The Companies

FE was incorporated under Ohio law in 1996. FE’s principal business is the holding, directly or indirectly, of all of the outstanding equity of its principal subsidiaries: OE, CEI, TE, Penn (a wholly owned subsidiary of OE), JCP&L, ME, PN, FESC, AE Supply, MP, PE, WP, and FET and its principal subsidiaries (ATSI, MAIT and TrAIL). In addition, FE holds all of the outstanding equity of other direct subsidiaries including: FirstEnergy Properties, Inc., FEV, FELHC, Inc., GPU Nuclear, Inc., AESC and Allegheny Ventures, Inc.

FE and its subsidiaries are principally involved in the transmission, distribution and generation of electricity. FirstEnergy’s ten utility operating companies comprise one of the nation’s largest investor-owned electric systems, based on serving over six million customers in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions. FirstEnergy’s transmission operations include approximately 24,500 miles of lines and two regional transmission operation centers. AGC, JCP&L and MP control 3,790 MWs of total capacity.

FirstEnergy’s revenues are primarily derived from electric service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries (OE, CEI, TE, Penn, JCP&L, ME, PN, MP, PE and WP) and its transmission subsidiaries (ATSI, MAIT and TrAIL).

Regulated Utility Operating Subsidiaries

The Utilities’ combined service areas encompass approximately 65,000 square miles in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York. The areas they serve have a combined population of approximately 13.3 million .

OE was organized under Ohio law in 1930 and owns property and does business as an electric public utility in that state. OE engages in the distribution and sale of electric energy to communities in a 7,000 square mile area of central and northeastern Ohio. The area it serves has a population of approximately 2.3 million .

OE owns all of Penn’s outstanding common stock. Penn was organized under Pennsylvania law in 1930 and owns property and does business as an electric public utility in that state. Penn is also authorized to do business in Ohio. Penn furnishes electric service to communities in 1,100 square miles of western Pennsylvania. The area it serves has a population of approximately 0.4 million .

CEI was organized under Ohio law in 1892 and does business as an electric public utility in that state. CEI engages in the distribution and sale of electric energy in an area of 1,600 square miles in northeastern Ohio. The area it serves has a population of approximately 1.6 million .

TE was organized under Ohio law in 1901 and does business as an electric public utility in that state. TE engages in the distribution and sale of electric energy in an area of 2,300 square miles in northwestern Ohio. The area it serves has a population of approximately 0.7 million .

JCP&L was organized under New Jersey law in 1925 and owns property and does business as an electric public utility in that state. JCP&L provides transmission and distribution 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 has a 50% ownership interest ( 210  MWs) in the Yard's Creek hydroelectric generating facility.

ME was organized under Pennsylvania law in 1917 and owns property and does business as an electric public utility in that state. ME provides distribution services in 3,300 square miles of eastern and south central Pennsylvania. The area it serves has a population of approximately 1.2 million .

PN was organized under Pennsylvania law in 1919 and owns property and does business as an electric public utility in that state. PN provides distribution services in 17,600 square miles of western, northern and south central Pennsylvania. The area it serves has a population of approximately 1.2 million . PN, as lessee of the property of its subsidiary, The Waverly Electric Light & Power Company, also serves customers in the Waverly, New York vicinity.

PE was organized under Maryland law in 1923 and under Virginia law in 1974. PE is authorized to do business in Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland. PE owns property and does business as an electric public utility in those states. PE provides transmission and distribution services in portions of Maryland and West Virginia and provides transmission services in Virginia in an area totaling approximately 5,500 square miles. The area it serves has a population of approximately 0.9 million .

MP was organized under Ohio law in 1924 and owns property and does business as an electric public utility in the state of West Virginia. MP provides generation, transmission and distribution services in 13,000 square miles of northern West Virginia. The area it serves has a population of approximately 0.8 million . MP is contractually obligated to provide power to PE to meet its load obligations in West Virginia. MP owns or contractually controls 3,580  MWs of generation capacity that is supplied to its electric utility business, including a 16% undivided interest in the Bath County, Virginia pumped-storage hydroelectric generation facility ( 487

MWs) and its connecting transmission facilities owned through AGC, which was organized under Virginia law in 1981 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of MP in May 2018.

WP was organized under Pennsylvania law in 1916 and owns property and does business as an electric public utility in that state. WP provides transmission and distribution services in 10,400 square miles of southwestern, south-central and northern Pennsylvania. The area it serves has a population of approximately 1.5 million .

Regulated Transmission Operating Subsidiaries

ATSI was organized under Ohio law in 1998. ATSI owns high-voltage transmission facilities, which consist of approximately 7,800 circuit miles of transmission lines with nominal voltages of 345 kV, 138 kV and 69 kV in the PJM Region.

TrAIL was organized under Maryland law and Virginia law in 2006. TrAIL was formed to finance, construct, own, operate and maintain high-voltage transmission facilities in the PJM Region and has several transmission facilities in operation, including a 500  kV transmission line extending approximately 150 miles from southwestern Pennsylvania through West Virginia to a point of interconnection with VEPCO in northern Virginia.

MAIT was organized under Delaware law in 2015. MAIT owns high-voltage transmission facilities, which consist of approximately 4,240 circuit miles of transmission lines with nominal voltages of 500 kV, 345 kV, 230 kV, 138 kV, 115 kV, 69 kV and 46 kV in the PJM Region.

Service Company

FESC provides legal, financial and other corporate support services at cost, in accordance with its cost allocation manual, to affiliated FirstEnergy companies. In addition, pursuant to the FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement discussed below, FE will extend the availability of shared services to the FES Debtors until no later than June 30, 2020, subject to reductions in services if requested by the FES Debtors.

Legacy CES Subsidiaries

On March 31, 2018, FES and FENOC announced that, in order to facilitate an orderly financial restructuring, they filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code with the Bankruptcy Court. As a result of the bankruptcy filings, FirstEnergy concluded that it no longer had a controlling interest in FES and FENOC as the entities are subject to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and, accordingly, as of March 31, 2018, FES and FENOC were deconsolidated from FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements. Since such time, FE has accounted and will account for its investments in FES and FENOC at fair values of zero. FE concluded that in connection with the disposal, FES and FENOC became discontinued operations.

AE Supply was organized under Delaware law in 1999. AE Supply previously provided energy-related products and services primarily to wholesale customers. AE Supply also owns and operates the 1,300 MW Pleasants Power Station. As part of the FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement, discussed below, AE Supply will transfer the Pleasants Power Station and related assets to FG, while retaining certain specified liabilities, subject to the terms and conditions of an asset transfer agreement entered into December 31, 2018, which is subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. Also, subject to the terms of the asset transfer agreement, FG acquired the economic interests in Pleasants as of January 1, 2019, and AE Supply will operate Pleasants until the transfer.

Substantially all of FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries’ operations that previously comprised the CES reportable operating segment, including FES, FENOC, BSPC and a portion of AE Supply (including the Pleasants Power Station), are presented as discontinued operations in FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements resulting from the FES Bankruptcy and actions taken as part of the strategic review to exit commodity-exposed generation.

Operating Segments

FirstEnergy's reportable operating segments are comprised of the Regulated Distribution and Regulated Transmission segments.

The Regulated Distribution segment distributes electricity through FirstEnergy’s ten utility operating companies, serving approximately six million customers within 65,000 square miles of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York. This segment also controls 3,790 MWs of regulated electric generation capacity located primarily in West Virginia, Virginia and New Jersey. Regulation of our retail distribution rates is generally premised on providing an opportunity to earn a reasonable return of and on prudently incurred invested capital to provide service to our customers through the use of both base rate proceedings and other cost-based rate mechanisms, including recovery riders and trackers. The segment's results reflect the costs of securing and delivering electric generation from transmission facilities to customers, including the deferral and amortization of certain related costs.

As of December 31, 2018, FirstEnergy’s regulated generating portfolio consists of 3,790 MWs of diversified capacity within the Regulated Distribution segment: 210 MWs consist of JCP&L's 50% ownership interest in the Yard's Creek hydroelectric facility in New Jersey; and 3,580 MWs consist of MP's facilities, including 487 MWs from AGC's interest in the Bath County hydroelectric

facility in Virginia that MP partially owns, and 11 MWs of MP's 0.49% entitlement from OVEC's generation output. MP's other generation facilities are located in West Virginia.

The Regulated Transmission segment provides transmission infrastructure owned and operated by the Transmission Companies and certain of FirstEnergy's utilities (JCP&L, MP, PE and WP) to transmit electricity from generation sources to distribution facilities. The segment's revenues are primarily derived from forward-looking formula rates at the Transmission Companies as well as stated transmission rates at JCP&L, MP, PE and WP. Both the forward-looking formula and stated rates recover costs that the regulatory agencies determine are permitted to be recovered and provide a return on transmission capital investment. Under forward-looking formula rates, the revenue requirement is updated annually based on a projected rate base and projected costs, which is subject to an annual true-up based on actual costs. The segment's results also reflect the net transmission expenses related to the delivery of electricity on FirstEnergy's transmission facilities.

The Corporate/Other segment reflects corporate support not charged to FE's subsidiaries, interest expense on FE’s holding company debt and other businesses that do not constitute an operating segment. Additionally, reconciling adjustments for the elimination of inter-segment transactions and discontinued operations are included in Corporate/Other. As of December 31, 2018, approximately 70 MWs of electric generating capacity, representing AE Supply's OVEC capacity entitlement, was included in continuing operations of the Corporate/Other reportable segment. As of December 31, 2018, Corporate/Other had approximately $7.1 billion of FE holding company debt.

On March 31, 2018, as a result of actions taken as part of the strategic review to exit commodity-exposed generation, as discussed below, FirstEnergy deconsolidated FES and FENOC. Also on March 31, 2018, substantially all of FirstEnergy’s operations that previously comprised the CES reportable segment, including FES, FENOC, BSPC and a portion of AE Supply, are presented as discontinued operations in FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements. During the third quarter of 2018, the Pleasants Power Station was also reclassified into discontinued operations as a result of the FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement. The financial information for all periods has been revised to present the discontinued operations within Reconciling Adjustments. The remaining business activities that previously comprised the CES reportable operating segment were not material and, as such, have been combined into Corporate/Other for reporting purposes.

Utility Regulation

Regulatory Accounting

FirstEnergy accounts for the effects of regulation through the application of regulatory accounting to the Utilities, AGC, and the Transmission Companies since their rates are established by a third-party regulator with the authority to set rates that bind customers, are cost-based and can be charged to and collected from customers.

The Utilities, AGC, and the Transmission Companies recognize, as regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities, costs which FERC and the various state utility commissions, as applicable, have authorized for recovery/return from/to customers in future periods or for which authorization is probable. Without the probability of such authorization, costs currently recorded as regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities would have been charged/credited to income as incurred. All regulatory assets and liabilities are expected to be recovered/returned from/to customers. Based on current ratemaking procedures, the Utilities, AGC, and the Transmission Companies continue to collect cost-based rates for their transmission and distribution services; accordingly, it is appropriate that the Utilities, AGC, and the Transmission Companies continue the application of regulatory accounting to those operations. Regulatory accounting is applied only to the parts of the business that meet the above criteria. If a portion of the business applying regulatory accounting no longer meets those requirements, previously recorded regulatory assets and liabilities are removed from the balance sheet in accordance with GAAP.

State Regulation

Each of the Utilities' retail rates, conditions of service, issuance of securities and other matters are subject to regulation in the states in which it operates - in Maryland by the MDPSC, in Ohio by the PUCO, in New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC. The transmission operations of PE in Virginia are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC. In addition, under Ohio law, municipalities may regulate rates of a public utility, subject to appeal to the PUCO if not acceptable to the utility. Further, if any of the FirstEnergy affiliates were to engage in the construction of significant new transmission facilities, depending on the state, they may be required to obtain state regulatory authorization to site, construct and operate the new transmission facility.

The following table summarizes the key terms of distribution rate orders in effect for the Utilities.

⁽¹⁾ Reflects filed debt/equity as final settlement/orders do not specifically include capital structure.

⁽²⁾ Commission-approved settlement agreements did not disclose ROE rates.

Federal Regulation

With respect to their wholesale services and rates, the Utilities, AE Supply, and the Transmission Companies are subject to regulation by FERC. Under the FPA, FERC regulates rates for interstate wholesale sales, transmission of electric power, accounting and other matters, including construction and operation of hydroelectric projects. FERC regulations require JCP&L, MP, PE, WP and the Transmission Companies to provide open access transmission service at FERC-approved rates, terms and conditions. Transmission facilities of JCP&L, MP, PE, WP and the Transmission Companies are subject to functional control by PJM and transmission service using their transmission facilities is provided by PJM under the PJM Tariff. See "FERC Regulatory Matters" below.

The following table summarizes the key terms of rate orders in effect for transmission customer billings for FirstEnergy's transmission owner entities:

⁽¹⁾ FERC-approved settlement agreements did not specify.

⁽²⁾ See FERC Actions on Tax Act below.

⁽³⁾ Effective January 2019, converts to lower of actual (13 month average) or 60%.

Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, AGC, AE Supply, and the Transmission Companies. 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 occurrences are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the occurrence and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an occurrence to RFC. Moreover, it is clear that NERC, RFC and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. Any inability on FirstEnergy's part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk electric system could result in the imposition of financial penalties, and obligations to upgrade or build transmission facilities, that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Maryland Regulatory Matters

PE operates under MDPSC approved base rates that were effective as of November 11, 1994. PE also provides SOS pursuant to a combination of settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and regulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is competitively procured in the form of rolling contracts of varying lengths through periodic auctions that are overseen by the MDPSC and a third-party monitor. Although settlements with respect to SOS supply for PE customers have expired, service continues in the same manner until changed by order of the MDPSC. PE recovers its costs plus a return for providing SOS.

The EmPOWER Maryland program requires each electric utility to file a plan to reduce electric consumption and demand 0.2% per year, up to the ultimate goal of 2% annual savings, for the duration of the 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 EmPOWER Maryland program cycles, to the extent the MDPSC determines that cost-effective programs and services are available. PE's 2016 starting goal under this requirement was 0.97%. PE's approved 2018-2020 EmPOWER Maryland plan continues and expands upon prior years' programs, and adds new programs, for a projected total cost of $116 million over the three-year period. PE recovers program costs subject to a five-year amortization. Maryland law only allows for the utility to recover lost distribution revenue attributable to energy efficiency or demand reduction programs through a base rate case proceeding, and to date, such recovery has not been sought or obtained by PE.

In 2013, the MDPSC required Maryland electric utilities to submit analyses relating to the costs and benefits of making further system and staffing enhancements in order to attempt to reduce storm outage durations. PE's submitted analysis projected that it would require up to approximately $2.7 billion in infrastructure investments over 15 years to attempt to achieve the quickest level of response for the largest storm projected in MDPSC's scenarios. The MDPSC conducted a hearing September 2014, but has not taken further action on this matter.

On January 19, 2018, PE filed a joint petition along with other utility companies, work group stakeholders and the MDPSC electric vehicle work group leader to implement a statewide electric vehicle portfolio in connection with a 2016 MDPSC proceeding to consider an array of issues relating to electric distribution system design, including matters relating to electric vehicles, distributed energy resources, advanced metering infrastructure, energy storage, system planning, rate design, and impacts on low-income customers. PE proposed an electric vehicle charging infrastructure program at a projected total cost of $12 million, to be recovered over a five-year amortization. On January 14, 2019, the MDPSC approved the petition subject to certain reductions in the scope of the program.

On January 12, 2018, the MDPSC instituted a proceeding to examine the impacts of the Tax Act on the rates and charges of Maryland utilities. PE must track and apply regulatory accounting treatment for the impacts beginning January 1, 2018, and submitted a report to the MDPSC on February 15, 2018, estimating that the Tax Act impacts would be approximately $7 million to $8 million annually for PE’s customers. On August 17, 2018, the Staff of the MDPSC filed a reply that recommended the MDPSC instead direct PE to reduce base rates by $6.5 million to reflect reduced federal tax costs pending resolution of PE's upcoming rate case and further direct that PE pay customers a one-time credit for what the Staff estimated were the tax savings to PE through the end of July 2018. On October 5, 2018, the MDPSC issued an order requiring PE to pay a one-time credit for tax savings through September 30, 2018, which totaled approximately $5 million, and reserved all other Tax Act impacts to be resolved in the pending rate case.

On August 24, 2018, PE filed a base rate case with the MDPSC, which it supplemented on October 22, 2018, to update the partially forecasted test year with a full twelve months of actual data. The rate case requested an annual increase in base distribution rates of $19.7 million, plus creation of an EDIS to fund four enhanced service reliability programs. In responding to discovery, PE revised its request for an annual increase in base rates to $17.6 million. The proposed rate increase reflects $7.3 million in annual savings for customers resulting from the recent federal tax law changes. On November 20, 2018, the Staff of the MDPSC filed testimony recommending an increase in base rates of $12.9 million and conditional approval of the EDIS, while the Maryland Office of People's Counsel filed testimony recommending a reduction in rates of $11.1 million and rejection of the EDIS. The evidentiary hearing concluded on January 28, 2019, and a final order is expected by March 23, 2019.

New Jersey Regulatory Matters

JCP&L operates under NJBPU approved rates that were effective as of January 1, 2017. In addition, on January 25, 2017, the NJBPU approved the acceleration of the amortization of JCP&L’s 2012 major storm expenses that are recovered through the SRC in order for JCP&L to achieve full recovery by December 31, 2019. JCP&L provides BGS for retail customers who do not choose a third-party EGS and for customers of third-party EGSs that fail to provide the contracted service. All New Jersey EDCs participate in this competitive BGS procurement process and recover BGS costs directly from customers as a charge separate from base rates.

In December 2017, the NJBPU issued proposed rules to modify its current CTA policy in base rate cases to: (i) calculate savings using a five-year look back from the beginning of the test year; (ii) allocate savings with 75% retained by the company and 25% allocated to rate payers; and (iii) exclude transmission assets of electric distribution companies in the savings calculation, which were published in the NJ Register in the first quarter of 2018. JCP&L filed comments supporting the proposed rulemaking. On January 17, 2019, the NJBPU approved the proposed CTA rules with no changes.

Also in December 2017, the NJBPU approved its IIP rulemaking. The IIP creates a financial incentive for utilities to accelerate the level of investment needed to promote the timely rehabilitation and replacement of certain non-revenue producing components that enhance reliability, resiliency, and/or safety. On July 13, 2018, JCP&L filed an infrastructure plan, JCP&L Reliability Plus, which proposed to accelerate $386.8 million of electric distribution infrastructure investment over four years to enhance the reliability and resiliency of its distribution system and reduce the frequency and duration of power outages. On August 29, 2018, the NJBPU retained the petition for hearing and, on November 22, 2018, issued a procedural schedule. On December 17, 2018, the Division of Rate Counsel recommended a $97 million program, a return on equity of 8.75%, and 5.38% cost of debt. On January 23, 2019, the NJBPU granted JCP&L's request to temporarily suspend procedural schedule in the matter pending settlement discussions. There can be no assurance that a definitive settlement agreement will be reached and, if so, will be approved by the NJBPU.

On January 31, 2018, the NJBPU instituted a proceeding to examine the impacts of the Tax Act on the rates and charges of New Jersey utilities. The NJBPU ordered New Jersey utilities to: (1) defer on their books the impacts of the Tax Act effective January 1, 2018; (2) to file tariffs effective April 1, 2018, reflecting the rate impacts of changes in current taxes; and (3) to file tariffs effective July 1, 2018, reflecting the rate impacts of changes in deferred taxes. On March 2, 2018, JCP&L filed a petition with the NJBPU, which included proposed tariffs for a base rate reduction of $28.6 million effective April 1, 2018, and a rider to reflect $1.3 million in rate impacts of changes in deferred taxes. On March 26, 2018, the NJBPU approved JCP&L’s rate reduction effective April 1, 2018, on an interim basis subject to refund, pending the outcome of this proceeding. The NJBPU, however, did not address refunds and other proposed rider tariffs at such time.

Ohio Regulatory Matters

The Ohio Companies currently operate under ESP IV through May 31, 2024. ESP IV includes Rider DMR, which provides for the Ohio Companies to collect $132.5 million annually for three years, with the possibility of a two -year extension and is grossed up for federal income taxes, resulting in an approved amount of approximately $168 million annually in 2018 and 2019. Revenues from Rider DMR will be excluded from the significantly excessive earnings test for the initial three -year term but the exclusion will be reconsidered upon application for a potential two -year extension. The PUCO set three conditions for continued recovery under Rider DMR: (1) retention of the corporate headquarters and nexus of operations in Akron, Ohio; (2) no change in control of the Ohio Companies; and (3) a demonstration of sufficient progress in the implementation of grid modernization programs approved by the PUCO. ESP IV also continues a base distribution rate freeze through May 31, 2024. In addition, ESP IV continues the supply of power to non-shopping customers at a market-based price set through an auction process. On February 1, 2019, the Ohio Companies filed with the PUCO an application requesting a two-year extension of Rider DMR at the same amount and conditions.

ESP IV also continues Rider DCR, which supports continued investment related to the distribution system for the benefit of customers, with increased revenue caps of $30 million per year through May 31, 2019; $20 million per year from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2022; and $15 million per year from June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2024. ESP IV also includes: (1) the collection of lost distribution revenues associated with energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs; (2) an agreement to file a Grid Modernization Business Plan for PUCO consideration and approval, which was filed in February 2016, and remains pending as part of the grid modernization settlement described below; (3) a goal across FirstEnergy to reduce CO ₂ emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045; (4) contributions, totaling $51 million to: (a) fund energy conservation programs, economic development and job retention in the Ohio Companies’ service territories; (b) establish a fuel-fund in each of the Ohio Companies’ service territories to assist low-income customers; and (c) establish a Customer Advisory Council to ensure preservation and growth of the competitive market in Ohio; and (5) an agreement to file an application to transition to a straight fixed variable cost recovery mechanism for residential customers' base distribution rates, which filing the PUCO denied on June 13, 2018.

Several parties, including the Ohio Companies, filed applications for rehearing regarding the Ohio Companies’ ESP IV with the PUCO. On August 16, 2017, the PUCO denied all remaining intervenor applications for rehearing, denied the Ohio Companies’ challenges to the modifications to Rider DMR and added a third-party monitor to ensure that Rider DMR funds are spent appropriately. The Ohio Companies then filed an application for rehearing of the PUCO’s August 16, 2017 ruling on the issues of the third-party monitor and the ROE calculation for advanced metering infrastructure, which the PUCO denied. In October 2017, the Sierra Club and the OMAEG filed notices of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio appealing various PUCO entries on their applications for rehearing. The Ohio Companies intervened in the appeal, and additional parties subsequently filed notices of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging various PUCO entries on their applications for rehearing. On September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied a July 30, 2018 joint motion filed by the OCC, the NOAC, and the OMAEG to stay the portions of the PUCO's orders and entries under appeal that authorized Rider DMR. Oral argument on the appeals was held on January 9, 2019.

Under Ohio law, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that achieve certain annual energy savings and total peak demand reductions. The Ohio Companies’ 2017-2019 plan, as proposed in April 2016, includes a portfolio of energy efficiency programs targeted to a variety of customer segments, including residential customers, low income customers, small commercial customers, large commercial and industrial customers and governmental entities. In December 2016, the Ohio Companies filed a Stipulation and Recommendation with several parties that contained changes to the plan and a decrease in the plan costs. The Ohio Companies anticipate the cost of the plans will be approximately $268 million over the life of the portfolio plans and such costs are expected to be recovered through the Ohio Companies’ existing rate mechanisms. On November 21, 2017, the PUCO issued an order that approved the proposed plans with several modifications, including a cap on the Ohio Companies’ collection of program costs and shared savings set at 4% of the Ohio Companies’ total sales to customers. On December 21, 2017, the Ohio Companies filed an application for rehearing challenging the PUCO’s modifications, which the PUCO denied on January

10, 2018. On March 12, 2018, the Ohio Companies appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging the PUCO’s imposition of a 4% cost cap. Various other parties also appealed challenging various PUCO entries on their applications for rehearing. Oral argument on the appeals is scheduled for February 20, 2019.

Ohio law requires electric utilities and electric service companies in Ohio to serve part of their load from renewable energy resources measured by an annually increasing percentage, which in 2017 was 3.5%, and increases 1% each year through 2026 (to 12.5%) and shall remain at 12.5% in 2027 and each year thereafter. The Ohio Companies conducted RFPs in 2009, 2010 and 2011 to secure RECs to help meet these renewable energy requirements. In September 2011, the PUCO opened a docket to review the Ohio Companies' alternative energy recovery rider through which the Ohio Companies recover the costs of acquiring these RECs. In August 2013, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies' REC acquisitions except for certain purchases arising from one auction and directed the Ohio Companies to credit non-shopping customers in the amount of $43.4 million, plus interest, on the basis that the Ohio Companies did not prove such purchases were prudent. Following appeals, on January 24, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the PUCO order finding that the order violated the rule against retroactive ratemaking. After the OCC and ELPC filed a motion for reconsideration, to which the Ohio Companies responded in opposition, on April 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied the motion for reconsideration. As a result, in the second quarter of 2018, the Ohio Companies recognized a pre-tax benefit to earnings (within the Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net line on the Consolidated Statement of Income (Loss)) of approximately $72 million to reverse the liability associated with the PUCO opinion and order.

On December 1, 2017, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO for approval of a DPM Plan. The DPM Plan is a portfolio of approximately $450 million in distribution platform investment projects, which are designed to modernize the Ohio Companies’ distribution grid, prepare it for further grid modernization projects, and provide customers with immediate reliability benefits. On November 9, 2018, the Ohio Companies filed a settlement agreement that provides for the implementation of the first phase of grid modernization plans, including the investment of $516 million over three years to modernize the Ohio Companies’ electric distribution system, and for all tax savings associated with the Tax Act, discussed below, to flow back to customers. On January 25, 2019, the Ohio Companies filed a supplemental settlement agreement that keeps intact the provisions of the settlement described above and adds further customer benefits and protections, which broadened support for the settlement. The settlement has broad support, including PUCO Staff, the OCC, representatives of industrial and commercial customers, a low-income advocate, environmental advocates, hospitals, competitive generation suppliers and other parties. The PUCO conducted a hearing and the settlement agreement remains subject to PUCO approval.

On January 10, 2018, the PUCO opened a case to consider the impacts of the Tax Act and determine the appropriate course of action to pass benefits on to customers. The Ohio Companies, effective January 1, 2018, were required to establish a regulatory liability for the estimated reduction in federal income tax resulting from the Tax Act, and filed comments on February 15, 2018, explaining that customers will save nearly $40 million annually as a result of updating tariff riders for the tax rate changes and that the Ohio Companies’ base distribution rates are not impacted by the Tax Act changes because they are frozen through May 2024. On October 24, 2018, the PUCO entered an Order in its investigation into the impacts of the Tax Act on Ohio's utilities directing that by January 1, 2019, all Ohio rate-regulated utility companies, unless ordered otherwise, file applications not for an increase in rates to reflect the impact of the Tax Act on each specific utility's current rates. On October 30, 2018, the Ohio Companies filed an application to open a new proceeding for the implementation of matters relating to the impact of the Tax Act. As discussed further above, on November 9, 2018, the Ohio Companies filed a settlement agreement that provides for all tax savings associated with the Tax Act to flow back to customers and for the implementation of the first phase of grid modernization plans. As part of the agreement, the Ohio Companies also filed an application for approval of a rider to return the remaining tax savings to customers following PUCO approval of the settlement. On December 19, 2018, the PUCO upheld its January 10, 2018 ruling that utilities should be required to establish a deferred tax liability, effective January 1, 2018, in response to the Tax Act. On January 25, 2019, the Ohio Companies filed a supplemental settlement agreement that keeps intact the provisions of the settlement described above and adds further customer benefits and protections, which broadened support for the settlement. The PUCO conducted a hearing and the settlement agreement remains subject to PUCO approval.

Pennsylvania Regulatory Matters

The Pennsylvania Companies operate under rates approved by the PPUC, effective as of January 27, 2017. The Pennsylvania Companies operate under DSPs for the June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2019 delivery period, which provide for the competitive procurement of generation supply for customers who do not choose an alternative EGS or for customers of alternative EGSs that fail to provide the contracted service. Under the DSPs, the supply will be provided by wholesale suppliers through a mix of 12 and 24 -month energy contracts, as well as one RFP for 2 -year SREC contracts for ME, PN and Penn. The DSPs include modifications to the Pennsylvania Companies’ POR programs in order to reduce the level of uncollectible expense the Pennsylvania Companies experience associated with alternative EGS charges.

The Pennsylvania Companies' DSPs for the June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2023 delivery period were approved by the PPUC in September 2018. Under the 2019-2023 DSPs, the supply will be provided by wholesale suppliers through a mix of 3, 12 and 24-month energy contracts, as well as two RFPs for 2-year SREC contracts for ME, PN and Penn. The 2019-2023 DSPs also include modifications to the Pennsylvania Companies’ POR programs in order to continue their clawback pilot program as a long-term, permanent program term, and modifications to the Pennsylvania Companies’ customer class definitions to allow for the introduction of hourly priced default service to customers at or above 100kW . The PPUC directed a working group to further discuss the implementation of customer assistance program shopping limitations and appropriate scripting for the Pennsylvania Companies'

customer referral programs, and in November 2018, issued a subsequent order to approve additional customer assistance program shopping parameters and further limit the scope of the working group discussion. On December 21, 2018, the PPUC issued a tentative order proposing a model to incorporate the directed shopping restrictions. Comments on the proposal were filed January 22, 2019. 

Pursuant to Pennsylvania's EE&C legislation in Act 129 of 2008 and PPUC orders, Pennsylvania EDCs implement energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. The Pennsylvania Companies' Phase III EE&C plans for the June 2016 through May 2021 period, which were approved in March 2016, with expected costs up to $390 million, are designed to achieve the targets established in the PPUC's Phase III Final Implementation Order with full recovery through the reconcilable EE&C riders.

Pennsylvania EDCs may establish a DSIC to recover costs of infrastructure improvements and costs related to highway relocation projects with PPUC approval. LTIIPs outlining infrastructure improvement plans for PPUC review and approval must be filed prior to approval of a DSIC. On June 14, 2017, the PPUC approved modified LTIIPs for ME, PN and Penn for the remaining years of 2017 through 2020 to provide additional support for reliability and infrastructure investments. On September 20, 2018, following a periodic review of the LTIIPs as required by regulation once every five years, the PPUC entered an Order concluding that the Pennsylvania Companies have substantially adhered to the schedules and expenditures outlined in their LTIIPs, but that changes to the LTIIPs as designed are necessary to maintain and improve reliability and directed the Pennsylvania Companies to file modified or new LTIIPs. On January 18, 2019, the Pennsylvania Companies filed modifications to their current LTIIPs that would terminate those LTIIPs at the end of 2019, and proposed revised LTIIP spending in 2019 of $44.52 million by ME, $24.72 million by PN, $26.06 million by Penn and $50.85 million by WP. The Pennsylvania Companies also committed to making filings later in 2019, which would propose new LTIIPs for the 2020 through 2024 period.

The Pennsylvania Companies’ approved DSIC riders for quarterly cost recovery went into effect July 1, 2016, subject to hearings and refund or reallocation among customer classes. In the January 19, 2017 order approving the Pennsylvania Companies’ general rate cases, the PPUC added an additional issue to the DSIC proceeding to include whether ADIT should be included in DSIC calculations. On February 2, 2017, the parties to the DSIC proceeding submitted a Joint Settlement to the ALJ that resolved the issues that were pending from the order issued on June 9, 2016. On April 19, 2018, the PPUC approved the Joint Settlement without modification and reversed the ALJ's previous decision that would have required the Pennsylvania Companies to reflect all federal and state income tax deductions related to DSIC-eligible property in currently effective DSIC rates. On May 21, 2018, the Pennsylvania OCA filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court of the PPUC's decision of April 19, 2018. On June 11, 2018, the Pennsylvania Companies filed a Notice of Intervention in the Pennsylvania OCA's appeal to the Commonwealth Court. Briefing is complete and oral argument is scheduled for June 3, 2019.

On February 12, 2018, the PPUC initiated a proceeding to determine the effects of the Tax Act on the tax liability of utilities and the feasibility of reflecting such impacts in rates charged to customers. On March 9, 2018, the Pennsylvania Companies submitted their calculation of the net annual effect of the Tax Act on income tax expense and rate base to be $37 million for ME, $40 million for PN, $9 million for Penn, and $30 million for WP. The Pennsylvania Companies also filed comments proposing that rates be adjusted to reflect the tax rate changes prospectively from the date of a final PPUC order via a reconcilable rider, with the amount that would otherwise accrue between January 1, 2018 and the date of a final order being used to invest in the Pennsylvania Companies’ infrastructure. On March 15, 2018, the PPUC issued a Temporary Rates Order making the Pennsylvania Companies’ rates temporary and subject to refund for six months. On May 17, 2018, the PPUC issued orders directing that the Pennsylvania Companies implement a reconcilable negative surcharge mechanism in order to refund to customers the net effect of the Tax Act for the period July 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, to be prospectively updated for new rates effective January 1, 2019. The Pennsylvania Companies were also directed to establish a regulatory liability for the net impact of the Tax Act for the period of January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018. On June 14, 2018, the PPUC issued an order revising this directive such that the Pennsylvania Companies must instead establish accounts to track tax savings for the period January 1, 2018 through March 14, 2018, and record regulatory liabilities associated with tax savings for only the period March 15, 2018 through June 30, 2018. The cumulative value of the tracked amounts and the regulatory liability is expected to amount to $12 million for ME, $13 million for PN, $3 million for Penn, and $10 million for WP. These amounts are expected to be addressed in the Pennsylvania Companies' next available rate proceedings, or independent filings to be made within three years, whichever comes sooner. The Pennsylvania Companies filed voluntary surcharges on June 1, 2018, to adjust rates for the reduced tax rate, which were effective for bills rendered starting July 1, 2018. For the first six-month period, the surcharge returned to customers was approximately $22 million for ME, $23 million for PN, $6 million for Penn, and $18 million for WP.

West Virginia Regulatory Matters

MP and PE provide electric service to all customers through traditional cost-based, regulated utility ratemaking and operates under rates approved by the WVPSC effective February 2015. MP and PE recover net power supply costs, including fuel costs, purchased power costs and related expenses, net of related market sales revenue through the ENEC. MP's and PE's ENEC rate is updated annually.

In September 2016, the WVPSC approved the Phase II energy efficiency program for MP and PE as reflected in a unanimous settlement, which included three energy efficiency programs to meet the Phase II requirement of energy efficiency reductions of 0.5% of 2013 distribution sales for the January 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 period. On December 15, 2017, the WVPSC approved

MP's and PE's proposed annual decrease in their EE&C rates, effective January 1, 2018, which is not material to FirstEnergy. This Phase II energy efficiency program ended May 31, 2018.

Previously, AE Supply was the winning bidder of a December 2016 RFP to address MP’s generation shortfall and on March 6, 2017, MP and AE Supply signed an asset purchase agreement for MP to acquire AE Supply’s Pleasants Power Station (1,300 MWs), subject to customary and other closing conditions, including regulatory approvals . In January 2018, FERC issued an order denying authorization for the transaction and the WVPSC issued an order approving the transfer of Pleasants Power Station conditioned on MP assuming significant commodity risk. Based on the adverse FERC ruling and the conditions included in the WVPSC order, MP and AE Supply terminated the asset purchase agreement.

On August 31, 2018, MP and PE filed a $100.9 million decrease in their ENEC rates proposed to be effective January 1, 2019, which included a $25.6 million annual decrease impact associated with the settlement regarding the impact of the Tax Act on West Virginia rates, as noted below. Additionally, the August 31, 2018 filing included an elimination of the Energy Efficiency Cost Rate Surcharge effective January 1, 2019, equating to an additional $2.1 million decrease. The rate decreases represent an approximate 7.2% annual decrease in rates versus those in effect on August 31, 2018. A unanimous settlement was filed with the WVPSC on November 20, 2018, and a hearing was held on November 27, 2018. An order adopting the settlement in full without modification was issued on January 2, 2019.

On January 3, 2018, the WVPSC initiated a proceeding to investigate the effects of the Tax Act on the revenue requirements of utilities. MP and PE must track the tax savings resulting from the Tax Act on a monthly basis, effective January 1, 2018. On January 26, 2018, the WVPSC issued an order clarifying that regulatory accounting should be implemented as of January 1, 2018, including the recording of any regulatory liabilities resulting from the Tax Act. MP and PE filed written testimony on May 30, 2018, explaining the impact of the Tax Act on federal income tax and revenue requirements and showing an annual rate impact of $26.2 million. MP and PE, the Staff of the WVPSC, the WV Consumer Advocate and a coalition of industrial customers entered into a settlement agreement on August 23, 2018, to have $25.6 million in rate reductions flow through to customers beginning September 1, 2018, and to defer to the next base rate case (or a separate proceeding if a base rate case is not filed by August 31, 2020) the amount and classification of the excess ADITs resulting from the Tax Act and the issue of whether MP and PE should be required to credit to customers any of the reduced income tax expense occurring between January 1, 2018 and August 31, 2018. The WVPSC approved the settlement on August 24, 2018.

FERC REGULATORY MATTERS

Under the FPA, FERC regulates rates for interstate wholesale sales, transmission of electric power, accounting and other matters, including construction and operation of hydroelectric projects. With respect to their wholesale services and rates, the Utilities, AE Supply, AGC, and the Transmission Companies are subject to regulation by FERC. FERC regulations require JCP&L, MP, PE, WP and the Transmission Companies to provide open access transmission service at FERC-approved rates, terms and conditions. Transmission facilities of JCP&L, MP, PE, WP and the Transmission Companies are subject to functional control by PJM and transmission service using their transmission facilities is provided by PJM under the PJM Tariff.

FERC regulates the sale of power for resale in interstate commerce in part by granting authority to public utilities to sell wholesale power at market-based rates upon showing that the seller cannot exert market power in generation or transmission or erect barriers to entry into markets. The Utilities and AE Supply each have been authorized by FERC to sell wholesale power in interstate commerce at market-based rates and have a market-based rate tariff on file with FERC, although major wholesale purchases remain subject to regulation by the relevant state commissions.

Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, AE Supply, and the Transmission Companies. 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 the facilities that FirstEnergy operates 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 occurrences are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the occurrence and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an occurrence to RFC. Moreover, it is clear that NERC, RFC and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. Any inability on FirstEnergy's part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk electric system could result in the imposition of financial penalties, or obligations to upgrade or build transmission facilities, that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

PJM Transmission Rates

PJM and its stakeholders have been debating the proper method to allocate costs for a certain class of new transmission facilities since 2005. While FirstEnergy and other parties advocated for a traditional "beneficiary pays" (or usage based) approach, others advocated for “socializing” the costs on a load-ratio share basis, where each customer in the zone would pay based on its total usage of energy within PJM. On May 31, 2018, FERC issued an order approving a settlement agreement among various parties, including ATSI and the Utilities, agreeing to apply a combined usage based/socialization approach to cost allocation for charges to transmission customers in the PJM Region for transmission projects operating at or above 500 kV. For historical transmission costs prior to January 1, 2016, the settlement agreement provides a “black-box” schedule of credits to and payments from customers across PJM’s transmission zones. From January 1, 2016 forward, PJM will collect a charge for the revenue requirement associated with each transmission enhancement through a “50/50” calculation, with 50% based on a load-ratio share and the other 50% solution-based distribution factor (DFAX) hybrid method. As a result of the settlement, FirstEnergy recorded a pre-tax benefit of approximately $115 million in 2018 (within the Other operating expenses line on the Consolidated Statement of Income), relating to the amount of refund the Ohio Companies will receive and retain from PJM, of which $73 million is associated with the "black box" calculation of historical transmission costs prior to January 1, 2016, and $42 million is associated with the "50/50" calculation of historical transmission costs from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018. PJM implemented the settlement for transmission service in August 2018. Requests for rehearing or clarification of FERC's May 31, 2018, orders and related responses remain pending before FERC. FirstEnergy does not expect a material impact from implementation of the settlement agreement going forward.

RTO Realignment

On June 1, 2011, ATSI and the ATSI zone transferred from MISO to PJM. While many of the matters involved with the move have been resolved, FERC denied recovery under ATSI's transmission rate for certain charges that collectively can be described as "exit fees" and certain other transmission cost allocation charges totaling approximately $78.8 million until such time as ATSI submits a cost/benefit analysis demonstrating net benefits to customers from the transfer to PJM. Subsequently, FERC rejected a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the exit fee and transmission cost allocation issues, stating that its action is without prejudice to ATSI submitting a cost/benefit analysis demonstrating that the benefits of the RTO realignment decisions outweigh the exit fee and transmission cost allocation charges. In a subsequent order, FERC affirmed its prior ruling that ATSI must submit the cost/benefit analysis. ATSI is evaluating the cost/benefit approach.

Separately, FirstEnergy joined certain other PJM TOs in a protest of MISO's proposal to allocate MVP costs to energy transactions that cross MISO's borders into the PJM Region. On September 20, 2018, FERC denied rehearing with respect to its 2016 order regarding allocation of MVP costs and affirmed and clarified its prior decision that MISO may allocate MVP costs to PJM customers for power withdrawals from MISO to PJM as such exports occur.

MAIT Transmission Formula Rate

MAIT previously submitted an application to FERC requesting authorization to implement a forward-looking formula transmission rate to recover and earn a return on transmission assets effective February 1, 2017. Following various protests to the proposed MAIT formula transmission rate, on March   10, 2017, FERC issued an order accepting the MAIT formula transmission rate for filing, suspending the formula transmission rate for five months to become effective July 1, 2017, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. On May 21, 2018, FERC issued an order accepting a settlement agreement as filed by MAIT and certain parties, without conditions. The settlement agreement provides for certain changes to MAIT's formula rate, including changing MAIT's ROE from 11% to 10.3%, setting the recovery amount for certain regulatory assets, and establishing that MAIT's capital structure will not exceed 60% equity over the period ending December   31, 2021. The settlement agreement further provides that the ROE and the 60% cap on the equity component of MAIT's capital structure will remain in effect unless changed pursuant to section 205 or 206 of the FPA provided the effective date for any change shall be no earlier than January 1, 2022. Refunds for the difference between the filed rate and the settlement rate will be handled through MAIT's true-up process.

JCP&L Transmission Formula Rate

In October 2016, after withdrawing its request to the NJBPU to transfer its transmission assets to MAIT, JCP&L submitted an application to FERC requesting authorization to implement a forward-looking formula transmission rate to recover and earn a return on transmission assets effective January 1, 2017. Following various protests to the proposed formula transmission rate, on March 10, 2017, FERC issued an order accepting the JCP&L formula transmission rate for filing, suspending the transmission rate for five months to become effective June 1, 2017, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. On February 20, 2018, FERC issued an order accepting a settlement agreement filed by JCP&L and certain parties, with an effective date of June 1, 2017. The settlement agreement provides for a $135 million stated annual revenue requirement for Network Integration Transmission Service and an average of $20 million stated annual revenue requirement for certain projects listed on the PJM Tariff where the costs are allocated in part beyond the JCP&L transmission zone within the PJM Region. The revenue requirements are subject to a moratorium on additional revenue requirements proceedings through December 31, 2019, other than limited filings to seek recovery for certain additional costs. Refunds for the difference between the filed rate and the settlement rate were paid out ratably in 2018.

FERC Actions on Tax Act

On March 15, 2018, FERC took action to address the impact of the Tax Act on FERC-jurisdictional rates, including transmission and electric wholesale rates. FERC directed MP, PE and WP to either submit a joint filing to adjust their stated transmission rates to address the impact of the Tax Act changes in effective tax rate, or to “show cause” as to why such action is not required. FERC established a refund effective date of March 21, 2018, for any refunds as a result of the change in tax rate. On May 14, 2018, MP, PE and WP submitted revisions to their joint stated transmission rate to reflect the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate. The revisions reduced the stated rate by 6.70%. FERC issued an order on November 15, 2018, accepting the revisions without modifications or conditions.

Also, on March 15, 2018, FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking information regarding whether and how FERC should address possible changes to ADIT and bonus depreciation as a result of the Tax Act. Such possible changes could impact FERC-jurisdictional rates, including transmission rates. On November 15, 2018, FERC issued a NOPR suggesting mechanisms to revise transmission rates to address the Tax Act’s effect on ADIT. Specifically, FERC proposed utilities with transmission formula rates would include mechanisms to (i) deduct any excess ADIT from or add any deficient ADIT to their rate bases; (ii) raise or lower their income tax allowances by any amortized excess or deficient ADIT; and (iii) incorporate a new permanent worksheet into their rates that will annually track information related to excess or deficient ADIT. Utilities with transmission stated rates would determine the amount of excess and deferred income tax caused by the reduced federal corporate income tax rate and return or recover this amount to or from customers. To assist with implementation of the proposed rule, FERC also issued on November 15, 2018, a policy statement providing accounting and ratemaking guidance for treatment of ADIT for all FERC-jurisdictional public utilities. The policy statement also addresses the accounting and ratemaking treatment of ADIT following the sale or retirement of an asset after December 31, 2017. FESC, on behalf of its affiliated transmission owners, supported comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute requesting additional clarification on the ratemaking and accounting treatment for ADIT in formula and stated transmission rates. FERC's final rule remains pending.

Transmission ROE Methodology

In June 2014, FERC issued Opinion No. 531 revising its approach for calculating the discounted cash flow element of FERC’s ROE methodology and announcing the potential for a qualitative adjustment to the ROE methodology results. Parties appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and on April 14, 2017, that court issued a decision vacating FERC’s order and remanding the matter to FERC for further review. On October 16, 2018, FERC issued its order on remand, in which it proposed a revised ROE methodology. Specifically, in complaint proceedings alleging that an existing ROE is not just and reasonable, FERC proposes to rely on three financial models-discounted cash flow, capital-asset pricing, and expected earnings-to establish a composite zone of reasonableness to identity a range of just and reasonable ROEs. FERC then will utilize the transmission utility’s risk relative to other utilities within that zone of reasonableness to assign the transmission utility to one of three quartiles within the zone. FERC would take no further action (i.e., dismiss the complaint) if the existing ROE falls within the identified quartile. However, if the ROE falls outside the quartile, FERC would deem the existing ROE presumptively unjust and unreasonable and would determine the replacement ROE. FERC would add a fourth financial model risk premium to the analysis to calculate a ROE based on the average point of central tendency for each of the four financial models. FERC established a paper hearing on how the new methodology should apply to the remanded proceedings. FirstEnergy is monitoring the proceedings.

Capital Requirements

FirstEnergy’s business is capital intensive, requiring significant resources to fund operating expenses, construction expenditures, scheduled debt maturities and interest payments, dividend payments and contributions to its pension plan.

On January 22, 2018, FirstEnergy announced a $2.5 billion equity issuance, which included $1.62 billion in mandatorily convertible preferred equity with an initial conversion price of $27.42 per share and $850 million of common equity issued at $28.22 per share. The preferred shares participate in dividends paid on common stock on an as-converted basis and are non-voting except in certain limited circumstances. The preferred shares are convertible at the option of the holders, and will mandatorily convert in July 2019, subject to limited exceptions. Proceeds from the investment were used to reduce FE holding company debt by $1.45 billion and fund FirstEnergy's pension plan as discussed below, with the remainder used for general corporate purposes.

The equity investment is strengthening FirstEnergy's balance sheet and is supporting the company's transition to a fully regulated utility company. By deleveraging the company, the investment also enabled FirstEnergy to enhance its investment grade credit metrics. The January 2018 equity issuance served as a catalyst to FirstEnergy's 2018-2021 "Unlocking the Future" regulated growth plan, which includes earnings growth targets, Regulated Distribution segment average annual rate base growth of 5%, formula transmission average annual rate base growth of 11%, and assumes no additional equity issuances through 2021, outside of FE's regular stock investment and employee benefit plans.

In addition to this equity investment, FE and its distribution and transmission subsidiaries expect their existing sources of liquidity to remain sufficient to meet their respective anticipated obligations. In addition to internal sources to fund liquidity and capital requirements for 2019 and beyond, FE and its distribution and transmission subsidiaries expect to rely on 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 the issuance of long-term debt at certain distribution and transmission subsidiaries to, among other things, fund capital expenditures and refinance short-term and maturing long-term debt, subject to market conditions and other factors.

In January 2018, FirstEnergy satisfied its minimum required funding obligations to its qualified pension plan of $500 million and addressed anticipated required funding obligations through 2020 to its pension plan with an additional contribution of $750 million. On February 1, 2019, FirstEnergy made a $500 million voluntary cash contribution to the qualified pension plan. As a result of this contribution, FirstEnergy expects no required contributions through 2021.

FirstEnergy's capital expenditures for 2019 are expected to be approximately $2.9 to $3.0 billion. Planned capital initiatives are intended to promote reliability, improve operations, and support current environmental and energy efficiency directives.

Capital expenditures for 2018 and forecasted expenditures for 2019, 2020, and 2021, by reportable segment are included below:

Reportable Segment		2018 Actual				2019 Forecast			2020 Forecast			2021 Forecast
		(In millions)
Regulated Distribution		$	1,635			$ 1,600 - 1,700			$ 1,500 - 1,700			$ 1,500 - 1,700
Regulated Transmission		1,165				1,200			1,200			1,200
Corporate/Other		183				85			90			110
Total		$	2,983			$ 2,885 - 2,985			$ 2,790 - 2,990			$ 2,810 - 3,010

FirstEnergy’s transmission growth program, Energizing the Future , provides a stable and proven investment platform, while producing important customer benefits. Through the program, $4.4 billion in capital investments were made from 2014 through 2017, and the company plans to invest up to an additional $4.8 billion in the 2018-2021 timeframe, which includes approximately $1.2 billion in 2018 and a target of $1.2 billion annually through 2021. As noted above, over 80% of these capital investments are recoverable through formula rate mechanisms, reducing regulatory lag in recovering a return on investment, while offering a reasonable rate of return. These investments are expected to continue to improve the performance and condition of the transmission system while increasing automation and communication, adding capacity to the system and improving customer reliability. Beyond 2021, FirstEnergy believes there are incremental investment opportunities for its existing transmission infrastructure of up to approximately $20 billion, which are expected to strengthen grid and cyber-security and make the transmission system more reliable, robust, secure and resistant to extreme weather events, with improved operational flexibility.

In the Regulated Distribution segment, FirstEnergy remains committed to providing customer service-oriented growth opportunities by investing between $6.2 billion and $6.7 billion over 2018 to 2021, including $1.6 billion invested in 2018. Approximately 40% of capital expenditures are recoverable through various rate mechanisms, riders and trackers. Beginning in 2019, expected investments at the Ohio Companies include the pending Ohio Grid Modernization plan which includes installation of approximately 700,000 advanced meters, distribution automation, and integrated ‘volt/var’ controls. Additionally, the pending JCP&L Reliability Plus infrastructure improvement plan filed with the NJBPU is expected to bring both reduced outages and strengthen the system while preparing for the grid of the future in New Jersey. FirstEnergy continues to explore other opportunities for growth in its Regulated

Distribution business, including investments in electric system improvement and modernization projects to increase reliability and improve service to customers, as well as exploring opportunities in customer engagement that focus on electrification of customers’ homes and businesses by providing a full range of products and services.

Any financing plans by FE or any of its consolidated subsidiaries, including the issuance of equity and debt, and the refinancing of short-term and maturing long-term debt are subject to market conditions and other factors. No assurance can be given that any such issuances, financing or refinancing, as the case may be, will be completed as anticipated or at all. Any delay in the completion of financing plans could require FE or any of its consolidated subsidiaries to utilize short-term borrowing capacity, which could impact available liquidity. In addition, FE and its consolidated subsidiaries expect to continually evaluate any planned financings, which may result in changes from time to time.

The FES Bankruptcy has also impacted FirstEnergy's capital requirements. On March 9, 2018, FES borrowed $500 million from FE under the secured credit facility, dated as of December 6, 2016, among FES, as Borrower, FG and NG as guarantors, and FE, as lender, which fully utilized the committed line of credit available under the secured credit facility. Following the FES Bankruptcy deconsolidation of FES, FE fully reserved for the $500 million associated with the borrowings under the secured credit facility. Under the terms of the FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement discussed below, FE will release any and all claims against the FES Debtors with respect to the $500 million borrowed under the secured credit facility.

On September 26, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court approved a FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement dated August 26, 2018, by and among FirstEnergy, two groups of key FES creditors (collectively, the FES Key Creditor Groups), the FES Debtors and the UCC. The FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement resolves certain claims by FirstEnergy against the FES Debtors and all claims by the FES Debtors and their creditors against FirstEnergy, and includes the following terms, among others:

FirstEnergy determined a loss is probable with respect to the FES Bankruptcy and recorded pre-tax charges totaling $877 million in 2018. See Note 3, "Discontinued Operations," for additional information.

The FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement remains subject to satisfaction of certain conditions, most notably the issuance of a final order by the Bankruptcy Court approving the plan or plans of reorganization for the FES Debtors that are acceptable to FirstEnergy consistent with the requirements of the FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement. There can be no assurance that such conditions will be satisfied or the FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement will be otherwise consummated, and the actual outcome of this matter may differ materially from the terms of the agreement described herein. FirstEnergy will continue to evaluate the impact of any new factors on the settlement and their relative impact on the financial statements.

In connection with the FES Bankruptcy settlement agreement, FirstEnergy entered into a separation agreement with the FES Debtors to implement the separation of the FES Debtors and their businesses from FirstEnergy. A business separation committee was established between FirstEnergy and the FES Debtors to review and determine issues that arise in the context of the separation of the FES Debtors’ businesses from those of FirstEnergy.

The following table presents scheduled debt repayments for outstanding long-term debt as of December 31, 2018 , excluding lease commitments, for the next five years. PCRBs that are scheduled to be tendered for mandatory purchase prior to maturity are reflected in the applicable year in which such PCRBs are scheduled to be tendered.

The following table displays consolidated operating lease commitments as of December 31, 2018 .

FE and the Utilities, and FET and certain of its subsidiaries, each participate in two separate five-year syndicated revolving credit facilities, which were amended on October 19, 2018, providing for aggregate commitments of $3.5 billion (Facilities), which are available through December 6, 2022. Under the amended FE facility, an aggregate amount of $2.5 billion is available to be borrowed, repaid and reborrowed, subject to separate borrowing sub-limits for each borrower including FE and its regulated distribution subsidiaries. Under the amended FET Facility, an aggregate amount of $1.0 billion is available to be borrowed, repaid and reborrowed under a syndicated credit facility, subject to separate borrowing sub-limits for each borrower including FET and the Transmission Companies. Prior to the amendments to the Facilities, the aggregate commitments under the Facilities was $5.0 billion, which were available until December 6, 2021. FirstEnergy amended the Facilities to reduce costs and to better align FirstEnergy's ongoing liquidity needs with its strategy to be a fully regulated utility company.

Borrowings under the Facilities may be used for working capital and other general corporate purposes, including intercompany loans and advances by a borrower to any of its subsidiaries. Generally, borrowings under the Facilities are available to each borrower separately and mature on the earlier of 364 days from the date of borrowing or the commitment termination date, as the same may be extended. Each of the Facilities contains financial covenants requiring each borrower to maintain a consolidated debt-to-total-capitalization ratio (as defined under each of the Facilities) of no more than 65%, and 75% for FET, measured at the end of each fiscal quarter.

On October 19, 2018, FE entered into two separate syndicated term loan credit agreements, the first being a $1.25 billion 364-day facility with The Bank of Nova Scotia, as administrative agent, and the lenders identified therein, and the second being a $500 million two-year facility with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent, and the lenders identified therein, respectively, the proceeds of each were used to reduce short-term debt. The term loans contain covenants and other terms and conditions substantially similar to those of the FE Facility described above, including a consolidated debt-to-total-capitalization ratio.

The initial borrowing of $1.75 billion under the new term loans, which took the form of a Eurodollar rate advance, may be converted from time to time, in whole or in part, to alternate base rate advances or other Eurodollar rate advances. Outstanding alternate base rate advances will bear interest at a fluctuating interest rate per annum equal to the sum of an applicable margin for alternate base rate advances determined by reference to FE’s reference ratings plus the highest of (i) the administrative agent’s publicly-announced “prime rate”, (ii) the sum of 1/2 of 1% per annum plus the Federal Funds Rate in effect from time to time and (iii) the rate of interest per annum appearing on a nationally-recognized service such as the Dow Jones Market Service (Telerate) equal to one-month LIBOR on each day plus 1%. Outstanding Eurodollar rate advances will bear interest at LIBOR for interest periods of one week or one, two, three or six months plus an applicable margin determined by reference to FE’s reference ratings. Changes in FE’s reference ratings would lower or raise its applicable margin depending on whether ratings improved or were lowered, respectively.

FirstEnergy had $1,250 million and $300 million of short-term borrowings as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. FirstEnergy’s available liquidity from external sources as of February 18, 2019, was as follows:

Nuclear Regulation

Under NRC regulations, JCP&L, ME and PN must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission their retired nuclear facility, TMI-2. As of December 31, 2018 , JCP&L, ME and PN had in total approximately $790 million invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of their retired TMI-2 nuclear generating facility. The values of these NDTs also fluctuate based on market conditions. If the values of the trusts decline by a material amount, the obligation to JCP&L, ME and PN 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 NDTs.

Nuclear Insurance

JCP&L, ME and PN maintain property damage insurance provided by NEIL for their interest in the retired TMI- 2 nuclear facility, a permanently shut down and defueled facility. Under these arrangements, up to $150 million of coverage for decontamination costs, decommissioning costs, debris removal and repair and/or replacement of property is provided. JCP&L, ME and PN pay annual premiums and are subject to retrospective premium assessments of up to approximately $1.2 million during a policy year.

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

The Price-Anderson Act limits public liability relative to a single incident at a nuclear power plant. In connection with TMI-2, JCP&L, ME and PN carry the required ANI third party liability coverage and also have coverage under a Price Anderson indemnity agreement issued by the NRC. The total available coverage in the event of a nuclear incident is $560 million , which is also the limit of public liability for any nuclear incident involving TMI-2.

Environmental Matters

Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water quality and other environmental matters. Pursuant to a March 28, 2017 executive order, the EPA and other federal agencies are to review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law. FirstEnergy cannot predict the timing or ultimate outcome of any of these reviews or how any future actions taken as a result thereof, in particular with respect to existing environmental regulations, may materially impact its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Compliance with environmental regulations could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's earnings, cash flow 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.

Clean Air Act

FirstEnergy complies with SO ₂ and NOx emission reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, utilizing combustion controls and post-combustion controls and/or using emission allowances.

CSAPR requires reductions of NOx and SO ₂ emissions in two phases (2015 and 2017), ultimately capping SO ₂ emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO ₂ emission

allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate trading of NOx and SO ₂ emission allowances with some restrictions. The D.C. Circuit ordered the EPA on July 28, 2015, to reconsider the CSAPR caps on NOx and SO ₂ emissions from power plants in 13 states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. This follows the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling generally upholding the EPA’s regulatory approach under CSAPR, but questioning whether the EPA required upwind states to reduce emissions by more than their contribution to air pollution in downwind states. The EPA issued a CSAPR update rule on September 7, 2016, reducing summertime NOx emissions from power plants in 22 states in the eastern U.S., including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, beginning in 2017. Various states and other stakeholders appealed the CSAPR update rule to the D.C. Circuit in November and December 2016. On September 6, 2017, the D.C. Circuit rejected the industry's bid for a lengthy pause in the litigation and set a briefing schedule. Depending on the outcome of the appeals, the EPA’s reconsideration of the CSAPR update rule and how the EPA and the states ultimately implement CSAPR, the future cost of compliance may be material and changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

The EPA tightened the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone from the 2008 standard levels of 75 PPB to 70 PPB on October 1, 2015. The EPA stated the vast majority of U.S. counties will meet the new 70 PPB standard by 2025 due to other federal and state rules and programs but on April 30, 2018, the EPA designated fifty-one areas in twenty-two states as non-attainment; however, FirstEnergy has no power plants operating in those areas. States have roughly three years to develop implementation plans to attain the new 2015 ozone NAAQS. Depending on how the EPA and the states implement the new 2015 ozone NAAQS, the future cost of compliance may be material and changes to FirstEnergy’s operations may result. In August 2016, the State of Delaware filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that the Harrison generating facility's NOx emissions significantly contribute to Delaware's inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition sought a short-term NOx emission rate limit of 0.125 lb/mmBTU over an averaging period of no more than 24 hours. In November 2016, the State of Maryland filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that NOx emissions from 36 EGUs, including Harrison Units 1, 2 and 3 and Pleasants Units 1 and 2, significantly contribute to Maryland's inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition sought NOx emission rate limits for the 36 EGUs by May 1, 2017. On September 14, 2018, the EPA denied both the States of Delaware and Maryland petitions under CAA Section 126. In October 2018, Delaware and Maryland appealed the denials of their petitions to the D.C. Circuit. In March 2018, the State of New York filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that NOx emissions from nine states (including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) significantly contribute to New York’s inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition seeks suitable emission rate limits for large stationary sources that are affecting New York’s air quality within the three years allowed by CAA Section 126. On May 3, 2018, the EPA extended the time frame for acting on the CAA Section 126 petition by six months to November 9, 2018, but has not taken any further action. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the loss or range of loss.

On May 1, 2017, FE and FG, and CSX and BNSF entered into a definitive settlement agreement, which resolved all claims related to a coal transportation contract dispute as a result of MATS. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, FG agreed to pay CSX and BNSF an aggregate amount equal to $109 million, payable in three annual installments, the first of which was made on May 1, 2017. FE agreed to unconditionally and continually guarantee the settlement payments due by FG pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement further provided that in the event of the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings or failure to make timely settlement payments, the unpaid settlement amount will immediately accelerate and become due and payable in full. On April 6, 2018, FE paid the remaining $72 million under the settlement agreement as a result of the FES Bankruptcy.

As to a specific coal supply agreement, AE Supply, the party thereto, asserted termination rights effective in 2015 as a result of MATS. In response to notification of the termination, on January   15, 2015, Tunnel Ridge, LLC, the coal supplier, commenced litigation in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania , alleging AE Supply did not have sufficient justification to terminate the agreement and seeking damages for the difference between the market and contract price of the coal, or lost profits plus incidental damages. On February 18, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle settling all claims in dispute. The agreement in principle includes, among other matters, a $93 million payment by AE Supply, as well as certain coal supply commitments for Pleasants Power Station during its remaining operation by AE Supply. Certain aspects of the final settlement agreement are guaranteed by FE, including the $93 million payment, which was paid in the first quarter of 2018. The parties executed the final settlement agreement on March 9, 2018, and the plaintiff dismissed the matter with prejudice on March 15, 2018.

Climate Change

FirstEnergy has established a goal to reduce CO ₂ emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045. There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions at the state, federal and international level. Certain northeastern states are participating in the RGGI and western states led by California, have implemented programs, primarily cap and trade mechanisms, to control emissions of certain GHGs. Additional policies reducing GHG emissions, such as demand reduction programs, renewable portfolio standards and renewable subsidies have been implemented across the nation.

The EPA released its final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act,” in December 2009, concluding that concentrations of several key GHGs constitutes an "endangerment" and may be regulated as "air pollutants" under the CAA and mandated measurement and reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources, including electric generating plants. The EPA released its final CPP regulations in August 2015 to reduce CO ₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs and also finalized separate regulations imposing CO ₂ emission limits for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel fired EGUs. Numerous states and private parties filed appeals and motions to stay the CPP with the D.C. Circuit in October 2015. On January 21, 2016, a panel of the D.C. Circuit denied the motions for stay and set an expedited schedule for briefing and argument.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule during the pendency of the challenges to the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court . On March   28, 2017, an executive order, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” instructed the EPA to review the CPP and related rules addressing GHG emissions and suspend, revise or rescind the rules if appropriate. On October   16, 2017, the EPA issued a proposed rule to repeal the CPP. To replace the CPP, the EPA proposed the ACE rule on August 21, 2018, which would establish emission guidelines for states to develop plans to address GHG emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. Depending on the outcomes of the review pursuant to the executive order, of further appeals and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, the future cost of compliance may be material.

At the international level, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change resulted in the Kyoto Protocol requiring participating countries, which does not include the U.S., to reduce GHGs commencing in 2008 and has been extended through 2020. The Obama Administration submitted in March 2015, a formal pledge for the U.S. to reduce its economy-wide GHG emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and in September 2016, joined in adopting the agreement reached on December 12, 2015, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings in Paris. The Paris Agreement was ratified by the requisite number of countries (i.e., at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of global GHG emissions) in October 2016 and its non-binding obligations to limit global warming to well below two degrees Celsius became effective on November 4, 2016. On June 1, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the Paris Agreement. FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO ₂ emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require material capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations.

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.

The EPA finalized CWA Section 316(b) regulations in May 2014, requiring cooling water intake structures with an intake velocity greater than 0.5 feet per second to reduce fish impingement when aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system to a 12% annual average and requiring cooling water intake structures exceeding 125 million gallons per day to conduct studies to determine site-specific controls, if any, to reduce entrainment, which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facility's cooling water system. Depending on any final action taken by the states with respect to impingement and entrainment, the future capital costs of compliance with these standards may be material.

On September 30, 2015, the EPA finalized new, more stringent effluent limits for the Steam Electric Power Generating category (40 CFR Part 423) for arsenic, mercury, selenium and nitrogen for wastewater from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water. The treatment obligations phase-in as permits are renewed on a five -year cycle from 2018 to 2023. On April 13, 2017, the EPA granted a Petition for Reconsideration and administratively stayed all deadlines in the effluent limits rule pending a new rulemaking. On September 18, 2017, the EPA replaced the administrative stay with a rulemaking which postponed only certain compliance deadlines for two years. Depending on the outcome of appeals and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, the future costs of compliance with these standards may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy's operations may result.

In October 2009, the WVDEP issued an NPDES water discharge permit for the Fort Martin plant, which imposes TDS, sulfate concentrations and other effluent limitations for heavy metals, as well as temperature limitations. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin NPDES permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order setting deadlines for MP to meet certain of the effluent limits that were effective immediately under the terms of the NPDES permit. MP appealed, and a stay of certain conditions of the NPDES permit and order have been granted pending a final decision on the appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The Fort Martin NPDES permit could require an initial capital investment ranging from $150 million to $300 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits, which technology may also meet certain of the other effluent limits. March 2018, the WVDEP issued a draft NPDES Permit Renewal that, if finalized as proposed, would moot the appeal and reduce the estimated capital investment requirements. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome of the appeal or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

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

Regulation of Waste Disposal

Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the RCRA, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Certain CCRs, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste disposal requirements pending the EPA's evaluation of the need for future regulation.

In April 2015, the EPA finalized regulations for the disposal of CCRs (non-hazardous), establishing national standards for landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to assure the safe disposal of CCRs from electric generating plants. On September 13, 2017, the EPA announced that it would reconsider certain provisions of the final regulations. On July 17, 2018,

the EPA Administrator signed a final rule extending the deadline for certain CCR facilities to cease disposal and commence closure activities, as well as, establishing less stringent groundwater monitoring and protection requirements. On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit remanded sections of the CCR Rule to the EPA to provide additional safeguards for unlined CCR impoundments that are more protective of human health and the environment. AE Supply assessed the changes in timing and closure plan requirements associated with the McElroy's Run impoundment site and increased the ARO by approximately $43 million in the third quarter of 2018.

Pursuant to a 2013 consent decree, PA DEP issued a 2014 permit for the Little Blue Run CCR impoundment requiring the Bruce Mansfield plant to cease disposal of CCRs by December 31, 2016, and FG to provide bonding for 45 years of closure and post-closure activities and to complete closure within a 12-year period, but authorizing FG to seek a permit modification based on "unexpected site conditions that have or will slow closure progress." The permit does not require active dewatering of the CCRs, but does require a groundwater assessment for arsenic and abatement if certain conditions in the permit are met. The CCRs from the Bruce Mansfield plant are being beneficially reused with the majority used for reclamation of a site owned by the Marshall County Coal Company in Moundsville, West Virginia, and the remainder recycled into drywall by National Gypsum. These beneficial reuse options are expected to be sufficient for ongoing plant operations, however, the Bruce Mansfield plant is pursuing other options. On May 22, 2015 and September 21, 2015, the PA DEP reissued a permit for the Hatfield's Ferry CCR disposal facility and then modified that permit to allow disposal of Bruce Mansfield plant CCR. The Sierra Club's Notices of Appeal before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board challenging the renewal, reissuance and modification of the permit for the Hatfield’s Ferry CCR disposal facility were resolved through a Consent Adjudication between FG, PA DEP and the Sierra Club requiring operational changes that became effective November 3, 2017. As noted above, FE provides credit support for FG surety bonds of $169 million and $31 million for the benefit of the PA DEP with respect to LBR and the Hatfield's Ferry disposal site, respectively.

FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries 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 Sheets as of December 31, 2018, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, FirstEnergy's proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $121 million have been accrued through December 31, 2018, including approximately $85 million for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC. FE or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the loss or range of losses cannot be determined or reasonably estimated at this time.

Fuel Supply

MP currently has coal contracts with various terms to acquire approximately 8.6 million tons of coal for the year 2019 , which is approximately 98% of its forecasted 2019 coal requirements. This contracted coal is produced primarily from mines located in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The contracts expire at various times through 2023 . See "Environmental Matters," for additional information pertaining to the impact of increased environmental regulations on coal supply and transportation contracts applicable to certain deactivated coal-fired generating units and related pending disputes.

System Demand

The maximum hourly demand for each of the Utilities was:

Supply Plan

Certain of the Utilities have default service obligations to provide power to non-shopping customers who have elected to continue to receive service under regulated retail tariffs. The volume of these sales can vary depending on the level of shopping that occurs. Supply plans vary by state and by service territory. JCP&L’s default service or BGS supply is secured through a statewide competitive procurement process approved by the NJBPU. Default service for the Ohio Companies, Pennsylvania Companies and PE's Maryland jurisdiction are provided through a competitive procurement process approved by the PUCO (under ESP IV), PPUC (under the DSP) and MDPSC (under the SOS), respectively. If any supplier fails to deliver power to any one of those Utilities’ service areas, the Utility serving that area may need to procure the required power in the market in their role as the default LSE. West Virginia electric generation continues to be regulated by the WVPSC.

Regional Reliability

All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the PJM Region and operate under the reliability oversight of a regional entity known as RFC. This regional entity operates under the oversight of NERC in accordance with a delegation agreement approved by FERC.

Competition

Within FirstEnergy’s Regulated Distribution segment, generally there is no competition for electric distribution service in the Utilities’ respective service territories in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York. Additionally, there has traditionally been no competition for transmission service in PJM. However, pursuant to FERC’s Order No. 1000 and subject to state and local siting and permitting approvals, non-incumbent developers now can compete for certain PJM transmission projects in the service territories of FirstEnergy’s Regulated Transmission segment. This could result in additional competition to build transmission facilities in the Regulated Transmission segment’s service territories while also allowing the Regulated Transmission segment the opportunity to seek to build facilities in non-incumbent service territories.

Seasonality

The sale of electric power is generally a seasonal business, and weather patterns can have a material impact on FirstEnergy’s operating results. Demand for electricity in our service territories historically peaks during the summer and winter months. Accordingly, FirstEnergy’s annual results of operations and liquidity position may depend disproportionately on its operating performance during the summer and winter. Mild weather conditions may result in lower power sales and consequently lower earnings.

Research and Development

The Utilities and the Transmission Companies participate in the funding of EPRI, which was formed for the purpose of expanding electric R&D under the voluntary participation of the nation’s electric utility industry — public, private and cooperative. Its goal is to mutually benefit utilities and their customers by promoting the development of new and improved technologies to help the utility industry meet present and future electric energy needs in environmentally and economically acceptable ways. EPRI conducts research on all aspects of electric power production and use, including fuels, generation, delivery, efficient management of energy use, environmental effects and energy analysis. The majority of EPRI’s R&D programs and projects are directed toward business solutions and their applications to problems facing the electric utility industry.

FirstEnergy participates in other initiatives with industry R&D consortiums and universities to address technology needs for its various business units. Participation in these consortiums helps the company address research needs in areas such as advanced energy and grid applications, reliability improvement for the transmission and distribution system infrastructure, environmental controls, and plant operations and maintenance.