XML 34 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Regulatory Matters | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2016
Regulated Operations [Abstract] |
REGULATORY MATTERS | REGULATORY MATTERS STATE REGULATION Each of the Utilities' retail rates, conditions of service, issuance of securities and other matters are subject to regulation in the states in which it operates - in Maryland by the MDPSC, in Ohio by the PUCO, in New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC. The transmission operations of PE in Virginia are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC. In addition, under Ohio law, municipalities may regulate rates of a public utility, subject to appeal to the PUCO if not acceptable to the utility. As competitive retail electric suppliers serving retail customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and Maryland, FES and AE Supply are subject to state laws applicable to competitive electric suppliers in those states, including affiliate codes of conduct that apply to FES, AE Supply and their public utility affiliates. In addition, if any of the FirstEnergy affiliates were to engage in the construction of significant new transmission or generation facilities, depending on the state, they may be required to obtain state regulatory authorization to site, construct and operate the new transmission or generation facility. MARYLAND PE provides SOS pursuant to a combination of settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and regulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is competitively procured in the form of rolling contracts of varying lengths through periodic auctions that are overseen by the MDPSC and a third party monitor. Although settlements with respect to 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 Maryland legislature adopted a statute in 2008 codifying the EmPOWER Maryland goals to reduce electric consumption and demand and requiring each electric utility to file a plan every three years. PE's current plan, covering the three-year period 2015-2017, was approved by the MDPSC on December 23, 2014. The costs of the 2015-2017 plan are expected to be approximately $68 million for that three-year period, of which $32 million was incurred through June 2016. On July 16, 2015, the MDPSC issued an order setting new incremental energy savings goals for 2017 and beyond, beginning with the level of savings achieved under PE's current plan for 2016, and ramping up 0.2% per year thereafter to reach 2%. PE continues to recover 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. On February 27, 2013, the MDPSC issued an order (the February 27 Order) requiring the 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. The order further required the Staff of the MDPSC to report on possible performance-based rate structures and to propose additional rules relating to feeder performance standards, outage communication and reporting, and sharing of special needs customer information. PE's responsive filings discussed the steps needed to harden the utility's system in order to attempt to achieve various levels of storm response speed described in the February 27 Order, and projected that it would require 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 the February 27 Order. On July 1, 2014, the Staff of the MDPSC issued a set of reports that recommended the imposition of extensive additional requirements in the areas of storm response, feeder performance, estimates of restoration times, and regulatory reporting. The Staff of the MDPSC also recommended the imposition of penalties, including customer rebates, for a utility's failure or inability to comply with the escalating standards of storm restoration speed proposed by the Staff of the MDPSC. In addition, the Staff of the MDPSC proposed that the utilities be required to develop and implement system hardening plans, up to a rate impact cap on cost. The MDPSC conducted a hearing September 15-18, 2014, to consider certain of these matters, and has not yet issued a ruling on any of those matters. NEW JERSEY JCP&L currently provides BGS for retail customers who do not choose a third party EGS and for customers of third party EGSs that fail to provide the contracted service. The supply for BGS is comprised of two components, procured through separate, annually held descending clock auctions, the results of which are approved by the NJBPU. One BGS component reflects hourly real time energy prices and is available for larger commercial and industrial customers. The second BGS component provides a fixed price service and is intended for smaller commercial and residential customers. All New Jersey EDCs participate in this competitive BGS procurement process and recover BGS costs directly from customers as a charge separate from base rates. Pursuant to the NJBPU's March 26, 2015 final order in JCP&L's 2012 rate case proceeding directing that certain studies be completed, on July 22, 2015, the NJBPU approved the NJBPU staff's recommendation to implement such studies, which include operational and financial components. The independent consultant conducting the review issued a final report on July 27, 2016, recognizing that JCP&L is meeting the NJBPU requirements and making various operational and financial recommendations. The NJBPU is expected to complete its review in the third quarter of 2016. In an Order issued October 22, 2014, in a generic proceeding to review its policies with respect to the use of a CTA in base rate cases (Generic CTA proceeding), the NJBPU stated that it would continue to apply its current CTA policy in base rate cases, subject to incorporating the following modifications: (i) calculating savings using a five-year look back from the beginning of the test year; (ii) allocating savings with 75% retained by the company and 25% allocated to rate payers; and (iii) excluding transmission assets of electric distribution companies in the savings calculation. On November 5, 2014, the Division of Rate Counsel appealed the NJBPU Order regarding the Generic CTA proceeding to the New Jersey Superior Court and JCP&L has filed to participate as a respondent in that proceeding. Briefing has been completed, and oral argument has not yet been scheduled. On April 28, 2016, JCP&L filed tariffs with the NJBPU proposing a general rate increase associated with its distribution operations that seeks to improve service and benefit customers by supporting equipment maintenance, tree trimming, and inspections of lines, poles and substations, while also compensating for other business and operating expenses. The filing requested approval to increase annual operating revenues by approximately $142.1 million based upon a hybrid test year for the twelve months ending June 30, 2016. JCP&L requested that the proposed new rates take effect in January 2017. On July 13, 2016, this matter was submitted to the Office of Administrative Law for hearing and the issuance of an Initial Decision. A procedural schedule has not yet been issued. On June 19, 2015, JCP&L, along with PN, ME, FET and MAIT made filings with FERC, the NJBPU, and the PPUC requesting authorization for JCP&L, PN and ME to contribute their transmission assets to MAIT, a new transmission-only subsidiary of FET. The procedural schedule was suspended while the NJBPU considered a motion on a legal issue regarding whether MAIT can be designated as a "public utility" in New Jersey. On February 24, 2016, the NJBPU issued an Order concluding that MAIT does not satisfy the “electricity distribution” element necessary for “public utility” status because MAIT would not own any electric distribution assets in New Jersey. On April 22, 2016, JCP&L and MAIT filed a supplemental petition and testimony seeking to include certain JCP&L distributions assets in the transfer to satisfy the "electricity distribution" element necessary for "public utility" status in accordance with the NJBPU’s February 24, 2016 order. On July 18, 2016, the procedural schedule was set with evidentiary hearings in late October and early November of 2016. See Transfer of Transmission Assets to MAIT in FERC Matters below for further discussion of this transaction. OHIO The Ohio Companies operated under their ESP 3 plan which expired on May 31, 2016. On May 18, 2016, in response to previous appeals, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its Opinion affirming in all respects the PUCO's ESP 3 Order. The Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO on August 4, 2014 seeking approval of their ESP IV entitled Powering Ohio's Progress. The Ohio Companies filed a Stipulation and Recommendation on December 22, 2014, and supplemental stipulations and recommendations on May 28, 2015, and June 4, 2015. On December 1, 2015, the Ohio Companies filed a Third Supplemental Stipulation and Recommendation, which included PUCO Staff as a signatory party in addition to other signatories. The material terms of ESP IV, as modified by the stipulations included:
• | An eight-year term (June 1, 2016 - May 31, 2024);
• | Contemplates continuing a base distribution rate freeze through May 31, 2024;
• | An Economic Stability Program that flows through charges or credits through Rider RRS representing the net result of the price paid to FES through an eight-year FERC-jurisdictional PPA, referred to as the ESP IV PPA, for the output of the ESP IV PPA Facilities against the revenues received from selling such output into the PJM markets;
• | Continuing to provide power to non-shopping customers at a market-based price set through an auction process;
• | Continuing Rider DCR with increased revenue caps of approximately $30 million per year from June 1, 2016 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 that supports continued investment related to the distribution system for the benefit of customers;
• | Collection of lost distribution revenues associated with energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs;
• | A risk-sharing mechanism that would provide guaranteed credits under Rider RRS in years five through eight to customers as follows: $10 million in year five, $20 million in year six, $30 million in year seven and $40 million in year eight;
• | A continuing commitment not to recover from retail customers certain costs related to transmission cost allocations for the longer of the five-year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2016 or when the amount of such costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million, including such costs from MISO along with such costs from PJM, subject to the outcome of certain FERC proceedings;
• | Potential procurement of 100 MW of new Ohio wind or solar resources subject to a demonstrated need to procure new renewable energy resources as part of a strategy to further diversify Ohio's energy portfolio;
• | An agreement to file a case with the PUCO by April 3, 2017, seeking to transition to decoupled base rates for residential customers;
• | An agreement to file by February 29, 2016, a Grid Modernization Business Plan for PUCO consideration and approval (which filing was made on February 29, 2016);
• | A goal across FirstEnergy to reduce CO 2 emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045;
• | A contribution of $3 million per year ($24 million over the eight-year term) to fund energy conservation programs, economic development and job retention in the Ohio Companies service territory;
• | Contributions of $2.4 million per year ($19 million over the eight-year term) to fund a fuel-fund in each of the Ohio Companies service territories to assist low-income customers; and
• | A contribution of $1 million per year ($8 million over the eight-year term) to establish a Customary Advisory Council to ensure preservation and growth of the competitive market in Ohio.
On March 31, 2016, the PUCO issued an Opinion and Order adopting and approving, with modifications, the Ohio Companies’ ESP IV. Certain changes arising from the approval of ESP IV went into effect on June 1, 2016. The PUCO’s modifications of ESP IV, among others, included:
• | Limiting average customer bill amounts for the first two years of the plan, subject to certain exceptions, and permitting deferral for the second year;
• | Prohibiting recovery of retirement costs of the ESP IV PPA Facilities through Rider RRS;
• | Assigning the burden of capacity performance penalties incurred by the ESP IV PPA Facilities to the Ohio Companies, rather than customers, and to provide that all capacity performance bonuses earned by the ESP IV PPA Facilities be retained by the Ohio Companies, rather than customers; and
• | Providing for the modification of the severability provision previously included in ESP IV, to also address potential future PJM Tariff or rule changes prohibiting the Ohio Companies from offering output of the ESP IV PPA Facilities into PJM auctions.
FES and the Ohio Companies entered into the ESP IV PPA on April 1, 2016. On January 27, 2016, certain parties filed a complaint with FERC against FES and the Ohio Companies requesting FERC review the ESP IV PPA under Section 205 of the FPA. On April 27, 2016, FERC issued an order granting the complaint, prohibiting any transactions under the ESP IV PPA pending future authorization by FERC, and directing FES to submit the ESP IV PPA for FERC review if the companies desired to transact under the agreement. Pursuant to FERC's directives in the order, FES and the Ohio Companies submitted required compliance filings. FES and the Ohio Companies did not file the ESP IV PPA for FERC review, but rather agreed to suspend the ESP IV PPA prior to transacting thereunder, pending the outcome of the PUCO and FERC proceedings. On April 29, 2016 and May 2, 2016, applications for rehearing on the Ohio Companies ESP IV were filed with the PUCO by several parties, including the Ohio Companies. As part of the Ohio Companies’ application for rehearing, the Ohio Companies proposed a modified Rider RRS. The PUCO issued an Entry on Rehearing on May 11, 2016 granting the applications for rehearing for the purpose of further consideration of the matters raised therein. On June 29, 2016, PUCO Staff filed testimony recommending that the Ohio Companies’ modified Rider RRS proposal be denied, and instead recommended a new Distribution Modernization Rider providing for the collection of $131 million annually for three years with a possible extension for an additional two years. The hearing began on July 11, 2016 for the modified Rider RRS proposal. On July 25, 2016, the Ohio Companies filed testimony that continues to recommend that the PUCO approve the proposed modified Rider RRS and that the revenues and expenses of the proposed modified Rider RRS be excluded from the significantly excessive earnings test. The Ohio Companies' filing also provided testimony that a properly designed Distribution Modernization Rider would be valued at $558 million annually for 8 years, include an additional amount, as determined by the PUCO, that recognizes the value of the economic impact of FirstEnergy maintaining its headquarters in Ohio, and would also be excluded from the significantly excessive earnings test. Several parties filed protests and comments with FERC alleging, among other things, that the modified Rider RRS constitutes a "virtual PPA". The filings and responses thereto are pending before FERC. On March 21, 2016, a number of generation owners filed with FERC a complaint against PJM requesting that FERC expand the MOPR in the PJM Tariff to prevent the alleged artificial suppression of prices in the PJM capacity markets by state-subsidized generation, in particular alleged price suppression that could result from the ESP IV PPA and other similar agreements. The complaint requested an order by May 1, 2016, so the revised rule could be in effect for the May 2016 BRA, and also that FERC direct PJM to initiate a stakeholder process to develop a long-term MOPR reform for existing resources that receive out-of-market revenue. FERC took no action on the complaint prior to the BRA, and therefore the proposed MOPR was not in effect for the auction. Subsequently, certain municipal and industrial customers and a regulated utility, not affiliated with the Ohio Companies, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as moot in light of FERC’s April 27, 2016 orders on, among other things, the ESP IV PPA and the resulting suspension of the ESP IV PPA. This proceeding remains pending before FERC. Under Ohio's energy efficiency standards (SB221 and SB310), and based on the Ohio Companies' amended energy efficiency plans, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of 2,266 GWHs in 2015 and 2,288 GWHs in 2016, and then begin to increase by 1% each year in 2017, subject to legislative amendments to the energy efficiency standards discussed below. The Ohio Companies are also required to retain the 2014 peak demand reduction level for 2015 and 2016 and then increase the benchmark by an additional 0.75% thereafter through 2020, subject to legislative amendments to the peak demand reduction standards discussed below. On September 30, 2015, the Energy Mandates Study Committee issued its report related to energy efficiency and renewable energy mandates, recommending that the current level of mandates remain in place indefinitely. The report also recommended: (i) an expedited process for review of utility proposed energy efficiency plans; (ii) ensuring maximum credit for all of Ohio's Energy Initiatives; (iii) a switch from energy mandates to energy incentives; and (iv) a declaration be made that the General Assembly may determine the energy policy of the state. Legislation was introduced to address issues raised in the Energy Mandates Study Committee report, namely SB320 and HB554. SB320 proposes to freeze energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements for an additional four years at 2014 levels, as well as addressing net metering issues. HB554 proposes to freeze energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements through 2027 at 2014 levels. On September 24, 2014, the Ohio Companies filed an amendment to their energy efficiency portfolio plan as contemplated by SB310, seeking to suspend certain programs for the 2015-2016 period in order to better align the plan with the new benchmarks under SB310. On November 20, 2014, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies' amended portfolio plan. Several applications for rehearing were filed, and the PUCO granted those applications for further consideration of the matters specified in those applications and the matter remains pending before the PUCO. On April 15, 2016, the Ohio Companies filed an application for approval of their three-year energy efficiency portfolio plans for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. The plans as proposed comply with benchmarks contemplated by SB310 and provisions of the ESP IV, and include 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. The Ohio Companies anticipate the cost of the plans will be approximately $323 million over the life of the portfolio plans and such costs are expected to be recovered through the Ohio Companies’ existing rate mechanisms. A hearing in this matter has been scheduled for October 11, 2016. On September 16, 2013, the Ohio Companies filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio a notice of appeal of the PUCO's July 17, 2013 Entry on Rehearing related to energy efficiency, alternative energy, and long-term forecast rules stating that the rules issued by the PUCO are inconsistent with, and are not supported by, statutory authority. On October 23, 2013, the PUCO filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which was denied. The matter has been scheduled for oral argument on August 17, 2016. 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 amount through 2026, subject to legislative amendments discussed above, except 2015 and 2016 that remain at the 2014 level. 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. The PUCO issued an Opinion and Order on August 7, 2013, approving the Ohio Companies' acquisition process and their purchases of RECs to meet statutory mandates in all instances 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. On December 24, 2013, following the denial of their application for rehearing, the Ohio Companies filed a notice of appeal and a motion for stay of the PUCO's order with the Supreme Court of Ohio, which was granted. On February 18, 2014, the OCC and the ELPC also filed appeals of the PUCO's order. The Ohio Companies timely filed their merit brief with the Supreme Court of Ohio and the briefing process has concluded. The matter is not yet scheduled for oral argument. On April 9, 2014, the PUCO initiated a generic investigation of marketing practices in the competitive retail electric service market, with a focus on the marketing of fixed-price or guaranteed percent-off SSO rate contracts where there is a provision that permits the pass-through of new or additional charges. On November 18, 2015, the PUCO ruled that on a going-forward basis, pass-through clauses may not be included in fixed-price contracts for all customer classes. On December 18, 2015, FES filed an Application for Rehearing seeking to change the ruling or have it only apply to residential and small commercial customers. PENNSYLVANIA The Pennsylvania Companies currently operate under DSPs that expire on May 31, 2017, and provide for the competitive procurement of generation supply for customers that do not choose an alternative EGS or for customers of alternative EGSs that fail to provide the contracted service. The default service supply is currently provided by wholesale suppliers through a mix of long-term and short-term contracts procured through spot market purchases, quarterly descending clock auctions for 3, 12- and 24-month energy contracts, and one RFP seeking 2-year contracts to serve SRECs for ME, PN and Penn. On November 3, 2015, the Pennsylvania Companies filed their DSPs for the June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2019 delivery period, which would 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 programs, the supply would 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. In addition, the plan includes modifications to the Pennsylvania Companies’ existing POR programs in order to reduce the level of uncollectible expense the Pennsylvania Companies experience associated with alternative EGS charges. A hearing was held on February 25, 2016. A Joint Petition for Settlement resolving all issues was filed on April 1, 2016 and was approved by the PPUC on May 19, 2016. Pursuant to Pennsylvania's EE&C legislation (Act 129 of 2008) and PPUC orders, Pennsylvania EDCs implement energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. The Pennsylvania Companies' Phase II EE&C Plans were effective through May 31, 2016. Total Phase II costs of these plans were expected to be approximately $175 million and recoverable through the Pennsylvania Companies' reconcilable EE&C riders. On June 19, 2015, the PPUC issued a Phase III Final Implementation Order setting: demand reduction targets, relative to each Pennsylvania Companies' 2007-2008 peak demand (in MW), at 1.8% for ME, 1.7% for Penn, 1.8% for WP, and 0% for PN; and energy consumption reduction targets, as a percentage of each Pennsylvania Companies’ historic 2010 forecasts (in MWH), at 4.0% for ME, 3.9% for PN, 3.3% for Penn, and 2.6% for WP. The Pennsylvania Companies filed their Phase III EE&C plans for the June 2016 through May 2021 period on November 23, 2015, which are designed to achieve the targets established in the PPUC's Phase III Final Implementation Order. EDCs are permitted to recover costs for implementing their EE&C plans. On February 10, 2016, the Pennsylvania Companies and the parties intervening in the PPUC's Phase III proceeding filed a joint settlement resolving all issues, which was subject to PPUC approval. On March 10, 2016, the PPUC entered an Opinion and Order approving the settlement and directing that the Pennsylvania Companies modify certain cost recovery methodologies to describe the allocation of EE&C Phase III common costs among customer classes and to describe the recovery of remaining costs of their Phase II EE&C Plans. None of the parties to the joint settlement elected to withdraw from the joint settlement due to the modifications. On May 24, 2016, the PPUC issued a Secretarial Letter permitting the as filed EE&C rates for the Pennsylvania Companies to become effective on June 1, 2016. Pursuant to Act 11 of 2012, Pennsylvania EDCs may establish a DSIC to recover costs of infrastructure improvements and costs related to highway relocation projects with PPUC approval. Pennsylvania EDCs must file LTIIPs outlining infrastructure improvement plans for PPUC review and approval prior to approval of a DSIC. On October 19, 2015, each of the Pennsylvania Companies filed LTIIPs with the PPUC for infrastructure improvement over the five-year period of 2016 to 2020 for the following costs: WP $88.34 million; PN $56.74 million; Penn $56.35 million; and ME $43.44 million. On February 11, 2016, the PPUC approved the Pennsylvania Companies' LTIIPs. On February 16, 2016, the Pennsylvania Companies filed DSIC riders for PPUC approval for quarterly cost recovery associated with the capital projects approved in the LTIIPs. On June 9, 2016, the PPUC approved the Pennsylvania Companies’ DSIC riders to be effective July 1, 2016, subject to hearings and refund or reallocation among customers. On April 28, 2016, each of the Pennsylvania Companies filed tariffs with the PPUC proposing general rate increases associated with their distribution operations that will benefit customers by modernizing the grid with smart technologies, increasing vegetation management activities, and continuing other customer service enhancements. The filings request approval to increase annual operating revenues by approximately $140.2 million at ME, $158.8 million at PN, $42.0 million at Penn, and $98.2 million at WP, based upon fully projected future test years for the twelve months ending December 31, 2017 at each of the Pennsylvania Companies. As a result of the enactment of Act 40 of 2016 that terminated the practice of making a CTA when calculating a utility’s federal income taxes for ratemaking purposes, the Pennsylvania Companies submitted supplemental testimony on July 7, 2016, that quantified the value of the elimination of the CTA and outlined their plan for investing 50 percent of that amount in rate base eligible equipment as required by the new law. A procedural schedule has been set with hearings commencing on September 6, 2016. The proposed new rates are expected to take effect in January 2017, pending regulatory approval. On June 19, 2015, ME and PN, along with JCP&L, FET and MAIT made filings with FERC, the NJBPU, and the PPUC requesting authorization for JCP&L, PN and ME to contribute their transmission assets to MAIT, a new transmission-only subsidiary of FET. On March 4, 2016, a Joint Petition for Full Settlement was submitted to the PPUC for consideration and approval. On April 18, 2016, the ALJs issued an Initial Decision approving the Joint Petition for Full Settlement without modifications. On July 21, 2016, the PPUC adopted a Motion approving the Joint Petition for Full Settlement with minor modifications. A final order consistent with the Motion is expected in the near future. See Transfer of Transmission Assets to MAIT in FERC Matters below for further discussion of this transaction. WEST VIRGINIA MP and PE provide electric service to all customers through traditional cost-based, regulated utility ratemaking. 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. MP and PE filed with the WVPSC on March 31, 2016 their Phase II energy efficiency program proposal for approval. MP and PE are proposing three energy efficiency programs to meet their Phase II requirement of energy efficiency reductions of 0.5% of 2013 distribution sales for the January 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 period, as agreed to by MP and PE, and approved by the WVPSC in the 2012 proceeding approving the transfer of ownership of Harrison Power Station to MP. The costs for the program are expected to be $9.9 million and would be recovered through the existing energy efficiency rider which is reviewed in the fuel (ENEC) case each year. A hearing is scheduled to commence on August 18, 2016. MP and PE are requesting WVPSC approval by October 1, 2016 so MP and PE can implement the programs beginning January 1, 2017. RELIABILITY MATTERS Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, AE Supply, FG, FENOC, NG, ATSI and TrAIL. NERC is the ERO designated by FERC to establish and enforce these reliability standards, although NERC has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight regional entities, including RFC. All of FirstEnergy's facilities are located within the RFC region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and RFC stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by RFC. FirstEnergy believes that it is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such 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. FERC MATTERS Ohio ESP IV PPA For information regarding matters before FERC related to the ESP IV PPA between FES and the Ohio Companies, see “Regulatory Matters - Ohio” above. PJM Transmission Rates PJM and its stakeholders have been debating the proper method to allocate costs for new transmission facilities. While FirstEnergy and other parties advocate for a traditional "beneficiary pays" (or usage based) approach, others advocate 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. This question has been the subject of extensive litigation before FERC and the appellate courts, including before the Seventh Circuit. On June 25, 2014, a divided three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled that FERC had not quantified the benefits that western PJM utilities would derive from certain new 500 kV or higher lines and thus had not adequately supported its decision to socialize the costs of these lines. The majority found that eastern PJM utilities are the primary beneficiaries of the lines, while western PJM utilities are only incidental beneficiaries, and that, while incidental beneficiaries should pay some share of the costs of the lines, that share should be proportionate to the benefit they derive from the lines, and not on load-ratio share in PJM as a whole. The court remanded the case to FERC, which issued an order setting the issue of cost allocation for hearing and settlement proceedings. On June 15, 2016 various parties, including ATSI and the Utilities, filed a settlement agreement at FERC 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. Certain parties in the proceeding did not agree to the settlement and filed protests to the settlement, to which the settling parties, including ATSI and the Utilities, responded on July 15, 2016. On July 15, 2016, and July 25, 2016, the protesting parties filed to strike certain of the evidence advanced by FirstEnergy and certain of the other settling parties in support of the settlement, as well as provided further comments in opposition to the settlement. The PJM TOs intend to submit responses to the motions to strike, and to the further comments of the protesting parties. In a series of orders in certain Order No. 1000 dockets, FERC asserted that the PJM transmission owners do not hold an incumbent “right of first refusal” to construct, own and operate transmission projects within their respective footprints that are approved as part of PJM’s RTEP process. FirstEnergy and other PJM transmission owners appealed these rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which, in a July 1, 2016 opinion, ruled that the PJM transmission owners failed to preserve their arguments in the legal proceedings before FERC and, on that basis, denied the appeal. In a related case brought by the Southwest Power Pool transmission owners and issued on the same day, the court ruled that the Mobile-Sierra standard does not protect transmission owners’ rights of first refusal that may be provided for in RTO tariffs because, according to the court, the tariff language is designed to block competition. The Mobile-Sierra standard presumes that rates negotiated by private parties at arm’s length are just and reasonable and prohibits FERC from modifying such rates unless the public interest requires. The outcome of these proceedings and their impact, if any, on FirstEnergy cannot be predicted at this time. 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. On March 17, 2016, FERC denied FirstEnergy's request for rehearing of FERC's earlier order rejecting the settlement agreement and affirmed its prior ruling that ATSI must submit the cost/benefit analysis. Separately, the question of ATSI's responsibility for certain costs for the “Michigan Thumb” transmission project continues to be disputed. Potential responsibility arises under the MISO MVP tariff, which has been litigated in complex proceedings before FERC and certain United States appellate courts. On October 29, 2015, FERC issued an order finding that ATSI and the ATSI zone do not have to pay MISO MVP charges for the Michigan Thumb transmission project. MISO and the MISO TOs filed a request for rehearing, which FERC denied on May 19, 2016. On July 15, 2016, the MISO TOs filed an appeal of FERC's orders with the Sixth Circuit. FirstEnergy expects to intervene and participate in the appeal. On a related issue, FirstEnergy joined certain other PJM transmission owners in a protest of MISO's proposal to allocate MVP costs to energy transactions that cross MISO's borders into the PJM Region. On July 13, 2016, FERC issued its order finding it appropriate for MISO to assess an MVP usage charge for transmission exports from MISO to PJM. FirstEnergy and the other PJM TOs are evaluating whether to seek rehearing of FERC’s order. In addition, in a May 31, 2011 order, FERC ruled that the costs for certain "legacy RTEP" transmission projects in PJM approved before ATSI joined PJM could be charged to transmission customers in the ATSI zone. The amount to be paid, and the question of derived benefits, is pending before FERC as a result of the Seventh Circuit's June 25, 2014 order described above under PJM Transmission Rates. The outcome of the proceedings that address the remaining open issues related to costs for the "Michigan Thumb" transmission project and "legacy RTEP" transmission projects cannot be predicted at this time. Transfer of Transmission Assets to MAIT On June 10, 2015, MAIT, a Delaware limited liability company, was formed as a new transmission-only subsidiary of FET for the purposes of owning and operating all FERC-jurisdictional transmission assets of JCP&L, ME and PN following the receipt of all necessary state and federal regulatory approvals. On June 19, 2015, JCP&L, PN, ME, FET, and MAIT made filings with FERC, the NJBPU, and the PPUC requesting authorization for JCP&L, PN and ME to contribute their transmission assets to MAIT. Additionally, the filings requested approval from the NJBPU and PPUC, as applicable, of: (i) a lease to MAIT of real property and rights-of-way associated with the utilities' transmission assets; (ii) a Mutual Assistance Agreement; (iii) MAIT being deemed a public utility under state law; (iv) MAIT's participation in FE's regulated companies' money pool; and (v) certain affiliated interest agreements. If approved, JCP&L, ME, and PN will contribute their transmission assets at net book value and an allocated portion of goodwill in a tax-free exchange to MAIT, which will operate similar to FET's two existing stand-alone transmission subsidiaries, ATSI and TrAIL. MAIT's transmission facilities will remain under the functional control of PJM, and PJM will provide transmission service using these facilities under the PJM Tariff. FERC approved the transaction on February 18, 2016. The PPUC approved the transaction on July 21, 2016, subject to the entry of a final order. Upon receipt of all applicable regulatory approvals with respect to the transfer, MAIT expects to file a Section 204 application with FERC, and other necessary filings with the PPUC and the NJBPU, seeking authorization to issue equity to FET, JCP&L, PN and ME for their respective contributions, and to issue debt. MAIT will also make a Section 205 formula rate application with FERC to establish its transmission rate. See New Jersey and Pennsylvania in State Regulation above for further discussion of this transaction. California Claims Litigation In October 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California Energy Resource Scheduling division of the CDWR during 2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190 million for these alleged overcharges. This proposal was made in the context of mediation efforts by FERC and the Ninth Circuit in several pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit had previously remanded one of those proceedings to FERC, which dismissed the claims of the California parties in May 2011. The California parties appealed FERC's decision back to the Ninth Circuit. AE Supply joined with other intervenors in the case and filed a brief in support of FERC's dismissal of the case. On April 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings. On November 3, 2015, FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the remanded issue of whether any individual public utility seller’s violation of FERC’s market-based rate quarterly reporting requirement led to an unjust and unreasonable rate for that particular seller in California during the 2000-2001 period. Settlement discussions under a FERC-appointed settlement judge are ongoing. On March 1, 2016, FERC issued an order on rehearing clarifying the scope of the evidentiary hearing and the standard of review on remand. In particular, FERC clarified that certain bilateral transactions, including those of AE Supply to the California parties, are protected by the Mobile-Sierra standard, which requires a demonstration of harm to the public interest to determine liability and obligation to make refunds. The California parties requested rehearing of FERC’s March 1, 2016 order; FERC's order on rehearing remains pending. The California Parties also appealed FERC’s November 3, 2015, and March 1, 2016 orders to the Ninth Circuit, which has stayed its review pending the outcome of the ongoing proceeding discussed above. In another proceeding, in May 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a complaint with FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply, again seeking refunds for transactions in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted transactions with CDWR are the basis for including AE Supply in this complaint. AE Supply and other parties filed motions to dismiss, which FERC granted. The California Attorney General appealed FERC's dismissal of its complaint to the Ninth Circuit, which has consolidated the case with other pending appeals related to California refund claims, and stayed the proceedings pending further order. The outcome of either of the above matters or estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be predicted at this time. PATH Transmission Project On August 24, 2012, the PJM Board of Managers canceled the PATH project, a proposed transmission line from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland which PJM had previously suspended in February 2011. As a result of PJM canceling the project, approximately $62 million and approximately $59 million in costs incurred by PATH-Allegheny and PATH-WV, respectively, were reclassified from net property, plant and equipment to a regulatory asset for future recovery. PATH-Allegheny and PATH-WV requested authorization from FERC to recover the costs with a proposed ROE of 10.9% (10.4% base plus 0.5% for RTO membership) from PJM customers over five years. FERC issued an order denying the 0.5% ROE adder for RTO membership and allowing the tariff changes enabling recovery of these costs to become effective on December 1, 2012, subject to settlement proceedings and hearing if the parties could not agree to a settlement. On March 24, 2014, the FERC Chief ALJ terminated settlement proceedings and appointed an ALJ to preside over the hearing phase of the case, including discovery and additional pleadings leading up to hearing, which subsequently included the parties addressing the application of FERC's Opinion No. 531, discussed below, to the PATH proceeding. On September 14, 2015, the ALJ issued his initial decision, disallowing recovery of certain costs. The initial decision and exceptions thereto remain before FERC for review and a final order. FirstEnergy continues to believe the costs are recoverable, subject to final ruling from FERC. FERC Opinion No. 531 On June 19, 2014, FERC issued Opinion No. 531, in which FERC revised its approach for calculating the discounted cash flow element of FERC’s ROE methodology, and announced the potential for a qualitative adjustment to the ROE methodology results. Under the old methodology, FERC used a five-year forecast for the dividend growth variable, whereas going forward the growth variable will consist of two parts: (a) a five-year forecast for dividend growth (2/3 weight); and (b) a long-term dividend growth forecast based on a forecast for the U.S. economy (1/3 weight). Regarding the qualitative adjustment, for single-utility rate cases FERC formerly pegged ROE at the median of the “zone of reasonableness” that came out of the ROE formula, whereas going forward, FERC may rely on record evidence to make qualitative adjustments to the outcome of the ROE methodology in order to reach a level sufficient to attract future investment. On October 16, 2014, FERC issued its Opinion No. 531-A, applying the revised ROE methodology to certain ISO New England transmission owners, and on March 3, 2015, FERC issued Opinion No. 531-B affirming its prior rulings. Appeals of Opinion Nos. 531, 531-A and 531-B are pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. MISO Capacity Portability On June 11, 2012, in response to certain arguments advanced by MISO, FERC requested comments regarding whether existing rules on transfer capability act as barriers to the delivery of capacity between MISO and PJM. FirstEnergy and other parties submitted filings arguing that MISO's concerns largely are without foundation, FERC did not mandate a solution in response to MISO's concerns. At FERC's direction, in May, 2015, PJM, MISO, and their respective independent market monitors provided additional information on their various joint issues surrounding the PJM/MISO seam to assist FERC's understanding of the issues and what, if any, additional steps FERC should take to improve the efficiency of operations at the PJM/MISO seam. Stakeholders, including FESC on behalf of certain of its affiliates and as part of a coalition of certain other PJM utilities, filed responses to the RTO submissions. The various submissions and responses remain before FERC for consideration. Changes to the criteria and qualifications for participation in the PJM RPM capacity auctions could have a significant impact on the outcome of those auctions, including a negative impact on the prices at which those auctions would clear.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for public utilities. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RegulatedOperationsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration