 3,249,679 | | | | (209,286 | ) | | | 7,297,038 | |
| Construction work in progress | | | 8,809 | | | | 519,651 | | | | 534,284 | | | | — | | | | 1,062,744 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 88,141 | | | | 4,696,964 | | | | 3,783,963 | | | | (209,286 | ) | | | 8,359,782 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1,145,846 | | | | — | | | | 1,145,846 | |
| Investment in associated companies | | | 4,941,763 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (4,941,763 | ) | | | — | |
| Other | | | 374 | | | | 11,128 | | | | 202 | | | | — | | | | 11,704 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 4,942,137 | | | | 11,128 | | | | 1,146,048 | | | | (4,941,763 | ) | | | 1,157,550 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income tax benefits | | | 42,986 | | | | 412,427 | | | | — | | | | (455,413 | ) | | | — | |
| Customer intangibles | | | 133,968 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 133,968 | |
| Goodwill | | | 24,248 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 24,248 | |
| Property taxes | | | — | | | | 16,463 | | | | 24,649 | | | | — | | | | 41,112 | |
| Unamortized sale and leaseback costs | | | — | | | | 10,828 | | | | — | | | | 62,558 | | | | 73,386 | |
| Derivatives | | | 97,603 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 97,603 | |
| Other | | | 21,018 | | | | 70,810 | | | | 14,463 | | | | (57,602 | ) | | | 48,689 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 319,823 | | | | 510,528 | | | | 39,112 | | | | (450,457 | ) | | | 419,006 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 6,374,608 | | | $ | 6,116,512 | | | $ | 5,510,859 | | | $ | (5,939,544 | ) | | $ | 12,062,435 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 100,775 | | | $ | 418,832 | | | $ | 632,106 | | | $ | (19,578 | ) | | $ | 1,132,135 | |
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | — | | | | 11,561 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 11,561 | |
| Other | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Associated companies | | | 351,172 | | | | 212,620 | | | | 249,820 | | | | (346,989 | ) | | | 466,623 | |
| Other | | | 139,037 | | | | 102,154 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 241,191 | |
| Accrued taxes | | | 3,358 | | | | 36,187 | | | | 30,726 | | | | (142 | ) | | | 70,129 | |
| Derivatives | | | 266,411 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 266,411 | |
| Other | | | 51,619 | | | | 147,754 | | | | 15,156 | | | | 37,142 | | | | 251,671 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 912,372 | | | | 929,108 | | | | 927,808 | | | | (329,567 | ) | | | 2,439,721 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholder’s equity | | | 3,788,245 | | | | 2,514,775 | | | | 2,413,580 | | | | (4,928,859 | ) | | | 3,787,741 | |
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | | 1,518,586 | | | | 2,118,791 | | | | 793,250 | | | | (1,249,752 | ) | | | 3,180,875 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 5,306,831 | | | | 4,633,566 | | | | 3,206,830 | | | | (6,178,611 | ) | | | 6,968,616 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 959,154 | | | | 959,154 | |
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | | — | | | | — | | | | 448,115 | | | | (390,520 | ) | | | 57,595 | |
| Accumulated deferred investment tax credits | | | — | | | | 33,280 | | | | 20,944 | | | | — | | | | 54,224 | |
| Asset retirement obligations | | | — | | | | 26,780 | | | | 865,271 | | | | — | | | | 892,051 | |
| Retirement benefits | | | 48,214 | | | | 236,946 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 285,160 | |
| Property taxes | | | — | | | | 16,463 | | | | 24,649 | | | | — | | | | 41,112 | |
| Lease market valuation liability | | | — | | | | 216,695 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 216,695 | |
| Derivatives | | | 81,393 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 81,393 | |
| Other | | | 25,798 | | | | 23,674 | | | | 17,242 | | | | — | | | | 66,714 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 155,405 | | | | 553,838 | | | | 1,376,221 | | | | 568,634 | | | | 2,654,098 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 6,374,608 | | | $ | 6,116,512 | | | $ | 5,510,859 | | | $ | (5,939,544 | ) | | $ | 12,062,435 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
75
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| As of December 31, 2011 | | FES | | FGCO | | NGC | | Eliminations | | Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| ASSETS | | | | | | | | | | |
| CURRENT ASSETS: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | | $ | — |
| | $ | 7 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 7 |
|
| Receivables- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Customers | | 424 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 424 |
|
| Affiliated companies | | 476 |
| | 643 |
| | 262 |
| | (781 | ) | | 600 |
|
| Other | | 28 |
| | 20 |
| | 13 |
| | — |
| | 61 |
|
| Notes receivable from affiliated companies | | 155 |
| | 1,346 |
| | 69 |
| | (1,187 | ) | | 383 |
|
| Materials and supplies, at average cost | | 60 |
| | 232 |
| | 200 |
| | — |
| | 492 |
|
| Derivatives | | 219 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 219 |
|
| Prepayments and other | | 11 |
| | 26 |
| | 1 |
| | — |
| | 38 |
|
| | | 1,373 |
| | 2,274 |
| | 545 |
| | (1,968 | ) | | 2,224 |
|
| PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: | | | | | | | | | | |
| In service | | 84 |
| | 5,573 |
| | 5,711 |
| | (385 | ) | | 10,983 |
|
| Less — Accumulated provision for depreciation | | 28 |
| | 1,813 |
| | 2,449 |
| | (180 | ) | | 4,110 |
|
| | | 56 |
| | 3,760 |
| | 3,262 |
| | (205 | ) | | 6,873 |
|
| Construction work in progress | | 29 |
| | 195 |
| | 790 |
| | — |
| | 1,014 |
|
| | | 85 |
| | 3,955 |
| | 4,052 |
| | (205 | ) | | 7,887 |
|
| INVESTMENTS: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts | | — |
| | — |
| | 1,223 |
| | — |
| | 1,223 |
|
| Investment in affiliated companies | | 5,716 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (5,716 | ) | | — |
|
| Other | | — |
| | 7 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 7 |
|
| | | 5,716 |
| | 7 |
| | 1,223 |
| | (5,716 | ) | | 1,230 |
|
| DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Accumulated deferred income tax benefits | | 10 |
| | 307 |
| | — |
| | (317 | ) | | — |
|
| Customer intangibles | | 123 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 123 |
|
| Goodwill | | 24 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 24 |
|
| Property taxes | | — |
| | 20 |
| | 23 |
| | — |
| | 43 |
|
| Unamortized sale and leaseback costs | | — |
| | 5 |
| | — |
| | 75 |
| | 80 |
|
| Derivatives | | 79 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 79 |
|
| Other | | 89 |
| | 99 |
| | 3 |
| | (62 | ) | | 129 |
|
| | | 325 |
| | 431 |
| | 26 |
| | (304 | ) | | 478 |
|
| | | $ | 7,499 |
| | $ | 6,667 |
| | $ | 5,846 |
| | $ | (8,193 | ) | | $ | 11,819 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION | | | | | | | | | | |
| CURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Currently payable long-term debt | | $ | 1 |
| | $ | 411 |
| | $ | 513 |
| | $ | (20 | ) | | $ | 905 |
|
| Short-term borrowings- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Affiliated companies | | 1,065 |
| | 89 |
| | 32 |
| | (1,186 | ) | | — |
|
| Accounts payable- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Affiliated companies | | 777 |
| | 228 |
| | 211 |
| | (780 | ) | | 436 |
|
| Other | | 99 |
| | 121 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 220 |
|
| Accrued Taxes | | 84 |
| | 42 |
| | 110 |
| | (9 | ) | | 227 |
|
| Derivatives | | 189 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 189 |
|
| Other | | 62 |
| | 141 |
| | 16 |
| | 42 |
| | 261 |
|
| | | 2,277 |
| | 1,032 |
| | 882 |
| | (1,953 | ) | | 2,238 |
|
| CAPITALIZATION: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Common stockholder’s equity | | 3,593 |
| | 3,097 |
| | 2,587 |
| | (5,700 | ) | | 3,577 |
|
| Long-term debt and other long-term obligations | | 1,483 |
| | 1,905 |
| | 641 |
| | (1,230 | ) | | 2,799 |
|
| | | 5,076 |
| | 5,002 |
| | 3,228 |
| | (6,930 | ) | | 6,376 |
|
| NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 925 |
| | 925 |
|
| Accumulated deferred income taxes | | 12 |
| | — |
| | 510 |
| | (236 | ) | | 286 |
|
| Asset retirement obligations | | — |
| | 28 |
| | 876 |
| | — |
| | 904 |
|
| Retirement benefits | | 56 |
| | 300 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 356 |
|
| Lease market valuation liability | | — |
| | 171 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 171 |
|
| Other | | 78 |
| | 134 |
| | 350 |
| | 1 |
| | 563 |
|
| | | 146 |
| | 633 |
| | 1,736 |
| | 690 |
| | 3,205 |
|
| | | $ | 7,499 |
| | $ | 6,667 |
| | $ | 5,846 |
| | $ | (8,193 | ) | | $ | 11,819 |
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 | | FES | | | FGCO | | | NGC | | | Eliminations | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In thousands) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES | | $ | (215,124 | ) | | $ | 267,047 | | | $ | 41,702 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 93,625 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| New Financing- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | — | | | | 90,190 | | | | 60,000 | | | | — | | | | 150,190 | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | 321,134 | | | | 28,509 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 349,643 | |
| Redemptions and Repayments- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | (130,208 | ) | | | (141,220 | ) | | | (60,000 | ) | | | — | | | | (331,428 | ) |
| Other | | | (430 | ) | | | (222 | ) | | | (365 | ) | | | — | | | | (1,017 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities | | | 190,496 | | | | (22,743 | ) | | | (365 | ) | | | — | | | | 167,388 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (2,858 | ) | | | (39,791 | ) | | | (116,357 | ) | | | — | | | | (159,006 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | — | | | | — | | | | 215,620 | | | | — | | | | 215,620 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | — | | | | — | | | | (230,912 | ) | | | — | | | | (230,912 | ) |
| Loans from (to) associated companies, net | | | 28,589 | | | | (200,516 | ) | | | 90,280 | | | | — | | | | (81,647 | ) |
| Customer acquisition costs | | | (1,103 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (1,103 | ) |
| Other | | | — | | | | (6,439 | ) | | | 32 | | | | — | | | | (6,407 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | | 24,628 | | | | (246,746 | ) | | | (41,337 | ) | | | — | | | | (263,455 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | — | | | | (2,442 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (2,442 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | — | | | | 9,273 | | | | 8 | | | | — | | | | 9,281 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | — | | | $ | 6,831 | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 6,839 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
76
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 | | FES | | FGCO | | NGC | | Eliminations | | Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES | | $ | (419 | ) | | $ | 66 |
| | $ | 175 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | (178 | ) |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| New Financing- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | 347 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (347 | ) | | — |
|
| Redemptions and Repayments- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | — |
| | (20 | ) | | (32 | ) | | 52 |
| | — |
|
| Other | | — |
| | (2 | ) | | (1 | ) | | — |
| | (3 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities | | 347 |
| | (22 | ) | | (33 | ) | | (295 | ) | | (3 | ) |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | (2 | ) | | (18 | ) | | (161 | ) | | — |
| | (181 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | — |
| | — |
| | 83 |
| | — |
| | 83 |
|
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | — |
| | — |
| | (90 | ) | | — |
| | (90 | ) |
| Loans to affiliated companies, net | | 74 |
| | (23 | ) | | 25 |
| | 295 |
| | 371 |
|
| Other | | — |
| | (3 | ) | | 1 |
| | — |
| | (2 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | 72 |
| | (44 | ) | | (142 | ) | | 295 |
| | 181 |
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | — |
| | 7 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 7 |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | — |
| | $ | 7 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 7 |
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 | | FES | | | FGCO | | | NGC | | | Eliminations | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In thousands) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES | | $ | (147,718 | ) | | $ | 40,130 | | | $ | 98,692 | | | $ | — | | | $ | (8,896 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Redemptions and Repayments- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | | (197 | ) | | | (1,081 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (1,278 | ) |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | | — | | | | (9,237 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (9,237 | ) |
| Other | | | (453 | ) | | | (177 | ) | | | (101 | ) | | | — | | | | (731 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net cash used for financing activities | | | (650 | ) | | | (10,495 | ) | | | (101 | ) | | | — | | | | (11,246 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | | (2,103 | ) | | | (174,163 | ) | | | (125,337 | ) | | | — | | | | (301,603 | ) |
| Proceeds from asset sales | | | — | | | | 114,272 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 114,272 | |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | | — | | | | — | | | | 272,094 | | | | — | | | | 272,094 | |
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | | — | | | | — | | | | (284,888 | ) | | | — | | | | (284,888 | ) |
| Loans from associated companies, net | | | 250,908 | | | | 31,232 | | | | 39,540 | | | | — | | | | 321,680 | |
| Customer acquisition costs | | | (100,615 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (100,615 | ) |
| Other | | | 178 | | | | (977 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (799 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | | 148,368 | | | | (29,636 | ) | | | (98,591 | ) | | | — | | | | 20,141 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | | — | | | | (1 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (1 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | | — | | | | 3 | | | | 9 | | | | — | | | | 12 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | — | | | $ | 2 | | | $ | 9 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 11 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
77
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 | | FES | | FGCO | | NGC | | Eliminations | | Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES | | $ | (215 | ) | | $ | 267 |
| | $ | 42 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 94 |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| New Financing- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | — |
| | 90 |
| | 60 |
| | — |
| | 150 |
|
| Short-term borrowings, net | | 322 |
| | 28 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 350 |
|
| Redemptions and Repayments- | | | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | (131 | ) | | (141 | ) | | (60 | ) | | — |
| | (332 | ) |
| Other | | (1 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (1 | ) |
| Net cash used for financing activities | | 190 |
| | (23 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | 167 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Property additions | | (3 | ) | | (40 | ) | | (116 | ) | | — |
| | (159 | ) |
| Sales of investment securities held in trusts | | — |
| | — |
| | 216 |
| | — |
| | 216 |
|
| Purchases of investment securities held in trusts | | — |
| | — |
| | (231 | ) | | — |
| | (231 | ) |
| Loans to affiliated companies, net | | 28 |
| | (200 | ) | | 90 |
| | — |
| | (82 | ) |
| Customer acquisition costs | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| Other | | — |
| | (6 | ) | | (1 | ) | | — |
| | (7 | ) |
| Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities | | 25 |
| | (246 | ) | | (42 | ) | | — |
| | (263 | ) |
Net change in cash and cash equivalents | | — |
| | (2 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (2 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period | | — |
| | 9 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 9 |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents at end of period | | $ | — |
| | $ | 7 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 7 |
|
11. SEGMENT INFORMATION
| | |
Item 2. | | Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Registrant and Subsidiaries
|
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. in the first quarter of 2011 were $50 million, or basic and diluted earnings of $0.15 per share of common stock, compared with $155 million, or basic and diluted earnings of $0.51 per share of common stock in the first quarter of 2010. The principal reasons for the decreases are summarized below.
| | | | | |
| Change in Basic Earnings Per Share From Prior Year | | 2011 | |
| | | | | |
| Basic earnings Per Share — First Quarter 2010 | | $ | 0.51 | |
| Non-core asset sales/impairments | | | (0.03 | ) |
| Trust securities impairments | | | 0.01 | |
| Mark-to-market adjustments | | | 0.09 | |
| Income tax charge from healthcare legislation — 2010 | | | 0.04 | |
| Regulatory charges — 2011 | | | (0.04 | ) |
| Regulatory charges — 2010 | | | 0.08 | |
| Merger-related costs | | | (0.34 | ) |
| Revenues | | | (0.26 | ) |
| Fuel and purchased power | | | 0.21 | |
| Transmission expense | | | (0.07 | ) |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 0.07 | |
| Interest expense | | | 0.03 | |
| Merger accounting — commodity contracts | | | (0.04 | ) |
| Allegheny earnings contribution* | | | 0.13 | |
| Additional shares issued | | | (0.06 | ) |
| Other | | | (0.18 | ) |
| | | | |
| Basic earnings Per Share — First Quarter 2011 | | $ | 0.15 | |
| | | | |
| | |
* | | Excludes merger accounting — commodity contracts, regulatory charges, mark-to-market adjustments and merger-related costs that are shown separately. |
Merger
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger between FirstEnergy, Element Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (Merger Sub), and AE, Merger Sub merged with and into AE with AE continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. As part of the merger, AE shareholders received 0.667 of a share of FirstEnergy common stock for each AE share outstanding as of the merger completion date and all outstanding AE equity-based employee compensation awards were converted into FirstEnergy equity-based awards on the same basis.
In connection with the merger, FirstEnergy recorded approximately $82 million and $14 million of merger transaction costs during the first quarter of 2011 and 2010, respectively. FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements include Allegheny’s results of operations and financial position effective February 25, 2011. In addition, in the three months ended March 31, 2011, $75 million of pre-tax merger integration costs and $24 million of charges from merger settlements approved by regulatory agencies have been recognized. Charges resulting from merger settlements are not expected to be material in future periods.
78
Operational Matters
Fremont Energy Center
On March 14, 2011, FirstEnergy entered into a definitive agreement to sell Fremont Energy Center (707 MW) to American Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP). Under the terms of the agreement, AMP will purchase Fremont Energy Center for approximately $485 million, based on 685 MW of output. The purchase price would be incrementally increased, not to exceed an additional $16 million, to reflect additional output and transmission export capacity to its nameplate capacity of 707 MW. In addition, AMP would reimburse FirstEnergy up to $25.3 million for construction costs incurred from February 1, 2011 through the closing date. On April 19, 2011, FGCO filed an application with the FERC for authorization to sell the Fremont Energy Center, including related capacity supply obligations, to AMP. The transaction is expected to close in July 2011.
Perry Refueling
FENOC shutdown the Perry Nuclear Plant on April 18, 2011, for scheduled refueling and maintenance. During the outage 284 of the 748 fuel assemblies will be exchanged and maintenance safety inspections will be conducted while the unit is off line. Preventative maintenance to ensure continued safe and reliable operations will be preformed, including replacing several control rod blades, rewinding the generator and testing more than 100 valves. On April 25, 2011, the NRC began a Special Inspection to review the circumstances surrounding work activities to remove a source range monitor from the reactor core on April 22, 2011.
Beaver Valley Refueling
On April 11, 2011, FENOC announced that Beaver Valley Unit 2 (911 MW) returned to service following a March 7, 2011 shutdown for refueling and maintenance. During the outage 60 of the 157 fuel assemblies were exchanged, safety inspections were conducted, and numerous maintenance and improvement projects were completed.
Seneca Plant Maintenance
In March 2011, FirstEnergy announced that the Seneca Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric facility (451 MW) will repave its Upper Reservoir, overhaul the shutoff valves and perform routine maintenance activities.
TrAIL
On April 15, 2011, the TrAIL 500 kV line segment from Meadowbrook substation to Loudoun substation in Virginia was successfully energized and is carrying load. The other segments are planned to be energized in May. The entire TrAIL line is scheduled to be completed and placed in service no later than June 2011.
Signal Peak
On March 16, 2011, Signal Peak Energy received a letter from the MSHA indicating that its mine is no longer being considered for a pattern of potential violations notice.
Financial Matters
On March 16, 2011, Penelec and Met-Ed extended for three years the LOCs supporting two series of PCRBs currently outstanding in a variable interest rate mode totaling $49 million.
On March 17 and April 1, 2011, FES and Penelec completed the remarketing of six series of PCRBs totaling $328 million. Each of these series either remained in or was converted to a variable interest rate mode supported by a three-year bank LOC. In connection with the remarketings, approximately $207 million aggregate principal amount of FMBs previously delivered to LOC providers were cancelled, and approximately $50 million aggregate principal amount of FMBs previously delivered to secure PCRBs are expected to be cancelled on May 31, 2011.
On March 29, 2011, FES repaid a $100 million two-year term loan facility secured by FMBs that was scheduled to mature March 31, 2011. On April 8, 2011, FirstEnergy entered into a new $150 million unsecured term loan with an April 2013 maturity.
79
Regulatory Matters
Ohio Energy Efficiency (EE) and Peak Demand Reduction (DR) Portfolio Plan
On March 23, 2011, the PUCO approved the three-year EE and DR portfolio plan for the Ohio Companies. The Ohio Companies’ plan was developed to comply with the EE mandate in Ohio’s SB 221, passed in 2008. This law requires that utilities in Ohio reduce energy usage by 22.2 percent by 2025 and peak demand by 7.75 percent by 2018, develop a portfolio plan, and meet annual benchmarks to measure progress.
Penn SREC
On March 11, 2011, the PPUC approved the results of the Penn procurement of SRECs to meet Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards through 2020. One SREC represents the solar renewable energy attributes of one MWH of generation from a solar generating facility. Penn contracted for 19,800 SREC’s. This purchase of SRECs is equivalent to approximately 2,200 MWH of solar power generation annually over the next nine years. The average cost is $199.09 per SREC, with deliveries scheduled for June 2011 through May 2020.
FIRSTENERGY’S BUSINESS
With the completion of the Allegheny merger in the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy reorganized its management structure, which resulted in changes to its operating segments to be consistent with the manner in which management views the business. The new structure supports the combined company’s primary operations — distribution, transmission, generation and the marketing and sale of its products. The external segment reporting is consistent with the internal financial reporting utilized by FirstEnergy’s chief executive officer (its chief operating decision maker) to regularly assess the performance of the business and allocate resources. FirstEnergy now has three reportable operating segments — Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and Competitive Energy Services.
Prior to the change in composition of business segments, FirstEnergy’s business was comprised of two reportable operating segments. The Energy Delivery Services segment included FirstEnergy’s then eight existing utility operating companies that transmit and distribute electricity to customers and purchase power to serve their POLR and default service requirements. The Competitive Energy Services segment was comprised of FES, which supplies electric power to end-use customers through retail and wholesale arrangements. The “Other” segment consisted of corporate items and other businesses that were below the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure. Disclosures for FirstEnergy’s operating segments for 2010 have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation.
The changes in FirstEnergy’s reportable segments during the first quarter of 2011 consisted primarily of the following:
Energy Delivery Services was renamed Regulated Distribution and the operations of MP, PE and WP, which were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny, and certain regulatory asset recovery mechanisms formerly included in the “Other” segment, were placed into this segment.
A new Regulated Independent Transmission segment was created consisting of ATSI, and the operations of TrAIL Company and FirstEnergy’s interest in PATH; TrAIL and PATH were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny. The transmission assets and operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, MP, PE and WP remain within the Regulated Distribution segment.
AE Supply, an operator of generation facilities that was acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny, was placed into the Competitive Energy Services segment.
Financial information for each of FirstEnergy’s reportable segments is presented in the tabletables below, which includes financial results for the Allegheny subsidiaries beginning February 25, 2011. FES, OE and the UtilitiesJCP&L do not have separate reportable operating segments.
80
The Regulated Distribution segment distributes electricity through FirstEnergy’s ten utility operating companies, serving approximately 6 million customers within 67,00065,000 square miles of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York, and purchases power for its POLR, SOS and default service requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New Jersey.Maryland. This segment also includes the transmission operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec,ME, PN, WP, MP and PE and the regulated electric generation facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey which MP and JCP&L, respectively, own or contractually control.
The Regulated Distribution segment’s revenues are primarily derived from the delivery of electricity within FirstEnergy’s service areas, cost recovery of regulatory assets and the sale of electric generation service to retail customers who have not selected an alternative supplier (POLR or default service) in its Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania franchise areas. Its results reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and AE Supply and from non-affiliated power suppliers and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
The Regulated Independent Transmission segment transmits electricity through transmission lines. Itslines and its revenues are primarily derived from the formula rate recovery offormulaic rates that recover costs and provide a return on debt and equityinvestment for capital expenditures in connection with TrAIL, PATH and other projects and revenues from providing transmission services to electric energy providers, power marketers and receiving transmission-related revenues from operation ofoperating a portion of the FirstEnergy transmission system. Its results reflect the net PJM and MISO transmission expenses related to the delivery of the respective generation loads. On June 1, 2011, the ATSI transmission assets currently dedicated to MISO are scheduled to be integrated into the PJM market. This integration brings all of FirstEnergy’s assets into one RTO.
The Competitive Energy Services segment, through FES and AE Supply, supplies electric powerelectricity to end-use customers through retail and wholesale arrangements, including associated company power sales to meet all or a portion of the POLR and default service requirements of FirstEnergy’s Ohio and Pennsylvania utility subsidiaries and competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and Maryland Michigan and New Jersey. FES purchases the entire outputprovision of partial POLR and default service for some utilities in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, including the 18 generating facilities which it owns and operates through its FGCO subsidiary (fossil and hydroelectric generating facilities) and owns, through its NGC subsidiary, FirstEnergy’s nuclear generating facilities. FENOC, a separate subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains NGC’s nuclear generating facilities as well as the output relating to leasehold interests of OE and TE in certain of those facilities that are subject to sale and leaseback arrangements with non-affiliates, pursuant to full output, cost-of-service PSAs.
The Competitive Energy Services segment also includes Allegheny’s unregulated electric generation operations, including AE Supply and AE Supply’s interest in AGC. AE Supply owns, operates and controls the electric generation capacity of its 18 facilities. AGC owns and sells generation capacity to AE Supply and MP, which own approximately 59% and 41% of AGC, respectively. AGC’s sole asset is a 40% undivided interest in the Bath County, Virginia pumped-storage hydroelectric generation facility and its connecting transmission facilities. All of AGC’s revenues are derived from sales of its 1,109 MW share of generation capacity from the Bath County generation facility to AE Supply and MP.
Utilities. This business segment controls approximately 20,00017,000 MWs of capacity (excluding approximately 2,700 MWs from unregulated plants expected to be closed by September 1, 2012 (see Note 8, Regulatory Matters of the Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements) and also purchases electricity to meet sales obligations. The segment’s net income is primarily derived from affiliated and non-affiliated electric generation sales less the related costs of electricity generation, including purchased power and net transmission (including congestion) and ancillary costs charged by PJM and MISO (prior to June 1, 2011) to deliver energy to the segment’s customers.
The Other segmentOther/Corporate contains corporate items and other businesses that are below the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure as a reportable segment. Reconciling adjustments primarily consist of elimination of intersegment transactions.
81
Segment Financial Information
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended | | Regulated Distribution | | Competitive Energy Services | | Regulated Independent Transmission | | Other/Corporate | | Reconciling Adjustments | | Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| March 31, 2012 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| External revenues | | $ | 2,383 |
| | $ | 1,607 |
| | $ | 109 |
| | $ | (24 | ) | | $ | 1 |
| | $ | 4,076 |
|
| Internal revenues | | — |
| | 268 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (266 | ) | | 2 |
|
| Total revenues | | 2,383 |
| | 1,875 |
| | 109 |
| | (24 | ) | | (265 | ) | | 4,078 |
|
| Depreciation and amortization | | 234 |
| | 100 |
| | 18 |
| | 8 |
| | — |
| | 360 |
|
| Investment income | | 24 |
| | 6 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (19 | ) | | 11 |
|
| Net interest charges | | 142 |
| | 54 |
| | 12 |
| | 21 |
| | — |
| | 229 |
|
| Income taxes | | 108 |
| | 83 |
| | 20 |
| | (16 | ) | | 27 |
| | 222 |
|
| Net income | | 183 |
| | 141 |
| | 34 |
| | (28 | ) | | (24 | ) | | 306 |
|
| Total assets | | 27,551 |
| | 17,187 |
| | 2,452 |
| | 501 |
| | — |
| | 47,691 |
|
| Total goodwill | | 5,551 |
| | 893 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 6,444 |
|
| Property additions | | 301 |
| | 243 |
| | 28 |
| | 17 |
| | — |
| | 589 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2011 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| External revenues | | $ | 2,268 |
| | $ | 1,254 |
| | $ | 67 |
| | $ | (23 | ) | | $ | (22 | ) | | $ | 3,544 |
|
| Internal revenues | | — |
| | 343 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (311 | ) | | 32 |
|
| Total revenues | | 2,268 |
| | 1,597 |
| | 67 |
| | (23 | ) | | (333 | ) | | 3,576 |
|
| Depreciation and amortization | | 250 |
| | 88 |
| | 13 |
| | 6 |
| | — |
| | 357 |
|
| Investment income | | 25 |
| | 6 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (10 | ) | | 21 |
|
| Net interest charges | | 131 |
| | 68 |
| | 9 |
| | 19 |
| | (14 | ) | | 213 |
|
| Income taxes | | 64 |
| | 9 |
| | 7 |
| | — |
| | 31 |
| | 111 |
|
| Net income | | 109 |
| | 15 |
| | 12 |
| | (55 | ) | | (34 | ) | | 47 |
|
| Total assets | | 27,766 |
| | 17,399 |
| | 2,486 |
| | 914 |
| | — |
| | 48,565 |
|
| Total goodwill | | 5,551 |
| | 956 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 6,507 |
|
| Property additions | | 177 |
| | 214 |
| | 27 |
| | 31 |
| | — |
| | 449 |
|
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Registrant and Subsidiaries
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
OVERVIEW
Earnings Available to FirstEnergy Corp. in the first quarter of 2012 were $306 million, or basic and diluted earnings of $0.73 per share of common stock, compared with $52 million, or basic and diluted earnings of $0.15 per share of common stock in the first quarter of 2011. The principal reasons for the changes in basic earnings per share are summarized below.
|
| | | | |
| Change In Basic Earnings Per Share From Prior Year | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
| Basic Earnings Per Share - First Quarter 2011 | | $ | 0.15 |
|
Segment operating results(1) - | | |
| Regulated Distribution | | (0.03 | ) |
| Competitive Energy Services | | 0.04 |
|
| Regulated Independent Transmission | | 0.01 |
|
| Regulatory charges | | (0.01 | ) |
| Income Tax Charge – retiree prescription drug subsidy | | (0.02 | ) |
| Merger-related costs | | 0.37 |
|
| Impact of non-core asset sales/impairments | | 0.03 |
|
| Mark-to-market adjustments | | 0.08 |
|
| Merger accounting — commodity contracts | | (0.01 | ) |
| Plant closing costs | | (0.05 | ) |
Net merger accretion(1)(2) | | 0.17 |
|
| Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized | | 0.02 |
|
| Investment Income | | (0.01 | ) |
| Other | | (0.01 | ) |
| Basic Earnings Per Share - First Quarter 2012 | | $ | 0.73 |
|
| |
(1) | Excludes amounts that are shown separately |
| |
(2) | Includes dilutive effect of shares issued in connection with the Allegheny merger, and 3 months of Allegheny results in the first quarter of 2012 compared to 1 month during the same period of 2011. |
Financial Matters
On April 2, 2012, FGCO and NGC refinanced $52.1 million and $29.5 million, respectively, of PCRBs. The bonds were converted from a fixed-rate mandatory put mode to a variable-rate mode enhanced with a 3-year LOC. Additionally, on April 2, 2012, FGCO and NGC remarketed $146.7 million and $315 million of PCRBs, respectively, in a variable rate mode enhanced with a LOC.
On April 16, 2012, WP issued $100 million of FMBs through a private placement at a rate of 3.34%. These bonds have a maturity date of April 15, 2022, and the proceeds were used in part to retire $80 million of 6.625% medium term notes that matured on April 16, 2012.
On April 16, 2012, AE Supply retired $503.2 million of 8.25% medium term notes at maturity.
Operational Matters
Request for New Generation
On March 8, 2012, FGCO filed an application for a feasibility study with PJM Interconnection to install and interconnect to the transmission system approximately 800 MW of new combustion turbine peaking generation at its existing Eastlake Plant in Eastlake, Ohio, to help ensure reliable electric service in the region. On April 25, 2012, PJM concluded its initial analysis of the reliability impacts from our previously announced plant retirements and requested Reliability Must-Run arrangements for Eastlake 1-3, Ashtabula 5 and Lake Shore 18.
Root Cause Analysis Completed for Davis-Besse
On February 28, 2012, FENOC announced it completed its Root Cause Analysis Report regarding the hairline cracks identified in portions of the Davis-Besse Shield Building during the fall 2011 reactor head replacement outage. The report was submitted to the NRC and concluded that based on extensive evaluation, the structural integrity of the shield building remains intact and the building is able to perform its safety function.
Regulatory Matters
Ohio Utilities File to Extend Electric Security Plan
FE's Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO to essentially extend their current ESP for two more years. If approved by the PUCO, the extension would allow the Ohio Companies to establish electricity prices for their customers through May 31, 2016. The Ohio Companies requested PUCO approval by May 2, 2012, so that they may bid megawatts of PJM-qualified energy efficiency and demand response resources into the May 7, 2012, PJM capacity auction for the 2015-2016 planning year or in the alternate by June 20 which would be too late to bid a portion of the demand resources into the May 7, 2012, PJM capacity auction but would allow adequate time to implement changes to the bidding schedule to capture a greater amount of generation at historically lower prices for the benefit of customers. The PUCO has set an evidentiary hearing for May 21, 2012; therefore approval by May 2, 2012, is not expected.
As proposed, the extended ESP would maintain the substantial benefits from the current ESP including:
Freezing current base distribution rates through May 31, 2016;
continuing to provide economic development and assistance to low-income customers for the two-year extension period at the levels established in the existing ESP;
providing Percentage of Income Payment Plan customers with a 6 percent generation rate discount;
continuing to provide capacity to shopping and non-shopping customers at a market-based price set through an auction process; and
continuing Rider DCR that allows continued investment in the distribution system for the benefit of customers.
As proposed, the extended ESP would provide additional new benefits, including:
Securing generation supply over a longer period to mitigate any potential price spikes for FirstEnergy Ohio utility customers who do not switch to a competitive generation supplier; and
extending the recovery period for costs associated with purchasing renewable energy credits mandated by SB221 through the end of the new ESP period. This will reduce the monthly renewable energy charge for all of the FirstEnergy Ohio utility customers.
The filing is supported by 19 parties including: Industrial Energy Users, Ohio Energy Group, PUCO Staff, the City of Akron, Ohio Manufacturers Association, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, and the Council of Smaller Enterprises (COSE).
FIRSTENERGY’S BUSINESS
FirstEnergy has three reportable operating segments — Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and Competitive Energy Services.
Financial information for each of FirstEnergy’s reportable segments is presented in the tables below, which includes financial results for the Allegheny subsidiaries beginning February 25, 2011. FES, OE and JCP&L do not have separate reportable operating segments.
The Regulated Distribution segment distributes electricity through FirstEnergy’s ten utility operating companies, serving approximately 6 million customers within 65,000 square miles of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York, and purchases power for its POLR, SOS and default service requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. This segment also includes the transmission operations of JCP&L, ME, PN, WP, MP and PE and the regulated electric generation facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey which MP and JCP&L, respectively, own or contractually control. Its results reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
The Regulated Independent Transmission segment transmits electricity through transmission lines and its revenues are primarily derived from formulaic rates that recover costs and provide a return on investment for capital expenditures in connection with TrAIL, PATH and other projects and revenues from providing transmission services to electric energy providers, power marketers and revenue from operating a portion of the FirstEnergy transmission system. Its results reflect the net transmission expenses related to the delivery of the respective generation loads.
The Competitive Energy Services segment, through FES and AE Supply, supplies electricity to end-use customers through retail and wholesale arrangements, including competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan,
New Jersey and Maryland and the provision of partial POLR and default service for some utilities in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, including the Utilities. This business segment controls approximately 17,000 MWs of capacity (excluding approximately 2,700 MWs from unregulated plants expected to be closed by September 1, 2012, (see Note 8, Regulatory Matters, of the Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements) and also purchases electricity to meet sales obligations. The segment’s net income is primarily derived from electric generation sales less the related costs of electricity generation, including purchased power and net transmission (including congestion) and ancillary costs charged by PJM and MISO (prior to June 1, 2011) to deliver energy to the segment’s customers.
Other and Reconciling Adjustments contains corporate items and other businesses that are below the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure as a reportable segment as well as reconciling adjustments for the elimination of intersegment transactions. See Note 11, Segment Information, of the Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on FirstEnergy's reportable operating segments.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The financial results discussed below include revenues and expenses from transactions among FirstEnergy’s business segments. Results from the pre-merged companies (FE and its subsidiaries prior to the merger) have been segregated from the Allegheny companies for variance reporting and analysis. Results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011, include only one month of Allegheny results. In addition, Allegheny's results were affected by many of the same factors that influenced the operating results of the pre-merged companies. A reconciliation of segment financial results is provided in Note 1311, Segment Information, to the consolidated financial statements.Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Earnings available to FirstEnergy by major business segment were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended | | | | |
| | | March 31 | | | Increase | |
| | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions, except per share data) | |
Earnings By Business Segment: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Regulated Distribution | | $ | 96 | | | $ | 103 | | | $ | (7 | ) |
| Competitive Energy Services | | | 5 | | | | 69 | | | | (64 | ) |
| Regulated Independent Transmission | | | 13 | | | | 12 | | | | 1 | |
| Other and reconciling adjustments* | | | (64 | ) | | | (29 | ) | | | (35 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | 50 | | | $ | 155 | | | $ | (105 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic Earnings Per Share | | $ | 0.15 | | | $ | 0.51 | | | $ | (0.36 | ) |
Diluted Earnings Per Share | | $ | 0.15 | | | $ | 0.51 | | | $ | (0.36 | ) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| | 2012 | | 2011 | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | (In millions, except per share data) |
| Earnings (Loss) By Business Segment: | | | | | |
| Regulated Distribution | $ | 183 |
| | $ | 109 |
| | $ | 74 |
|
| Competitive Energy Services | 141 |
| | 15 |
| | 126 |
|
| Regulated Independent Transmission | 34 |
| | 12 |
| | 22 |
|
| Other and reconciling adjustments* | (52 | ) | | (84 | ) | | 32 |
|
| Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. | $ | 306 |
| | $ | 52 |
| | $ | 254 |
|
| | | | | | |
| Basic Earnings Per Share | $ | 0.73 |
| | $ | 0.15 |
| | $ | 0.58 |
|
| Diluted Earnings Per Share | $ | 0.73 |
| | $ | 0.15 |
| | $ | 0.58 |
|
| | |
| * | | Consists primarily of interest expense related to holding company debt, corporate support services revenues and expenses, noncontrolling interests and the elimination of intersegment transactions. |
Summary of Results of Operations — First Quarter 20112012 Compared with First Quarter 20102011
Financial results for FirstEnergy’s major business segments in the first quarter of 2012 and 2011 were as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| First Quarter 2012 Financial Results | | Regulated Distribution | | Competitive
Energy Services | | Regulated
Independent Transmission | | Other and
Reconciling Adjustments | | FirstEnergy Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| Revenues: | | | | | | | | | | |
| External | | | | | | | | | | |
| Electric | | $ | 2,270 |
| | $ | 1,531 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 3,801 |
|
| Other | | 113 |
| | 76 |
| | 109 |
| | (23 | ) | | 275 |
|
| Internal | | — |
| | 268 |
| | — |
| | (266 | ) | | 2 |
|
| Total Revenues | | 2,383 |
| | 1,875 |
| | 109 |
| | (289 | ) | | 4,078 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Expenses: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | 39 |
| | 502 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 541 |
|
| Purchased power | | 1,082 |
| | 531 |
| | — |
| | (266 | ) | | 1,347 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 427 |
| | 409 |
| | 15 |
| | (39 | ) | | 812 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 159 |
| | 100 |
| | 18 |
| | 8 |
| | 285 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | 75 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 75 |
|
| General taxes | | 192 |
| | 61 |
| | 10 |
| | 9 |
| | 272 |
|
| Total Operating Expenses | | 1,974 |
| | 1,603 |
| | 43 |
| | (288 | ) | | 3,332 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Income | | 409 |
| | 272 |
| | 66 |
| | (1 | ) | | 746 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other Income (Expense): | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | 24 |
| | 6 |
| | — |
| | (19 | ) | | 11 |
|
| Interest expense | | (145 | ) | | (65 | ) | | (12 | ) | | (24 | ) | | (246 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | 3 |
| | 11 |
| | — |
| | 3 |
| | 17 |
|
| Total Other Expense | | (118 | ) | | (48 | ) | | (12 | ) | | (40 | ) | | (218 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Income Before Income Taxes | | 291 |
| | 224 |
| | 54 |
| | (41 | ) | | 528 |
|
| Income taxes | | 108 |
| | 83 |
| | 20 |
| | 11 |
| | 222 |
|
| Net Income | | 183 |
| | 141 |
| | 34 |
| | (52 | ) | | 306 |
|
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| Earnings Available to FirstEnergy Corp. | | $ | 183 |
| | $ | 141 |
| | $ | 34 |
| | $ | (52 | ) | | $ | 306 |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| First Quarter 2011 Financial Results | | Regulated Distribution | | Competitive
Energy Services | | Regulated
Independent Transmission | | Other and
Reconciling Adjustments | | FirstEnergy Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| Revenues: | | | | | | | | | | |
| External | | | | | | | | | | |
| Electric | | $ | 2,175 |
| | $ | 1,162 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 3,337 |
|
| Other | | 93 |
| | 92 |
| | 67 |
| | (45 | ) | | 207 |
|
| Internal | | — |
| | 343 |
| | — |
| | (311 | ) | | 32 |
|
| Total Revenues | | 2,268 |
| | 1,597 |
| | 67 |
| | (356 | ) | | 3,576 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Expenses: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | 24 |
| | 429 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 453 |
|
| Purchased power | | 1,179 |
| | 318 |
| | — |
| | (311 | ) | | 1,186 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 360 |
| | 632 |
| | 18 |
| | (17 | ) | | 993 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 121 |
| | 88 |
| | 10 |
| | 6 |
| | 225 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | 129 |
| | — |
| | 3 |
| | — |
| | 132 |
|
| General taxes | | 176 |
| | 44 |
| | 8 |
| | 9 |
| | 237 |
|
| Total Operating Expenses | | 1,989 |
| | 1,511 |
| | 39 |
| | (313 | ) | | 3,226 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Income | | 279 |
| | 86 |
| | 28 |
| | (43 | ) | | 350 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other Income (Expense): | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | 25 |
| | 6 |
| | — |
| | (10 | ) | | 21 |
|
| Interest expense | | (132 | ) | | (78 | ) | | (9 | ) | | (12 | ) | | (231 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | 1 |
| | 10 |
| | — |
| | 7 |
| | 18 |
|
| Total Other Expense | | (106 | ) | | (62 | ) | | (9 | ) | | (15 | ) | | (192 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Income Before Income Taxes | | 173 |
| | 24 |
| | 19 |
| | (58 | ) | | 158 |
|
| Income taxes | | 64 |
| | 9 |
| | 7 |
| | 31 |
| | 111 |
|
| Net Income | | 109 |
| | 15 |
| | 12 |
| | (89 | ) | | 47 |
|
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (5 | ) | | (5 | ) |
| Earnings Available to FirstEnergy Corp. | | $ | 109 |
| | $ | 15 |
| | $ | 12 |
| | $ | (84 | ) | | $ | 52 |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Changes Between First Quarter 2012 and First Quarter 2011 Financial Results Increase (Decrease) | | Regulated Distribution | | Competitive
Energy Services | | Regulated
Independent Transmission | | Other and
Reconciling Adjustments | | FirstEnergy Consolidated |
| | | (In millions) |
| Revenues: | | | | | | | | | | |
| External | | | | | | | | | | |
| Electric | | $ | 95 |
| | $ | 369 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 464 |
|
| Other | | 20 |
| | (16 | ) | | 42 |
| | 22 |
| | 68 |
|
| Internal | | — |
| | (75 | ) | | — |
| | 45 |
| | (30 | ) |
| Total Revenues | | 115 |
| | 278 |
| | 42 |
| | 67 |
| | 502 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Expenses: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | 15 |
| | 73 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 88 |
|
| Purchased power | | (97 | ) | | 213 |
| | — |
| | 45 |
| | 161 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 67 |
| | (223 | ) | | (3 | ) | | (22 | ) | | (181 | ) |
| Provision for depreciation | | 38 |
| | 12 |
| | 8 |
| | 2 |
| | 60 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | (54 | ) | | — |
| | (3 | ) | | — |
| | (57 | ) |
| General taxes | | 16 |
| | 17 |
| | 2 |
| | — |
| | 35 |
|
| Total Operating Expenses | | (15 | ) | | 92 |
| | 4 |
| | 25 |
| | 106 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Income | | 130 |
| | 186 |
| | 38 |
| | 42 |
| | 396 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other Income (Expense): | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | (1 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (9 | ) | | (10 | ) |
| Interest expense | | (13 | ) | | 13 |
| | (3 | ) | | (12 | ) | | (15 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | 2 |
| | 1 |
| | — |
| | (4 | ) | | (1 | ) |
| Total Other Expense | | (12 | ) | | 14 |
| | (3 | ) | | (25 | ) | | (26 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Income Before Income Taxes | | 118 |
| | 200 |
| | 35 |
| | 17 |
| | 370 |
|
| Income taxes | | 44 |
| | 74 |
| | 13 |
| | (20 | ) | | 111 |
|
| Net Income | | 74 |
| | 126 |
| | 22 |
| | 37 |
| | 259 |
|
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 5 |
| | 5 |
|
| Earnings Available to FirstEnergy Corp. | | $ | 74 |
| | $ | 126 |
| | $ | 22 |
| | $ | 32 |
| | $ | 254 |
|
Regulated Distribution — First Quarter 2012 Compared with First Quarter 2011
Net income increased by $74 million in the first quarter of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011, primarily due to earnings from the Allegheny companies and lower merger-related costs, partially offset by decreased weather-related customer usage in the first quarter of 2011 and 2010 were as follows:2012.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Competitive | | | Regulated | | | Other and | | | | |
| | | Regulated | | | Energy | | | Independent | | | Reconciling | | | FirstEnergy | |
| First Quarter 2011 Financial Results | | Distribution | | | Services | | | Transmission | | | Adjustments | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Revenues: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| External | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Electric | | $ | 2,175 | | | $ | 1,162 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 3,337 | |
| Other | | | 93 | | | | 92 | | | | 67 | | | | (45 | ) | | | 207 | |
| Internal | | | — | | | | 343 | | | | — | | | | (311 | ) | | | 32 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Revenues | | | 2,268 | | | | 1,597 | | | | 67 | | | | (356 | ) | | | 3,576 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | | 24 | | | | 429 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 453 | |
| Purchased power | | | 1,179 | | | | 318 | | | | — | | | | (311 | ) | | | 1,186 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 386 | | | | 648 | | | | 17 | | | | (18 | ) | | | 1,033 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 116 | | | | 88 | | | | 10 | | | | 6 | | | | 220 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets | | | 129 | | | | — | | | | 3 | | | | — | | | | 132 | |
| Deferral of new regulatory assets | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| General taxes | | | 176 | | | | 44 | | | | 8 | | | | 9 | | | | 237 | |
| Impairment of long-lived assets | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Expenses | | | 2,010 | | | | 1,527 | | | | 38 | | | | (314 | ) | | | 3,261 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Income | | | 258 | | | | 70 | | | | 29 | | | | (42 | ) | | | 315 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other Income (Expense): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | 25 | | | | 6 | | | | — | | | | (10 | ) | | | 21 | |
| Interest expense | | | (132 | ) | | | (78 | ) | | | (9 | ) | | | (12 | ) | | | (231 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 1 | | | | 10 | | | | — | | | | 7 | | | | 18 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Other Expense | | | (106 | ) | | | (62 | ) | | | (9 | ) | | | (15 | ) | | | (192 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Income Before Income Taxes | | | 152 | | | | 8 | | | | 20 | | | | (57 | ) | | | 123 | |
| Income taxes | | | 56 | | | | 3 | | | | 7 | | | | 12 | | | | 78 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income (Loss) | | | 96 | | | | 5 | | | | 13 | | | | (69 | ) | | | 45 | |
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (5 | ) | | | (5 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. | | $ | 96 | | | $ | 5 | | | $ | 13 | | | $ | (64 | ) | | $ | 50 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
82
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Competitive | | | Regulated | | | Other and | | | | |
| | | Regulated | | | Energy | | | Independent | | | Reconciling | | | FirstEnergy | |
| First Quarter 2010 Financial Results | | Distribution | | | Services | | | Transmission | | | Adjustments | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Revenues: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| External | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Electric | | $ | 2,398 | | | $ | 669 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 3,067 | |
| Other | | | 86 | | | | 50 | | | | 57 | | | | (28 | ) | | | 165 | |
| Internal | | | — | | | | 674 | | | | — | | | | (607 | ) | | | 67 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Revenues | | | 2,484 | | | | 1,393 | | | | 57 | | | | (635 | ) | | | 3,299 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | | — | | | | 334 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 334 | |
| Purchased power | | | 1,395 | | | | 450 | | | | — | | | | (607 | ) | | | 1,238 | |
| Other operating expenses | | | 359 | | | | 352 | | | | 14 | | | | (24 | ) | | | 701 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 104 | | | | 77 | | | | 9 | | | | 3 | | | | 193 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets | | | 209 | | | | — | | | | 3 | | | | — | | | | 212 | |
| Deferral of new regulatory assets | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| General taxes | | | 154 | | | | 37 | | | | 7 | | | | 7 | | | | 205 | |
| Impairment of long-lived assets | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Expenses | | | 2,221 | | | | 1,250 | | | | 33 | | | | (621 | ) | | | 2,883 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Income | | | 263 | | | | 143 | | | | 24 | | | | (14 | ) | | | 416 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other Income (Expense): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | 26 | | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | (11 | ) | | | 16 | |
| Interest expense | | | (125 | ) | | | (56 | ) | | | (5 | ) | | | (27 | ) | | | (213 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | 1 | | | | 23 | | | | — | | | | 17 | | | | 41 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Other Expense | | | (98 | ) | | | (32 | ) | | | (5 | ) | | | (21 | ) | | | (156 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Income Before Income Taxes | | | 165 | | | | 111 | | | | 19 | | | | (35 | ) | | | 260 | |
| Income taxes | | | 62 | | | | 42 | | | | 7 | | | | — | | | | 111 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income (Loss) | | | 103 | | | | 69 | | | | 12 | | | | (35 | ) | | | 149 | |
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (6 | ) | | | (6 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. | | $ | 103 | | | $ | 69 | | | $ | 12 | | | $ | (29 | ) | | $ | 155 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
83
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Changes Between First Quarter 2011 | | | | | | Competitive | | | Regulated | | | Other and | | | | |
| and First Quarter 2010 Financial | | Regulated | | | Energy | | | Independent | | | Reconciling | | | FirstEnergy | |
| Results Increase (Decrease) | | Distribution | | | Services | | | Transmission | | | Adjustment | | | Consolidated | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Revenues: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| External | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Electric | | $ | (223 | ) | | $ | 493 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 270 | |
| Other | | | 7 | | | | 42 | | | | 10 | | | | (17 | ) | | | 42 | |
| Internal | | | — | | | | (331 | ) | | | — | | | | 296 | | | | (35 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Revenues | | | (216 | ) | | | 204 | | | | 10 | | | | 279 | | | | 277 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fuel | | | 24 | | | | 95 | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 119 | |
| Purchased power | | | (216 | ) | | | (132 | ) | | | — | | | | 296 | | | | (52 | ) |
| Other operating expenses | | | 27 | | | | 296 | | | | 3 | | | | 6 | | | | 332 | |
| Provision for depreciation | | | 12 | | | | 11 | | | | 1 | | | | 3 | | | | 27 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets | | | (80 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | (80 | ) |
| Deferral of new regulatory assets | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| General taxes | | | 22 | | | | 7 | | | | 1 | | | | 2 | | | | 32 | |
| Impairment of long-lived assets | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Expenses | | | (211 | ) | | | 277 | | | | 5 | | | | 307 | | | | 378 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating Income | | | (5 | ) | | | (73 | ) | | | 5 | | | | (28 | ) | | | (101 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other Income (Expense): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Investment income | | | (1 | ) | | | 5 | | | | — | | | | 1 | | | | 5 | |
| Interest expense | | | (7 | ) | | | (22 | ) | | | (4 | ) | | | 15 | | | | (18 | ) |
| Capitalized interest | | | — | | | | (13 | ) | | | — | | | | (10 | ) | | | (23 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Other Expense | | | (8 | ) | | | (30 | ) | | | (4 | ) | | | 6 | | | | (36 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Income Before Income Taxes | | | (13 | ) | | | (103 | ) | | | 1 | | | | (22 | ) | | | (137 | ) |
| Income taxes | | | (6 | ) | | | (39 | ) | | | — | | | | 12 | | | | (33 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net Income (Loss) | | | (7 | ) | | | (64 | ) | | | 1 | | | | (34 | ) | | | (104 | ) |
| Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. | | $ | (7 | ) | | $ | (64 | ) | | $ | 1 | | | $ | (35 | ) | | $ | (105 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Regulated Distribution — First Quarter 2011 Compared with First Quarter 2010
Net income decreased by $7 million in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010, primarily due to lower generation and transmission revenues and merger-related costs associated with the Allegheny merger, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and amortization of regulatory assets.
84
Revenues —
The decreaseincrease in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months | | | | |
| | | Ended March 31 | | | Increase | |
| Revenues by Type of Service | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Pre-merger companies | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Distribution services | | $ | 909 | | | $ | 883 | | | $ | 26 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Generation sales: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Retail | | | 873 | | | | 1,178 | | | | (305 | ) |
| Wholesale | | | 116 | | | | 217 | | | | (101 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total generation sales | | | 989 | | | | 1,395 | | | | (406 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Transmission | | | 37 | | | | 160 | | | | (123 | ) |
| Other | | | 58 | | | | 46 | | | | 12 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total pre-merger companies | | | 1,993 | | | | 2,484 | | | | (491 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Allegheny companies | | | 275 | | | | — | | | | 275 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Revenues | | $ | 2,268 | | | $ | 2,484 | | | $ | (216 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| Revenues by Type of Service | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Pre-merger companies: | | | | | | |
| Distribution services | | $ | 766 |
| | $ | 909 |
| | $ | (143 | ) |
| Generation sales: | | | | | | |
| Retail | | 696 |
| | 873 |
| | (177 | ) |
| Wholesale | | 49 |
| | 116 |
| | (67 | ) |
| Total generation sales | | 745 |
| | 989 |
| | (244 | ) |
| Transmission | | 84 |
| | 37 |
| | 47 |
|
| Other | | 42 |
| | 58 |
| | (16 | ) |
| Total pre-merger companies | | 1,637 |
| | 1,993 |
| | (356 | ) |
Allegheny companies(1) | | 746 |
| | 275 |
| | 471 |
|
| Total Revenues | | $ | 2,383 |
| | $ | 2,268 |
| | $ | 115 |
|
| |
(1) | Allegheny results include 3 months in 2012 and 1 month in 2011. |
The increasedecrease in distribution serviceservices revenue for the pre-merger companies primarily reflects lower distribution revenues reflected higherdue to lower distribution deliveries (described below), the suspension of Ohio's deferred distribution rider in the first quarterSeptember 2011, and an NJBPU-approved rate reduction that became effective March 1, 2011, for all of 2011 compared to the same periodJCP&L's customer classes, partially offset by Ohio's Demand Side Energy Rider that was effective in 2010.May 2011. Distribution deliveries (excluding the Allegheny companies) increased 650,000 MWH (2.4%) to 27,538,000 MWHdecreased by 3.6% in the first quarter of 20112012 from 26,888,000 MWH in the first quartersame period of 2010. The increase in distribution2011. Distribution deliveries by customer class isare summarized in the following table:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Increase | |
| Electric Distribution KWH Deliveries | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (in thousands) | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Pre-merger companies | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Residential | | | 10,638 | | | | 10,455 | | | | 1.8 | % |
| Commercial | | | 7,929 | | | | 7,953 | | | | (0.3 | )% |
| Industrial | | | 8,841 | | | | 8,351 | | | | 5.9 | % |
| Other | | | 130 | | | | 129 | | | | 0.8 | % |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total pre-merger companies | | | 27,538 | | | | 26,888 | | | | 2.4 | % |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Allegheny companies | | | 3,540 | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Electric Distribution MWH Deliveries | | | 31,078 | | | | 26,888 | | | | 15.6 | % |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Higher |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| Electric Distribution MWH Deliveries | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (in thousands) | | |
| Pre-merger companies: | | | | | | |
| Residential | | 9,794 |
| | 10,638 |
| | (7.9 | )% |
| Commercial | | 7,801 |
| | 7,929 |
| | (1.6 | )% |
| Industrial | | 8,820 |
| | 8,841 |
| | (0.3 | )% |
| Other | | 123 |
| | 130 |
| | (4.9 | )% |
| Total pre-merger companies | | 26,538 |
| | 27,538 |
| | (3.6 | )% |
Allegheny companies(1) | | 10,659 |
| | 3,540 |
| | 201.1 | % |
| Total Electric Distribution MWH Deliveries | | 37,197 |
| | 31,078 |
| | 19.7 | % |
| |
(1) | Allegheny results include 3 months in 2012 and 1 month in 2011. |
Lower deliveries to residential and commercial customers reflected increasedfor the pre-merged companies reflect decreased weather-related usage resulting from heating degree days that were 25% below 2011 levels, slightly offset by load growth in the first quarter of 2011, as heating degree days increased by 5.2% from2012 compared to the same period in 2010. The increase in distribution deliveries to industrial customers was primarily due to recovering economic conditions in FirstEnergy’s service territory compared to the first quarter of 2010.2011. In the industrial sector, KWHMWH deliveries increaseddecreased by 12.8%2% to major steelpetroleum customers, 4.7%5% to refinerychemical customers and 8.4%6% to chemicalelectrical equipment customers, partially offset by an increase of 3% to steel customers.
The following table summarizes the price and volume factors contributing to the $406$244 milliondecrease in generation revenues for the pre-merger companies in the first quarter of 20112012 compared to the first quartersame period of 2010:2011:
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in Generation Revenues | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| | | | | |
| Retail: | | | | |
| Effect of 32.4% decrease in sales volumes | | $ | (382 | ) |
| Change in prices | | | 77 | |
| | | | |
| | | | (305 | ) |
| | | | |
| Wholesale: | | | | |
| Effect of 3.9% increase in sales volumes | | | 8 | |
| Change in prices | | | (109 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | (101 | ) |
| | | | |
| Net Decrease in Generation Revenues | | $ | (406 | ) |
| | | | |
85
|
| | | | |
| Source of Change in Generation Revenues | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Retail: | | |
| Effect of decrease in sales volumes | | $ | (206 | ) |
| Change in prices | | 29 |
|
| | | (177 | ) |
| Wholesale: | |
|
| Effect of decrease in sales volumes | | (46 | ) |
| Change in prices | | (21 | ) |
| | | (67 | ) |
| Net Decrease in Generation Revenues | | $ | (244 | ) |
The decrease in retail generation sales volumesvolume was primarily due to an increase inincreased customer shopping in the Ohio Companies’, Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s service territories of the pre-merger companies in the first quarter of 2011,2012, compared towith the first quartersame period of 2010.2011. Total generation provided by alternative suppliers as a percentage of total KWHMWH deliveries increased to 73%77% from 53%73% for the Ohio Companies and to 40%59% from 2% in Met-Ed’s42% for ME’s, PN’s and Penelec’sPenn's service areas.
The decrease in wholesale generation revenues reflectedof $67 million in the first quarter of 2012 was a result of the expiration of a NUG contract in August 2011 and lower RPMPJM market prices.
Transmission revenues increased $47 million primarily due tothe implementation of Ohio's non-market based (NMB) transmission rider in June of 2011, which recovers network integration transmission service charges as described below.
The Allegheny companies added $471 million in revenues for Met-Edthe first quarter of 2012 compared to the first quarter of 2011, including $142 million from distribution services, $305million from generation sales and Penelec in the PJM market. Transmission revenues$17 million from transmission services.
Operating Expenses —
Total operating expenses decreased $123by $15 million due to the termination of Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s transmission tariff effective January 1, 2011. Transmission costs are now a component of the cost of generation established under Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s generation procurement plan.following:
The Allegheny companies added $275 million in revenues for the first quarter of 2011, including $69 million for distribution services, $190 million for generation sales and $16 million relating to PJM transmission revenues.
Expenses —
Total expenses decreased by $140 million due to the following:
Purchased power costs, excluding the Allegheny companies, were $356$338 millionlower in the first quarter of 20112012 due primarily to a decrease in sales volume requirements. The decrease in power purchasedvolumes required resulting from FES reflected the increase inwarmer than normal weather. Additionally, increased customer shopping described above and the termination of Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s partial requirements PSA with FES at the end of 2010. The increase in volumesdecreased purchased from non-affiliates under Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s generation procurement plan effective January 1, 2011 was offset by a decrease in RPM expenses in the PJM market.power requirements. The Allegheny companies added $140$241 million in purchased power costs in the first quarter of 2011.2012 compared to the same period of 2011.
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in Purchased Power | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Pre-merger companies | | | | |
| Purchases from non-affiliates: | | | | |
| Change due to decreased unit costs | | $ | (186 | ) |
| Change due to increased volumes | | | 188 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 2 | |
| | | | |
| Purchases from FES: | | | | |
| Change due to increased unit costs | | | 36 | |
| Change due to decreased volumes | | | (412 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | (376 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| Decrease in costs deferred | | | 18 | |
| | | | |
| Total pre-merger companies | | | (356 | ) |
| | | | |
| Purchases by Allegheny companies | | | 140 | |
| | | | |
| Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs | | $ | (216 | ) |
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Source of Change in Purchased Power | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Pre-merger companies: | | |
| Purchases from non-affiliates: | | |
| Change due to decreased unit costs | | $ | (43 | ) |
| Change due to decreased volumes | | (182 | ) |
| | | (225 | ) |
| Purchases from FES: | | |
| Change due to decreased unit costs | | (15 | ) |
| Change due to decreased volumes | | (93 | ) |
| | | (108 | ) |
| Increase in costs deferred | | (5 | ) |
| Total pre-merger companies | | (338 | ) |
| Purchases by Allegheny companies | | 241 |
|
| Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs | | $ | (97 | ) |
Transmission expenses decreased $98increased $57 million primarily due to lower PJM network transmission expenses and congestion costs of $110 million for Met-Ed and Penelec, partially offset by transmission expenses for the Allegheny companies of $12 million induring the first quarter of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011. Met-EdThe increase is primarily due to network integration transmission service expenses that, prior to June 2011, were incurred by
the generation supplier, and Penelec defer or amortizeare now being recovered through the difference between revenues from theirNMB transmission rider and transmission costs incurred with no material effect on earnings.
discussed above.Amortization expense decreased $65 million due to the following:
| |
| ◦ | The suspension of the rider recovering deferred distribution costs in September 2011, |
| |
| ◦ | The completion of JCP&L's NUG deferred cost recovery, |
| |
| ◦ | Partially offset by the recovery in Ohio of residential generation credits for electric heating discounts, which began in September 2011. |
Energy Efficiency program costs, which are also recovered through rates, increased $16by $27 million.
Material costs associated with maintenance activities increased $10 million in the first quarterThe absence of 2011 compared to the same period last year.
Aa provision for excess and obsolete material of $13 million that was recognized in the first quarter of 2011 relating to revised inventory practices adopted in conjunction with the Allegheny merger.
Depreciation expense increased $12Merger-related costs decreased $55 million due to property additions sincein the first quarter of 2010.
86
Net amortization2012 compared to the same period of regulatory assets decreased $80 million due primarily to generation-related rate deferrals for the Ohio Companies, Met-Ed and Penelec and reduced net PJM transmission cost amortization.2011.
General taxes increased $22 million due to higher property taxes and gross receipts taxesThe inclusion of Allegheny resulted in the following net increase in operating expenses in the first quarter of 2011.2012:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
Operating Expenses - Allegheny(1) | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Purchased power | | $ | 383 |
| | $ | 143 |
| | $ | 241 |
|
| Fuel | | 39 |
| | 24 |
| | 15 |
|
| Transmission | | 26 |
| | 12 |
| | 14 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | — |
| | (11 | ) | | 11 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 80 |
| | 32 |
| | 48 |
|
| General taxes | | 34 |
| | 12 |
| | 22 |
|
| Depreciation expense | | 49 |
| | 16 |
| | 33 |
|
| Total Operating Expenses | | $ | 611 |
| | $ | 228 |
| | $ | 384 |
|
| |
(1) | Allegheny results include 3 months in 2012 and 1 month in 2011. |
Fuel expenses for MP were $24Other Expense —
Other expense increased $12 million in the first quarter of 2011.
Operating expenses for the Allegheny companies were $38 million in the first quarter of 2011.
Merger-related costs incurred by the Allegheny companies were $48 million in the first quarter of 2011.
Other Expense —
Other expense increased $8 million in the first quarter of 20112012 primarily due to interest expense on debt of the Allegheny companies.
Regulated Independent Transmission — First Quarter 20112012 Compared with First Quarter 20102011
Net income increased by $1$22 million in the first quarter of 20112012 compared to the first quartersame period of 20102011 primarily due to earnings associated with TrAIL and PATH ($5 million), partially offsetacquired in the Allegheny merger.
Revenues —
Total revenues increased by reduced earnings for ATSI ($4 million).
Revenues —$42 million principally due to revenues from TrAIL and PATH.
Revenues by transmission asset owner are shown in the following table:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months | | | | |
| Revenues by | | Ended March 31 | | | Increase | |
| Transmission Asset Owner | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| ATSI | | $ | 52 | | | $ | 57 | | | $ | (5 | ) |
| TrAIL | | | 14 | | | | — | | | | 14 | |
| PATH | | | 1 | | | | — | | | | 1 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Revenues | | $ | 67 | | | $ | 57 | | | $ | 10 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Revenues by | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| Transmission Asset Owner | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| ATSI | | $ | 53 |
| | $ | 52 |
| | $ | 1 |
|
TrAIL(1) | | 51 |
| | 14 |
| | 37 |
|
PATH(1) | | 5 |
| | 1 |
| | 4 |
|
| Total Revenues | | $ | 109 |
| | $ | 67 |
| | $ | 42 |
|
| |
(1) | Allegheny results include 3 months in 2012 and 1 month in 2011. |
Operating Expenses —
Total operating expenses increased by $5$4 million principally due primarily to operating expenses associated withthe addition of TrAIL and PATH which were $3operating expenses for a full quarter in 2012 ($7 million), partially offset by the completion in May 2011 of ATSI deferred vegetation management cost recovery ($3 million).
Other Expense —
Other expense increased $3 million in the first quarter of 2012 due to higher interest expense, principally associated with debt of TrAIL.
Competitive Energy Services — First Quarter 2012 Compared with First Quarter 2011
Net income increased by $126 million in the first quarter of 2012, compared to the same period of 2011, due to higher retail revenues, lower operating expenses and the inclusion of the results of the Allegheny companies for a full quarter.
Revenues —
Total revenues increased by $278 million in the first quarter of 2011.
Other Expense —
Other expense increased $4 million in the first quarter of 2011 due to additional interest expense associated with TrAIL.
Competitive Energy Services — First Quarter 2011 Compared with First Quarter 2010
Net income decreased by $64 million in the first quarter of 2011, compared to the first quarter of 2010, primarily due to increased transmission expense, an inventory reserve adjustment, non-core asset impairments and the effect of mark-to-market adjustments.
Revenues —
Total revenues increased $204 million in the first quarter of 20112012 primarily due to growth in combined direct and governmentgovernmental aggregation sales and the inclusion of the Allegheny companies for a full quarter, partially offset by a net decline in POLR and structured sales.
87
The increase in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months | | | | |
| | | Ended March 31 | | | Increase | |
| Revenues by Type of Service | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Direct and Government Aggregation | | $ | 840 | | | $ | 512 | | | $ | 328 | |
| POLR | | | 369 | | | | 673 | | | | (304 | ) |
| Wholesale | | | 96 | | | | 91 | | | | 5 | |
| Transmission | | | 26 | | | | 17 | | | | 9 | |
| REC’s | | | 32 | | | | 67 | | | | (35 | ) |
| Other | | | 41 | | | | 33 | | | | 8 | |
| Allegheny Companies | | | 193 | | | | — | | | | 193 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Revenues | | $ | 1,597 | | | $ | 1,393 | | | $ | 204 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Allegheny Companies | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Direct and Government Aggregation | | $ | 9 | | | | | | | | | |
| POLR | | | 68 | | | | | | | | | |
| Wholesale | | | 91 | | | | | | | | | |
| Transmission | | | 12 | | | | | | | | | |
| Other | | | 13 | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Revenues | | $ | 193 | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months | | | | |
| | | Ended March 31 | | | Increase | |
| MWH Sales by Type of Service | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In thousands) | | | | | |
| Direct | | | 9,671 | | | | 5,854 | | | | 65.2 | % |
| Government Aggregation | | | 4,310 | | | | 2,732 | | | | 57.8 | % |
| POLR | | | 5,714 | | | | 13,276 | | | | (57.0 | )% |
| Wholesale | | | 1,113 | | | | 898 | | | | 23.9 | % |
| Allegheny Companies | | | 2,636 | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Sales | | | 23,444 | | | | 22,760 | | | | 3.0 | % |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Allegheny Companies | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Direct | | | 145 | | | | | | | | | |
| POLR | | | 812 | | | | | | | | | |
| Structured Sales | | | 284 | | | | | | | | | |
| Wholesale | | | 1,395 | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Sales | | | 2,636 | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| Revenues by Type of Service | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Direct and Governmental Aggregation | | $ | 1,007 |
| | $ | 840 |
| | $ | 167 |
|
| POLR and Structured Sales | | 231 |
| | 374 |
| | (143 | ) |
Wholesale(1) | | 160 |
| | 91 |
| | 69 |
|
| Transmission | | 31 |
| | 26 |
| | 5 |
|
| RECs | | 5 |
| | 32 |
| | (27 | ) |
| Other | | 21 |
| | 41 |
| | (20 | ) |
Allegheny Companies(2) | | 420 |
| | 193 |
| | 227 |
|
| Total Revenues | | $ | 1,875 |
| | $ | 1,597 |
| | $ | 278 |
|
| | | | | | | |
Allegheny Companies(2) | | | | | | |
| Direct and Governmental Aggregation | | $ | 23 |
| | $ | 9 |
| | $ | 14 |
|
| POLR and Structured Sales | | 149 |
| | 68 |
| | 81 |
|
Wholesale(1) | | 224 |
| | 91 |
| | 133 |
|
| Transmission | | 16 |
| | 12 |
| | 4 |
|
| Other | | 8 |
| | 13 |
| | (5 | ) |
| Total Revenues | | $ | 420 |
| | $ | 193 |
| | $ | 227 |
|
| | | | | | | |
(1) Includes $55 million in intra-segment sales by AE Supply to FES |
(2) Allegheny results include 3 months in 2012 and 1 month in 2011. |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| MWH Sales by Type of Service | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In thousands) | | |
| Direct | | 12,391 |
| | 9,671 |
| | 28.1 | % |
| Governmental Aggregation | | 5,186 |
| | 4,310 |
| | 20.3 | % |
| POLR and Structured Sales | | 4,030 |
| | 5,843 |
| | (31.0 | )% |
| Wholesale | | 21 |
| | 985 |
| | (97.9 | )% |
Allegheny Companies(1) | | 6,520 |
| | 2,636 |
| | 147.3 | % |
| Total Sales | | 28,148 |
| | 23,445 |
| | 20.1 | % |
| | | | | | | |
Allegheny Companies(1) | | | | | | |
| Direct and Governmental Aggregation | | 388 |
| | 145 |
| | 167.6 | % |
| POLR | | 2,459 |
| | 812 |
| | 202.8 | % |
| Structured Sales | | 156 |
| | 303 |
| | (48.5 | )% |
| Wholesale | | 3,517 |
| | 1,376 |
| | 155.6 | % |
| Total Sales | | 6,520 |
| | 2,636 |
| | 147.3 | % |
| | | | | | | |
(1) Allegheny results include 3 months in 2012 and 1 month in 2011. |
The increase in combined direct and governmentgovernmental aggregation revenues of $328$167 million resulted from increased revenue from the acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers as well as new governmentgovernmental aggregation contracts with communities in Ohio and Illinois that provided generation to approximately 1.51.9 million residential and small commercial customers at the endas of March 20112012, compared to approximately 1.11.5 million such customers at the endas of March 2010. In addition,2011. These increases were partially offset by lower sales to residential and small commercial customers were bolstered byas a result of weather that was 25% warmer this year in the delivery area that was 5.2% colder than in 2010.markets served compared to 2011.
88
The decrease in combined POLR and structured revenues of $304$143 million was due primarily to lower sales volumes to the PennsylvaniaOhio Companies, ME and Ohio Companies,PN. Revenues were also adversely impacted by lower unit prices which were partially offset by increased sales to non-associated companies and higher unit prices to the Pennsylvania Companies. Participationstructured sales. The decline in POLR auctions and RFPs are expected to continue, but the concentration of these sales will primarily be dependentreflects our continued focus on our success in our direct retail and aggregationother sales channels.
Wholesale revenues increased $5$69 million due to increased volumesa $55 million gain on financially settled contracts and a $43 million increase in capacity revenues. These increases were partially offset by lower wholesale prices. The higher sales volumes were the result of increased short termdecreased short-term (net hourly positions) transactions in MISO. $22 million of wholesale revenue resulted from long positions in MISO that were unable to be netted with short positions in PJM, due to separate settlement requirements with each RTO.
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues (excluding the Allegheny companies):
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in Direct and Government Aggregation | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Direct Sales: | | | | |
| Effect of 65.2% increase in sales volumes | | $ | 223 | |
| Change in prices | | | (4 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | 219 | |
| | | | |
| Government Aggregation: | | | | |
| Effect of 57.8% increase in sales volumes | | | 100 | |
| Change in prices | | | 9 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 109 | |
| | | | |
| Net Increase in Direct and Government Aggregation Revenues | | $ | 328 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in POLR Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| POLR: | | | | |
| Effect of 57.0% decrease in sales volumes | | $ | (384 | ) |
| Change in prices | | | 80 | |
| | | | |
| | | | (304 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Other Wholesale: | | | | |
| Effect of 23.9% increase in sales volumes | | | 12 | |
| Change in prices | | | (7 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | 5 | |
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Source of Change in Direct and Governmental Aggregation | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Direct Sales: | | |
| Effect of increase in sales volumes | | $ | 159 |
|
| Change in prices | | (43 | ) |
| | | 116 |
|
| Governmental Aggregation: | | |
| Effect of increase in sales volumes | | 55 |
|
| Change in prices | | (4 | ) |
| | | 51 |
|
| Net Increase in Direct and Governmental Aggregation Revenues | | $ | 167 |
|
|
| | | | |
| Source of Change in POLR and Structured Revenues | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| POLR and Structured: | | |
| Effect of decrease in sales volumes | | $ | (116 | ) |
| Change in prices | | (27 | ) |
| | | $ | (143 | ) |
|
| | | | |
| Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Wholesale: | | |
| Effect of decrease in sales volumes | | $ | (28 | ) |
| Change in prices | | (1 | ) |
| Gain on settled contracts | | 55 |
|
| Capacity revenue | | 43 |
|
| | | $ | 69 |
|
Transmission revenues increased $9by $5 million primarily due primarily to higher MISOPJM congestion and ancillary revenue. The revenues derived from the sale of RECs declined $35decreased by $27 million in the first quarter of 2011.2012.
Operating Expenses —
Total operating expenses increased $277by $92 million in the first quarter of 20112012. Excluding the results of the Allegheny companies, operating expenses decreased $54 million due to the following:
FuelPurchased power costs increased $13$191 million primarily due to increasedhigher volumes ($31103 million), loss on settled contracts ($106 million) and capacity expense ($54 million), partially offset by lower unit prices ($1872 million). The increase in purchased power volumes primarily relates to the overall increase in sales volumes and economic purchases.
Fuel costs decreased $33 million primarily due to lower volumes consumed ($83 million), partially offset by higher unit prices ($50 million). Volumes increaseddecreased due to higherlower fossil generation, at the fossil units. Unit prices declined primarily due to improved generating unit availability at more efficient units, partially offset by increased coal transportation costs and higher generation from the nuclear fuel unit prices following the refueling outages that occurred in 2010.
units.Purchased powerFossil operating costs decreased $153by $7 million due primarily to lower volumes purchased ($185 million)contractor and materials and equipment costs resulting from a decrease in planned and unplanned outages, partially offset by higher unit costs ($32 million). The decrease in volume primarily relates to the absence in 2011 of a 1,300 MW third party contract associated with serving Met-Ed and Penelec. $35 million of purchased power expense resulted from long positions in MISO that were unable to be netted with short positions in PJM, due to separate settlement requirements with each RTO.
labor costs.FossilNuclear operating costs increased $1decreased by $28 million due primarily to lower labor, contractor and materials and equipment costs, as there were no refueling outages this quarter while the first quarter of the previous year included the Beaver Valley Unit 2 refueling outage.
Transmission expenses decreased $62 million due primarily to decreases of $68 million from lower congestion, network and line loss costs in MISO. These decreases were partially offset by increases in PJM of $6 million from higher labornetwork costs, partially offset by lower professionalcongestion and contractor costs and reduced coal sale losses.
Nuclear operating costs increased $15 million due primarily to higher labor and related benefits, partially offset by lower professional and contractor costs.
89
Transmission expenses increased $111 million due primarily to increases in PJM of $108 million from higher congestion, network, andline loss expense and MISO transmission expenses of $3 million due to higher congestion costs.expenses.
General taxes increased $3by $6 million due to an increase in revenue-related taxes.
Other expenses increased $65Depreciation expense decreased $11 million primarily due to:to credits resulting from a settlement with the DOE regarding the storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Other operating expenses decreased by $110 million primarily due to favorable mark-to-market adjustments on commodity contract positions ($28 million) and reduced corporate-related costs associated with the merger ($14 million). In addition, 2011 expenses included a $54 million provision for excess and obsolete material relating to revised inventory practices adopted in connection with the Allegheny merger;merger and a $13 million impairment charge related to non-core assets; an $11 million increase in intercompany billings; and reduced mark-to-market adjustments of $15 million.assets.
The inclusion of approximately one month of the Allegheny companies’ operations for three months in 2012 and one month in 2011 contributed $222$357 million and $211 million to operating expenses including a $29 million mark-to-market adjustment relating primarily to power contracts.in 2012 and 2011, respectively, as shown in the following table:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
Operating Expenses (Credits) - Allegheny(1) | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Fuel | | $ | 188 |
| | $ | 82 |
| | $ | 106 |
|
| Purchased power | | 43 |
| | 21 |
| | 22 |
|
| Fossil generation | | 45 |
| | 27 |
| | 18 |
|
| Transmission | | 32 |
| | 24 |
| | 8 |
|
| Other operating expenses | | 16 |
| | 8 |
| | 8 |
|
| Mark-to-market adjustments | | (16 | ) | | 34 |
| | (50 | ) |
| General taxes | | 15 |
| | 4 |
| | 11 |
|
| Depreciation | | 34 |
| | 11 |
| | 23 |
|
| Total Operating Expense | | $ | 357 |
| | $ | 211 |
| | $ | 146 |
|
| | | | | | | |
(1) Allegheny results include 3 months in 2012 and 1 month in 2011. |
Other Expense —
Total other expense in the first quarter of 20112012 was $30$14 million higherlower than the first quarter of 2010,2011, primarily due to a $35 million increasedecrease in net interest expense partially offset by an increaseresulting from debt reductions in nuclear decommissioning trust investment income2011 ($56 million). The increase in interest expense was primarily due and credits related to the inclusion of the Allegheny companies ($20 million) and lower capitalized interest ($13 million) associatedsettlement with the completionDOE regarding the storage of the Sammis AQC project in 2010.spent nuclear fuel ($7 million).
Other — First Quarter of 20112012 Compared with First Quarter of 20102011
Financial results from other operating segments and reconciling items, including interest expense on holding company debt and corporate support services revenues and expenses, resulted in a $35$32 million decrease increase in earnings available to FirstEnergy in the first quarter of 20112012 compared to the same period in 2010.of 2011. The decreaseincrease resulted primarily from reduced other revenuesoperating income ($1742 million) representing reconciling adjustments combined with increaseddue to lower merger-related costs, partially offset by decreased capitalized interest resulting from completed construction projects ($4 million) and decreased investment income taxes ($129 million).
Regulatory Assets
FirstEnergy and the Utilities prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with the authoritative guidance for accounting for certain types of regulation. Under this guidance, regulatoryRegulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because of their probable future recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent amounts that are expected to be credited to customers through future regulated rates or amounts collected from customers for costs not yet incurred. FirstEnergy and the Utilities net their regulatory assets and liabilities based on federal and state jurisdictions. The following table provides the balance of net regulatory assets by company as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and changes during the three months then ended:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | | | Increase | |
| Regulatory Assets | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| OE | | $ | 385 | | | $ | 400 | | | $ | (15 | ) |
| CEI | | | 337 | | | | 370 | | | | (33 | ) |
| TE | | | 84 | | | | 72 | | | | 12 | |
| JCP&L | | | 460 | | | | 513 | | | | (53 | ) |
| Met-Ed | | | 285 | | | | 296 | | | | (11 | ) |
| Penelec | | | 179 | | | | 163 | | | | 16 | |
| Other* | | | 354 | | | | 12 | | | | 342 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | 2,084 | | | $ | 1,826 | | | $ | 258 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
* | | 2011 includes $343 million related to the Allegheny companies. |
90
The following tables provide information about the composition of net regulatory assets as of March 31, 20112012 and December 31, 20102011, and the changes during the three months then ended:quarter:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | March 31, | | | December 31, | | | Increase | |
| Regulatory Assets by Source | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Regulatory transition costs | | $ | 592 | | | $ | 770 | | | $ | (178 | ) |
| Customer receivables for future income taxes | | | 488 | | | | 326 | | | | 162 | |
| Loss on reacquired debt | | | 56 | | | | 48 | | | | 8 | |
| Employee postretirement benefits | | | 14 | | | | 16 | | | | (2 | ) |
| Nuclear decommissioning, decontamination and spent fuel disposal costs | | | (200 | ) | | | (184 | ) | | | (16 | ) |
| Asset removal costs | | | (220 | ) | | | (237 | ) | | | 17 | |
| MISO/PJM transmission costs | | | 280 | | | | 184 | | | | 96 | |
| Deferred generation costs | | | 574 | | | | 386 | | | | 188 | |
| Distribution costs | | | 333 | | | | 426 | | | | (93 | ) |
| Other | | | 167 | | | | 91 | | | | 76 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | 2,084 | | | $ | 1,826 | | | $ | 258 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Regulatory Assets by Source | | March 31,
2012 | | December 31,
2011 | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Regulatory transition costs | | $ | 642 |
| | $ | 608 |
| | $ | 34 |
|
| Customer receivables for future income taxes | | 479 |
| | 508 |
| | (29 | ) |
| Nuclear decommissioning and spent fuel disposal costs | | (215 | ) | | (210 | ) | | (5 | ) |
| Asset removal costs | | (251 | ) | | (240 | ) | | (11 | ) |
| Deferred transmission costs | | 376 |
| | 340 |
| | 36 |
|
| Deferred generation costs | | 329 |
| | 382 |
| | (53 | ) |
| Deferred distribution costs | | 258 |
| | 267 |
| | (9 | ) |
| Other | | 388 |
| | 375 |
| | 13 |
|
| Total | | $ | 2,006 |
| | $ | 2,030 |
| | $ | (24 | ) |
FirstEnergy had $390$413 million of net regulatory liabilities as of March 31, 2011, which includes $378 million of net regulatory liabilities acquired as part of the merger with AE2012 that are primarily related to asset removal costs.
Regulatory assets that do not earn a current return totaled approximately $297$292 million as of March 31, 2011.
Regulatory2012. JCP&L had $119 million of regulatory assets not earning a current return, primarily for certain all-electric residential discounts and municipal taxes by OE, CEI and TE are approximately $53 million, $32 million and $4 million, respectively. The timing of expected recovery of these assets cannot be determined at this time.
Regulatory assets not earning a current return primarily for regulatory transition costs by Met-Ed and Penelec are approximately $114 million and $5 million, respectively, and are expected to be recovered by 2020.
Regulatory assets not earning a current return primarily forwhich include certain storm damage costs and pension and postretirementOPEB benefits by JCP&L are approximately $37 million. The timing of expected recovery of these assets cannot be determined at this time.
Regulatory assets not earning a current return primarily for certain deferred generation costs are approximately $52 million by FirstEnergy’s other utility subsidiariesthat are expected to be recovered over various periods though 2012.by 2026. The remaining $173 million of regulatory assets include certain PJM transmission and regulatory transition costs, which are expected to be recovered by 2020.
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
As of March 31, 2011,2012, FirstEnergy had$74 million of cash and cash equivalents and available liquidity of approximately $1.1 billion available to fund investments, operations and capital expenditures. To fund liquidity and capital requirements for 2011 and beyond, FirstEnergy may rely on internal and external sources of funds. Short-term cash requirements not met by cash provided from operations are generally satisfied through short-term borrowings. Long-term cash needs may be met through issuances of debt and/or equity securities.
$3.9 billion. FirstEnergy expects its existing sources of liquidity to remain sufficient to meet its anticipated obligations and those of its subsidiaries. FirstEnergy’s business is capital intensive, requiring significant resources to fund operating expenses, construction expenditures, scheduled debt maturities and interest and dividend payments. During 2011,In addition to internal sources to fund liquidity and capital requirements for 2012 and beyond, FirstEnergy expects to satisfy theserely on external sources of funds. Short-term cash requirements with a combination of internalnot met by cash provided from operations and external funds fromare generally satisfied through short-term borrowings. Long-term cash needs may be met through the incurrence of long-term debt or access to capital markets as market conditions warrant.markets. FirstEnergy also expects that borrowing capacity under credit facilities will continue to be available to manage working capital requirements along with continued access to long-term capital markets.
A material adverse change in operations, or in the availability of external financing sources, could impact FirstEnergy’s liquidity position and ability to fund its capital resource requirements. To mitigate risk, FirstEnergy’s business model stresses financial discipline and a strong focus on execution. Major elements of this business model include the expectation of: projected cash from operations, opportunities for favorable long-term earnings growth in the competitive generation markets, operational excellence, business plan execution, well-positioned generation fleet, no speculative trading operations, appropriate long-term commodity hedging positions, manageable capital expenditure program, adequately funded pension plan, minimal near-term maturities of existing long-term debt, commitment to a secure dividend and a successful merger integration.
91
As of March 31, 2011,2012, FirstEnergy’s net deficit in working capital (current assets less current liabilities) was principally due to the classification of certain variable interest rate PCRBs as currently payable long-term debt, and short-term borrowings. Currently payable long-term debtwhich, as of March 31, 2011,2012, included the following (in millions):following:
| | | | | |
| Currently Payable Long-term Debt | | | | |
PCRBs supported by bank LOCs(1) | | $ | 827 | |
FGCO and NGC unsecured PCRBs(1) | | | 141 | |
| Penelec unsecured PCRBs | | | 25 | |
| FirstEnergy Corp. unsecured note | | | 250 | |
| NGC collateralized lease obligation bonds | | | 50 | |
| Sinking fund requirements | | | 49 | |
| Other notes | | | 43 | |
| | | | |
| | | $ | 1,385 | |
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| Currently Payable Long-term Debt | (In millions) |
PCRBs supported by bank LOCs (1) | $ | 632 |
|
| Unsecured notes | 733 |
|
Unsecured PCRBs (1) | 270 |
|
| Collateralized lease obligation bonds | 67 |
|
| Sinking fund requirements | 53 |
|
| Other notes | 17 |
|
| | $ | 1,772 |
|
| | |
(1) | | InterestThese PCRBs are classified as currently payable long-term debt because the applicable interest rate mode permits individual debt holders to put the respective debt back to the issuer prior to maturity. |
Short-Term Borrowings
FirstEnergy had approximately $486 million$1 billion of short-term borrowings as of March 31, 20112012, and $700 millionno significant short-term borrowings as of December 31, 2010.2011. FirstEnergy’s available liquidity as of April 25, 2011,March 31, 2012, is summarized in the following table:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Available | |
| Company | | Type | | Maturity | | Commitment | | | Liquidity | |
| | | | | | | | | (In millions) | |
FirstEnergy(1) | | Revolving | | Aug. 2012 | | $ | 2,750 | | | $ | 1,983 | |
| AE | | Revolving | | Apr. 2013 | | | 250 | | | | 247 | |
AE Supply(2) | | Revolving | | Various | | | 1,050 | | | | 1,000 | |
| FE Utilities & TrAIL | | Revolving | | 2013 | | | 910 | | | | 475 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | Subtotal | | $ | 4,960 | | | $ | 3,705 | |
| | | | | Cash | | | — | | | | 1,134 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | Total | | $ | 4,960 | | | $ | 4,839 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Company | | Type | | Maturity | | Commitment | | Available Liquidity |
| | | | | | | (In millions) |
FirstEnergy(1) | | Revolving | | June 2016 | | $ | 2,000 |
| | $ | 895 |
|
| FES / AE Supply | | Revolving | | June 2016 | | 2,500 |
| | 2,498 |
|
| TrAIL | | Revolving | | Jan. 2013 | | 450 |
| | 450 |
|
| AGC | | Revolving | | Dec. 2013 | | 50 |
| | — |
|
| | | | | Subtotal | | $ | 5,000 |
| | $ | 3,843 |
|
| | | | | Cash | | — |
| | 54 |
|
| | | | | Total | | $ | 5,000 |
| | $ | 3,897 |
|
| | |
(1) | | FirstEnergy Corp. and subsidiary borrowers. |
|
(2) | | Includes $50 million for AGC.the Utilities. |
Revolving Credit Facilities
FirstEnergy has the capability to request an increaseand FES/AE Supply Facilities
FE and certain of its subsidiaries participate in the total commitments available under the $2.75 billiontwo five-year syndicated revolving credit facility (included in the borrowing capability table above) up tofacilities with aggregate commitments of $4.5 billion (Facilities). The Facilities consist of a maximum of $3.25$2 billion subject to the discretion ofaggregate FirstEnergy Facility and a $2.5 billion FES/AE Supply Facility, that are each lender to provide additional commitments. A total of 25 banks participate in the facility, with no one bank having more than 7.3% of the total commitment. Commitments under the facility are available until August 24, 2012,June 17, 2016, unless the lenders agree, at the request of the applicable borrowers, to an unlimited number ofup to two additional one-year extensions. Generally, borrowings under each of the facility must be repaid within 364 days. Available amounts for each borrowerFacilities are subject to a specified sub-limit, as well as applicable regulatory and other limitations.
92
The following table summarizes the borrowing sub-limits for each borrower under the facilities, as well as the limitations on short-term indebtedness applicableavailable to each borrower under current regulatory approvalsseparately and applicable statutory and/or charter limitations asmature on the earlier of March 31, 2011:
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Revolving | | | Regulatory and | |
| | | Credit Facility | | | Other Short-Term | |
| Borrower | | Sub-Limit | | | Debt Limitations | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| FirstEnergy | | $ | 2,750 | | | $ | — | (1) |
| FES | | | 1,000 | | | | — | (1) |
| OE | | | 500 | | | | 500 | |
| Penn | | | 50 | | | | 33 | (2) |
| CEI | | | 250 | (3) | | | 500 | |
| TE | | | 250 | (3) | | | 500 | |
| JCP&L | | | 425 | | | | 411 | (2) |
| Met-Ed | | | 250 | | | | 300 | (2) |
| Penelec | | | 250 | | | | 300 | (2) |
| ATSI | | | 50 | (4) | | | 50 | |
| | |
(1) | | No limitations. |
|
(2) | | Excluding amounts that may be borrowed under the regulated companies’ money pool. |
|
(3) | | Borrowing sub-limits for CEI and TE may be increased to up to $500 million by delivering notice to the administrative agent that such borrower has senior unsecured debt ratings of at least BBB by S&P and Baa2 by Moody’s. |
|
(4) | | The borrowing sub-limit for ATSI may be increased up to $100 million by delivering notice to the administrative agent that ATSI has received regulatory approval to have short-term borrowings up to the same amount. |
Under the $2.75 billion revolving credit facility, borrowers may request the issuance of LOCs expiring up to one year364 days from the date of issuance. The stated amountborrowing or the commitment termination date, as the same may be extended. Each of outstanding LOCs will count against total commitments available under the facility and against the applicable borrower’s borrowing sub-limit.
The $2.75 billion revolving credit facilityFacilities contains financial covenants requiring each borrower to maintain a consolidated debt to total capitalization ratio of no more than 65%, measured at the end of each fiscal quarter. As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy is negotiating amendments to the FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries’FES/AE Supply Facilities to, among other things, extend their commitment dates by one year. However, FirstEnergy cannot provide any assurance that the Facilities will be amended and extended on satisfactory terms or at all.
The following table summarizes the borrowing sub-limits for each borrower under the Facilities, the limitations on short-term indebtedness applicable to each borrower under current regulatory approvals and applicable statutory and/or charter limitations, as well as the debt to total capitalization ratios (as defined under each of the revolving credit facility) wereFacilities) as follows:of March 31, 2012:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Borrower | | FirstEnergy Revolving Credit Facility Sub-Limit | | FES/AE Supply Revolving Credit Facility Sub-Limit | | Regulatory and Other Short-Term Debt Limitations | | | Debt to Capitalization |
| | | (In millions) | | | |
| FE | | | $ | 2,000 |
| | | $ | — |
| | | $ | — |
| (1) | | 58.8% |
| FES | | | — |
| | | 1,500 |
| | | — |
| (2) | | 50.6% |
| AE Supply | | | — |
| | | 1,000 |
| | | — |
| (2) | | 43.6% |
| OE | | | 500 |
| | | — |
| | | 500 |
| | | 62.4% |
| CEI | | | 500 |
| | | — |
| | | 500 |
| | | 61.0% |
| TE | | | 500 |
| | | — |
| | | 500 |
| | | 63.1% |
| JCP&L | | | 425 |
| | | — |
| | | 411 |
| (3) | | 43.9% |
| ME | | | 300 |
| | | — |
| | | 300 |
| (3) | | 55.8% |
| PN | | | 300 |
| | | — |
| | | 300 |
| (3) | | 60.5% |
| WP | | | 200 |
| | | — |
| | | 200 |
| (3) | | 53.2% |
| MP | | | 150 |
| | | — |
| | | 150 |
| (3) | | 55.3% |
| PE | | | 150 |
| | | — |
| | | 150 |
| (3) | | 55.6% |
| ATSI | | | 100 |
| | | — |
| | | 100 |
| | | 48.5% |
| Penn | | | 50 |
| | | — |
| | | 33 |
| (3) | | 41.9% |
| | | | |
Borrower(1) | No limitations. |
| | | |
FirstEnergy(2) | No limitation based upon blanket financing authorization from the FERC under existing open market tariffs. |
| | 57.6 | % |
FES(3) | | | 53.3 | % |
OE | | | 55.0 | % |
Penn | | | 35.0 | % |
CEI | | | 56.4 | % |
TE | | | 58.1 | % |
| On April 11, 2012, a joint application was filed with FERC seeking authorization to incur short-term debt in the amount of $600 million for JCP&L, | | | 34.5 | % |
Met-Ed | | | 44.3 | % |
Penelec | | | 54.5 | % |
ATSI | | | 49.6 | % $500 million for ME, $150 million for MP, $150 million for PE, $300 million for PN, $50 million for Penn, $400 million for TrAIL and $200 million for WP during the period June 1, 2012 through May 31, 2014. |
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy2012, FE and its subsidiaries could issue additional debt of approximately $7.1$5.6 billion, or recognize a reduction in equity of approximately $3.8$3.0 billion, and remain within the limitations of the financial covenants required by its $2.75 billion revolving credit facility.the Facilities.
The $2.75 billion revolving credit facility, doesentire amount of the FES/AE Supply Facility and $700 million of the FirstEnergy Facility, subject to each borrower’s sub-limit, is available for the issuance of LOCs expiring up to one year from the date of issuance. The stated amount of outstanding LOCs will count against total commitments available under each of the Facilities and against the applicable borrower’s borrowing sub-limit.
The Facilities do not contain provisions that restrict the ability to borrow or accelerate payment of outstanding advances as a resultin the event of any change in credit ratings.ratings of the borrowers. Pricing is defined in “pricing grids,” whereby the cost of funds borrowed under the facility isFacilities are related to the credit ratings of the company borrowing the funds.
93
In addition Additionally, borrowings under each of the Facilities are subject to the $2.75 billion revolving credit facility, FirstEnergy also has access to an additional $2.2 billionusual and customary provisions for acceleration upon the occurrence of events of default, including a cross-default for other indebtedness in excess of $100 million.
AGC and TrAIL Revolving Credit Facilities
Separate revolving credit facilities relatingare available to the Allegheny companies. The following table summarizes the borrowing sub-limits for each borrower under the facilities as of March 31, 2011:
| | | | | |
| | | Revolving | |
| | | Credit Facility | |
| Borrower | | Sub-Limit | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| AE | | $ | 250 | |
| AE Supply | | | 1,000 | |
| MP | | | 110 | |
| PE | | | 150 | |
| WP | | | 200 | |
| AGC | | | 50 | |
| TrAIL | | | 450 | |
Under the terms of their individualthese credit facilities, outstanding debt of AE Supply, MP, PE, WP and AGC may not exceed 65% of the sum of their debt and equity as of the last day of each calendar quarter. Outstanding debt for TrAIL may not exceed 70% and 65% of the sum of its debt and equity as of the last day of each calendar quarter through June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2012, respectively.outstanding debt for TrAIL may not exceed 65% of the sum of its debt and equity as of the last day of each calendar quarter. These provisions limit debt levels of these subsidiaries and also limit the net assets of each subsidiary that may be transferred to AE. As of March 31, 2012, the debt to total capitalization ratios for TrAIL and AGC (as defined under each of their credit facilities) were 46% and 51%, respectively.
As of March 31, 2012, TrAIL could issue additional debt of approximately $243 million and AGC could issue additional debt of approximately $43 million and remain within the limitations of the financial covenants under their credit facilities.
New Transmission Revolving Credit Facility
FirstEnergy is in the Utilities, FES and AESC are currently pursuing an aggregateprocess of up to $4.0negotiating a new $1 billion in new multi-yearfive-year revolving credit facilitiesfacility with a group of lenders. The borrowers under such facility are expected to replacebe AET, and two of its direct subsidiaries, ATSI, which became a portionsubsidiary of AET in April 2012,
and TrAIL. ATSI is expected to have a $100 million sublimit and TrAIL is expected to have a $200 million sublimit. Once this facility is in place, it is expected that the current $450 million facility for TrAIL discussed above will be terminated and the $100 million sublimit for ATSI under the existing facilities described above.$2 billion FirstEnergy Facility will be eliminated. FirstEnergy cannot provide any assurance that the new revolving credit facility will be completed on satisfactory terms or at all.
FirstEnergy Money Pools
FirstEnergy’s regulated companies excluding regulated companies acquired in the Allegheny merger, also have the ability to borrow from each other and the holding company to meet their short-term working capital requirements. A similar but separate arrangement exists among FirstEnergy’s unregulated companies. FESC administers these two money pools and tracks surplus funds of FirstEnergy and the respective regulated and unregulated subsidiaries, as well as proceeds available from bank borrowings. Companies receiving a loan under the money pool agreements must repay the principal amount of the loan, together with accrued interest, within 364 days of borrowing the funds. The rate of interest is the same for each company receiving a loan from their respective pool and is based on the average cost of funds available through the pool. The average interest rate for borrowings in the first quarter of 20112012 was 0.38%0.85% per annum for the regulated companies’ money pool and 0.47%1.22% per annum for the unregulated companies’ money pool. In March 2011, AE Supply invested $200 million into the unregulated money pool. FirstEnergy and its regulated companies acquired in the Allegheny merger have filed with the appropriate regulatory commissions to receive approval to be part of the FirstEnergy regulated money pool.
Pollution Control Revenue Bonds
As of March 31, 2011,2012, FirstEnergy’s currently payable long-term debt included approximately $827$632 million (FES — $778($558 million Met-Ed — $29 million and Penelec — $20 million)applicable to FES) of variable interest rate PCRBs, the bondholders of which are entitled to the benefit of irrevocable direct pay bank LOCs. The interest rates on the PCRBs are reset daily or weekly. Bondholders can tender their PCRBs for mandatory purchase prior to maturity with the purchase price payable from remarketing proceeds or, if the PCRBs are not successfully remarketed, by drawings on the irrevocable direct pay LOCs. The subsidiary obligor is required to reimburse the applicable LOC bank for any such drawings or, if the LOC bank fails to honor its LOC for any reason, must itself pay the purchase price.
The LOCs for FirstEnergyFirstEnergy's variable interest rate PCRBs were issued by the following banks as of March 31, 2011:2012:
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Aggregate LOC | | | | | Reimbursements of |
| LOC Bank | | Amount(1) | | | LOC Termination Date | | LOC Draws Due |
| | | (In millions) | | | | | |
| CitiBank N.A. | | $ | 166 | | | June 2014 | | June 2014 |
| The Bank of Nova Scotia | | | 178 | | | Beginning June 2012 | | Multiple dates(2) |
| The Royal Bank of Scotland | | | 131 | | | June 2012 | | 6 months |
| Wachovia Bank | | | 152 | | | March 2014 | | March 2014 |
| US Bank | | | 60 | | | April 2014 | | 6 months |
| UBS | | | 272 | | | April 2014 | | April 2014 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | 959 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| LOC Bank | | Aggregate LOC Amount(1) | | LOC Termination Date | | Reimbursements of LOC Draws Due |
| | | (In millions) | | | | |
| UBS | | $ | 272 |
| | April 2014 | | April 2014 |
| CitiBank N.A. | | 165 |
| | June 2014 | | June 2014 |
| Wachovia Bank | | 153 |
| | March 2014 | | March 2014 |
| The Bank of Nova Scotia | | 49 |
| | April 2014 | | Multiple dates(2) |
| Total | | $ | 639 |
| | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Includes approximately $10$7 million of applicable interest coverage. |
| |
(2) | | ShorterEarlier of 6 months from drawing or the LOC termination date ($49 million) and shorter of one year or LOC termination date ($129 million).date. |
94
On March 17, 2011, FES completed the remarketingApril 2, 2012, FGCO and NGC refinanced $52.1 million and $29.5 million, respectively, of $207PCRBs. The bonds were converted from a fixed-rate mandatory put mode to a variable-rate mode enhanced with a 3-year LOC. Additionally, on April 2, 2012, FGCO and NGC remarketed $146.7 million variable rate PCRBs. These PCRBs remained in a variable interest mode, supported by bank LOC’s. Also, on March 1, 2011, FES repurchased $50and $315 million of non-LOC backed fixed rate PCRBs, that were subject to purchase on demand by the owner on that date.
On April 1, 2011, FES completed the remarketing of an additional $97 million of non-LOC backed commercial paper rate and fixed rate PCRBs (including the $50 million repurchased on March 1) into variable rate modes with LOC support. Also on April 1, 2011, Penelec completed the remarketing of $25 million of non-LOC backed commercial paper rate PCRBs intorespectively, in a variable rate mode enhanced with LOC support.a LOC.
In connection with the remarketings, approximately $207 aggregate principal amountOther Financings
On April 16, 2012, WP issued $100 million of FMBs previously deliveredthrough a private placement at a rate of 3.34%. These bonds have a maturity date of April 15, 2022, and the proceeds were used in part to LOC providers were cancelled, and approximately $50retire $80 million aggregate principal amount of FMBs delivered to secure PCRBs will be cancelled6.625% medium term notes that matured on May 31, 2011.April 16, 2012.
On April 16, 2012, AE Supply retired $503.2 million of 8.25% medium term notes at maturity.
Long-Term Debt Capacity
As of March 31, 2011,2012, the Ohio Companies and Penn had the aggregate capabilitycapacity to issue approximately $2.4$2.7 billion of additional FMBs on the basis of property additions and retired bonds under the terms of their respective mortgage indentures. The issuance of FMBs by the Ohio Companies is also subject to provisions of their senior note indentures generally limiting the incurrence of additional secured debt, subject to certain exceptions that would permit, among other things, the issuance of secured debt (including FMBs) supporting pollution control notes or similar obligations, or as an extension, renewal or replacement of previously outstanding secured debt. In addition, these provisions would permit OE and CEI to incur additional secured debt not otherwise permitted by a specified exception of up to $118$134 million and $17$1 million, respectively. As a result of itsthe indenture provisions, TE cannot incur any additional secured debt. Met-EdME and PenelecPN had the capability to issue secured debt of approximately $365$380 million and $346$391 million, respectively, under provisions of their senior note indentures as of March 31, 2011.2012. In addition, based upon their respective FMB indentures, net earnings and available bondable property additions as of March 31, 2011,2012, MP, PE and WP had the capabilitycapacity to issue approximately $685 million$1.5 billion of additional FMBs in the aggregate.aggregate under the terms of their FMB indentures. These companies may be further limited by the financial covenants of the Facilities and may be subject to regulatory approvals and applicable statutory and/or charter limitations.
The Ohio Companies intend to file an application with the PUCO for a financing order under the recent Ohio securitization legislation, which is expected to assist the Ohio Companies in their planned debt reductions.
Based upon FGCO’s FMB indenture, net earnings and available bondable property additions under its FMB indentures as of March 31, 2011,2012, FGCO had the capabilitycapacity to issue $2.4$1.8 billion of additional FMBs under the terms of that indenture. Based upon NGC’s FMB indenture, net earnings and available bondable property additions under its FMB indenture as of March 31, 2012, NGC had the capabilitycapacity to issue $1.2$2 billion of additional FMBs asunder the terms of March 31, 2011.that indenture.
FirstEnergy’sFE's and its subsidiaries' access to capital markets and costs of financing are influenced by the credit ratings of itstheir securities. On March 1, 2011, Fitch affirmedJanuary 18, 2012, Moody's upgraded the ratings and outlook of FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. On February 25, 2011, Moody’s affirmed the ratings and stable outlook of FirstEnergy and its regulated utilities, upgraded AE’s senior unsecured ratings to Baa3 from Ba1 and placed theSenior Unsecured ratings for FES under review for possible downgrade.TrAIL to A3 from Baa2. The following table displays FirstEnergy’sFE’s and its subsidiaries’ securitiesdebt credit ratings as of March 31, 2011.2012:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Senior Secured | | Senior Unsecured |
| Issuer | | S&P | | Moody’s | | Fitch | | S&P | | Moody’s | | Fitch |
FirstEnergy Corp.FE | | — | | — | | — | | BB+ | | Baa3 | | BBB |
Allegheny | | — | | — | | — | | BB+ | | Baa3 | | BBB- |
| FES | | — | | — | | — | | BBB- | | Baa2Baa3 | | BBB |
| AE Supply | | BBB— | | Baa2— | | BBB— | | BBB- | | Baa3 | | BBB- |
| AGC | | — | | — | | — | | BBB- | | Baa3 | | BBB-BBB |
| ATSI | | — | | — | | — | | BBB- | | Baa1 | | —A- |
| CEI | | BBB | | Baa1 | | BBB | | BBB- | | Baa3 | | BBB- |
| JCP&L | | — | | — | | — | | BBB- | | Baa2 | | BBB+ |
Met-EdME | | BBB | | A3 | | BBB+A- | | BBB- | | Baa2 | | BBBBBB+ |
| MP | | BBB+ | | Baa1 | | BBB+A- | | BBB- | | Baa3 | | BBB-BBB+ |
| OE | | BBB | | A3 | | BBB+ | | BBB- | | Baa2 | | BBB |
PenelecPN | | BBB | | A3 | | BBB+ | | BBB- | | Baa2 | | BBB |
| Penn | | BBB+ | | A3 | | BBB+ | | — | | — | | — |
| PE | | BBB+ | | Baa1 | | BBB+A- | | BBB- | | Baa3 | | BBB-BBB+ |
| TE | | BBB | | Baa1 | | BBB | | — | | — | | — |
| TrAIL | | — | | — | | — | | BBB- | | Baa2A3 | | BBBA- |
| WP | | BBB+ | | A3 | | BBB+A- | | BBB- | | Baa2 | | BBB-BBB+ |
95
Changes in Cash Position
As of March 31, 2011,2012, FirstEnergy had $1.1 billion$74 million of cash and cash equivalents compared to $1 billion$202 million of cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2010.2011. As of March 31, 20112012 and December 31, 2010,2011, FirstEnergy had approximately $73$67 million and $13$79 million, respectively, of restricted cash included in other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.Sheets.
During the first three months of 2011, FirstEnergy received $240 million of cash dividends from its subsidiaries and paid $190 million in cash dividends to common shareholders, including $20 million paid in March by Allegheny to its former shareholders.
Cash Flows From Operating Activities
FirstEnergy’s consolidated net cash from operating activities iswas provided primarily by its regulated distribution, regulated independent transmission and competitive energy services and energy delivery services businesses (see Results of Operations above). Net cash used for operating activities was $413 million during the first three months of 2012 compared with $491 million being provided from operating activities decreased by $15 million during the first three months of 2011 compared to the comparable period in 2010,, as summarized in the following table:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months | | | | |
| | | Ended March 31 | | | Increase | |
| Operating Cash Flows | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Net income | | $ | 45 | | | $ | 149 | | | $ | (104 | ) |
| Non-cash charges and other adjustments | | | 515 | | | | 367 | | | | 148 | |
| Pension trust contribution | | | (157 | ) | | | — | | | | (157 | ) |
| Working capital and other | | | 88 | | | | (10 | ) | | | 98 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 491 | | | $ | 506 | | | $ | (15 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| Operating Cash Flows | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Net income | | $ | 306 |
| | $ | 47 |
| | $ | 259 |
|
| Non-cash charges | | 366 |
| | 504 |
| | (138 | ) |
| Pension trust contributions | | (600 | ) | | (157 | ) | | (443 | ) |
| Working capital and other | | (485 | ) | | 97 |
| | (582 | ) |
| | | $ | (413 | ) | | $ | 491 |
| | $ | (904 | ) |
The increasedecrease in non-cash charges and other adjustments is primarily due to increased deferred taxes and investment tax credits ($112 million), increased asset impairments ($19 million), changes indecreased accrued compensation and retirement benefits ($68109 million) and increased depreciation ($27 million), partially offset by lower amortizationdue in part to higher performance-related incentive compensation payments during the first quarter of regulatory assets ($80 million).2012 compared to the same period of 2011.
The increase$582 million decrease in cash flows from working capital and other is primarily due to decreased receivables ($162 million), decreased prepayments and other current assets ($85 million) and decreasedthe following:
$105 million from lower collections from customers during the first quarter of 2012 as a result of the effects of milder weather described in Results of Operations above.
$158 million from increased materials and supplies ($82 million), partially offset by decreased accrued taxes ($189 million)balances as a result of increased coal inventories and decreasedthe absence in 2012 of the $67 million non-cash inventory valuation adjustment recorded in connection with the merger.
$137 million reflecting the absence of income tax refunds received during the first quarter of 2011 due to cash benefits realized on bonus depreciation and settlements with the IRS on certain prior year returns.
$166 million from lower accounts payable ($33 million).balances as a result of the timing of payments to vendors during the first quarter of 2012 as compared to the same period of 2011.
Cash Flows From Financing Activities
In the first three months of 2012, cash provided from financing activities was $819 million compared to $550 million of net cash used for financing activities during the first three months of 2011 cash used for financing activities was $550 million compared to $594 million in the first three months of 2010.. The following table summarizes security issuancestables summarize new debt financing (net of any discounts) and redemptions:
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months | |
| | | Ended March 31 | |
| Securities Issued or Redeemed | | 2011 | | | 2010 | |
| | | (In millions) | |
New Issues | | | | | | | | |
| Pollution control notes | | | 150 | | | | — | |
| Long-term revolvers | | | 60 | | | | — | |
| Unsecured Notes | | | 7 | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | 217 | | | $ | — | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Redemptions | | | | | | | | |
| Pollution control notes | | | (200 | ) | | | — | |
| Long-term revolvers | | | (20 | ) | | | — | |
| Senior secured notes | | | (109 | ) | | | 9 | |
| Unsecured notes | | | (30 | ) | | | 100 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | $ | (359 | ) | | $ | 109 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | $ | (214 | ) | | $ | (295 | ) |
| | | | | | | |
On March 29, 2011, FES paid off a $100 million term loan secured by FMBs that was scheduled to mature on March 31, 2011. On April 8, 2011, FirstEnergy entered into a $150 million unsecured term loan with an April 2013 maturity.In March 2011 FES repurchased and retired $20 million of its 6.80% unsecured senior notes and $10 million of its 6.05% unsecured senior notes originally outstanding in the principal amounts of $500 million and $600 million, respectively. Additionally, on April 29, 2011, Met-Ed redeemed approximately $14 million of FMBs securing PCRBs. |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 |
| Securities Issued or Redeemed / Retired | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| | | (In millions) |
| New Issues | | | | |
| PCRBs | | $ | — |
| | $ | 150 |
|
| Long-term revolving credit | | — |
| | 60 |
|
| Unsecured Notes | | — |
| | 7 |
|
| | | $ | — |
| | $ | 217 |
|
Redemptions / Retirements | | | | |
| PCRBs | | $ | — |
| | $ | (200 | ) |
| Long-term revolving credit | | — |
| | (20 | ) |
| Senior secured notes | | (16 | ) | | (109 | ) |
| Unsecured notes | | — |
| | (30 | ) |
| | | $ | (16 | ) | | $ | (359 | ) |
| | | | | |
| Short-term borrowings, net | | $ | 1,075 |
| | $ | (214 | ) |
During the remainder of 2011, FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries expect to pursue, from time to time, continued reductions in outstanding long-term debt of up to approximately $1.0 to $1.5 billion including through redemptions, open market or privately negotiated purchases. Any such transactions will be subject to prevailing market conditions, liquidity requirements and other factors.
96
Cash Flows From Investing Activities
Cash flows received fromused for investing activities in the first three months of 2011 resulted primarily from the cash acquired in the Allegheny merger, partially offset by2012 principally represented cash used for property additions. The following table summarizes investing activities for the first three months of 20112012 and 2010 by business segment:the comparable period of 2011:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Summary of Cash Flows | | Property | | | | | | | | | | |
| Provided from (Used for) Investing Activities | | Additions | | | Investments | | | Other | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Sources (Uses) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Regulated distribution | | $ | (177 | ) | | $ | 60 | | | $ | (9 | ) | | $ | (126 | ) |
| Competitive energy services | | | (214 | ) | | | (15 | ) | | | (8 | ) | | | (237 | ) |
| Regulated independent transmission | | | (27 | ) | | | (1 | ) | | | — | | | | (28 | ) |
| Other | | | (31 | ) | | | 590 | | | | 145 | | | | 704 | |
| Inter-Segment reconciling items | | | — | | | | (22 | ) | | | (150 | ) | | | (172 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | (449 | ) | | $ | 612 | | | $ | (22 | ) | | $ | 141 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Regulated distribution | | $ | (152 | ) | | $ | 62 | | | $ | (6 | ) | | $ | (96 | ) |
| Competitive energy services | | | (329 | ) | | | — | | | | (1 | ) | | | (330 | ) |
| Regulated independent transmission | | | (14 | ) | | | — | | | | (1 | ) | | | (15 | ) |
| Other | | | (13 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (13 | ) |
| Inter-Segment reconciling items | | | — | | | | (22 | ) | | | — | | | | (22 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | (508 | ) | | $ | 40 | | | $ | (8 | ) | | $ | (476 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| Cash Used for (Provided from) Investing Activities | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Property Additions: | | | | | |
|
|
| Regulated distribution | | $ | 301 |
| | $ | 177 |
| | $ | 124 |
|
| Competitive energy services | | 243 |
| | 214 |
| | 29 |
|
| Regulated independent transmission | | 28 |
| | 27 |
| | 1 |
|
| Other and reconciling adjustments | | 17 |
| | 31 |
| | (14 | ) |
| Cash received in Allegheny merger | | — |
| | (590 | ) | | 590 |
|
| Investments | | (63 | ) | | (23 | ) | | (40 | ) |
| Other | | 8 |
| | 23 |
| | (15 | ) |
| | | $ | 534 |
| | $ | (141 | ) | | $ | 675 |
|
Net cash provided fromused for investing activities induring the first three months of 20112012 increased by $617$675 million compared to the first three monthssame period of 2010.2011. The increase was principally due to the absence in 2012 of cash acquired in the Allegheny merger ($($590 million)million) and
increased property additions ($140 million), partially offset by a decrease in net purchases of customer intangibles by FES in the customer acquisition processinvestment securities ($1009 million) and a decrease in property additionsadditional restricted cash investments ($5931 million), principally due to lower AQC system expenditures, partially offset by decreased proceeds from asset sales ($114 million).
During the remaining nine monthsremainder of 2011,2012, capital requirements for property additions and capital leases are expectedestimated to be approximately $1.8 billion. This includesbillion, including approximately $90$212 million offor nuclear fuel expenditures.fuel.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
Estimated cash payments for contractual obligations that are considered firm obligations acquired by FirstEnergy in the AE merger are summarized as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 2012- | | | 2014- | | | | |
| Contractual Obligations | | Total | | | 2011 | | | 2013 | | | 2015 | | | Thereafter | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Long-term debt(1) | | $ | 4,776 | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | 1,445 | | | $ | 1,037 | | | $ | 2,286 | |
Interest on long-term debt(2) | | | 2,516 | | | | 240 | | | | 470 | | | | 341 | | | | 1,465 | |
Fuel and purchased power(3) | | | 9,781 | | | | 956 | | | | 2,160 | | | | 1,650 | | | | 5,015 | |
| Capital expenditures | | | 141 | | | | 117 | | | | 24 | | | | — | | | | — | |
Pension funding (4) | | | 695 | | | | 124 | | | | 175 | | | | 186 | | | | 210 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | 17,909 | | | $ | 1,445 | | | $ | 4,274 | | | $ | 3,214 | | | $ | 8,976 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Does not include payments made and debt issued subsequent to March 31, 2011. |
|
(2) | | Interest on variable-rate debt is based on interest rates as of March 31, 2011. |
|
(3) | | Amounts under contract with fixed or minimum quantities are based on estimated annual requirements. |
|
(4) | | Estimated contributions through 2021 based on current actuarial assumptions. |
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. Some of the guaranteed contracts contain collateral provisions that are contingent upon either FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings.
97
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy’s maximum exposure to potential future payments under outstanding guarantees and other assurances approximated $3.8 billion, as summarized below:
| | | | | |
| | | Maximum | |
| Guarantees and Other Assurances | | Exposure | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| FirstEnergy Guarantees on Behalf of its Subsidiaries | | | | |
Energy and Energy-Related Contracts(1) | | $ | 231 | |
| FirstEnergy guarantee of OVEC obligations | | | 300 | |
Other(2) | | | 228 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 759 | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| Subsidiaries’ Guarantees | | | | |
| Energy and Energy-Related Contracts | | | 158 | |
| FES’ guarantee of NGC’s nuclear property insurance | | | 70 | |
| FES’ guarantee of FGCO’s sale and leaseback obligations | | | 2,375 | |
| Other | | | 18 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 2,621 | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| Surety Bonds | | | 138 | |
LOC (non-debt)(3) | | | 318 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 456 | |
| | | | |
| Total Guarantees and Other Assurances | | $ | 3,836 | |
| | | | |
| | |
(1) | | Issued for open-ended terms, with a 10-day termination right by FirstEnergy. |
|
(2) | | Includes guarantees of $15 million for nuclear decommissioning funding assurances, $161 million supporting OE’s sale and leaseback arrangement, and $37 million for railcar leases. |
|
(3) | | Includes $146 million issued for various terms pursuant to LOC capacity available under FirstEnergy’s revolving credit facilities, $130 million pledged in connection with the sale and leaseback of Beaver Valley Unit 2 by OE and $42 million pledged in connection with the sale and leaseback of Perry by OE. |
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 guaranteescredit support to various providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by its 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 include provisions for parent guarantees, surety bonds and/or financings 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 claimLOCs to be satisfied by FirstEnergy’s assets. FirstEnergy believes the likelihood is remote that such parental guarantees will increase amounts otherwise paidissued by FirstEnergy to meeton behalf of one or more of its obligations incurred in connection with ongoing energy and energy-related activities.subsidiaries. Additionally, certain contracts may contain collateral provisions that are contingent upon either FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings.
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 to below investment grade, an acceleration or funding obligation or a “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of cash collateral, provision of a LOC or accelerated payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of March 31, 2011,2012, FirstEnergy’s maximum exposure to potential future payments under these collateral provisions was $557 million,outstanding guarantees and other assurances approximated $4.1 billion, as shownsummarized below:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Collateral Provisions | | FES | | | AE Supply | | | Utilities | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade(1) | | $ | 357 | | | $ | 10 | | | $ | 66 | | | $ | 433 | |
Material adverse event(2) | | | 54 | | | | 57 | | | | 13 | | | | 124 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | 411 | | | $ | 67 | | | $ | 79 | | | $ | 557 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Guarantees and Other Assurances | | Maximum Exposure |
| | | (In millions) |
| FirstEnergy Guarantees on Behalf of its Subsidiaries | | |
Energy and Energy-Related Contracts(1) | | $ | 273 |
|
LOC (long-term debt) - interest coverage(2) | | 5 |
|
| OVEC obligations | | 300 |
|
Other(3) | | 299 |
|
| | | 877 |
|
Subsidiaries’ Guarantees | | |
| Energy and Energy-Related Contracts | | 137 |
|
LOC (long-term debt) - interest coverage(2) | | 2 |
|
| FES’ guarantee of NGC’s nuclear property insurance | | 79 |
|
| FES’ guarantee of FGCO’s sale and leaseback obligations | | 2,286 |
|
| Other | | 12 |
|
| | | 2,516 |
|
| Signal Peak & Global Rail facility | | 350 |
|
| Surety Bonds | | 151 |
|
LOCs(4) | | 185 |
|
| | | 686 |
|
| Total Guarantees and Other Assurances | | $ | 4,079 |
|
| | |
(1) | | Includes $138 million and $46 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation at FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
|
(2) | | Includes $53 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation at FES.Issued for open-ended terms, with a 10-day termination right by FirstEnergy. |
98
Stress case conditions of a credit rating downgrade or “material adverse event” and hypothetical adverse price movements in the underlying commodity markets would increase the total potential amount to $623 million, as shown below:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Collateral Provisions | | FES | | | AE Supply | | | Utilities | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade(1) | | $ | 420 | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | 66 | | | $ | 494 | |
Material adverse event(2) | | | 60 | | | | 56 | | | | 13 | | | | 129 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | | $ | 480 | | | $ | 64 | | | $ | 79 | | | $ | 623 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
(1)(2)
| Reflects the interest coverage portion of LOCs issued in support of floating rate PCRBs with various maturities. The principal amount of floating-rate PCRBs of $632 million is reflected in currently payable long-term debt on FirstEnergy's consolidated balance sheets. |
| Includes $138 million and $46 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation at FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
(3) | Includes guarantees of $95 million for nuclear decommissioning funding assurances, $161 million supporting OE’s sale and leaseback arrangement, and $34 million for railcar leases. |
| |
(2)(4)
| | Includes $53$32 million that is also considered an acceleration issued for various terms pursuant to LOC capacity available under FirstEnergy’s revolving credit facilities, $116 million pledged in connection with the sale and leaseback of payment or funding obligation at FES.Beaver Valley Unit 2 by OE and $37 million pledged in connection with the sale and leaseback of Perry by OE. |
Most of FirstEnergy’s surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $138$151 million provide additional assurance to outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.
In additionWhile the types of guarantees discussed above are normally parental commitments for the future payment of subsidiary obligations, subsequent to guaranteesthe occurrence of a senior unsecured credit rating downgrade to below S&P's BBB- and surety bonds,Moody's Baa3 and lower, or a “material adverse event,” the immediate posting of collateral or accelerated payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of March 31, 2012, FirstEnergy’s exposure to additional credit contingent contractual obligations was $671 million, as shown below:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Collateral Provisions | | FES | | AE Supply | | Utilities | | Total |
| | | (In millions) |
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade (1) | | $ | 439 |
| | $ | 8 |
| | $ | 59 |
| | $ | 506 |
|
Material adverse event (2) | | 91 |
| | 60 |
| | 14 |
| | 165 |
|
| Total | | $ | 530 |
| | $ | 68 |
| | $ | 73 |
| | $ | 671 |
|
| |
(1) | Includes $222 million and $40 million that are also considered accelerations of payment or funding obligation for FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
| |
(2) | Includes $42 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation for FES. |
Certain bilateral non-affiliate 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.collateral. Based on FES’FES' and AE Supply’sSupply's power portfolioportfolios exposure as of March 31, 2011 and forward prices as of that date,2012, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of $158$84 million and $5$1 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 $52 million of collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required.
Not included in the preceding information is potential collateral arising from the PSAs between FES or AE Supply and certain of the Utilities in the Regulated Distribution Segment. As of March 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 be posted.post $54 million and $18 million, respectively.
In connection with FES’ obligations to post and maintain collateral under the two-year PSA entered into by FES and the Ohio Companies following the CBP auction on May 13-14, 2009, NGC entered into a Surplus Margin Guaranty in an amount up to $500 million. The Surplus Margin Guaranty is secured by an NGC FMB issued in favor of the Ohio Companies.
FES’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 maywould 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$350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility.facility due in October 2012. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that shareoriginally shared ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a guaranty of the borrowers’borrowers' obligations under the facility. Following the sale of a portion of FEV's ownership interest in Signal Peak and Global Rail in the fourth quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy, WMB Loan Ventures, LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II, LLC, together with Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Holding, continue to guarantee the borrowers' obligations until either the facility is replaced with non-recourse financing (no later than June 30, 2012) or replaced with appropriate recourse financing no earlier than September 4, 2012, that provides for separate guarantees from each owner in proportion with each equity owner's percentage ownership in the joint venture. In addition, FEV, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Holding, the other entities that directly own thedirect and indirect equity interestinterests in the borrowers, have pledged those interests to the lenders under the current facility as collateral. In March 2012, after an evaluation of its current operations, business plan and market conditions, the Global Holding Board of Managers opted to focus first on extending its current senior secured term loan facility as collateral fordue in October 2012, before replacing that facility with non-recourse financing. There can be no assurance that the facility.term loan facility will be extended on satisfactory terms or at all.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
FES and certain of the Ohio Companies have obligations that are not included on their Consolidated Balance Sheets related to sale and leaseback arrangements involving the Bruce Mansfield Plant, Perry Unit 1 and Beaver Valley Unit 2, which are satisfied through operating lease payments. The total present value of these sale and leaseback operating lease commitments, net of trust investments, is $1.7was $1.6 billion as of March 31, 2011.2012, of which $118 million is applicable to the 1987 Bruce Mansfield Plant leases, which may be terminated pursuant to an early buyout option. In March 2012, FGCO, as assignee, provided notice of its irrevocable election of the early buyout option of the 1987 Bruce Mansfield Plant leases. The purchase price to be paid by FGCO will be equal to the higher of the special termination value under the applicable facility leases (in the aggregate approximately $435 million covering both debt and equity under the leases) and the fair market value. An appraisal process to determine such fair market value has been invoked by certain of the parties.
MARKET RISK INFORMATION
FirstEnergy uses various market risk sensitive instruments, including derivative contracts, primarily to manage the risk of price and interest rate fluctuations. FirstEnergy’s Risk Policy Committee, comprised of members of senior management, provides general oversight for risk management activities throughout the company.
Commodity Price Risk
FirstEnergy is exposed to financial risks resulting from fluctuating interest rates and commodity prices, including prices for electricity, natural gas, coal and energy transmission. To manage the volatility relating to these exposures, FirstEnergy established aFirstEnergy's Risk Policy Committee, comprised of members of senior management, which provides general management oversight for risk management activities throughout FirstEnergy. TheManagement Committee is responsible for promoting the effective design and implementation of sound risk management programs and oversees compliance with corporate risk management policies and established risk management practice. FirstEnergy uses a variety of derivative instruments for risk management purposes including forward contracts, options, futures contracts and swaps. In addition to derivatives, FirstEnergy also enters into master netting agreements with certain third parties.
99
The valuation of derivative contracts is based on observable market information to the extent that such information is available. In
cases where such information is not available, FirstEnergy relies on model-based information. The model provides estimates of future regional prices for electricity and an estimate of related price volatility. FirstEnergy uses these results to develop estimates of fair value for financial reporting purposes and for internal management decision making (see Note 6, Fair Value Measurements of the Combined Notes to the consolidated financial statements)Consolidated Financial Statements). Sources of information for the valuation of commodity derivative contracts assets and liabilities as of March 31, 20112012 are summarized by year in the following table:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Source of Information- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fair Value by Contract Year | | 2011 | | | 2012 | | | 2013 | | | 2014 | | | 2015 | | | Thereafter | | | Total | |
| | | (In millions) | |
Prices actively quoted(1) | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | |
Other external sources(2) | | | (315 | ) | | | (152 | ) | | | (44 | ) | | | (36 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | (547 | ) |
| Prices based on models | | | (11 | ) | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 19 | | | | 106 | | | | 114 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total(3) | | $ | (326 | ) | | $ | (152 | ) | | $ | (44 | ) | | $ | (36 | ) | | $ | 19 | | | $ | 106 | | | $ | (433 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Source of Information- Fair Value by Contract Year | | 2012 | | 2013 | | 2014 | | 2015 | | 2016 | | Thereafter | | Total |
| | | (In millions) |
Prices actively quoted(1) | | $ | (2 | ) | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | (2 | ) |
Other external sources(2) | | (158 | ) | | (49 | ) | | (28 | ) | | (25 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (260 | ) |
| Prices based on models | | (14 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1 |
| | 27 |
| | 14 |
|
Total(3) | | $ | (174 | ) | | $ | (49 | ) | | $ | (28 | ) | | $ | (25 | ) | | $ | 1 |
| | $ | 27 |
| | $ | (248 | ) |
| | |
(1) | | Represents exchange traded New York Mercantile Exchange futures and options. |
| |
(2) | | Primarily represents contracts based on broker and IntercontinentalExchange quotes. |
| |
(3) | | Includes $366$(305) million in non-hedge commodity derivative contracts that are primarily related to NUG contracts. NUG contracts are generally subject to regulatory accounting and do not materially impact earnings. |
FirstEnergy performs sensitivity analyses to estimate its exposure to the market risk of its commodity positions. Based on derivative contracts held as of March 31, 2011,2012, an adverse 10% change in commodity prices would decrease net income by approximately $12$2 million ($7 million net of tax) during the next 12 months.
Equity Price Risk
FirstEnergy provides a noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension planplans that coverscover substantially all of its employees other than Allegheny employees employed by FirstEnergy and non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees (the FirstEnergy Pension Plan). In addition, effective on the date of the merger, FirstEnergy provides noncontributory qualified defined pension plan benefits that cover substantially all of Allegheny employees employed by FirstEnergy and a supplemental executive retirement plan that covers certain Allegheny executives employed by FirstEnergy (the Allegheny Pension Plan).employees. The FirstEnergy Pension Plan and the Allegheny Pension Planplans provide defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels.
Eligible FirstEnergy retirees,provides a portion of non-contributory pre-retirement basic life insurance for employees who are eligible to retire. Health care benefits, which include certain employee contributions, deductibles and co-payments, are also available upon retirement to certain employees, their dependents and, under certain circumstances, their survivors are provided other postretirement benefits such as a minimum amount of noncontributory life insurance, optional contributory insurance and certain health care benefits. These other postretirement benefits are not provided insurvivors. FirstEnergy also has obligations to former or inactive employees after employment, but before retirement, for employees hired on or after January 1, 2005.disability-related benefits.
Eligible Allegheny retirees and dependents are provided other postretirement benefits such as subsidies for medical and life insurance plans. Subsidized medical coverage is not provided in retirement to Allegheny employees employed by FirstEnergy that were hired on or after January 1, 1993, with the exception of certain union employees who were hired or became members before May 1, 2006.
The benefit plan assets and obligations are remeasured annually using a December 31 measurement date or as significant triggering events occur. As of March 31, 2011,2012, the FirstEnergy pension plan was invested in approximately 32%24% of equity securities, 47%51% of fixed income securities, 10%17% of absolute return strategies, 5% of real estate, 2% of private equity and 4%1% of cash. The FirstEnergy Pension Plan and the Allegheny Pension Plan were 86% and 78%, respectively, funded on an accumulated benefit obligation basis as of March 31, 2011. A decline in the value of pension plan assets could result in additional funding requirements. FirstEnergy’s funding policy is based on actuarial computations using the projected unit credit method. During the first quarter of 2011,three months endedMarch 31, 2012, FirstEnergy made a $157 million contribution to its qualified pension plans. FirstEnergy intends to make additionalpre-tax contributions of $220 million and $6 million to its qualified pension plans and postretirement benefit plans, respectively, in the last three quarters of 2011.$600 million.
100
Nuclear decommissioning trustNDT funds have been established to satisfy NGC’s, OE's, JCP&L's and the Utilities’other FE subsidiaries' nuclear decommissioning obligations. As of March 31, 2011,2012, approximately 85%80% of the funds were invested in fixed income securities, 9%13% of the funds were invested in equity securities and 6%7% were invested in short-term investments, with limitations related to concentration and investment grade ratings. The investments are carried at their market values of approximately $1,741$1,699 million, $194$288 million and $115$146 million for fixed income securities, equity securities and short-term investments, respectively, as of MachMarch 31, 2011,2012, excluding $(31)$2 million of net receivables, payables deferred taxes and accrued income. A hypothetical 10% decrease in prices quoted by stock exchanges would result in a $19$29 million reduction in fair value as of March 31, 2011. The2012. JCP&L's decommissioning trusts of JCP&L and the Pennsylvania Companies aretrust is subject to regulatory accounting, with unrealized gains and losses recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities, since the difference between investments held in trust and the decommissioning liabilities will be recovered from or refunded to customers. NGC and OE and TE recognizerecognized in earnings the unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities held in their nuclear decommissioning trustsNDT as other-than-temporary impairments.OTTI. A decline in the value of FirstEnergy’s nuclear decommissioning trustsNDT or a significant escalation in estimated decommissioning costs could result in additional funding requirements. In the first three months of 2011, approximately $1FENOC has submitted a $95 million was contributed to JCP&L’s nuclear decommissioning trusts. During the second quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy intends to contribute approximately $4 million and $1 million parental guarantee to the OE and TE nuclear decommissioning trusts, respectively,NRC relating to comply with requirements under certain sale-leaseback transactions in which OE and TE continue as lessees. On March 28, 2011, FENOC submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This submittal identified a total shortfallshort-fall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry of approximately $93 million. This estimate encompasses the shortfall covered by the existing $15 million parental guarantee. FENOC agreed to increase the parental guarantee to $95 million within 90 days of the submittal.Perry.
CREDIT RISK
Credit risk is defined as the risk that a counterparty to a transaction will be unable to fulfill its contractual obligations. FirstEnergy evaluates the credit standing of a prospective counterparty based on the prospective counterparty's financial condition. FirstEnergy may impose specified collateral requirements and use standardized agreements that facilitate the netting of cash flows. FirstEnergy monitors the financial conditions of existing counterparties on an obligor’s failure to meetongoing basis. An independent risk management group oversees credit risk.
Wholesale Credit Risk
FirstEnergy measures wholesale credit risk as the terms of any investment contract, loan agreement or otherwise perform as agreed. Credit risk arises from all activitiesreplacement cost for derivatives in which success depends on issuer, borrower or counterparty performance, whether reflected on or off the balance sheet. FirstEnergy engages in transactions for the purchase and sale of commodities includingpower, natural gas, electricity, coal and emission allowances. These transactions are often with major
allowances, adjusted for amounts owed to or due from counterparties for settled transactions. The replacement cost of open positions represents unrealized gains, net of any unrealized losses, where FirstEnergy has a legally enforceable right of set-off. FirstEnergy monitors and manages the credit risk of wholesale marketing, risk management and energy companies within the industry.
FirstEnergy maintainstransacting operations through credit policies with respect to its counterparties to manage overalland procedures, which include an established credit risk. This includes performing independent risk evaluations, activelyapproval process, daily monitoring portfolio trends and usingof counterparty credit limits, the use of credit mitigation measures such as margin, collateral and contract provisions to mitigate exposure. As partthe use of its credit program,master netting agreements. FirstEnergy aggressively manages the quality of its portfolio of energy contracts, evidenced bycurrently having a current weighted average risk rating for energy contract counterparties of BBB (S&P). As of March 31, 2011, the largest credit concentration was with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which
Retail Credit Risk
FirstEnergy is currently rated investment grade, representing 13.4% of FirstEnergy’s total approvedexposed to retail credit risk comprised of 5.9%through competitive electricity activities, which serve residential, commercial and industrial companies. Retail credit risk results when customers default on contractual obligations or fail to pay for FES, 2.1% for JCP&L, 2.7% for Met-Ed and a combined 2.7% for OE, TE and CEI.
OUTLOOK
Reliability Initiatives
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards applyservice rendered. This risk represents the loss that may be incurred due to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, FGCO, FENOC, and ATSI and TrAIL Company. The NERC, as the ERO is charged with establishing and enforcing these reliability standards, although it has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcementnonpayment of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirstCorporation. All of FirstEnergy’s facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirstregion. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and ReliabilityFirststakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirstCorporation.
FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such items are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the item and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an item to ReliabilityFirst. Moreover, it is clear that the NERC, ReliabilityFirstand the FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standardscustomer accounts receivable balances, as well as the loss from the resale of energy previously committed to developserve customers.
Retail credit risk is managed through established credit approval policies, monitoring customer exposures and adopt new reliability standards.the use of credit mitigation measures such as deposits in the form of LOCs, cash or prepayment arrangements.
Retail credit quality is affected by the economy and the ability of customers to manage through unfavorable economic cycles and other market changes. If the business environment were to be negatively affected by changes in economic or other market conditions, FirstEnergy's retail credit risk may be adversely impacted.
OUTLOOK
STATE REGULATION
Each of the Utilities' retail rates, conditions of service, issuance of securities and other matters are subject to regulation in the states in which it operates - in Maryland by the MDPSC, in Ohio by the PUCO, in New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC. The financial impacttransmission operations of complying with new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time; however, 2005 amendmentsPE in Virginia are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC. In addition, under Ohio law, municipalities may regulate rates of a public utility, subject to appeal to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurredPUCO if not acceptable to comply with the new reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on FirstEnergy’s partutility.
MARYLAND
PE provides SOS pursuant to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could resulta combination of settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and regulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is competitively procured in the impositionform of financial penalties that could haverolling contracts of varying lengths through periodic auctions overseen by the MDPSC and a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&L’s Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&L’s contribution to the electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what actions, if any, that the NERC may takethird party monitor. The settlements with respect to this matter.
101
On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported to ReliabilityFirsta vegetation encroachment event on a Met-Ed 230 kV line. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirstissued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirston September 27, 2010. In March 2011, ReliabilityFirstsubmitted its proposed findings and settlement. At this time, FirstEnergy is evaluating ReliabilityFirst’s proposal and is unable to predict the final outcome of this investigation.
Allegheny has been subject to routine audits with respect to its compliance with applicable reliability standards and has settled certain related issues. In addition, ReliabilityFirstis currently conducting certain violation investigations with regard to matters of compliance by Allegheny.
Maryland
In 1999, Maryland adopted electric industry restructuring legislation, which gave PE’s Maryland retail electricresidential SOS for PE customers the right to choose their electricity generation suppliers. PE remained obligated to provide standard offer generation service (SOS) at capped rates to residential and non-residential customers for various periods. The longest such period, for residential customers, expiredexpire on December 31, 2008.2012, but by statute service will continue in the same manner unless changed by order of the MDPSC. The settlement provisions relating to non-residential service have expired but, by MDPSC order, the terms of service remain in place unless PE implementedrequests or the MDPSC orders a rate stabilization plan in 2007 that was designed to transition customers from capped generation rates to rates based on market prices and that concluded on December 31, 2010. PE’s transmission and distribution rates for all customers are subject to traditional regulated utility ratemaking (i.e., cost-based rates).
By statute enacted in 2007, the obligation of Maryland utilities to provide SOS to residential and small commercial customers, in exchange for recovery of theirchange. PE recovers its costs plus a reasonable profit, was extended indefinitely. The legislation also established a five-year cycle (to begin in 2008)return for the MDPSC to report to the legislature on the status ofproviding SOS. In August 2007, PE filed a plan for seeking bids to serve its Maryland residential load for the period after the expiration of rate caps. The MDPSC approved the plan and PE now conducts rolling auctions to procure the power supply necessary to serve its customer load. However, the terms on which PE will provide SOS to residential customers after the settlement beyond 2012 will depend on developments with respect to SOS in Maryland between now and then, including but not limited to possible MDPSC decisions in the proceedings discussed below.
The MDPSC opened a new docket in August 2007 to consider matters relating to possible “managed portfolio” approaches to SOS and other matters. “Phase II” of the case addressed utility purchases or construction of generation, bidding for procurement of demand response resources and possible alternatives if the TrAIL and PATH projects were delayed or defeated. It is unclear when the MDPSC will issue its findings in this and other SOS-related pending proceedings discussed below.
InOn September 29, 2009, the MDPSC opened a new proceeding to receive and consider proposals for construction of new generation resources in Maryland. In December 2009, Governor Martin O’MalleyO'Malley filed a letter in this proceeding in which he characterized the electricity market in Maryland as a “failure” and urged the MDPSC to use its existing authority to order the construction of new generation in Maryland, vary the means used by utilities to procure generation and include more renewables in the generation mix. In August 2010, the MDPSC opened another new proceeding to solicit comments on the PJM RPM process. Public hearings on the comments were held in October 2010. In December 2010, the MDPSC issued an order soliciting comments on a model request for proposalRFP for solicitation of long-term energy commitments by Maryland electric utilities. PE and numerous other parties filed comments, and at this time no further proceedings have been set by the MDPSC in this matter.
In September 2007,subsequently the MDPSC issued an order that requiredrequiring the Maryland utilities to file detailed plans for how they will meetissue the “EmPOWER Maryland” proposalRFP crafted by the MDPSC. The RFPs were issued by the utilities as ordered by the MDPSC. The order, as amended, indicated that inbids were due by January 20, 2012, and that the MDPSC would be the entity evaluating all bids.On April 12, 2012, the MDPSC issued an order requiring certain Maryland electric consumptionutilities, but not PE, to enter into a contract for differences, an electricity hedging arrangement, with respect to a 661 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle generation plant to be reduced by 10% and electricity demand be reduced by 15%,built in each case by 2015. In October 2007, PE filed its initial report on energy efficiency, conservation and demand reduction plans in connection with this order. The MDPSC conducted hearings on PE’s and other utilities’ plans in November 2007 and May 2008.Charles County, Maryland.
In a related development, the
The Maryland legislature in 2008 adopted a statute codifying the EmPOWER Maryland goals.goals to reduce electric consumption by10%and reduce electricity demand by15%, in each case by 2015. In 2008, PE filed its comprehensive plans for attempting to achieve those goals, asking the MDPSC to approve programs for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers, as well as a customer education program, and a pilot deployment of Advanced Utility Infrastructure (AUI) that Allegheny had previously tested in West Virginia.program. The MDPSC ultimately approved the programs in August 2009 after certain modifications had been made as required by the MDPSC, and approved cost recovery for the programs in October 2009. Expenditures were estimated to be approximately $101$101 millionfor the PE programs for the period of 2009 to 2015 and would be recovered over thatsix-year period. Maryland law only allows for the following six years. The AUI pilot was placed onutility to recover lost distribution revenue attributable to the energy efficiency or demand reduction programs through a separate trackbase rate case proceeding, and to be re-examineddate such recovery has not been sought or obtained by PE. Meanwhile, after further discussion with the Staff of the MDPSC and other stakeholders. Meanwhile, extensive meetings with the MDPSC Staff and other stakeholders, to discuss details of PE’sPE's plans for additional and improved programs for the period 2012-2014 beganwere filed on August 31, 2011. The MDPSC held hearings on PE and the other utilities' plans in April 2011.
102
In March 2009, the Maryland PSCOctober 2011, and on December 22, 2011, issued an order suspending until further notice the right of all electricapproving PE's plan with various modifications and gas utilities in the statefollow-up assignments.
Pursuant to terminate service to residential customers for non-payment of bills. The MDPSC subsequently issued an order making various rule changes relating to terminations, payment plans, and customer deposits that make it more difficult for Maryland utilities to collect deposits or to terminate service for non-payment. PE and several other utilities filed requests for reconsideration of various parts of the order, which were denied. The MDPSC is continuing to conduct hearings and collect data on payment plan and related issues and has adopted a set of proposed regulations that expand the summer and winter “severe weather” termination moratoria when temperatures are very high or very low, from one day, as providedbill passed by statute, to three days on each occurrence.
On March 24, 2011, the MDPSC held an initial hearing to discuss possible new regulations relating to service interruptions, storm response, call center metrics, and related reliability standards. The proposed rules included provisions for civil penalties for non-compliance. Numerous parties filed comments on the proposed rules and participated in the hearing, with many noting issues of cost and practicality relating to implementation. Concurrently, the Maryland legislature, is considering a bill addressing the same topics. The final bill passed on April 11, 2011, requires the MDPSC proposed rules, based on the product of a working group of utilities, regulators, and other interested stakeholders, that create specific requirements related to promulgate rules by July 1, 2012 thata utility's obligation to address service interruptions, downed wire response, customer communication, vegetation management, equipment inspection, and annual reporting. In crafting the regulations,The bill requires that the MDPSC is directed to consider cost-effectiveness, and provides that the MDPSC may adopt different standards for different utilities based on such factors as system design and existing infrastructure, geography, and customer density. Beginning in July 2013, the MDPSC is required to assess each utility’sutility's compliance with the standards,new rules, and may assess penalties of up to $25,000 $25,000per day per violation. TheFurther comments were filed regarding the proposed rules on March 26, 2012, and at a hearing on April 17, 2012, the MDPSC has ordered that a working group of utilities, regulators, and other interested stakeholders meet to address the topicsapproved re-publication of the proposed rules.rules as final.
In December 2009, PE filed an application with
NEW JERSEY
JCP&L currently provides BGS for retail customers that do not choose a third party electric generation supplier and for customers of third party electric generation suppliers, that fail to provide the MDPSCcontracted service. The supply for authorization to construct the Maryland portions of the PATH Project to be owned by PATH Allegheny Maryland Transmission Company, LLC,BGS, which is ownedcomprised of two components, is provided through contracts procured through separate, annually held descending clock auctions, the results of which are approved by Potomac Edisonthe NJBPU. One BGS component and PATH-Allegheny. On February 28, 2011, PE withdrew its application. See “Transmission Expansion”auction, reflecting hourly real time energy prices, is available for larger commercial and industrial customers. The other BGS component and auction, providing a fixed price service, is intended for smaller commercial and residential customers. All New Jersey EDCs participate in the Federal Regulationthis competitive BGS procurement process and Rate Matters section for further discussion of this matter.
New Jersey
JCP&L is permitted to defer for future collectionrecover BGS costs directly from customers as a charge separate from base rates. The most recent BGS auction results, for supply commencing June 1, 2012, were approved by the amounts by which its costs of supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUG rates and market sales of NUG energy and capacity. As of March 31,NJBPU on February 9, 2012.
On September 8, 2011, the accumulated deferred cost balance was a creditDivision of approximately $102 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, in July 2010, JCP&LRate Counsel filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by $180 million annually, which the NJBPU approved, allowing the change in rates to become effective March 1, 2011.
In March 2009 and again in February 2010, JCP&L filed annual SBC PetitionsPetition with the NJBPU asserting that includedit has reason to believe that JCP&L is earning an unreasonable return on its New Jersey jurisdictional rate base. The Division of Rate Counsel requested that the NJBPU order JCP&L to file a requested zero levelbase rate case petition so that the NJBPU may determine whether JCP&L's current rates for electric service are just and reasonable. JCP&L filed an answer to the Petition stating, inter alia, that the Division of recoveryRate Counsel analysis upon which it premises its Petition contains errors and inaccuracies, that JCP&L's achieved return on equity is currently within a reasonable range, and that there is no reason for the NJBPU to require JCP&L to file a base rate case at this time. On November 30, 2011, the NJBPU ordered that the matter be assigned to the NJBPU President to act as presiding officer to, among other things, set and modify the schedule, decide upon motions, and otherwise control the conduct of TMI-2 decommissioning costs basedthis case, subject to subsequent NJBPU ratification.The schedule in the proceeding provides for briefs to be filed by the parties, the initial brief was filed by the parties on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). Both matters are currently pending beforeApril 26, 2012. A decision is expected to be issued in June 2012. JCP&L is unable to predict the NJBPU.outcome of this matter or estimate any possible loss or range of loss.
Ohio
Pursuant to a formal Notice issued by the NJBPU on September 14, 2011, public hearings were held to solicit comments regarding the state of preparedness and responsiveness of the EDCs prior to, during, and after Hurricane Irene, with additional hearings held in October 2011. Additionally, the NJBPU accepted written comments through October 31, 2011 related to this inquiry. On December 14, 2011, the NJBPU Staff filed a report of its preliminary findings and recommendations with respect to the electric utility companies' planning and response to Hurricane Irene and the October 2011 snowstorm. The NJBPU selected a consultant to further review and evaluate the New Jersey EDCs' preparation and restoration efforts with respect to Hurricane Irene and the October 2011 snowstorm, and the report of the consultant is due to be submitted to the NJBPU in July 2012.The NJBPU has not indicated what additional action, if any, may be taken as a result of information obtained through this process.
OHIO
The Ohio Companies operate under an ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, that provides for generation supplied through a CBP. The ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the Ohio Companies through the May 2009 CBP. The PUCO approved a $136.6 million distribution rate increase for the Ohio Companies in January 2009, which went into effect on January 23, 2009 for OE ($68.9 million) and TE ($38.5 million) and on May 1, 2009 for CEI ($29.2 million).
In March 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP, which the PUCO approved in August 2010, with certain modifications. The new ESP will go into effect on June 1, 2011 and conclude on May 31, 2014. The material terms of the new ESP include:
generation supplied through a CBP similar to the one used in May 2009 and the one proposed on the October 2009 MRO filing (initial auctions held on October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); commencing June 1, 2011;
a load cap of no less than80%, so that no single supplier is awarded more than80%of the tranches, which also applies to tranches assigned post-auction;
a6%generation discount to certain low income customers provided by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES; FES (FES is one of the wholesale suppliers to the Ohio Companies);
no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; and
a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR),DCR, to recover a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery system. Rider DCR substitutes for Rider DSI which terminates under the current ESP.
The Ohio Companies also agreed not to recover from retail customers certain costs related to the companies’transmission cost allocations by PJM as a result of ATSI's integration into PJM for the longer of the five-year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 20152016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360$360 milliondependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, agreed to establish a $12$12 million fund fund to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP and agreed to additional matters related to energy efficiency and alternative energy requirements. Many
The Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO to essentially extend their current ESP for two more years. The Ohio Companies requested PUCO approval by May 2, 2012, so that they may bid megawatts of PJM-qualified energy efficiency and demand response resources into the May 7, 2012, PJM capacity auction for the 2015-2016 planning year or in the alternate by June 20, 2012, which would allow adequate time to implement changes to the bidding schedule to capture a greater amount of generation at historically lower prices for the benefit of customers. The PUCO has set an evidentiary hearing for May 21, 2012; therefore approval by May 2, 2012, is not expected.
As proposed, the extended ESP would maintain the substantial benefits from the current ESP including:
Freezing current base distribution rates through May 31, 2016;
Continuing to provide economic development and assistance to low-income customers for the two-year extension period at the levels established in the existing ESP;
Providing Percentage of Income Payment Plan customers with a 6 percent generation rate discount;
Continuing to provide capacity to shopping and non-shopping customers at a market-based price set through an auction process; and
Continuing Rider DCR that allows continued investment in the distribution system for the benefit of customers.
As proposed, the extended ESP would provide additional new benefits, including:
Securing generation supply over a longer period of time to mitigate any potential price spikes for FirstEnergy Ohio utility customers who do not switch to a competitive generation supplier; and
Extending the recovery period for costs associated with purchasing renewable energy credits mandated by SB 221 through the end of the existing riders approved in the previous ESP remain in effect, with some modifications. The new ESP resolved proceedings pending atperiod. This will reduce the monthly renewable energy charge for all FirstEnergy Ohio utility customers.
The filing is supported by19parties including: Industrial Energy Users, Ohio Energy Group, PUCO regarding corporate separation, elementsStaff, the City of Akron, Ohio Manufacturers Association, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, and the smart grid proceeding and expenses related to the ESP.Council of Smaller Enterprises (COSE).
103
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent toof approximately166,000MWH in 2009,290,000MWH in 2010,410,000MWH in 2011,470,000MWH in 2012 and530,000MWH in 2013, with additional savings required through 2025. Utilities arewere also required to reduce peak demand in 2009 by1%, with an additional0.75% reduction reduction each year thereafter through 2018.
In December 2009, the Ohio Companies filed thetheirthree-year portfolio plan, as required three year portfolio planby SB221, seeking approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable from customers. The PUCO issued an Opinion and Order generally approving the Ohio Companies’ 3-yearCompanies'three-year plan andwhich provides for recovery of all costs associated with the programs, including lost revenues. The Ohio Companies are in the process of implementing those programs included in the Plan. Because ofplan, and requested that the delay in issuingPUCO amend the Order, the launch of the programs included in the plan for 2010 was delayed and will launch during the second quarter of this year. As a result, OE fell short of its statutory 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks. Therefore, on January 11,On May 19, 2011, it requested that itsthe PUCO granted the request to reduce the 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks be amendedreductions to actual levelsthe level achieved in 2010. Moreover, because2010 for OE, while finding that the PUCO indicated, when approving the 2009 benchmark request, that it would modify the Companies’ 2010 (and 2011issue was moot for CEI and 2012) energy efficiency benchmarks when addressing the portfolio plan, theTE. The Ohio Companies were not certain of their 2010 energy efficiency obligations. Therefore, CEI and TE (each offiled an application for rehearing, which achieved its 2010 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction statutory benchmarks) also requested an amendment if and only to the degree one was deemed necessary to bring these them into compliance with their yet-to-be-defined modified benchmarks.later denied. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may subject the Ohio Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a penalty. In addition to approving the programs included in the plan, with only minor modifications, the PUCO authorized the Companies to recover all costs related to the original CFL program that the Ohio Companies had previously suspended at the request ofpenalty by the PUCO. Applications for Rehearing were filed by the Ohio Companies, Ohio Energy Group and Nucor Steel Marion, Inc. on April 22, 2011, regarding portions of the PUCO’sPUCO's decision related to the Ohio Companies'threeyear portfolio plan, including the method for calculating savings and certain changes made by the PUCO to specific programs. The PUCO denied those applications for rehearing, and in that entry included a new standard for compliance with the statutory energy efficiency benchmarks by requiring electric distribution companies to offer “all available cost effective energy efficiency opportunities” regardless of their level of compliance with the benchmarks as set forth in the statute. The Ohio Companies, the Industrial Energy Users - Ohio, and the Ohio Energy Group filed applications for rehearing, arguing that the PUCO's new standard is unlawful. The Ohio Companies also asked the PUCO to withdraw its amendment of CEI's and TE's 2010 energy efficiency benchmarks. The PUCO did not rule on the Applications for Rehearing within thirty days, thus denying them by operation of law. On December 30, 2011, the Ohio Companies filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, challenging the PUCO's new standard. On March 2, 2012, the PUCO moved to dismiss the Companies' appeal. The Companies filed their Memorandum in Opposition to the PUCO's Motion, along with their merit brief on March 9, 2012. The PUCO filed its brief on April 27, 2012. The Company now has twenty days to file its reply brief. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
Additionally, under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve part of their load in 2011 from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25%1.00%of the average of the KWH they served in 2009.2008-2010; in 2012 from renewable energy resources equivalent to1.50%of the average of the KWH they served in 2009-2011; and in 2013 from renewable energy resources equivalent to2.00%of the average of the KWH they served in 2010-2012. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RFPs sought RECs, including solar RECs and RECs generated in Ohio in order to meet the Ohio Companies’ alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The RECs acquired through thesetwoRFPs were used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In March 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. The PUCO reduced the Ohio Companies’ aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies acquired through their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Ohio Companies’ 2010 alternative energy requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO granted FES’ force majeure request for 2009 and increased its 2010 benchmark by the amount of SRECs that FES was short of in its 2009 benchmark. In July 2010, the Ohio Companies initiated an additional RFP to secure RECs and solar RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies’ alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for 2010 and 2011 and executed related contracts in August 2010. On April 15, 2011, the Ohio Companies filed an application seeking an amendmentconducted two RFP processes to each of their 2010obtain RECs to meet the statutory benchmarks for 2011 and beyond. On September 20, 2011 the PUCO opened a new docket to review the Ohio Companies' alternative energy requirements for solar RECs generated in Ohio on the basis that an insufficient quantity of solar resources are available in the market but reflecting solar RECs that they have obtained and providing additional information regarding efforts to secure solar RECs.recovery rider. The PUCO has not yet acted on that application.
In February 2010, OEselected auditors to perform a financial and CEIa management audit, and final audit reports are currently scheduled to be filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for all-electric customers.by May 15, 2012. In March 2010,2012, the PUCO orderedOhio Companies conducted an RFP process to obtain SRECs to help meet the statutory benchmarks for 2012 and beyond. With the successful completion of this RFP, the Ohio Companies have achieved their in-state solar compliance requirements for 2012.
PENNSYLVANIA
The Pennsylvania Companies currently operate under DSPs that ratesexpire May 31, 2013, and provide for the affectedcompetitive procurement of generation supply for customers be set atthat do not choose an alternative electric generation supplier or for customers of alternative electric generation suppliers that fail to provide the contracted service. The default service supply is currently provided by wholesale
suppliers through a levelmix of long-term and short-term contracts procured through descending clock auctions, competitive requests for proposals and spot market purchases. On November 17, 2011, ME, PN, Penn and WP filed a Joint Petition for Approval of their DSP that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31, 2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect in March 2010. In April 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers tomethod by which the new credit would apply and authorized deferralPennsylvania Companies will procure the supply for their default service obligations for the associated additional amounts. The PUCO also stated that it expected thatperiod June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2015. A final order must be entered by the new credit would remain in place through at least the 2011 winter season, and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the issue. Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect in May 2010 and the proceeding remains open. The hearing on the matter was held in February 2011. The matter has now been briefed and the Ohio Companies await the PUCO’s decision.
104
PennsylvaniaPPUC by August 17, 2012.
The PPUC entered an Order on March 3, 2010 that denied the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and directed Met-EdME and PenelecPN to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and instructed Met-Ed and PenelecTSC. Pursuant to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation toplan approved by the PPUC, regardingME and PN began to refund those amounts to customers in January 2011, and the establishment ofrefunds are continuing over a separate account29 month period until the full amounts previously recovered for all marginal transmission losses collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases beginning January 1, 2011. In March 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff supplements to end collection of costs for marginal transmission losses. The PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUC’s order, Met-Ed and Penelec filed plans to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and carrying charges and for the use of these funds to mitigate future generation rate increases which the PPUC approved.are refunded. In April 2010, Met-EdME and PenelecPN filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUC’sPPUC's March 3, 2010 Order. The argument beforeOn June 14, 2011, the Commonwealth Court en banc, was held in December 2010. Althoughissued an opinion and order affirming the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, Met-Ed and Penelec believePPUC's Order to the extent that they should prevail in the appealit holds that line loss costs are not transmission costs and, therefore, expect to fully recover the approximately $252.7$254 million ($188.0 million for Met-Ed and $64.7 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses and associated carrying charges for the period prior to January 1, 2011.2011, are not recoverable under ME and PN TSC riders. ME and PN filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and also a complaint seeking relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which was subsequently amended. The PPUC filed a Motion to Dismiss ME and PN Amended Complaint on September 15, 2011 to which ME and PN responded and which remains pending.On February 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the Petition for Allowance of Appeal.
In each of May 2008, May 2009 and May 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Ed’sME's and Penelec’sPN's annual updates to their TSC rider for the annual periods between June 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010, including marginal transmission losses as approved by the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal transmission losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The PPUC’sPPUC's approval in May 2010 authorized an increase to the TSC for Met-Ed’sME's customers to provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010.
Met-Ed Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, ME and Penelec filed withPN believe that they should ultimately prevail through the PPUC a generation procurement plan coveringjudicial process and therefore expect to fully recover the period January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service through a prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply with a staggered procurement schedule that varies by customer class, using a descending clock auction. In August 2009, the parties to the proceeding filed a settlement agreement of all but two issues, and the PPUC entered an Order approving the settlement and the generation procurement plan approximately$254 millionin November 2009. Generation procurement began in January 2010.
In February 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Planmarginal transmission losses for the period Juneprior to January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. In July 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues. Although the PPUC’s Order approving the Joint Petition held that the provisions relating to the recovery of MISO exit fees and one-time PJM integration costs (resulting from Penn’s June 1, 2011 exit from MISO and integration into PJM) were approved, it made such provisions subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Therefore, Penn may not put these provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and PJM integration costs.2011.
Pennsylvania adopted Act 129 in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction; generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other things, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load reduction plan or EE(EE&C Plan,Plan) by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities’utilities' plans to reduce energy consumption by a minimum of1%and3%by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce peak demand by a minimum of4.5%by May 31, 2013. Act 129 alsoprovides for potentially significant financial penalties to be assessed upon utilities that fail to achieve the required reductions in consumption and peak demand. The Pennsylvania Companies submitted a final report on November 15, 2011, in which they reported on their compliance with statutory May 31, 2011, energy efficiency benchmarks. ME, PN and Penn achieved the 2011 benchmarks; however WP has been unable to provide final results because several customers are still accumulating necessary documentation for projects that may qualify for inclusion in the final results. Preliminary numbers indicate that WP did not achieve its 2011 benchmark and it is not known at this time whether WP will be subject to a fine for failure to achieve the benchmark. WP is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate any possible loss or range of loss.
On August 9, 2011, WP filed a petition to approve its Second Amended EE&C Plan. The proposed Second Revised Plan includes measures and a new program and implementation strategies consistent with the successful EE&C programs of ME, PN and Penn that are designed to enable WP to achieve the post-2011 Act 129 EE&C requirements. On January 6, 2012, a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues was filed by the parties to the proceeding, and the ALJ's Recommended Decision was issued on April 19, 2012, recommending that the Joint Settlement be adopted as filed.
In addition, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC a Smart Meter Implementation Plan (SMIP).
The PPUC entered an Order in February 2010 giving final approval to all aspects of the EE&C Plans of Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010.
WP filed its original EE&C Plan in June 2009, which the PPUC approved, in large part, by Opinion and Order entered in October 2009. In November 2009, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of the PPUC’s October Order. The OCA contends that the PPUC’s Order failed to include WP’s costs for smart meter implementation in the EE&C Plan, and that inclusion of such costs would cause the EE&C Plan to exceed the statutory cap for EE&C expenditures. The OCA also contends that WP’s EE&C plan does not meet the Total Resource Cost Test. The appeal remains pending but has been stayed by the Commonwealth Court pending possible settlement of WP’s SMIP. In September, 2010, WP filed an amended EE&C Plan that is less reliant on smart meter deployment, which the PPUC approved in January 2011.
105
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a SMIP with the PPUC in August 2009. This plan proposed a 24-month assessment period in which the Pennsylvania Companies will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate assessment period costs of approximately $29.5 million, which the Pennsylvania Companies, in their plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJ’s Initial Decision approved the SMIP as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUC’s Implementation Order; denying the recovery of interest through the automatic adjustment clause; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs net of resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and requiring that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be capitalized. In April 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman Cawley that modified the ALJ’s initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the SMIP for Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn. The PPUC entered its Order in June 2010, consistent with the Chairman’s Motion. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUC’s Order regarding the future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates, which the PPUC granted in part by deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn from seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time. The costs to implement the SMIP could be material. However, assuming these costs satisfy a just and reasonable standard, they are expected to be recovered in a rider (Smart Meter Technologies Charge Rider) which was approved when the PPUC approved the SMIP.
In August 2009, WP filed its original SMIP, which provided for extensive deployment of smart meter infrastructure with replacement of all of WP’s approximately 725,000 meters by the end of 2014. In December 2009, WP filed a motion to reopen the evidentiary record to submit an alternative smart meter plan proposing, among other things, a less-rapid deployment of smart meters. In an Initial Decision dated April 29, 2010, an ALJ determined that WP’s alternative smart meter deployment plan, which contemplated deployment of 375,000 smart meters by May 2012, complied with the requirements of Act 129 and recommended approval of the alternative plan, including WP’s proposed cost recovery mechanism.
PPUC. In light of the significant expenditures that would be associated with its smart meter deployment plans and related infrastructure upgrades, as well as its evaluation of recent PPUC decisions approving less-rapid deployment proposals by other utilities, WP re-evaluated its Act 129 compliance strategy, including both its plans with respect to its previously approved smart meter deployment plan and certain smart meter dependent aspects of the EE&C Plan. In October 2010, WP and Pennsylvania’s Office of Consumer Advocate filed a Joint Petition for Settlement addressing WP’s smart meter implementation plan with the PPUC. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP proposed to decelerate its previously contemplated smart meter deployment schedule and to target the installation of approximately25,000smart meters in support of its EE&C Plan, based on customer requests, by mid-2012. TheWP also proposed settlement also contemplates that WPto take advantage of the30-month grace period authorized by the PPUC to continue WP’sWP's efforts to re-evaluate full-scale smart meter deployment plans. WP currently anticipates filing its plan for full-scale deployment of smart meters in June 2012. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP would be permitted to recover certain previously incurred and anticipated smart-meter related expenditures through a levelized customer surcharge, with certain expenditures amortized over a ten-year period. A joint settlement with all parties based on these terms, with one party retaining the ability to challenge the recovery of amounts spent on WP's original smart meter implementation plan, was approved by the PPUC on June 30, 2011. Additionally, WP would be permitted to seek recovery of certain other costs as part of its revised SMIP that it currently intends to file in June 2012, or in a future base distribution rate case.
In December 2010, the PPUC directed that the SMIP proceeding be referred to the ALJ for further proceedings to ensure that the impact of the proposed merger with FirstEnergy is considered and that the Joint Petition for Settlement has adequate support in the record. On March 9, 2011, WP submitted an Amended Joint Petition for Settlement which restates the Joint Petition for Settlement filed in October 2010, adds the PPUC’s Office of Trial Staff as a signatory party, and confirms the support or non-opposition of all parties to the settlement. The proposed settlement also obligates OCA to withdraw its November 2009 appeal of the PPUC’s Order in WP’s EE&C plan proceeding. A Joint Stipulation with the OSBA was also filed on March 9, 2011. The proposed settlement remains subject to review by the ALJ, who will prepare an Initial Decision for consideration by the PPUC.
By Tentative Order entered in September 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement, which addressed how Met-Ed and Penelec were going to implement direct access to a competitive market for the generation of electricity, allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the Tentative Order, various parties filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.
In the PPUC Order approving the FirstEnergy and Allegheny merger, the PPUC announced that a separate statewide investigation into Pennsylvania’sPennsylvania's retail electricity market will be conducted with the goal of making recommendations for improvements to ensure that a properly functioning and workable competitive retail electricity market exists in the state. On April 29, 2011, the PPUC entered an Order initiating the investigation and requesting comments from interested parties on eleven directed questions concerning retail markets in Pennsylvania to investigate both intermediate and long term plans that could be adopted to further foster the competitive markets, and to explore the future of default service in Pennsylvania following the expiration of the upcoming DSPs on May 31,
2015. Following the issuance of a Tentative Order and comments filed by numerous parties, the PPUC entered a final order on December 16, 2011, providing recommendations for components to be included in upcoming DSPs, including: the duration of the programs and the length of associated energy contracts; a customer referral program; a retail opt-in auction; time-of-use rate options provided through contracts with electric generation suppliers; and periodic rate adjustments.Following the issuance of a Tentative Order and comments filed by various parties, the PPUC entered a final order on March 2, 2012 outlining an intermediate work plan. Several suggested models for long-range default service have been presented and were the topic of a March 2012 en banc hearing. It is expected that a tentative order will be issued for comment with a final long-range proposal.
The PPUC hasissued a Proposed Rulemaking Order on August 25, 2011, which proposed a number of substantial modifications to the current Code of Conduct regulations that were promulgated to provide competitive safeguards to the competitive retail electric market in Pennsylvania. The proposed changes include, but are not yet initiatedlimited to: an EGS may not have the same or substantially similar name as the EDC or its corporate parent; EDCs and EGSs would not be permitted to share office space and would need to occupy different buildings; EDCs and affiliated EGSs could not share employees or services, except certain corporate support, emergency, or tariff services (the definition of "corporate support services" excludes items such as information systems, electronic data interchange, strategic management and planning, regulatory services, legal services, or commodities that investigation.
106
Virginia
In September 2010, PATH-VA filed an application with the Virginia SCC for authorization to construct the Virginia portions of the PATH Project. On February 28, 2011, PATH-VA filed a motion to withdraw the application. See “Transmission Expansion” in the Federal Regulation and Rate Matters section for further discussion of this matter.
West Virginia
In August 2009, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a request to increase retail rates by approximately $122.1 million annually, effective June 10, 2010. In January 2010, MP and PE filed supplemental testimony discussing a tax treatment change that would result in a revenue requirement approximately $7.7 million lower than the requirement included in the original filing. In addition, in December 2009, subsidiaries of MP and PE completed a securitization transaction to finance certain costs associated with the installation of scrubbers at the Fort Martin generating station, which costs would otherwise have been included in regulated rates at less than market value); and an EGS must enter into a trademark agreement with the request for rate recovery. Consequently, MPEDC before using its trademark or service mark. The Proposed Rulemaking Order was published on February 11, 2012, and PE ultimately requestedcomments were filed by ME, PN, Penn, WP and FES on March 27, 2012. If implemented these rules could require a significant change in the ways FES, ME, PN, Penn and WP do business in Pennsylvania, and could possibly have an annual increase in retail ratesadverse impact on their results of approximately $95 million, rather than $122.1 million. operations and financial condition.
WEST VIRGINIA
In April 2010, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a Joint Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reached with the other parties in thea proceeding for an annual increase in retail rates that provided for:
a $40$40 millionannualized base rate increaseincreases effective June 29, 2010;
a deferralDeferral of February 2010 storm restoration expenses in West Virginia over a maximumfive-year period;
an additional $20Additional$20 millionannualized base rate increase effective in January 2011;
a decreaseDecrease of $20$20 millionin ENEC rates effective January 2011, which amount is deferredproviding for deferral of related costs for later recovery in 2012; and
a moratoriumMoratorium on filing for further increases in base rates before December 1, 2011, except under specified circumstances.
The WVPSC approved the Joint Petition and Agreement of Settlement in June 2010.
In 2009, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act (Portfolio Act), which generally requires that a specified minimum percentage of electricity sold to retail customers in West Virginia by electric utilities each year be derived from alternative and renewable energy resources according to a predetermined schedule of increasing percentage targets, including ten percent by 2015, fifteen percent by 2020, and twenty-five percent by 2025. In November 2010, the WVPSC issued Rules Governing Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS Rules), which became effective on January 4, 2011. Under the RPS Rules, on or before January 1, 2011, each electric utility subject to the provisions of this rule was required to prepare an alternative and renewable energy portfolio standard compliance plan and file an application with the WVPSC seeking approval of such plan. MP and PE filed their combined compliance plan in December 2010. Additionally, in January 2011, MP and PE filed an application with the WVPSC seeking to certifythreefacilities as Qualified Energy Resource Facilities. IfFacilities for purposes of compliance with their approved plan pursuant to AREPA. The application was approved and the application is approved, the threefacilities would then beare capable of generating renewable credits which wouldwill assist the Companiescompanies in meeting their combined requirements under the Portfolio Act.AREPA. Further, in February 2011, MP and PE filed a petition with the WVPSC seeking an Orderorder declaring that MP is entitled to all alternative &and renewable energy resource credits associated with the electric energy, or energy and capacity, that MP is required to purchase pursuant to electric energy purchase agreements between MP andthree non-utility electric generatingNUG facilities in WV.West Virginia. The City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates, each the owner of one of the contracted resources, has filed anhave participated in the case in opposition to the Petition.petition. The WVPSC issued an order granting ownership of all RECs produced by the facilities to MP. The WVPSC order was appealed, and the order was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Oral arguments were heard at the West Virginia Supreme Court on April 10, 2012. Should MP be unsuccessful in the appeal, it will have to procure the requisite RECs to comply with AREPA from other sources. MP expects to recover such costs from customers.
The City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates have also filed complaints at FERC. On April 24, 2012, the FERC Mattersruled that the FERC-jurisdictional contracts are intended to pay only for electric energy and capacity (and not for RECs), and that state law controlled on the issues of determining which entity owns RECs and how they are transferred between entities. The FERC declined to act on the complaints and instead noted that the City of New Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates could file complaints in the U.S. District Court. MP is evaluating whether to seek rehearing of the FERC's order.
Rates
RELIABILITY MATTERS
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, AE Supply, FGCO, FENOC, ATSI and TrAIL. The NERC is the ERO designated by FERC to establish and enforce these reliability standards, although NERC has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including RFC. All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the RFC region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and RFC stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by RFC.
FirstEnergy believes that it is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or
circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such items are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the item and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an item to RFC. Moreover, it is clear that the NERC, RFC and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with future new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time; however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the future reliability standards be recovered in rates. Any future inability on FirstEnergy's part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&L's Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, NERC initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&L's contribution to the electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests.On March 22, 2012, NERC concluded the investigation of the matter and forwarded it to NCEA for further review. NCEA is currently evaluating the findings of the investigation. JCP&L is not able to predict what actions, if any, NERC may take with respect to this matter.
In 2011, RFC performed routine compliance audits of parts of FirstEnergy's bulk-power system and generally found the audited systems and processes to be in full compliance with all audited reliability standards. RFC will perform additional audits in 2012.
FERC MATTERS
PJM Transmission Service Between MISORate
PJM and PJM
its stakeholders have been debating the proper method to allocate costs for new transmission facilities - the matter is contentious because costs for facilities built in one transmission zone often are allocated to customers in other transmission zones. During recent years, the debate has focused on the question of the methodology for determining the transmission zones and customers who benefit from a given facility and, if so, whether the methodology can determine the pro rata share of each zone's benefit. While FirstEnergy and other parties argue for a traditional "beneficiary pays" approach, others advocate for “socializing” the costs on a load-ratio share basis - each customer in the zone would pay based on its total usage of energy within PJM. This debate is framed by regulatory and court decisions.In November 2004,2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that FERC had not supported a prior FERC decision to allocate costs for new500kV and higher voltage facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on that finding, remanded the rate design issue to FERC. In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set this matter for a “paper hearing” and requested parties to submit written comments. FERC identifiednineseparate issues for comment and directed PJM to file the first round of comments. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, which demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain load serving entities in PJM bearing the majority of the costs. Subsequently, numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state utility commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Other utilities and state utility commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis.On March 30, 2012, FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission service between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC’s intent was to eliminate multiple transmission charges for a single transaction between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC also ordered MISO, PJM and the transmission owners within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate mechanism to recover lost transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to as SECA) during a 16-month transition period. In 2005, the FERC set the SECA for hearing. The presiding ALJ issued an initialon remand reaffirming its prior decision in August 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by MISO, PJM and the transmission owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision was subject to review and approval by the FERC. In May 2010, FERC issued an order denying pending rehearing requests and an Order on Initial Decision which reversed the presiding ALJ’s rulings in many respects. Most notably, these orders affirmed the right of transmission owners to collect SECA charges with adjustments that modestly reduce the level of such charges, and changes to the entities deemed responsible for payment of the SECA charges. The Ohio Companies were identified as load serving entities responsible for payment of additional SECA charges for a portion of the SECA period (Green Mountain/Quest issue). FirstEnergy executed settlements with AEP, Dayton and the Exelon parties to fix FirstEnergy’s liability for SECA charges originally billed to Green Mountain and Quest for load that returned to regulated service during the SECA period. The AEP, Dayton and Exelon, settlements were approved by the FERC in November 2010, and the relevant payments made. The Utilities have refund obligations that are under review by FERC as part of a compliance filing. Potential refund obligations of FirstEnergy are not expected to be material. Rehearings remain pending in this proceeding.
107
PJM Transmission Rate
In April 2007, FERC issued an order (Opinion 494) finding that the PJM transmission owners’ existing “license plate” or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new transmission facilities, FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at500kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM footprint by means of a postage-stamp rate based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone. Costs for new transmission facilitieszone and concluding that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a load flowsuch methodology (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a “beneficiary pays” approach to allocating the costjust and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. On April 30, 2012, FirstEnergy requested rehearing of high voltage transmission facilities.FERC's March 30, 2012 order.
The FERC’s Opinion 494 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which issued a decision in August 2009. The court affirmed FERC’s ratemaking treatment for existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate design issue back to FERC.
In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for “paper hearings”— meaning that FERC called for parties to submit comments or written testimony pursuant to the schedule described in the order. FERC identified nine separate issues for comments and directed PJM to file the first round of comments on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments and then reply comments on later dates. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order. PJM’s filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the majority of the costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. This matter is awaiting action by the FERC.
RTO Realignment
On FebruaryJune 1, 2011, ATSI in conjunction with PJM filed its proposal with FERC for moving its transmission rate into PJM’s tariffs. FirstEnergy expects ATSI to enter PJM on June 1, 2011, and that if legal proceedings regarding its rate are outstanding at that time, ATSI will be permitted to start charging its proposed rates, subject to refund. On April 1, 2011, the MISO Transmission Owners (including ATSI) filed proposed tariff language that describes the mechanics of collecting and administering MTEP costs from ATSI-zone ratepayers. From March 20, 2011 through April 1, 2011, FirstEnergy, PJM and the MISO submitted numerous filings for the purpose of effecting movement of the ATSI zone transferred from MISO to PJM on June 1, 2011. These filings include clean-upPJM. The move was performed as planned with no known operational or reliability issues for ATSI or for the wholesale transmission customers in the ATSI zone. While most of the MISO’s tariffs (to remove the ATSI zone), submission of load and generation interconnection agreements to reflectmatters involved with the move into PJM, and submissionhave been resolved, the question of changesATSI's responsibility for certain costs for the “Michigan Thumb” transmission project continues to PJM’s tariffs to supportbe disputed; the move into PJM.
details of which dispute are discussed below in the "MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal." In addition, FERC proceedings are pending in which ATSI’sdenied certain exit fees of ATSI's transmission rate until such time as ATSI submits a cost/benefit analysis that demonstrates net benefits to customers from the move. ATSI has asked for rehearing of FERC's orders that address the Michigan Thumb transmission project, and the exit fee payableissue.
ATSI's filings and requests for rehearing on these matters, as well as the pleadings submitted by parties that oppose ATSI's position are currently pending before FERC. Finally, a negotiated agreement that requires ATSI to MISO, transmission cost allocations and costs associated withpay a one-time charge of$1.8 millionfor long term firm transmission rights payable by the ATSI zone upon its departure fromthat - according to the MISO are under review. - were payable upon ATSI's exit, is pending before FERC.
The final outcome of thesethose proceedings that address the remaining open issues related to ATSI's move into PJM and their impact, if any, on FirstEnergy cannot be predicted.predicted at this time.
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
In July 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners (not including ATSI or First Energy) jointly filed with FERC theira proposed cost allocation methodology for certain new transmission projects. The new transmission projects—projects - described as MVPs—MVPs - are a class of MTEP projects. The filing parties proposed to allocate the costs of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the MISO footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be “wheeled through” the MISO as well as to energy transactions that “source” in the MISO but “sink” outside of MISO. The filing parties expect that the MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring wind generation fromthat are approved via the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. The filing parties requested an effective date for the proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISO’s Board approved the first MVP project — the “Michigan Thumb Project.”MISO's MTEP process. Under MISO’sMISO's proposal, the costs of “Michigan Thumb” MVP projects that were approved by MISO’sMISO's Board prior to the anticipated June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy's integration into PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy.and charged to ATSI. MISO estimated that approximately $15$15 millionin annual revenue requirements associated with the Michigan Thumb Project would be allocated to the ATSI zone associated withupon completion of project construction.
FirstEnergy has filed pleadings in opposition to the MISO's efforts to “socialize” the costs of the Michigan Thumb Project upon its completion.onto ATSI or onto ATSI's customers that assert legal, factual and policy arguments.
In September 2010,
To date, FERC has responded in a series of orders that require ATSI to absorb the charges for the Michigan Thumb Project.
On October 31, 2011, FirstEnergy filed a protestPetition of Review of certain of the FERC's orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Other parties also filed appeals of those orders and, in November 2011, the cases were consolidated for briefing and disposition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
On February 27, 2012, FERC issued its most recent order (February 2012 Order) regarding the Michigan Thumb Project, in which FERC accepted the MISO's proposed Schedule 39 tariff, subject to the MVP proposal arguing that MISO’s proposal to allocate costshearings and potential refund of MVP projects acrosscharges to ATSI. MISO's Schedule 39 tariff is the entirevehicle through which the MISO footprint does not align withplans to charge the established rule that cost allocation is to be based on cost causation (the “beneficiary pays” approach). FirstEnergy also argued that, in light of progress to date in the ATSI integration into PJM, it would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVPMichigan Thumb project costs to ATSI.In the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous other parties filed pleadings on MISO’s MVP proposal.
108
In December 2010,February 2012 Order, FERC issued an order approving the MVP proposal without significant change. FERC’s order was not clear, however, as to whether the MVP costs would be payable by ATSI or load in the ATSI zone. FERC stateddirected that the MISO’s tariffs obligate ATSI to pay all charges that attach prior to ATSI’s exit but ruled that the question of the amount of costs that are to be allocated to ATSI or to load in the ATSI zone were beyond the scope of FERC’s order and would be addressed in future proceedings.
settlement negotiations occur. On January 18, 2011,March 28, 2012, FirstEnergy filed for clarification and rehearing of FERC’s order. In its rehearingthe February 2012 Order, and such request FirstEnergy argued that becauseis pending before the MVP rate is usage-based, costs could not be applied to ATSI, which is a stand-alone transmission company that does not use the transmission system. FirstEnergy also renewed its arguments regarding cost causation and the impropriety of allocating costs to the ATSI zone or to ATSI. FERC.
FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
PJM Calculation ErrorUnderfunding FTR Complaint
In March 2010, MISO
On December 28, 2011, FES and AE Supply filed two complaints ata complaint with FERC against PJM relatingchallenging the ongoing underfunding of FTR contracts, which exist to hedge against transmission congestion in the day-ahead markets. The underfunding is a previously-reported modeling errorresult of PJM's practice of using the funds that are intended to pay the holders of FTR contracts to pay instead for congestion costs that occur in PJM’s system that impacted the manner in which market-to-market power flow calculations were made between PJM and MISO since April 2005. MISO claimed that this errorreal time markets. Underfunding of the FTR contracts resulted in PJM underpaying MISO bylosses of approximately $130$35 million over the time period in question. Additionally, MISO alleged that PJM did not properly trigger market-to-market settlements between PJMto FES and MISO during times when it was required to do so, which MISO claimed may have cost it $5 million or more. As PJM market participants, AE Supply and MP mayin the 2010-2011 Delivery Year. Losses for the 2011-2012 Delivery Year, through March 31, 2012, are estimated to be liable for a portion of any refunds ordered in this case. PJM, Allegheny and other PJM market participants filed responses to MISO complaints andapproximately$6 million.
On January 13, 2012, PJM filed a related complaint at FERC against MISO claiming that MISO improperly called for market-to-market settlements several times duringcomments describing changes to the same time period covered by the two MISO complaints filed against PJM which PJM claimed may have cost PJM market participants $25 million or more. On January 4, 2011, an Offer of Settlement was filed at FERCtariff that, if approved, would resolve all pending issues inadopted, should remedy the dispute. The Offer of Settlement calls for the withdrawal of all pending complaints with no payments being made by any parties. Initial comments on the Offer of Settlement were filed at FERC on January 24, 2011. FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energyunderfunding issue. Many parties also filed comments supporting FES' and AE Supply's position. Other parties, generally representatives of end-use customers who will have to pay the proposed settlement. Acharges, filed in opposition to the complaint. On March 2, 2012, FERC dismissed the complaint without prejudice, pending PJM's publication for stakeholder review and discussion, a report on the partially contested settlement was issued bycauses of the settlement judgeFTR underfunding and potential improvements, including modeling, which could be made to minimize the revenue inadequacy. On March 30, 2012, FES and AE Supply requested rehearing and reconsideration of the March 2, 2012 order, arguing that FERC erred in dismissing the complaint because the root cause of the FTR underfunding is irrelevant to the FERC on March 9, 2011. relief requested in the complaint. That request remains pending before FERC.
FTR Allocation Complaint
On March 16, 2011,26, 2012, FES and AE Supply filed a complaint with FERC against PJM challenging PJM's FTR allocation rules. PJM allocates FTRs to load-serving entities in an annual allocation process, up to each LSE's peak load, based on the settlement judge terminatedexpected transmission capability for the settlement proceedings and forwardedupcoming planning year. If a transmission facility is scheduled to be out of service for a significant part of the partially contested settlementyear, it can result in LSEs' FTR allocations being reduced in the annual allocation. When these transmission facilities return to service during the year PJM will create monthly FTRs to reflect the increased transmission capability during that month. However, instead of allocating these new monthly FTRs to the FERCLSEs that were unable to obtain their full allocation of FTRs in the annual allocation process, PJM's rules instead require PJM to auction off these new monthly FTRs in the market. The complaint seeks a change to the PJM rules such that the new FTRs created each month by transmission lines returning to service would first be allocated to those LSEs that were denied a full allocation of their FTR entitlement in the annual allocation process before they are auctioned off in the market. On April 16, 2012, PJM filed its answer to the complaint. Also, on that date, Exelon Corporation filed a protest to, and several parties filed comments on, FES' and AE Supply's complaint, which remains pending before FERC. On April 30, 2012, FES and AE Supply filed a motion for review. The case is awaiting a decision byleave to answer and answer to the FERC.various pleadings filed on April 16, 2012.
California Claims Matters
In October 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California Energy Resource Scheduling division of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR)CDWR during 2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190$190 millionfor these alleged overcharges. This proposal
was made in the context of mediation efforts by the FERC and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit has since remandedoneof those proceedings to the FERC, which arises out of claims previously filed with the FERC by the California Attorney General on behalf of certain California parties against various sellers in the California wholesale power market, including AE Supply (the Lockyer case). AE Supply and several other sellers have filed motions to dismiss the Lockyer case. In March 2010, the judge assigned to the case entered an opinion that granted the motions to dismiss filed by AE Supply and other sellers and dismissed the claims of the California Parties. In April 2010,On May 4, 2011, FERC affirmed the judge's ruling. On June 3, 2011, the California parties filed exceptions torequested rehearing of the judge’s ruling with the FERC, and briefing is complete on those exceptions.May 4, 2011 order. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the FERC on the exceptions.request for rehearing remains pending.
In June 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a second lawsuitcomplaint with the FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply (the Brown case), again seeking refunds for trades in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted trades with CDWR are the basis for the joining ofincluding AE Supply in this new lawsuit.complaint. AE Supply has filed a motion to dismiss the Brown casecomplaint that is pending beforewas granted by FERC on May 24, 2011. On June 23, 2011, the FERC. No scheduling order has been entered inCalifornia Attorney General requested rehearing of the Brown case. Allegheny intends to vigorously defend against these claims butMay 24, 2011 order. That request for rehearing also remains pending. FirstEnergy cannot predict their outcome.the outcome of either of the above matters or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
PATH Transmission ExpansionProject
TrAIL Project.TrAIL is a 500 kV transmission line currently under construction that will extend from southwest Pennsylvania through West Virginia and into northern Virginia. On April 15, 2011, the TrAIL 500 kV line segment from Meadowbrook substation to Loudoun substation in Virginia was successfully energized and is carrying load. The other segments are planned to be energized in May. The entire TrAIL line is scheduled to be completed and placed in service no later than June 2011.
PATH Project.The PATH Project is comprised of a765kV transmission line that iswas proposed to extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, modifications to an existing substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland.
109
PJM initially authorized construction of the PATH Project in June 2007 and, on June 17, 2010, requested that PATH, LLC proceed with all efforts related to the PATH Project, including state regulatory proceedings, assuming a required in-service date of June 1, 2015.2007. In December 2010, PJM advised that its 2011 Load Forecast Report included load projections that are different from previous forecasts and that may have an impact on the proposed in-service date for the PATH Project. As part of its 2011 RTEP, and in response to a January 19, 2011, directive by a Virginia Hearing Examiner, PJM conducted a series of analyses using the most current economic forecasts and demand response commitments, as well as potential new generation resources. Preliminary analysis revealed the expected reliability violations that necessitated the PATH Project had moved several years into the future. Based on those results, PJM announced on February 28, 2011, that its Board of Managers had decided to hold the PATH Project in abeyance in its 2011 RTEP and directed FirstEnergy and AEP, as the sponsoring transmission owners, to suspend current development efforts on the project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state, while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the potential need for the project as part of its continuing RTEP process. PJM stated that its action did not constitute a directive to FirstEnergy and AEP to cancel or abandon the PATH Project. PJM further stated that it will complete a more rigorous analysis of the PATH Project and other transmission requirements and its Board will review this comprehensive analysis as part of its consideration of the 2011 RTEP. On February 28, 2011, affiliates of FirstEnergy and AEP filed motions or notices to withdraw applications for authorization to construct the project that were pending before state commissions in West Virginia, Virginiathe WVPSC, the VSCC and Maryland.MDPSC. Withdrawal was deemed effective upon filing the notice with the MDPSCMDPSC. The WVPSC and VSCC have granted the motions to withdraw.
Yards Creek
The Yards Creek Pumped Storage Project is a400MW hydroelectric project located in Warren County, New Jersey. JCP&L owns an undivided50%interest in the project, and operates the project. PSEG Fossil, LLC, a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, owns the remaining interest in the plant. The project was constructed in the early 1960s, and became operational in 1965. FERC issued a license for authorization to operate the project. The existing license expires on February 28, 2013.
In February 2011, JCP&L and PSEG filed a joint application with FERC to renew the license for an additional forty years. The companies are pursuing relicensure through FERC's ILP. Under the ILP, FERC will assess the license applications, issue draft and final Environmental Assessments/Environmental Impact Studies (as required by NEPA), and provide opportunities for intervention and protests by affected third parties. FERC may hold hearings during the five-year ILP licensure process. FirstEnergy expects FERC to issue the new license before February 28, 2013. To the extent, however, that the license proceedings extend beyond the February 28, 2013 expiration date for the current license, the current license will be extended yearly as necessary to permit FERC to issue the new license.
Seneca
The Seneca Pumped Storage Project is a451MW hydroelectric project located in Warren County, Pennsylvania owned and operated by FGCO. FGCO holds the current FERC license that authorizes ownership and operation of the project. The current FERC license will expire on November 30, 2015. FERC's regulations call for a five-year relicensing process. On November 24, 2010, and acting pursuant to applicable FERC regulations and rules, FGCO initiated the relicensing process by filing its notice of intent to relicense and related documents in the license docket.
On November 30, 2010, the Seneca Nation filed its notice of intent to relicense and related documents necessary for the Seneca Nation to submit a competing application. Section 15 of the FPA contemplates that third parties may file a "competing application" to assume ownership and operation of a hydroelectric facility upon (i) relicensure and (ii) payment of net book value of the plant to
the original owner/operator. Nonetheless, FGCO believes it is entitled to a statutory “incumbent preference” under Section 15.
The Seneca Nation and certain other intervenors have asked FERC to redefine the “project boundary” of the hydroelectric plant to include the dam and reservoir facilities operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. On May 16, 2011, FirstEnergy filed a Petition for Declaratory Order with FERC seeking an order to exclude the dam and reservoir facilities from the project. The Seneca Nation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the WVPSC has grantedU.S. Department of Interior each submitted responses to FirstEnergy's petition, including motions to dismiss FirstEnergy's petition. The “project boundary” issue is pending before FERC.
On September 12, 2011, FirstEnergy and the motion to withdraw. The VSCC has not ruled onSeneca Nation each filed “Revised Study Plan” documents. These documents describe the motion to withdraw.
PATH, LLC submittedparties' respective proposals for the scope of the environmental studies that should be performed as part of the relicensing process. On October 11, 2011, FERC Staff issued a filing to FERC to implement a formula rate tariff effective March 1, 2008. In a November 19, 2010letter order addressing various matters relating tothat addressed the formula rate, FERC set the project’s base return on equity for hearing and reaffirmed its prior authorization of a return on CWIP, recovery of start-up costs and recovery of abandonment costs.Revised Study Plans. In the order, FERC also grantedStaff approved FirstEnergy's Revised Study Plan, subject to a 1.5% returnfinding that the Project is located on equity incentive adder and a 0.50% return on equity adder for RTO participation. These adders will be applied to the base return on equity determined as a result“aboriginal lands” of the hearing. PATH, LLC is currently engaged in settlement discussionsSeneca Nation. Based on this finding, FERC Staff directed FirstEnergy to consult with the staff of FERCSeneca Nation and intervenors regarding resolutionother parties about the data set, methodology and modeling of the base returnhydrological impacts of project operations.In March of 2012, FirstEnergy hosted a meeting as part of the consultation process. In that meeting, FirstEnergy reviewed its proposed methodology for conducting the hydrological impacts study and answered questions from third parties about the methodology. On April 11, 2012, the Seneca Nation and other parties filed comments on equity. the proposed hydrologic impacts study.The study processes, including the discrete hydrological impacts study, will extend through approximately November 2013.
FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of this proceedingmatter or whether it will have a material impact on its operating results.estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
Sales to AffiliatesENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
FES has received authorization from the FERC to make wholesale power sales to affiliated regulated utilities in New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FES actively participates in auctions conducted by or on behalf the regulated affiliates to obtain power necessary to meet the utilities’ POLR obligations. AE Supply, a merchant affiliate acquired in the FirstEnergy-Allegheny merger, also participates in these auctions, and obtains prior FERC authorization when necessary to make sales to FE affiliates.
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’sFirstEnergy'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 SO2and NOx emissions regulations under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO2and 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-emittinglower or non-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances. Violations can result in the shutdown of the generating unit involved and/or civil or criminal penalties.
The Sammis, Eastlake and Mansfield coal-fired plants are operated under a consent decree with the EPA and DOJ that requires reductions of NOx and SO2 emissions through the installation of pollution control devices or repowering. OE and Penn are subject to stipulated penalties for failure to install and operate such pollution controls in accordance with that agreement.
In July 2008,threecomplaints representing multiple plaintiffs were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions. Plant.Twoof these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner” one being amanner.” One complaint was filed on behalf oftwenty-oneindividuals and the other beingis a class action complaint seeking certification as a class action with theeightnamed 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.
110
TheIn December 2007, the states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007the 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 Met-EdME in 1999) and Met-Ed.ME. 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’sCAA's PSD program, and seek injunctive relief, penalties, attorney fees and mitigation of the harm caused by excess emissions. In September 2009, theThe Court granted Met-Ed’s motion to dismissdismissed New Jersey’sJersey's and Connecticut’sConnecticut's claims for injunctive relief against Met-Ed,ME, but denied Met-Ed’sME's motion to dismiss the claims for civil penalties. The parties dispute the scope of Met-Ed’sME's indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy,Energy. In February 2012, GenOn announced its plans to retire the Portland Station in January 2015 citing EPA emissions limits and Met-Edcompliance schedules to reduce SO2air emissions by approximately81%at the Portland Station by January 6, 2015. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.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 and1986. The NOV also alleged NSR violations at the Keystone and Shawville Stationscoal-fired plants based on “modifications” dating back to 1984. Met-Ed,ME, JCP&L and PN, as the former owner of 16.67%owners of the Keystone Station, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of the Shawville Station,facilities, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc. (Mission) alleging that “modifications” at the Homer City Power Station 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 the Homer City Power Station containing in all material respects allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission, Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station a notification that was required 60 days prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA.
In January 2011, the U.S. DOJ filed a complaint against PenelecPN in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief against PenelecPN based on alleged “modifications” at the coal-fired Homer City Power Stationgenerating plant between 1991 to 1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA’sCAA's PSD and Title V permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation,NYSEG, and various current owners of the Homer City, Station, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In January 2011, another complaint was filed against Penelecaddition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the other entities described above instates of New Jersey and New York intervened and have 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. District Court forand the Western DistrictCommonwealth of Pennsylvania seeking damages based onand the Homer City Station’s air emissions as well as certification as a class actionstates 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 enjoin the Homer City Station from operating except in a “safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner.” PenelecThird Circuit Court of Appeals. PN believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in the complaint,these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. In addition,matter or estimate the Commonwealthloss or possible range of Pennsylvania andloss. The parties dispute the States of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate complaints regarding the Homer City Station seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. Mission is seeking indemnification from Penelec, the co-owner and operator of the Homer City Power Station prior to its sale in 1999. The scope of Penelec’sNYSEG's and PN's indemnity obligation to and from Mission is under dispute and Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.Edison International.
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 generatingcoal-fired plants. The EPA’sEPA'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 operatingIn June 2011, EPA issued another Finding of Violation and maintenance informationNOV alleging violations of the CAA and planning information for these same generating plantsOhio regulations, specifically opacity limitations and notification that the EPA is evaluating whether certain maintenancerequirements to continuously operate opacity monitoring systems at the Eastlake, generating 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 the Eastlake generating plant.Lakeshore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula coal-fired 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.matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
In August 2000, AE received a letteran 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 followingten electric generation facilities,coal-fired plants, which collectively include22electric generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfield’sHatfield's Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island. The letter requested information under Section 114 of the CAAIsland to determine compliance with the CAA and related requirements, including potential application of the NSR standardsprovisions under the CAA, which can require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when thea 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,September 2007, AE AE Supply, MP and WP received a Notice of Intent to Sue Pursuant to CAA §7604NOV from the Attorneys General of New York, New JerseyEPA alleging NSR and Connecticut and from the PA DEP, alleging that Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions ofviolations under the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the following West Virginia coal-fired facilities: Albright Unit 3;Hatfield's Ferry and Armstrong plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired 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 atplants in West Virginia. FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against these CAA matters, but cannot predict their outcomes or estimate the Armstrong, Hatfield’s Ferry and Mitchell generation facilities 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 Noticepossible loss or range of Intent to Sue from the Maryland Attorney General that essentially mirrored the previous Notice.loss.
111
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 StatesU.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 Hatfield’scoal-fired Hatfield's Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell facilitiesPlants in Pennsylvania. On January 17, 2006, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. In May 2006, the District Court denied Allegheny’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2006, the Court determined that discovery would proceed regarding liability issues, but not remedies. Discovery on the liability phase closed on December 31, 2007, and summary judgment briefing was completed during the first quarter of 2008. In November 2008, the District Court issued a Memorandum Order denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. In December 2009, a new trial judge was assigned to the case, who then entered an order granting a motion to reconsider the rulings in the November 2008 Memorandum Order. In April 2010, the new judge issued an opinion, again denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. TheA 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 generation facilities in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island generation facilities 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 NOX, requires mercury emission reductions and mandates that Maryland join the RGGI and participate in that coalition’s regional efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland became the 10th state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith power station for NOX, SO2 and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the station 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 NOX and SO2 limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% 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 or estimate the possible loss or range of this matter.loss.
In January 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at Allegheny’s Pleasants generating facility. 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’sEPA's CAIR requires reductions of NOx and SO2emissions intwophases (2009/2010 and 2015), ultimately capping SO2emissions in affected states to2.5 milliontons annually and NOx emissions to1.3 milliontons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacateddecided that CAIR “in its entirety” and directedviolated the EPA to “redo its analysis from the ground up.” In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling andCAA 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 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.Court's decision. In July 2010,2011, the EPA proposed the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR)finalized CSAPR, to replace CAIR, which remains in effect until the EPA finalizes CATR. CATR requiresrequiring reductions of NOx and SO2emissions intwophases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO2emissions in affected states to 2.62.4 milliontons annually and NOx emissions to 1.31.2 milliontons annually. The EPA proposed a preferred regulatory approach thatCSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO2emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and severely limits interstate trading of NOx and SO2emission allowances. Theallowances with some restrictions. On February 21, 2012, the EPA also requested comment on two alternative approaches—the first eliminatesrevised certain CASPR state budgets (for Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin and new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas), certain generating unit allocations (for some units in Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee) for NOx and SO2emissions and delayed from 2012 to 2014 certain allowance penalties that could apply with respect to interstate trading of NOx and SO2emission allowances andallowances. On December 30, 2011, CSAPR was stayed by the second eliminates tradingU.S. Court of NOx and SO2 emission allowances in its entirety.Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending a decision on legal challenges argued before the Court on April 13, 2012. The Court ordered EPA to continue administration of CAIR until the Court resolves the CSAPR appeals. Depending on the actions taken by the EPA with respect to CATR, the proposed MACT regulations discussed belowoutcome of these proceedings and how any future regulations thatfinal rules are ultimately implemented, FGCO’sFGCO's and AE Supply's future cost of compliance may be substantial. Management is currently assessing the impact of these environmental proposalssubstantial and other factors on FGCO’s facilities, particularly on the operation of its smaller, non-supercritical units. For example, as disclosed herein, management decidedchanges to idle certain units or operate them on a seasonal basis until developments clarify.FirstEnergy's operations may result.
112
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
On March 16,December 21, 2011, the EPA released its MACT proposal to establishfinalized the MATS imposing emission standardslimits for mercury, hydrochloric acidPM, and various metalsHCL 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. In addition, an EPA enforcement policy document contemplates up to an additional year to achieve compliance, through April 2017, under certain circumstances for reliability critical units. On January 26, 2012 and February 8, 2012, FGCO, MP and AE Supply announced the retirement by September 1, 2012 (subject to a reliability review by PJM) ofninecoal-fired power plants (Albright, Armstrong, Ashtabula, Bay Shore except for generating unit 1, Eastlake, Lake Shore, R. Paul Smith, Rivesville and Willow Island) with a total capacity of3,349MW (generating, on average, approximatelytenpercent of the electricity produced by the companies over the past three years) due to MATS and other environmental regulations. Depending on how the action taken by the EPA and how any future regulationsMATS are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy's future cost of compliance with MACT regulationsMATS may be substantial and other changes to FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy's operations may result.
On March 8, 2012, FGCO filed an application for a feasibility study with PJM to install and interconnect to the transmission system approximately 800 megawatts of new combustion turbine peaking generation at its existing Eastlake Plant in Eastlake, Ohio, to
help ensure reliable electric service in the region. On April 25, 2012, PJM concluded its initial analysis of the reliability impacts from our previously announced plant retirements and requested Reliability Must-Run arrangements for Eastlake 1-3, Ashtabula 5 and Lake Shore 18. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, FirstEnergy recognized pre-tax severance expense of approximately $7 million (including$4 million by FES) as a result of the closures.
On March 9, 2012, to assist the WVPSC with inquiries from public officials and the public, MP provided information to the WVPSC in the form of a closed entry filing in the ENEC case related to the plant deactivations. On April 2, 2012, the WVPSC issued an order requesting additional information from MP related to the Albright, Rivesville and Willow Island plant deactiviation announcements. On April 30, 2012, MP provided the WVPSC with additional information regarding the plant deactivations. We anticipate deactivating these units by September 1, 2012.
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 and report GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and will require it to submit reports commencing in 2011.2010. In December 2009, the EPA released its final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.” The EPA’sEPA'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 programpreconstruction permits would be required. The EPA establishedrequired including an emissions applicability threshold of75,000tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide CO2equivalents (CO2e) effective January 2, 2011 for existing facilities under the CAA’sCAA'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 belowtwodegrees Celsius; includes a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30$30 billionover the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100$100 billionby 2020; and establishes the “Copenhagen Green“Green Climate Fund” to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related activities in developing countries. To the extent that they have become a party to the Copenhagen Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries, including Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification. A December 2011 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban, Africa, established a negotiating process to develop a new post-2020 climate change protocol, called the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”. This negotiating process contemplates developed countries, as well as developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, to undertake legally binding commitments post-2020. In addition, certain countries agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol for a second commitment period, commencing in 2013 and expiring in 2018 or 2020.
In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that had dismissed complaints alleging damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds. However, a subsequent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court dismissal of a complaint alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort claims, including public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global warming and result in property damages. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Second Circuit. Oral argument was held on April 19, 2011, and a decision is expected by July 2011. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, FirstEnergy and/or one or more of its subsidiaries could be named in actions making similar allegations.
FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations. The CO2emissions 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-CO2emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.
113
Clean Water Act
Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water ActCWA and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy's plants. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy's operations.
The
In 2004, the EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water ActCWA 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’sfacility's cooling water system). TheIn 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’sCircuit's opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the Clean Water ActCWA 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 requiringCWA to reduce fish impingement to be reduced to a12%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.life following studies to be provided to permitting authorities. On July 19, 2011, the EPA extended the public comment period for the new proposed Section 316(b) regulation by30days 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’splant's water intake channel to divert fish away from the plant’splant's water intake system. In November 2010, the Ohio EPA issued a permit for the Bay Shore power 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’sEPA'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’sAttorney's Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is no longer considering prosecution under the Clean Water ActCWA 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 toOn February 1, 2012, FirstEnergy executed a tolling agreement with the EPA extending the statute of limitations for civil enforcement andliability claims for those petroleum spills to July 31, 2012. FGCO is unabledoes not anticipate any losses resulting from this matter to predict the outcome of this matter.be material.
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’scoal-fired Hatfield's Ferry generation facility.Plant. These criteria are reflected in the current PA DEPNPDES water discharge permit issued by PA DEP for that project. In January 2009, AE Supply appealed the PA DEP’sDEP's permitting decision which would require it to incur significantthe EHB, due to estimated costs or negatively affect its ability to operate the scrubbers as designed. Preliminary studies indicate an initial capital investment in excess of $150$150 millionin order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the NPDES permit. The permit has been independently appealed by Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens Coal Council which seeksalso appealed the NPDES permit seeking to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. Those same parties have intervened in the appealIn April 2012, a joint motion was filed by AE Supply,the parties informing the EHB of a proposed settlement and both appeals have been consolidated for discovery purposes. An order has beenseeking the lifting of a portion of the EHB's stay of certain terms of the Hatfield's Ferry Plant's NPDES permit. The joint motion was granted by the EHB on April 27, 2012. The parties intend to memorialize the settlement in a Consent Decree to be lodged with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Consent Decree, if entered that staysby the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, will resolve the disputes concerning the Hatfield's Ferry Plant NPDES permit, limits that AE Supply has challenged while the appeal is pending. The hearing is scheduled to begin on September 13, 2011. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals.including TDS and sulphate limits.
In a parallel rulemaking, the
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 would apply only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to such units.
In
In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its Clean Water ActCWA 303(d) list to the EPA with a recommended sulfate impairment designation for an approximately68mile stretch of the Monongahela River north of the West Virginia border. In May 2011, the EPA has not acted onagreed with PA DEP’s recommendation. IfDEP's recommended sulfate impairment designation. PA DEP's goal is to submit a final water quality standards regulation, incorporating the sulfate impairment designation is approved, Pennsylvaniafor EPA approval by May 2013. PA DEP will then need to develop a TMDL limit for the river, a process that will take about approximatelyfiveyears. Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant costs to reduce sulfate discharges into the Monongahela River from its Hatfield’sthe coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell facilitiesPlants in Pennsylvania and itsthe coal-fired Fort Martin facilityPlant in West Virginia.
114
In October 2009, the WVDEP issued thean NPDES 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 permitPlant, which imposes TDS, sulfate concentrations and other 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.as well as temperature limitations. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin NPDES 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 NPDES permit. MP has appealed, the Fort Martin permit and the administrative order. The appeal included a request to stay certain of thecertain conditions of the NPDES permit and order while the appeal is pending, which washave been granted pending a final decision on the 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 NPDES permit wouldcould 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’sHatfield'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.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.appeals or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
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. The MP filed an answer on July 11, 2011, and a motion to stay the proceedings on July 13, 2011. On January 3, 2012, the Court denied MP's motion to dismiss or stay the CWA citizen suit but without prejudice to re-filing in the future. In April 2012, the parties reached a settlement requiring MP to resolve these CWA citizen suit claims for an immaterial amount. If approved by the Court, a Consent Decree will be entered by the Court to resolve these claims. 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 a60-day Notice of Intent required prior to filing a citizen suit under the CWA for alleged failure to obtain a permit to construct the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Plant.
FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CWA matters described above but, except as indicated above, cannot predict their outcomes or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
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’sEPA'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 advancedadvance 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 proposedtwooptions for additional regulation of coal combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPA’sEPA's hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management, beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FirstEnergy��sThe LBR CCB impoundment is expected to run out of disposal capacity for disposal of CCBs from the BMP between 2016 and 2018. BMP is pursuing several CCB disposal options.
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.
The Utility Registrants
Certain of our utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.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 ofMarch 31, 2011,2012, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Utility RegistrantsFE's and its subsidiaries' proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay.Total liabilities of approximately $104$106 million (JCP&L — $69(including$70 million TE — $1 million, CEI — $1 million, FGCO — $1 million and FirstEnergy — $32 million)applicable to JCP&L) have been accrued throughMarch 31, 2011. 2012. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $64$63 millionfor 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 ProceedingsOTHER 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 not taken any affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims.
115
Nuclear Plant Matters
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities.As ofMarch 31, 2011,2012, 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. FirstEnergy provides an additional $15 million parental guarantee associated with the funding of decommissioning costs for these units. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental guarantee, as appropriate. The values of FirstEnergy’s nuclear decommissioning trustsFirstEnergy's NDT fluctuate based on market conditions. If the value of the trusts decline by a material amount, FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy'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 nuclear decommissioning trusts. The NRC issued guidance anticipating an increaseNDT. FirstEnergy Corp. currently maintains a $95 millionparental guaranty in low-level radioactive waste disposal costs associated withsupport of the decommissioning of FirstEnergy’s 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. This estimate encompasses the shortfall covered by the existing $15 million parental guarantee. FENOC agreed to increase the parental guarantee to $95 million within 90 days of the submittal.
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, thea NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)ASLB granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application to a group of petitioners. ByThe NRC subsequently narrowed the scope of admitted contentions in this order,proceeding to a challenge to the computer code used to model source terms in FENOC's Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives analysis. On January 10, 2012, intervenors petitioned the ASLB for a new contention on the cracking of the Davis-Besse shield building discussed below.The ASLB scheduled a May 18, 2012, oral argument on the petitioner's request for a new contention, but has yet to rule on the admission of this contention.
On October 1, 2011, Davis-Besse was safely shut down for a scheduled outage to install a new reactor vessel head and complete other maintenance activities. The new reactor head, which replaced a head installed in 2002, enhances safety and reliability, and features control rod nozzles made of material less susceptible to cracking. On October 10, 2011, following opening of the building for installation of the new reactor head, a sub-surface hairline crack was identified in one of the exterior architectural elements on the shield building. These elements serve as architectural features and do not have structural significance. During investigation of the crack at the shield building opening, concrete samples and electronic testing found similar sub-surface hairline cracks in most of the building's architectural elements. FENOC's investigation also admitted two contentions regarding (1)identified other indications. Included among them were sub-surface hairline cracks in the upper portion of the shield building (above elevation 780') and in the vicinity of the main steam line penetrations. A team of industry-recognized structural concrete experts and Davis-Besse engineers has determined these conditions do not affect the facility's structural integrity or safety.
On December 2, 2011, the NRC issued a combinationCAL which concluded that FENOC provided "reasonable assurance that the shield building remains capable of renewable alternativesperforming its safety functions." The CAL imposed a number of commitments from FENOC including, submitting
a root cause evaluation and corrective actions to the renewalNRC by February 28, 2012, and further evaluations of Davis-Besse’s operating license,the shield building. On February 27, 2012, FENOC sent the root cause evaluation to the NRC. Finally, the CAL also stated that the NRC was still evaluating whether the current condition of the shield building conforms to the plant's licensing basis. On December 6, 2011, the Davis-Besse plant returned to service.
By letter dated August 25, 2011, the NRC made a final significance determination (white) associated with a violation that occurred during the retraction of a source range monitor from the Perry reactor vessel. The NRC also placed Perry in the degraded cornerstone column (Column 3) of the NRC's Action Matrix governing the oversight of commercial nuclear reactors. As a result, the NRC staff will conduct several supplemental inspections, culminating in an inspection using Inspection Procedure 95002 to determine if the root cause and (2)contributing causes of risk significant performance issues are understood, the costextent of mitigating a severecondition has been identified, whether safety culture contributed to the performance issues, and if FENOC's corrective actions are sufficient to address the causes and prevent recurrence.
On March 12, 2012, the NRC Staff issued orders requiring safety enhancements at U.S. reactors based on recommendations from the lessons learned Task Force review of the accident at Davis-Besse. FENOC is currently evaluating these developments and considering an appropriate response. On April 14, 2011, a group of environmental organizations petitioned the NRC Commissioners to suspend all pending nuclear license renewal proceedings, including the Davis-Besse proceeding, to ensure that any safety and environmental implications of theJapan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station eventnuclear power plant. These orders require additional mitigation strategies for beyond-design-basis external events, and enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels in Japan are considered.
In January 2004, subsidiariesspent 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 FirstEnergy filedcurrent communications systems and equipment to perform under a lawsuit in the U.S. Courtprolonged loss of Federal Claims seeking damages in connection with costs incurred at the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besseonsite and Perry Nuclear facilitiesoffsite electrical power; and assess plant staffing levels needed to fill emergency positions. These and other NRC requirements adopted as a result of the DOEaccident 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 of11nuclear 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. 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 begin accepting spent nuclear fuel onsupply 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 31, 1998. DOE was required to so commence accepting spent nuclear fuel by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 USC 10101 et seq)10, 2011 through February 1, 2011. At trial, AE Supply and the contracts entered into by the DOE and the owners and operatorsMP presented evidence that they have incurred in excess 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$80 millionin damages for delay costs incurredreplacement coal purchased through September 30, 2010. The damagethe end of 2010 and will incur additional damages in excess of$150 millionfor future shortfalls. Defendants primarily claim that their performance is subjectexcused under a force majeure clause in the coal sales agreement and presented evidence at trial that they will continue to reviewnot provide the contracted yearly tonnage amounts. On May 2, 2011, the court entered a verdict in favor of AE Supply and audit by DOE.MP for$104 million($90 millionin 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, ICG posted bond and filed a Notice of Appeal.Briefing on the Appeal is concluded with oral argument scheduled for May 16, 2012. 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, 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 washad been 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.jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss on September 7, 2010. Theand the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint by the Court of Common Pleas on all counts except for one relating to an allegation of fraud which it remanded to the trial court. The Companies timely filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio which has not yet rendered anon December 5, 2011, challenging this one aspect of the Court of Appeals opinion. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to hear the appeal.
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy's normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.under Note 8, Regulatory Matters to the Combined Notes to the 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 and 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, matters, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy’sFirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries’subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
See Note 12 of the Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) for discussion of new accounting pronouncements.88
116
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
MANAGEMENT’S NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
FES is a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. FES provides energy-related products and services to wholesale and retail customers, and through its principal subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, owns or leases, operates and maintains FirstEnergy’s fossil and hydroelectric generation facilities (excluding the Allegheny facilities), and owns, through its subsidiary, NGC, FirstEnergy’s nuclear generation facilities, respectively.facilities. FENOC, a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains the nuclear generating facilities. FES purchases the entire output of the generation facilities owned by FGCO and NGC, as well as the output relating to leasehold interests of OE and TE in certain of those facilities that are subject to sale and leaseback arrangements with non-affiliates, and pursuant to full output, cost-of-service PSAs.
FES’ revenues are derived from sales to individual retail customers, sales to communities in the form of governmentgovernmental aggregation programs, and its participation in affiliated and non-affiliated POLR auctions. FESFES’ sales are primarily concentrated in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey and New Jersey. In 2010, FES also supplied the POLR default service requirements of Met-Ed and Penelec.Maryland.
The demand for electricity produced and sold by FES, along with the price of that electricity, is principally impacted by conditions in competitive power markets, global economic activity, economic activity and weather conditions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions and weather conditions.regions.
For additional information with respect to FES, please see the information contained in FirstEnergy’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Overview, Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.Outlook.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent decreasedNet income increased by $44$77 million in the first three months of 20112012 compared to the same period of 2010.2011. The decreaseincrease was primarily due to increased transmission expenses, an inventory valuation adjustment, non-core asset impairmentshigher revenues and mark-to-market accounting.other income partially offset by higher operating expenses.
Revenues
Total revenues increased $3$125 million, or 9%, in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010,2011, primarily due to growth in combined direct and governmentgovernmental aggregation sales and wholesale sales partially offset by decreasesa net decline in POLR and structured sales.
The increase in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months | | | | |
| | | Ended March 31 | | | Increase | |
| Revenues by Type of Service | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Direct and Government Aggregation | | $ | 840 | | | $ | 512 | | | $ | 328 | |
| POLR | | | 369 | | | | 673 | | | | (304 | ) |
| Other Wholesale | | | 96 | | | | 91 | | | | 5 | |
| Transmission | | | 26 | | | | 17 | | | | 9 | |
| RECs | | | 32 | | | | 67 | | | | (35 | ) |
| Other | | | 28 | | | | 28 | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Total Revenues | | $ | 1,391 | | | $ | 1,388 | | | $ | 3 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months | | | | |
| | | Ended March 31 | | | Increase | |
| MWH Sales by Type of Service | | 2011 | | | 2010 | | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In thousands) | | | | | |
| Direct | | | 9,671 | | | | 5,854 | | | | 65.2 | % |
| Government Aggregation | | | 4,310 | | | | 2,732 | | | | 57.8 | % |
| POLR | | | 5,714 | | | | 13,276 | | | | (57.0 | )% |
| Wholesale | | | 1,113 | | | | 898 | | | | 23.9 | % |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Total Sales | | | 20,808 | | | | 22,760 | | | | (8.6 | )% |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| Revenues by Type of Service | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Direct and Governmental Aggregation | | $ | 1,007 |
| | $ | 840 |
| | $ | 167 |
|
| POLR and Structured Sales | | 231 |
| | 374 |
| | (143 | ) |
| Wholesale | | 215 |
| | 91 |
| | 124 |
|
| Transmission | | 31 |
| | 26 |
| | 5 |
|
| RECs | | 5 |
| | 32 |
| | (27 | ) |
| Other | | 27 |
| | 28 |
| | (1 | ) |
| Total Revenues | | $ | 1,516 |
| | $ | 1,391 |
| | $ | 125 |
|
117
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Three Months
Ended March 31 | | Increase |
| MWH Sales by Type of Service | | 2012 | | 2011 | | (Decrease) |
| | | (In thousands) | | |
| Direct | | 12,391 |
| | 9,671 |
| | 28.1 | % |
| Governmental Aggregation | | 5,186 |
| | 4,310 |
| | 20.3 | % |
| POLR and Structured Sales | | 4,030 |
| | 5,843 |
| | (31.0 | )% |
| Wholesale | | 21 |
| | 985 |
| | (97.9 | )% |
| Total Sales | | 21,628 |
| | 20,809 |
| | 3.9 | % |
The increase in combined direct and governmentgovernmental aggregation revenues of $328$167 million resulted from the acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers andas well as new governmentgovernmental aggregation contracts with communities in Ohio in addition,and Illinois that provided generation to approximately 1.9 million residential and small commercial customers as of March 2012 compared to approximately 1.5 million as of March 2011. These increases were partially offset by lower sales to residential and small commercial customers were bolstered byprimarily as a result of weather that was 25% warmer this year in the delivery area that was 5.2% colder thanmarkets served compared to 2011.
The decrease in 2010.
The decrease incombined POLR and structured revenues of $304$143 million was due primarily to lower sales volumes to the PennsylvaniaOhio Companies, ME and Ohio Companies,PN. Revenues were also adversely impacted by lower unit prices which were partially offset by increased sales to non-associated companies and higher unit prices to the Pennsylvania Companies. Participationstructured sales. The decline in POLR auctions and RFPs are expected to continue, but the concentration of these sales will primarily be dependentreflects our continued focus on our success in our direct retail and aggregationother sales channels.
Wholesale revenues increased $5increased by $124 million due to increased volumesa $110 million gain on financially settled contracts and a $43 million increase in capacity revenues. These increases were partially offset by lower wholesale prices. The higher sales volumes were the result of increased short termdecreased short-term (net hourly position)positions) transactions in MISO. $22 million of wholesale revenue resulted from long positions in MISO that were unable to be netted with short positions in PJM, due to separate settlement requirements within each RTO.
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues from generation sales:revenues:
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in Direct and Government Aggregation | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Direct Sales: | | | | |
| Effect of increase in sales volumes | | $ | 223 | |
| Change in prices | | | (4 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | 219 | |
| | | | |
| Government Aggregation: | | | | |
| Effect of increase in sales volumes | | | 100 | |
| Change in prices | | | 9 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 109 | |
| | | | |
Net Increase in Direct and Government Aggregation Revenues | | $ | 328 | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in POLR Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| POLR: | | | | |
| Effect of decrease in sales volumes | | $ | (384 | ) |
| Change in prices | | | 80 | |
| | | | |
| | | | (304 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Wholesale: | | | | |
| Effect of increase in sales volumes | | | 12 | |
| Change in prices | | | (7 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | 5 | |
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Source of Change in Direct and Governmental Aggregation | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | (In millions) |
| Direct Sales: | | |
| Effect of increase in sales volumes | | $ | 159 |
|
| Change in prices | | (43 | ) |
| | 116 |
|
| | |
| Governmental Aggregation: | | |
| Effect of increase in sales volumes | | 55 |
|
| Change in prices | | (4 | ) |
| | 51 |
|
| | $ | 167 |
|
|
| | | | |
| Source of Change in POLR and Structured Revenues | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| POLR and Structured: | | |
| Effect of decrease in sales volumes | | $ | (116 | ) |
| Change in prices | | (27 | ) |
| | | $ | (143 | ) |
| | | |
|
| | | | |
| Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Wholesale: | | |
| Effect of decrease in sales volumes | | $ | (28 | ) |
| Change in prices | | (1 | ) |
| Gain on settled contracts | | 110 |
|
| Capacity revenue | | 43 |
|
| | | $ | 124 |
|
Transmission revenues increased $9increased by $5 million due primarily to higher MISOPJM congestion revenues.and ancillary revenue. The revenues derived from the sale of RECs declined $35decreased$27 million in the first quarter of 2011.2012.
Operating Expenses
Total operating expenses increased $81 by $8 million in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared with the same period of 2010.2011.
118
The following table summarizes the factors contributing to the changes in fuel and purchased power costs in the first three months of 2011,2012 compared with the same period last year:
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Source of Change in Fuel and Purchased Power | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Fossil Fuel: | | | | |
| Change due to decreased unit costs | | $ | (22 | ) |
| Change due to volume consumed | | | 31 | |
| | | | |
| | | | 9 | |
| | | | |
| Nuclear Fuel: | | | | |
| Change due to increased unit costs | | | 6 | |
| Change due to volume consumed | | | — | |
| | | | |
| | | | 6 | |
| | | | |
| Non-affiliated Purchased Power: | | | | |
| Change due to increased unit costs | | | 32 | |
| Change due to volume purchased | | | (185 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | (153 | ) |
| | | | |
| Affiliated Purchased Power: | | | | |
| Change due to increased unit costs | | | 20 | |
| Change due to volume purchased | | | (12 | ) |
| | | | |
| | | | 8 | |
| | | | |
Net Decrease in Fuel and Purchased Power Costs | | $ | (130 | ) |
| | | | |
Fossil |
| | | |
| | Increase |
| Source of Change in Fuel and Purchased Power | (Decrease) |
| | (In millions) |
| Fossil Fuel: | |
| Change due to increased unit costs | $ | 9 |
|
| Change due to volume consumed | (64 | ) |
| | (55 | ) |
| | |
| Nuclear Fuel: | |
| Change due to increased unit costs | 2 |
|
| Change due to volume consumed | 5 |
|
| | 7 |
|
| | |
| Non-affiliated Purchased Power: | |
| Change due to decreased unit costs | (73 | ) |
| Change due to volume purchased | 103 |
|
| Loss on settled contracts | 106 |
|
| Capacity expense | 54 |
|
| | 190 |
|
| | |
| Affiliated Purchased Power: | |
| Change due to decreased unit costs | (25 | ) |
| Change due to volume purchased | 18 |
|
| Loss on settled contracts | 55 |
|
| | 48 |
|
| Net Increase in Fuel and Purchased Power Costs | $ | 190 |
|
Total fuel costs increased $9decreased by $48 million in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010,2011, as a result of higherreduced generation atby the fossil units, partially offset by decreased fossilhigher unit costs. Fossil unit prices declined primarily due to improved generating unit availability at more efficient units, partially offset by increased coal transportation costs.prices. Nuclear fuel expenses increased primarily due to higher unit prices following the refueling outages that occurred in 2010.generation.
Non-affiliated purchased power costs decreased $153increased by $190 million due primarily to lower volumes purchased, partially offset by higher unit costs. The decrease in volume relates to the absence in 2011 of a 1,300 MW third party contract associated with serving Met-Ed and Penelec. $35 million of purchased power expense resulted from long positions in MISO that were unable to be netted with short positions in PJM, due to separate settlement requirements within each RTO.
Other operating expenses increased $191 million in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010, as a result of increased RTO transmission costs ($111 million)2011, an inventory valuation adjustment ($54 million) and increased nuclear operating costs ($15 million) relateddue to higher laborvolumes purchased, loss on settled contracts and related benefits,capacity expense, partially offset by lower professionalunit prices. The increase in volumes primarily relates to the overall increase in sales volumes and contractor costs.
Ineconomic purchases. Affiliated purchased power costs increased by $48 million in the first three month months of 2012, compared to the same period of 2011 impairment, due to higher volumes purchased and loss on settled contracts, partially offset by lower unit prices.
Other operating expenses decreased by $170 million in the first three months of 2012, compared to the same period of 2011 due to the following:
Transmission expenses decreased $62 million due primarily to decreases of $68 million from lower congestion, network and line loss costs in MISO. These decreases were partially offset by increases in PJM of $6 million from higher network costs, partially offset by lower congestion and line loss expenses.
Nuclear operating costs decreased by $28 million due primarily to lower labor, contractor and materials and equipment costs as there were no refueling outages this year while the previous year included the Beaver Valley Unit 2 refueling outage.
Fossil operating costs decreased by $7 million due primarily to lower contractor and materials and equipment costs resulting from a decrease in planned and unplanned outages, partially offset by higher labor costs.
Other operating expenses decreased by $73 million as the expenses in the previous year included a $54 million provision for excess and obsolete material relating to revised inventory practices adopted in connection with the Allegheny merger and favorable net mark-to-market adjustments of $28 million on commodity contract positions, partially offset by higher agent commission costs of $9 million from increased retail sales.
Impairment charges ofon long-lived assets increased expensesdecreased by $14 million.$14 million due to last year's charge related to non-core peaking facilities that were subsequently sold in 2011.
General taxes increased $2 by $8 million due to an increase in revenue-related taxes.
Depreciation expense decreased by $6 million primarily due to credits resulting from a settlement with the DOE regarding the storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Other Expense
Total other expense decreased $9 by $10 million in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010,2011, primarily due to an increase in miscellaneous income ($16 million) and increased investment income ($5 million), partially offset by an increase inlower interest expense (net of capitalized interest — $12 million). Increased miscellaneous income was$10 million resulting from debt reductions in 2011 and credits related to the result of mark-to-market adjustments on power related derivatives. Increased investment income was the result of higher nuclear decommissioning trust investment income. The increase in interest expense was the result of reduced capitalized interest associatedsettlement with the completion of the Sammis AQC project in 2010 combined with increased interest expense associated with the restructuring of certain variable rate PCRBs into fixed rate modes.DOE noted above.
119
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENT’S NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
OE is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy.FE. OE engages in the distribution and sale of electric energy to communities in a 7,000 square mile area of central and northeastern Ohio and, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Penn, 1,100 square miles in western Pennsylvania. OE and Penn conduct business in portions of Ohio and Pennsylvania, by providing regulated electric distribution services. They procure generation services for those franchisetheir customers electing to retainas well as generation procurement services for customers who have not selected an alternative supplier. The areas served by OE and Penn as their power supplier.have populations of approximately 2.3 million and 0.4 million, respectively.
For additional information with respect to OE, please see the information contained in FirstEnergy’sFE’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Overview, Results of Operations - Regulatory Assets, Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.Outlook.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parentNet income decreased by $6$1 million infor the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010.2011. The decrease was primarily resulted fromdue to lower revenues and higher other operating costs,expenses, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and amortization of regulatory assets.
Revenuescosts.
Revenues decreased $116
Revenues decreased by $6 million, or 23%2%, in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared with the same period in 2010,of 2011, due primarily to a decrease in distribution and wholesale generation revenues, partially offset by higher distributionretail generation revenues.
Distribution revenues increaseddecreased by $10 million in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period in 2010, primarilyof 2011, due to anlower MWH deliveries to the residential and commercial customer classes, partially offset by higher MWH deliveries to the industrial customer class. Lower MWH deliveries to the residential and commercial classes were driven primarily by lower weather-related usage. The increase in KWHdistribution deliveries and higher average prices in all customer classes. The higher KWH deliveries in the residential class were influenced by increased weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011, reflecting a 5% increase in heating degree daysto industrial customers was principally due to improving economic conditions in OE’s and Penn’s service territory.territories.
Changes in distribution KWHMWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period in 2010,of 2011, are summarized in the following tables:
|
| | | | |
Distribution KWHMWH Deliveries | | Increase | (Decrease) |
| | | | |
| Residential | | (7.2 | 1.4 | )% |
| Commercial | | (1.7 | 1.2 | )% |
| Industrial | | 3.2 | 9.3 | % |
| Net Decrease in Distribution Deliveries | | (2.4 | |
Increase in Distribution Deliveries
| | | 3.7 | )% |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| Distribution Revenues | | Increase | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | 7 | |
| Commercial | | | 1 | |
| Industrial | | | 2 | |
| | | | |
Increase in Distribution Revenues | | $ | 10 | |
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Distribution Revenues | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Residential | | $ | (14 | ) |
| Commercial | | 1 |
|
| Industrial | | 3 |
|
| Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues | | $ | (10 | ) |
Retail generation revenues decreased $127increased by $4 million primarily due to higher average prices in the residential customer class, offset by a decrease in KWHMWH sales from increased customer shopping and lowerwarmer weather. Higher average prices for residential customers were primarily due to the implementation of Ohio's non-market based (NMB) transmission rider in allJune 2011, which recovers network integration transmission service charges described below. Lower MWH sales were primarily due to lower weather-related usage resulting from heating degree days that were 26% below 2011 levels and an increase in customer classes.shopping levels to 71% compared to 67% in the same quarter of last year. Retail generation obligationsrevenues are attributable to non-shopping customers and are satisfied by generation procured through full-requirements auctions. OE defersand Penn defer the difference between retail generation revenues and purchased power costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings. Lower KWH sales were primarily the result of increased customer shopping, partially offset by increased weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011, as described above.
120
Changes in retail generation KWHMWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period in 2010,of 2011, are summarized in the following tables:
|
| | | | |
Retail Generation KWHMWH Sales | | Decrease | |
| | | | |
| Residential | | | (33.014.3 | )% |
| Commercial | | | (43.222.6 | )% |
| Industrial | | | (16.315.6 | )% |
| | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales | | | (32.015.9 | )% |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| Retail Generation Revenues | | Decrease | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | (85 | ) |
| Commercial | | | (30 | ) |
| Industrial | | | (12 | ) |
| | | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues | | $ | (127 | ) |
| | | | |
Expenses |
| | | | |
| Retail Generation Revenues | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Residential | | $ | 19 |
|
| Commercial | | (10 | ) |
| Industrial | | (5 | ) |
| Net Increase in Retail Generation Revenues | | $ | 4 |
|
Total expenses
Wholesale generation revenues decreased $108by $2 million in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010.2011, due to lower revenues from sales to NGC from OE’s leasehold interests in Perry Unit 1 and Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Operating Expenses
Total operating expenses decreased by $6 million in the first three months of 2012, compared to the same period of 2011. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Expenses — Changes | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Purchased power costs | | $ | (94 | ) |
| Other operating expenses | | | 13 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | (29 | ) |
| General taxes | | | 2 | |
| | | | |
Net Decrease in Expenses | | $ | (108 | ) |
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Operating Expenses - Changes | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Purchased power costs | | $ | (31 | ) |
| Other operating expenses | | 25 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 1 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | (1 | ) |
| Net Decrease in Operating Expenses | | $ | (6 | ) |
Purchased power costs decreased in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily2011, due to lower KWHMWH purchases resulting from reduced generation sales requirements in the first three months of 2011 coupled with lower unit costs.from warmer than normal weather and increased customer shopping. The increase in other operating costsexpenses for the first three months of 2011 was primarily due to expenses associated with the 2011 Beaver Valley Unit 2 refueling outage that were absent in 2010. The amortization of regulatory assets decreased primarily due to higher deferred residential generation credits in 2011.
121
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
MANAGEMENT’S NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
CEI is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. CEI conducts business in northeastern Ohio, providing regulated electric distribution services. CEI also procures generation services for those customers electing to retain CEI as their power supplier.
For additional information with respect to CEI, please see the information contained in FirstEnergy’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent decreased by $1 million in the first three months of 2011,2012 compared to the same period of 2010. The decrease in earnings was primarily due to lower revenues, partially offset by lower purchased power and amortization of regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $105 million, or 32%, in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, due to lower retail generation and distribution revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased $5 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, due to lower average unit prices for the industrial and residential customer classes offset by increased KWH deliveries across all sectors. The lower average unit prices were the result of the absence of transition charges in 2011. Higher KWH deliveries in the residential class were influenced by increased weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011, reflecting a 10% increase in heating degree days in CEI’s service territory.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
Distribution KWH Deliveries | | Increase | |
| | | | |
Residential | | | 2.3 | % |
Commercial | | | 3.1 | % |
Industrial | | | 0.9 | % |
| | | |
Increase in Distribution Deliveries
| | | 2.1 | % |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Distribution Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | — | |
| Commercial | | | 7 | |
| Industrial | | | (12 | ) |
| | | | |
Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues | | $ | (5 | ) |
| | | | |
122
Retail generation revenues decreased $101 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to lower KWH sales and lower average unit prices across all customer classes. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through full-requirements auctions. CEI defers the difference between retail generation revenues and costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings. Reduced KWH sales were primarily the result of increased customer shopping in the first three months of 2011, partially offset by higher residential KWH deliveries resulting from the colder weather conditions. Lower average unit prices in the residential customer class were the result of generation credits in place for 2011.
Changes in retail generation sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
Retail Generation KWH Sales | | Decrease | |
| | | | |
Residential | | | (48.4 | )% |
Commercial | | | (48.3 | )% |
Industrial | | | (62.8 | )% |
| | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales
| | | (53.3 | )% |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| Retail Generation Revenues | | Decrease | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | (46 | ) |
| Commercial | | | (29 | ) |
| Industrial | | | (26 | ) |
| | | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues | | $ | (101 | ) |
| | | | |
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $98 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010. The following table presents the change from the prior period by expense category:
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Expenses — Changes | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Purchased power costs | | $ | (82 | ) |
| Other operating costs | | | 4 | |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | (22 | ) |
| General taxes | | | 2 | |
| | | | |
Net Decrease in Expenses | | $ | (98 | ) |
| | | | |
Purchased power costs decreased in the first three months of 2011 due to lower KWH purchases resulting from reduced sales requirements in the first three months of 2011. Other operating expenses increased due to 2011 inventory valuation adjustments. Decreased amortization of regulatory assets was primarily due to completion of transition cost recovery at the end of 2010 and 2011 and deferred residential generation credits, partially offset by increased recovery of non-residential distribution deferrals and the absence in 2010 of deferred renewable energy credit expenses. General taxes increased in the first three months of 2011 due to increased property taxes in 2011.
123
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENT’S NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
TE is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. TE conducts business in northwestern Ohio, providing regulated electric distribution services. TE also procures generation services for those customers electing to retain TE as their power supplier.
For additional information with respect to TE, please see the information contained in FirstEnergy’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent decreased by $2 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010. The decrease primarily resulted from lower revenues and higher other operating costs, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and deferral of regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $19 million, or 14%, in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, due to a decrease in retail generation revenues, partially offset by higher distribution revenues and wholesale generation revenues.
Distribution revenues increased $2 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, due to higher residential and industrial revenues, partially offset by lower commercial revenues. Residential and industrial revenues were the result of higher average unit prices and higher KWH deliveries. The higher KWH deliveries in the residential class were influenced by increased weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011, reflecting a 9% increase in heating degree days in TE’s service territory. Commercial revenues were impacted by lower KWH deliveries and lower average unit prices.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
| | Increase | |
Distribution KWH Deliveries | | (Decrease) | |
| | | | |
Residential | | | 3.6 | % |
Commercial | | | (2.3 | )% |
Industrial | | | 5.3 | % |
| | | |
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries
| | | 3.3 | % |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Distribution Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | 2 | |
| Commercial | | | (1 | ) |
| Industrial | | | 1 | |
| | | | |
Net Increase in Distribution Revenues | | $ | 2 | |
| | | | |
Retail generation revenues decreased $25 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, due to lower KWH sales to all customer classes and lower unit prices to residential and industrial customers. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through full-requirements auctions. TE defers the difference between retail generation revenues and costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings. Lower KWH sales were the result of increased customer shopping, partially offset by increased weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011, as described above.
124
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
Retail Generation KWH Sales | | Decrease | |
| | | | |
Residential | | | (28.5 | )% |
Commercial | | | (49.5 | )% |
Industrial | | | (13.1 | )% |
| | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales
| | | (24.0 | )% |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| Retail Generation Revenues | | Decrease | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | (10 | ) |
| Commercial | | | (6 | ) |
| Industrial | | | (9 | ) |
| | | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues | | $ | (25 | ) |
| | | | |
Wholesale revenues increased $3 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to higher revenues from sales to NGC from TE’s leasehold interest in Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $15 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Expenses — Changes | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Purchased power costs | | $ | (24 | ) |
| Other operating expenses | | | 11 | |
| Deferral of regulatory assets, net | | | (3 | ) |
| General Taxes | | | 1 | |
| | | | |
Net Decrease in Expenses | | $ | (15 | ) |
| | | | |
Purchased power costs decreased in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, due to lower KWH purchases resulting from reduced generation sales requirements in the first three months of 2011 coupled with lower unit costs. The increase in other operating costs for the first three months of 2011, was primarilyprincipally due to expenses associated with network integration transmission service charges that, prior to June 2011, were incurred by generation suppliers and are being recovered through the 2011 Beaver Valley Unit 2 refueling outage that were absent in 2010 and higher storm restoration expenses. The deferral of regulatory assets increased due to higher PUCO-approved cost deferrals in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010.NMB transmission rider discussed above.
125
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
MANAGEMENT’S NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
JCP&L is a wholly owned, electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy.FE. JCP&L conducts business in New Jersey, by providing regulated electric transmission and distribution services.services in 3,200 square miles of northern, western and east central New Jersey. The area it serves has a population of approximately 2.7 million. JCP&L also procures generation services for franchise customers electing to retain JCP&L as their power supplier.has an ownership interest in a hydroelectric generating facility. JCP&L procures electric supply to serve its BGS customers through a statewide auction process approved by the NJBPU.
For additional information with respect to JCP&L, please see the information contained in FirstEnergy’sFE’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Overview, Results of Operations - Regulatory Assets, Capital Resources and Liquidity, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk Outlook, Regulatory Matters, Environmental Matters, Other Legal Proceedings and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.Outlook.
Results of Operations
Net income decreasedincreased by $10$3 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010. The decrease was primarily due to lower revenues and increased net amortization of regulatory assets, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and other operating costs.
Revenues
In the first three months of 2011, revenues decreased $57 million, or 8%2012, compared to the same period of 2010. The decrease in revenues was primarily due to lower distribution2011, resulting from decreased purchased power costs and retail generation revenues,amortization of regulatory assets, net, partially offset by an increase in wholesale generation and otherlower revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased $17Revenues
Revenues decreased by $159 million, or 25%, in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010,2011. The decrease in revenues was due to lower distribution, retail generation and wholesale generation revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased by $51 million in the first three months of 2012, compared to the same period of 2011, primarily due to alower MWH deliveries and an NJBPU-approved rate adjustment whichreduction that became effective March 1, 20112012, for all customer classes, partially offset by higher KWHclasses. Lower MWH deliveries were principally from residential customers, reflecting decreased weather-related usage in the residential class resulting from a 6% increase in heating degree days.first three months of 2012.
ChangesDecreases in distribution KWHMWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 20112012 compared to the same period of 20102011 are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
| | Increase | |
Distribution KWHMWH Deliveries | | (Decrease) | Decrease |
| | | | |
| Residential | | (8.8 | 1.4 | )% |
| Commercial | | | (3.40.3 | )% |
| Industrial | | | (2.0 | )% |
| | | |
Net Decrease in Distribution Deliveries
| | | (1.1 | )% |
| Decrease in Distribution Deliveries | | (4.3 | )% |
| | | | | |
| Distribution Revenues | | Decrease | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | (5 | ) |
| Commercial | | | (10 | ) |
| Industrial | | | (2 | ) |
| | | | |
Decrease in Distribution Revenues | | $ | (17 | ) |
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Distribution Revenues | | Decrease |
| | | (In millions) |
| Residential | | $ | (27 | ) |
| Commercial | | (18 | ) |
| Industrial | | (6 | ) |
| Decrease in Distribution Revenues | | $ | (51 | ) |
Retail generation revenues decreased $47by $63 million due to lower retail generation KWHMWH sales in all customer classes.classes primarily due to lower weather-related usage resulting from heating degree days that were 23% below 2011 levels and an increase in customer shopping levels to 48% compared to 41% in the same quarter of last year. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are satisfied by generation procured through full-requirements auctions. JCP&L defers the difference between retail generation revenues and purchased power costs, resulting in no material effect to current periodon earnings. These lower sales were primarily due to an increase in customer shopping.
126
Decreases in retail generation KWHMWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010,2011, are summarized in the following tables:
|
| | | | |
Retail Generation KWHMWH Sales | | Decrease | |
| | | | |
| Residential | | | (7.516.2 | )% |
| Commercial | | | (26.414.6 | )% |
| Industrial | | | (23.126.6 | )% |
| | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales | | | (13.716.1 | )% |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| Retail Generation Revenues | | Decrease | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | (15 | ) |
| Commercial | | | (29 | ) |
| Industrial | | | (3 | ) |
| | | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues | | $ | (47 | ) |
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Retail Generation Revenues | | Decrease |
| | | (In millions) |
| Residential | | $ | (45 | ) |
| Commercial | | (14 | ) |
| Industrial | | (4 | ) |
| Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues | | $ | (63 | ) |
Wholesale generation revenues increased $3decreased by $43 million in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010,2011, primarily due primarily to an increasea decrease in PJM spot market energy sales, volumes.reflecting less volume available for sale as a result of the expiration of a NUG contract in August, 2011.
Other revenues increased $4Operating Expenses
Total operating expenses decreased by $166 million in the first three months of 2011,2012, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to an increase in transition bond revenues as a result of higher KWH deliveries to residential customers.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $43 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period of 2010.. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Expenses — Changes | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Purchased power costs | | $ | (44 | ) |
| Other operating costs | | | (9 | ) |
| Provision for depreciation | | | (3 | ) |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 12 | |
| General taxes | | | 1 | |
| | | | |
Net Decrease in Expenses | | $ | (43 | ) |
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
| Operating Expenses - Changes | | Increase (Decrease) |
| | | (In millions) |
| Purchased power costs | | $ | (106 | ) |
| Other operating expenses | | 1 |
|
| Provision for depreciation | | 4 |
|
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | (62 | ) |
| General taxes | | (3 | ) |
| Net Decrease in Operating Expenses | | $ | (166 | ) |
Purchased power costs decreaseddecreased by $106 million in the first three months of 2011 primarily2012 due to lower requirementsthe expiration of a NUG contract and a decrease in volumes required, resulting from reduced sales. Other operating costs decreased in the first three months of 2011 primarily due to lower storm restoration costs, partially offset by inventory valuation adjustments. The amortizationwarmer than normal weather and increased customer shopping. Amortization of regulatory assets, increased primarily due to lower storm cost deferrals and the write-off of nonrecoverable NUG costs, partially offsetnet, decreased by lower purchased power deferrals in the first quarter of 2011.
127
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENT’S NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Met-Ed is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Met-Ed conducts business in eastern Pennsylvania, providing regulated electric transmission and distribution services. Met-Ed also procures generation service for those customers electing to retain Met-Ed as their power supplier. In 2011, Met-Ed procures power under its Default Service Plan (DSP) in which full requirements products (energy, capacity, ancillary services, and applicable transmission services) are procured through descending clock auctions.
As authorized by Met-Ed’s Board of Directors, Met-Ed repurchased 118,595 shares of its common stock from its parent, FirstEnergy, for $150$62 million on January 28, 2011.
For additional information with respect to Met-Ed, please see the information contained in FirstEnergy’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook, Capital Resources and Liquidity, Regulatory Matters, Environmental Matters, Other Legal Proceedings and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased by $10 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010. The increase was primarily due to decreased purchased power, other operating expenses and amortization of net regulatory assets, partially offset by decreased revenues.
Revenues
Revenue decreased $116 million, or 24%, in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period of 2010, reflecting lower distribution, wholesale generation and transmission revenues, partially offset by an increase in retail generation revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased $72 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to lower rates resulting from the DSP that began in 2011 that eliminated the transmission component from the distribution rate. Higher KWH deliveries to industrial customers were due to improving economic conditions in Met-Ed’s service territory. Higher residential and commercial KWH deliveries reflect increased weather-related usage due to an 8% increase in heating degree days in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period in 2010.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
Distribution KWH Deliveries | | Increase | |
| | | | |
Residential | | | 3.4 | % |
Commercial | | | 2.5 | % |
Industrial | | | 5.8 | % |
| | | |
Increase in Distribution Deliveries
| | | 4.1 | % |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| Distribution Revenues | | Decrease | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | (29 | ) |
| Commercial | | | (17 | ) |
| Industrial | | | (26 | ) |
| | | | |
Decrease in Distribution Revenues | | $ | (72 | ) |
| | | | |
Retail generation revenues increased $18 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period of 2010, due to an increase in generation rates from the auctions and now including transmission services in the rates under the DSP effective January 1, 2011. The DSP resulted in higher composite unit prices across all customer classes. Higher KWH sales to residential customers were primarily due to weather-related usage as described above. Increased customer shopping in the commercial and industrial classes of 36% and 81%, respectively, reduced KWH sales to these classes. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through full-requirements auctions. Met-Ed defers the difference between retail generation revenues and costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
128
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
| | Increase | |
Retail Generation KWH Sales | | (Decrease) | |
| | | | |
Residential | | | 2.7 | % |
Commercial | | | (34.1 | )% |
Industrial | | | (80.0 | )% |
| | | |
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Sales
| | | (34.5 | )% |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Retail Generation Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | 53 | |
| Commercial | | | 3 | |
| Industrial | | | (38 | ) |
| | | | |
Net Increase in Retail Generation Revenues | | $ | 18 | |
| | | | |
Wholesale revenues decreased $54 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to Met-Ed ending certain capacity purchase for resale contracts.
Transmission revenues decreased $8 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period of 2010 primarily due to decreased FTR revenues. Met-Ed defers the difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $121 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior year by expense category:
| | | | | |
| Expenses — Changes | | Decrease | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Purchased power costs | | $ | (50 | ) |
| Other operating costs | | | (54 | ) |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | (17 | ) |
| | | | |
Decrease in Expenses | | $ | (121 | ) |
| | | | |
Purchased power costs decreased $50 million in the first three months of 2011 due to a decrease in KWH purchased to source generation sales requirements, partially offset by higher unit costs. Other operating costs decreased $54 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 primarily due to lower transmission congestion and transmission loss expenses (see reference to deferral accounting above). The amortization of regulatory assets decreased $17 million in the first three months of 2011 primarily due to the terminationcompletion of transmission and transition tariff riders at the end of 2010.NJBPU-approved NUG deferred cost recovery.
Other Expense
In the first three months of 2011, interest income decreased due to reduced CTC stranded asset balances compared to the same period of 2010.96
129
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
MANAGEMENT’S NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Penelec is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Penelec conducts business in northern and south central Pennsylvania, providing regulated transmission and distribution services. Penelec also procures generation service for those customers electing to retain Penelec as their power supplier. Beginning in 2011, Penelec procures power under its Default Service Plan (DSP) in which full requirements products (energy, capacity, ancillary services, and applicable transmission services) are procured through descending clock auctions.
For additional information with respect to Penelec, please see the information contained in FirstEnergy’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital Resources and Liquidity, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook, Regulatory Matters, Environmental Matters, Other Legal Proceedings and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased slightly in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010. The increase was primarily due to lower purchased power and other operating costs, partially offset by lower revenues, net amortization of regulatory assets and higher general taxes.
Revenues
Revenue decreased $79 million, or 19.5%, in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period of 2010. The decrease in revenue was primarily due to lower retail and wholesale generation revenues and lower transmission revenues, partially offset by higher distribution revenues.
Distribution revenues increased by $1 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to an increase in the retail transition rates and energy efficiency rates for all customer classes, partially offset by decreased KWH sales in the residential and commercial classes.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
| | Increase | |
Distribution KWH Deliveries | | (Decrease) | |
| | | | |
Residential | | | (0.2 | )% |
Commercial | | | (3.0 | )% |
Industrial | | | 10.0 | % |
| | | |
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries
| | | 3.1 | % |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Distribution Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Residential | | $ | 3 | |
| Commercial | | | (5 | ) |
| Industrial | | | 3 | |
| | | | |
Net Increase in Distribution Revenues | | $ | 1 | |
| | | | |
Retail generation revenues decreased $22 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to lower KWH sales to all customer classes, partially offset by higher generation rates for all customer classes. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through full-requirements auctions. Penelec defers the difference between retail generation revenues and costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings. Lower sales to all customer classes were primarily due to an increase in customer shopping following the expiration of generation rate caps at the end of 2010. Higher generation rates reflect the inclusion of transmission services in generation rates under the DSP, effective January 1, 2011.
130
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
| | | | |
Retail Generation KWH Sales | | Decrease | |
| | | | |
Residential | | | (0.4 | )% |
Commercial | | | (38.3 | )% |
Industrial | | | (78.5 | )% |
| | | |
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales
| | | (39.1 | )% |
| | | |
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Retail Generation Revenues | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | �� |
| Residential | | $ | 31 | |
| Commercial | | | (9 | ) |
| Industrial | | | (44 | ) |
| | | | |
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues | | $ | (22 | ) |
| | | | |
Wholesale generation revenues decreased $49 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, due to Penelec no longer purchasing non-NUG capacity for resale to the PJM market beginning in 2011.
Transmission revenues decreased $8 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to lower Financial Transmission Rights revenues. Penelec defers the difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $75 million in the first three months of 2011, as compared with the same period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior year by expense category:
| | | | | |
| | | Increase | |
| Expenses — Changes | | (Decrease) | |
| | | (In millions) | |
| Purchased power costs | | $ | (71 | ) |
| Other operating costs | | | (31 | ) |
| Amortization of regulatory assets, net | | | 23 | |
| General taxes | | | 4 | |
| | | | |
Net Decrease in Expenses | | $ | (75 | ) |
| | | | |
Purchased power costs decreased $71 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010, primarily due to decreased KWH purchased to source generation sales requirements. Other operating costs decreased $31 million in the first three months of 2011, primarily due to lower transmission congestion and transmission loss expenses (see reference to deferral accounting above). The amortization of net regulatory assets increased $23 million in the first three months of 2011, primarily due to reduced NUG deferrals as a result of a NUG Rider implemented in January 2011. General taxes increased $4 million primarily due to higher Pennsylvania Sales and Use Taxes and the absence of a favorable ruling on a property tax appeal in the first quarter of 2010.
131
| | |
ITEM 3. | | ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK |
See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Market Risk Information” in Item 2 above.
ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
| | |
ITEM 4. | | CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
|
(a) EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES — FIRSTENERGY
FirstEnergy’sThe management of each registrant, with the participation of itseach registrant’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer, have reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)15d-15(e), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of each registrant have concluded that theeach respective registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.
(b) CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
During the quarter ended March 31, 2011, other than changes resulting from the Allegheny merger discussed below,2012, there have been no changes in internal control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, FirstEnergy’s, FES’, OE’s and JCP&L’s internal control over financial reporting.
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. FirstEnergy is currently in the process of integrating Allegheny’s operations, processes, and internal controls. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in Part I, Item I for additional information relating to the merger.
132
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
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, now known as Wolf Mining Company, entered into a long term Coal Sales Agreement with AE Supply and MP for the supply of coal to the Harrison generating facility. Anker Coal, now known as Hunter Ridge Holdings Inc., guaranteed performance under the contract. 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 on January 10, 2011 through February 1, 2011. At trial, AE Supply and MP presented evidence that they have incurred damages for replacement coal purchased through the end of 2010 and will incur additional damages for future shortfalls. The total damages claimed were in excess of $150 million. 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, which may be challenged in post-trial filings and an appeal.
Additional Information required for Part II, Item 1 is incorporated by reference to the discussions in Notes 108 and 119 of the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
FirstEnergy’sFor the quarter ended March 31, 2012, there have been no material changes to the risk factors included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, includes a detailed discussion of its risk factors. In connection with the recent acquisition of Allegheny and the current events in Japan, the information presented below updates and supplements the risk factors appearing in our annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.2011.
Potential NRC Regulation in Response to the Incident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
As a result of the NRC’s investigation of the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, potential exists for the NRC to promulgate new or revised requirements with respect to nuclear plants located in the United States, which could necessitate additional expenditures at our nuclear plants. It is also possible that the NRC could suspend or otherwise delay pending nuclear relicensing proceedings, including the Davis-Besse relicensing proceeding. FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the impact of any such regulatory actions on its financial condition or results of operations.
Risks Associated With Our Recently Completed Merger
Our Merger with AE May Not Achieve Its Intended Results.
We entered into the merger agreement with AE with the expectation that the merger would result in various benefits, including, among other things, cost savings and operating efficiencies relating to the regulated segments and the unregulated competitive segment. Our ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of the merger is subject to a number of uncertainties, including whether the business of Allegheny is integrated in an efficient and effective manner and maintenance of the current credit ratings of the combined company and its subsidiaries. Failure to achieve these anticipated benefits could result in increased costs, decreases in the amount of expected revenues generated by the combined company and diversion of management’s time and energy and could have an adverse effect on the combined company’s business, financial results and prospects.
As a Result of the Merger We Will be Subject to Business Uncertainties That Could Adversely Affect Our Financial Results.
Although we are taking steps designed to reduce any adverse effects, uncertainty about the effect of the merger with AE on employees and customers may have an adverse effect on us. Employee retention and recruitment may be particularly challenging, as employees and prospective employees may experience uncertainty about their future roles with the combined company. Despite our retention and recruiting efforts, key employees may depart or fail to accept employment with us because of issues relating to the uncertainty and difficulty of integration or a desire not to remain with the combined company. Additionally, customers, suppliers and others that deal with us may seek to change existing relationships.
Furthermore, the integration of Allegheny into our company may place a significant burden on management and internal resources. The diversion of management attention away from day-to-day business concerns and any difficulties encountered in the transition and integration process could affect our financial results. In each case, our business results could be affected.
133
The Combined Company Will Have a Higher Percentage of Coal-Fired Generation Capacity Compared to FirstEnergy’s Previous Generation Mix. As a Result, FirstEnergy May Be Exposed to Greater Risk from Regulations of Coal and Coal Combustion By-Products Than it Faced Prior to the Merger
The combined company’s generation fleet has a higher percentage of coal-fired generation capacity compared to FirstEnergy’s previous generation mix. As a result, FirstEnergy’s exposure to new or changing legislation, regulation or other legal requirements related to greenhouse gas or other emissions may be increased compared to its previous exposure. Approximately 52% of FirstEnergy’s pre-merger generation fleet capacity was coal-fired, with the remainder being low-emitting natural gas, oil fired or non-emitting nuclear and pumped storage. Approximately 78% of Allegheny’s generation fleet capacity is coal-fired. Approximately 62% of the combined company’s fleet capacity is coal-fired. Historically, coal-fired generating plants face greater exposure to the costs of complying with federal, state and local environmental statutes, rules and regulations relating to emissions of substances such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury. In addition, there are currently a number of federal, state and international initiatives under consideration to, among other things, require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from power generation or other facilities and to regulate coal combustion by-products, such as coal ash, as hazardous waste. These legal requirements and initiatives could require substantial additional costs, extensive mitigation efforts and, in the case of greenhouse gas legislation, could raise uncertainty about the future viability of fossil fuels as an energy source for new and existing electric generation facilities. Failure to comply with any such existing or future legal requirements may also result in the assessment of fines and penalties. Significant resources also may be expended to defend against allegations of violations of any such requirements. FirstEnergy expects approximately 70% of its generation fleet to be non-emitting or low-emitting by the end of 2011. All of Allegheny’s supercritical coal-fired generation assets are scrubbed, and its generation portfolio also includes pumped storage and natural gas generation capacity. The combined company’s generation fleet nevertheless could face greater exposure to risks relating to the foregoing legal requirements than FirstEnergy’s pre-merger fleet due to the combined company’s increased percentage of coal-fired generation facilities.
| | |
ITEM 2. | | UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
|
(c) FirstEnergy
The table below includes information on a monthly basis regarding purchases made by FirstEnergy of its common stock during the first quarter of 2011.2012.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Period | |
| | | January | | | February | | | March | | | First Quarter | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total Number of Shares Purchased(a) | | | 32,053 | | | | 543,138 | | | | 1,344,212 | | | | 1,919,403 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Average Price Paid per Share | | $ | 38.36 | | | $ | 38.44 | | | $ | 37.55 | | | $ | 37.81 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total Number of Shares Purchased As Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Period |
| | January | | February | | March | | First Quarter |
| | | | | | | | |
Total Number of Shares Purchased(1) | 163,030 |
| | 165,753 |
| | 1,325,407 |
| | 1,654,190 |
|
| Average Price Paid per Share | $ | 42.26 |
| | $ | 43.60 |
| | $ | 44.59 |
| | $ | 44.26 |
|
| Total Number of Shares Purchased As Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | |
(a) | (1) | Share amounts reflect purchases on the open market to satisfy FirstEnergy’s obligations to deliver common stock for some or all of the following: 2007 Incentive Plan, Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors, Executive Deferred Compensation Plan,DCPD, EDCP, Savings Plan, Director Compensation, Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan,LTIP, Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan,LTIP, Allegheny Energy, Inc,Inc., Non-Employee Director Stock Plan, Allegheny Energy, Inc, amendedInc., Amended and Restated Revised Plan for Deferral of Compensation of Directors, and Stock Investment Plan. |
134
ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES
None
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not Applicable
ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION
Not Applicable
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
Signal Peak Mine Safety
FirstEnergy, through its FEV wholly-owned subsidiary, has a 50% interest in Global Mining Group LLC, a joint venture that owns Signal Peak which is a company that constructed and operates the Bull Mountain Mine No. 1 (Mine), an underground coal mine near Roundup, Montana. The operation of the Mine is subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act).
Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), which was enacted on July 21, 2010, contains new reporting requirements regarding mine safety, including, to the extent applicable, disclosing in periodic reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 the receipt of certain notifications from the MSHA.
On November 19, 2010, Signal Peak received a letter from MSHA placing it on notice that the Mine has a potential pattern of violations of mandatory health or safety standards under Section 104(e) of the Mine Act. If implemented, Section 104(e) requires all subsequent violations designated as Significant and Substantial be issued as closure orders with all persons withdrawn from the affected area except those necessary to correct the violation. On March 16, 2011, Signal Peak Mine received a letter from MSHA indicating that the mine is no longer being considered for a pattern of potential violations notice.
Signal Peak received the following notices of violation and proposed assessments for the Mine under the Mine Act during the three months ended March 31, 2011:
| | | | | |
| | | Signal | |
| | | Peak | |
| Number of significant and substantial violations of mandatory health or safety standards under 104* | | | 22 | |
| Number of orders issued under 104(b)* | | | — | |
| Number of citations and orders for unwarrantable failure to comply with mandatory health or safety standards under 104(d)* | | | — | |
| Number of flagrant violations under 110(b)(2)* | | | — | |
| Number of imminent danger orders issued under 107(a)* | | | — | |
| MSHA written notices under Mine Act section 104(e)* of a pattern of violation of mandatory health or safety standards or of the potential to have such a pattern | | | — | |
| Pending Mine Safety Commission legal actions (including any contested citations issued) | | | 13 | |
| Number of mining related fatalities | | | — | |
| Total dollar value of proposed assessments | | $ | 1,892 | |
| | |
* | | References to sections under Mine Act |
The inclusion of this information in this report is not an admission by FirstEnergy that it controls Signal Peak or that Signal Peak is FirstEnergy’s subsidiary for purposes of Section 1503 or for any other purpose,
More detailed information about the Mine, including safety-related data, can be found at MSHA’s website, www.MSHA.gov. Signal Peak operates the Mine under the MSHA identification number 2401950.
135
Exhibit Number
| | | | | | |
|
FirstEnergy | | | | | | |
| | | | 3.1 |
| FirstEnergy | |
| (A)(B) | 10.1 | | Employment Agreement between FirstEnergy Corp. and Anthony J. Alexander, dated March 20, 2012. |
| 3.1 | | Amendment to the Amended ArticlesCode of Incorporation of FirstEnergy Corp. dated as of February 25, 2011 (incorporatedRegulations (Incorporated by reference to FirstEnergy’s Form 8-KAppendix 1 to FirstEnergy's Definitive Proxy Statement filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 3.1, File No. 21011)on April 1, 2011). |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.1 | | | Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to FirstEnergy’s Form 8-K filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 10.2, File No. 21011) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.2 | | | Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to FirstEnergy’s Form 8-K filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 10.3, File No. 21011) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.3 | | | Allegheny Energy, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Plan (incorporated by reference to FirstEnergy’s Form 8-K filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 10.4, File No. 21011) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.4 | | | Allegheny Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Revised Plan for Deferral of Compensation of directors (incorporated by reference to FirstEnergy’s Form 8-K filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 10.5, File No. 21011) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.5 | | | Amendment to FirstEnergy Corp. 2007 Incentive Compensation Plan, effective January 1, 2011 |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.6 | | | Amendment to FirstEnergy Corp. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective January 1, 2012 |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.7 | | | Amendment to FirstEnergy Corp. Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors, effective January 1, 2012 |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.8 | | | Amendment to FirstEnergy Corp. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, effective January 1, 2012 |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.9 | | | FirstEnergy Corp. Change in Control Severance Plan |
| | | | | | |
| | | 10.10 | | | Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated February 25, 2011, between FirstEnergy Service Company and Gary R. Leidich |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 12 | | | Fixed charge ratiosratio |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 31.1 | | | Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 31.2 | | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 32 | | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | 101 | * | | The following materials from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FirstEnergy Corp. for the period ended March 31, 2011,2012, formatted in XBRL (extensible(Extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of Income and Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
| | | |
| FES | |
| (A) | 4.1 | (g) | Seventh Supplemental Indenture of FGCO, dated as of February 14, 2012. |
| (A) | 4.2 | (d) | Fourth Supplemental Indenture of NGC, dated as of February 14, 2012. |
| (A)(C) | 10.1 | | First Amendment to Loan Agreement, dated as of February 14, 2012, between the Ohio Water Development Authority, as issuer, and FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp. |
| (A)(D) | 10.2 | | First Amendment to Loan Agreement, dated as of February 14, 2012, between the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, as issuer, and FirstEnergy Generation Corp. |
| (A) | 31.1 | | Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| (A) | 31.2 | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| (A) | 32 | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
| 101 | * | The following materials from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. for the period ended March 31, 2012, formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
| | | | |
| OE | |
FES | | | | | | |
| | | 10.1 | | | Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of March 11, 2011 by and between FirstEnergy Generation Corp. and American Municipal Power, Inc. |
| | | | | | |
| | | 12 | | | Fixed charge ratios |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 31.1 | | | Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 31.2 | | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 32 | | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
OE | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | 12 | | | Fixed charge ratios |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.1 | | | Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.2 | | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 32 | | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
CEI | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | 12 | | | Fixed charge ratios |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.1 | | | Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.2 | | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 32 | | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
| | 101 | * | The following materials from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ohio Edison Company. for the period ended March 31, 2012, formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
| | | | |
TE | | | | | JCP&L | |
| | | 12 | | | Fixed charge ratios |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 31.1 | | | Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 31.2 | | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | 32 | | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
| | 101 | * | | | | |
136
| | | | | | The following materials from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Jersey Central Power & Light Company. for the period ended March 31, 2012, formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
JCP&L | | | | | | |
| (A) | | | 12Provided herein in electronic format as an exhibit. |
| (B) | | | Fixed charge ratiosManagement contract or compensatory plan contract or arrangement filed pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K. |
| (C) | | | This is an amendment to a Form of Waste Water Facilities and Solid Waste Facilities Loan Agreement between Ohio Water Development Authority and FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., dated as of December 1, 2005. |
| (D) | | | |
| | | 31.1 | | | CertificationThis is an amendment to a Form of chief executive officer,Waste Water Facilities and Solid Waste Facilities Loan Agreement between Ohio Air Quality Development Authority and FirstEnergy Generation Corp. dated as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.2 | | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 32 | | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
| | | | | | |
Met-Ed | | | | | | |
| | | 12 | | | Fixed charge ratios |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.1 | | | Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.2 | | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 32 | | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
| | | | | | |
Penelec | | | | | | |
| | | 12 | | | Fixed charge ratios |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.1 | | | Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 31.2 | | | Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
| | | | | | |
| | | 32 | | | Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350December 1, 2006. |
| | |
| * | | Users of these data are advised pursuant to Rule 401 of Regulation S-T that the financial information contained in the XBRL-Related Documents is unaudited and, as a result, investors should not rely on the XBRL-Related Documents in making investment decisions. Furthermore, users of thesethis data are advised in accordance with Rule 406T of Regulation S-T promulgated by the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC that this Interactive Data File isFiles of FES, OE and JCP&L are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, isare deemed not filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and otherwise is not subject to liability under these sections. |
Pursuant to reporting requirements of respective financings, FirstEnergy, FES, OE, CEI, TE, JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec are required to file fixed charge ratios as an exhibit to this Form 10-Q.
Pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K, neither FirstEnergy, FES, OE CEI, TE,nor JCP&L Met-Ed nor Penelec have filed as an exhibit to this Form 10-Q any instrument with respect to long-term debt if the respective total amount of securities authorized thereunder does not exceed 10% of its respective total assets, but each hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC on request any such documents.
137
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
May 3, 20111, 2012
| | | | |
| |
| | FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
| | FIRSTENERGY CORP.Registrant |
| | |
| | FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP. |
| | Registrant |
| | |
| | OHIO EDISON COMPANY |
| | FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.Registrant |
| | |
| | /s/ Harvey L. Wagner |
| | Harvey L. Wagner |
| Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
| | |
| | JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY |
| | OHIO EDISON COMPANYRegistrant |
| | |
| | | | | /s/ Marlene A. Barwood |
| | | THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANYRegistrant | | Marlene A. Barwood |
| | | | | |
| | THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANYController Registrant | | |
| | | | |
| | METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANYRegistrant | | |
| | | | |
| | PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANYRegistrant | | |
| | | | |
| | /s/ Harvey L. WagnerHarvey L. Wagner | | |
| | Vice President, Controller | | |
| | and Chief Accounting Officer | | |
| | | | |
| | JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANYRegistrant | | |
| | | | |
| | /s/ K. Jon TaylorK. Jon Taylor | | |
| | Controller | | |
| | (Principal Accounting Officer) | | |
138