XML 34 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Regulatory Matters | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
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. On July 16, 2015, the MDPSC issued an order setting new incremental energy savings goals for 2017 and beyond, beginning with the goal of 0.97% savings achieved under PE's current plan for 2016, and increasing 0.2% per year thereafter to reach 2%. The Maryland legislature in April 2017 adopted a statute requiring the same 0.2% per year increase, up to the ultimate goal of 2% annual savings, for the duration of the 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 EmPOWER program cycles, to the extent the MDPSC determines that cost-effective programs and services are available. The costs of the 2015-2017 plan are expected to be approximately $70 million, of which $52 million was incurred through June 30, 2017. 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 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. 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 2013 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 2013 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, as well as 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 Maryland 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. On September 26, 2016, the MDPSC initiated a new 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. Initial comments in the proceeding were filed on October 28, 2016, and the MDPSC held an initial hearing on the matter on December 8-9, 2016. On January 31, 2017, the MDPSC issued a notice establishing five working groups to address these issues over the following eighteen months, and also directed the retention of an outside consultant to prepare a report on costs and benefits of distributed solar generation in Maryland. 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. JCP&L currently operates under rates that were approved by the NJBPU on December 12, 2016, effective as of January 1, 2017. These rates provide an annual increase in operating revenues of approximately $80 million from those previously in place and are intended 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. 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. 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 included 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 issued an Order on August 24, 2016, that accepted the independent consultant’s final report and directed JCP&L, the Division of Rate Counsel and other interested parties to address the recommendations. 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, 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 this generic CTA proceeding to the New Jersey Superior Court and JCP&L filed to participate as a respondent in that proceeding supporting the order. Briefing was completed, and the oral argument was held on October 25, 2016. OHIO The Ohio Companies currently operate under ESP IV which commenced June 1, 2016 and expires May 31, 2024. The material terms of ESP IV, as approved in the PUCO’s Opinion and Order issued on March 31, 2016 and Fifth Entry on Rehearing on October 12, 2016, include 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. The Rider DMR will be grossed up for federal income taxes, resulting in an approved amount of approximately $204 million annually. Revenues from the 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. 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 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. Other material terms of ESP IV include: (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 filing was made on February 29, 2016 and remains pending); (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 was made on April 3, 2017 and remains pending). Several parties, including the Ohio Companies, filed applications for rehearing regarding the Ohio Companies’ ESP IV with the PUCO. The Ohio Companies’ application for rehearing challenged, among other things, the PUCO’s failure to adopt the Ohio Companies’ suggested modifications to Rider DMR. The Ohio Companies had previously suggested that a properly designed Rider DMR would be valued at $558 million annually for eight years, and include an additional amount that recognizes the value of the economic impact of FirstEnergy maintaining its headquarters in Ohio. Other parties’ applications for rehearing argued, among other things, that the PUCO’s adoption of Rider DMR is not supported by law or sufficient evidence. On December 7, 2016, the PUCO granted the applications for rehearing for further consideration of the matters specified in the applications for rehearing. The matter remains pending before the PUCO. For additional information, see “FERC Matters - Ohio ESP IV PPA” below. Under ORC 4928.66, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency programs that achieve certain annual energy savings and total peak demand reductions. Starting in 2017, ORC 4928.66 requires the energy savings benchmark to increase by 1% and the peak demand reduction benchmark to increase by 0.75% annually thereafter through 2020 and the energy savings benchmark to increase by 2% annually from 2021 through 2027, with a cumulative benchmark of 22.2% by 2027. 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 ORC 4928.66 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. On December 9, 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. The hearings were held in January 2017. 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, except that in 2014 SB 310 froze 2015 and 2016 at the 2014 level (2.5%), pushing back scheduled increases, which resumed in 2017 (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. 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. Oral argument on this matter was held on June 21, 2017. 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. On January 13, 2016, the PUCO granted reconsideration for further consideration of the matters specified in the applications for rehearing. On March 29, 2017, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that granted, in part, the applications for rehearing filed by FES and other parties, finding that the PUCO’s guidelines regarding fixed-price contracts should not apply to large mercantile customers. This finding changes the original order, which applied the guidelines to all customers, including mercantile customers. The PUCO also reaffirmed several provisions of the original order, including that the fixed-price guidelines only apply on a going-forward basis and not to existing contracts and that regulatory-out clauses in contracts are permissible. There is an additional application for rehearing that remains pending before the PUCO. PENNSYLVANIA The Pennsylvania Companies previously operated under DSPs that expired on May 31, 2017, and provided for the competitive procurement of generation supply for customers that did not choose an alternative EGS or for customers of alternative EGSs that failed to provide the contracted service. The Pennsylvania Companies currently 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 current 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. ME, PN, Penn and WP currently operate under rates that were approved by the PPUC on January 19, 2017, effective as of January 27, 2017. These rates provide annual increases in operating revenues of approximately $96 million at ME, $100 million at PN, $29 million at Penn, and $66 million at WP, and are intended to benefit customers by modernizing the grid with smart technologies, increasing vegetation management activities, and continuing other customer service enhancements. 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. 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' 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. 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 $88.3 million; PN $56.7 million; Penn $56.4 million; and ME $43.4 million, which were approved by the PPUC on February 11, 2016. On March 1, 2017, ME, PN and Penn filed petitions with the PPUC to modify their LTIIPs for the four remaining years of 2017 through 2020 to provide additional support for reliability and infrastructure investments. ME proposed to increase its LTIIP spending by $8.2 million per year, PN by $3.3 million per year, and Penn by $2.5 million per year. The petitions were approved by the PPUC in an Order entered June 14, 2017. On February 16, 2016, the Pennsylvania Companies filed DSIC riders for PPUC approval for quarterly cost recovery, which were approved by the PPUC on June 9, 2016, and went into effect July 1, 2016, subject to hearings and refund or reallocation among customer classes. On January 19, 2017, in the PPUC’s 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, which is pending PPUC approval. The ADIT issue is subject to further litigation and a hearing was held on May 12, 2017 and briefing has been completed. 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. On September 23, 2016, the WVPSC approved the Phase II energy efficiency program for MP and PE as reflected in a unanimous settlement by the parties to the proceeding, which includes 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, which was approved by the WVPSC in the 2012 proceeding approving the transfer of ownership of Harrison Power Station to MP. The costs for the Phase II program are expected to be $10.4 million and are eligible for recovery through the existing energy efficiency rider which is reviewed in the fuel (ENEC) case each year. On December 9, 2016, the WVPSC approved the annual ENEC case for MP and PE as reflected in a unanimous settlement by the parties to the proceeding, resulting in an increase in the ENEC rate of $25 million annually beginning January 1, 2017. In addition, ENEC rates will be maintained at the same level for a two-year period. On December 30, 2015, MP and PE filed an IRP with the WVPSC identifying a capacity shortfall starting in 2016 and exceeding 700 MWs by 2020 and 850 MWs by 2027. On June 3, 2016, the WVPSC accepted the IRP. On December 16, 2016, MP issued an RFP to address its generation shortfall, along with issuing a second RFP to sell its interest in Bath County. Bids were received by an independent evaluator in February 2017 for both RFPs. AE Supply was the winning bidder of the 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 MW) for approximately $195 million, subject to customary and other closing conditions, including regulatory approvals. In addition, on March 7, 2017, MP and PE filed applications with the WVPSC and MP and AE Supply filed with FERC requesting authorization for such purchase. The WVPSC has scheduled a hearing on this matter for September 26-28, 2017, and public hearings for September 6, 11, and 12, 2017. An order is anticipated by early 2018. On June 27, 2017, FERC issued a deficiency letter requesting additional information to facilitate FERC’s review of the transaction. MP responded to the deficiency letter on July 18, 2017. With respect to the Bath County RFP, MP does not plan to move forward with the sale of its ownership interest. In the future, MP may re-evaluate its options with respect to its interest in Bath County. 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 and certain of its subsidiaries, AE Supply, FENOC, ATSI, MAIT 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, including FES, 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, including FES, 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, including FES, 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, including FES, 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 On August 4, 2014, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO seeking approval of their ESP IV. ESP IV included a proposed Rider RRS, which would flow through to customers either charges or credits representing the net result of the price paid to FES through an eight-year FERC-jurisdictional PPA, referred to as the ESP IV PPA, against the revenues received from selling such output into the PJM markets. The Ohio Companies entered into stipulations which modified ESP IV, and on March 31, 2016, the PUCO issued an Opinion and Order adopting and approving the Ohio Companies’ stipulated ESP IV with modifications. FES and the Ohio Companies entered into the ESP IV PPA on April 1, 2016, but subsequently agreed to suspend it and advised FERC of this course of action. 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 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. On January 9, 2017, the generation owners filed to amend their complaint to include challenges to certain legislation and regulatory programs in Illinois. On January 24, 2017, FESC, acting on behalf of its affected affiliates and along with other utility companies, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for various reasons, including that the ESP IV PPA matter is now moot. In addition, on January 30, 2017, FESC along with other utility companies filed a substantive protest to the amended complaint, demonstrating that the question of the proper role for state participation in generation development should be addressed in the PJM stakeholder process. This proceeding remains pending before FERC. PJM Transmission Rates PJM and its stakeholders have been debating the proper method to allocate costs for certain 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 other parties in the proceeding did not agree to the settlement and filed protests to the settlement seeking, among other issues, 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. FirstEnergy and certain of the other parties responded to such opposition. The settlement is pending before FERC. 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. The MISO TOs subsequently filed an appeal of FERC's orders with the Sixth Circuit. FirstEnergy intervened and participated in the proceedings on behalf of ATSI, the Ohio Companies and PP. On June 21, 2017, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision denying the MISO TOs' appeal request. On a related issue, 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 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. Various parties, including FirstEnergy and the PJM TOs, requested rehearing or clarification of FERC’s order. The requests for rehearing remain pending before FERC. 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. MAIT Transmission Formula Rate On October 28, 2016, MAIT 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. Various intervenors submitted protests of the proposed MAIT formula rate. Among other things, the protest asked FERC to suspend the proposed effective date for the formula rate until June 1, 2017. On March 10, 2017, FERC issued an order accepting the MAIT formula transmission rate for filing, suspending it for five months, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. On April 10, 2017, MAIT requested rehearing of FERC’s decision to suspend the effective date of the formula rate. FERC's order on rehearing remains pending. MAIT’s rates went into effect on July 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the hearing and settlement procedures. The settlement process is ongoing. JCP&L Transmission Formula Rate On October 28, 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. A group of intervenors, including the NJBPU and New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, filed a protest of the proposed JCP&L transmission rate. Among other things, the protest asked FERC to suspend the proposed effective date for the formula rate until June 1, 2017. On March 10, 2017, FERC issued an order accepting the JCP&L formula transmission rate for filing, suspending it for five months, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. On April 10, 2017, JCP&L requested rehearing of FERC’s decision to suspend the effective date of the formula rate. FERC's order on rehearing remains pending. JCP&L’s rates went into effect on June 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the hearing and settlement procedures. The settlement process is ongoing. PATH Transmission Project In 2012, the PJM Board of Managers canceled the PATH project, a proposed transmission line from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland. 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 hearing and settlement procedures. On January 19, 2017, FERC issued an order reducing the PATH formula rate ROE from 10.4% to 8.11% effective January 19, 2017 and allowing recovery of certain related costs. On February 21, 2017, PATH subsequently filed a request for rehearing with FERC seeking recovery of disallowed costs and requesting that the ROE be reset to 10.4%. The Edison Electric Institute submitted an amicus curiae request for reconsideration in support of PATH. On March 20, 2017, PATH also submitted a compliance filing implementing the January 19, 2017 order. Certain affected ratepayers commented on the compliance filing, alleging inaccuracies in and lack of transparency of data and information in the compliance filing, and requested that PATH be directed to recalculate the refund provided in the filing. PATH responded to these comments in a filing that was submitted on May 22, 2017. The requests for rehearing and the compliance filing remain pending before FERC. Market-Based Rate Authority, Triennial Update The Utilities, AE Supply, FES and its subsidiaries, Buchanan Generation, LLC, and Green Valley Hydro, LLC each hold authority from FERC to sell electricity at market-based rates. One condition for retaining this authority is that every three years each entity must file an update with the FERC that demonstrates that each entity continues to meet FERC’s requirements for holding market-based rate authority. On December 23, 2016, FESC, on behalf of its affiliates with market-based rate authority, submitted to FERC the most recent triennial market power analysis filing for each market-based rate holder for the current cycle of this filing requirement. The filings remain pending before FERC.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for public utilities. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 980 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2156578 + 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