XML 33 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES FirstEnergy has various financial and performance guarantees and indemnifications which are issued in the normal course of business. These contracts include performance guarantees, stand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and indemnifications. FirstEnergy enters into these arrangements to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties by enhancing the value of the transaction to the third party. As of September 30, 2017, FirstEnergy's outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $3.3 billion, consisting of parental guarantees ($649 million), subsidiaries' guarantees ($1.9 billion), other guarantees ($300 million) and other assurances ($457 million). Of the aggregate amount, substantially all relates to guarantees of wholly-owned consolidated entities of FirstEnergy. FES' debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FG and NG, and FES guarantees the debt obligations of each of FG and NG. Accordingly, present and future holders of indebtedness of FES, FG and NG would have claims against each of FES, FG and NG, regardless of whether their primary obligor is FES, FG or NG. COLLATERAL AND CONTINGENT-RELATED FEATURES In the normal course of business, FE and its subsidiaries routinely enter into physical or financially settled contracts for the sale and purchase of electric capacity, energy, fuel, and emission allowances. Certain bilateral agreements and derivative instruments contain provisions that require FE or its subsidiaries to post collateral. This collateral may be posted in the form of cash or credit support with thresholds contingent upon FE's or its subsidiaries' credit rating from each of the major credit rating agencies. The collateral and credit support requirements vary by contract and by counterparty. The incremental collateral requirement allows for the offsetting of assets and liabilities with the same counterparty, where the contractual right of offset exists under applicable master netting agreements. Bilateral agreements and derivative instruments entered into by FE and its subsidiaries have margining provisions that require posting of collateral. Based on CES' power portfolio exposure as of September 30, 2017, FES has posted collateral of $128 million and AE Supply has posted collateral of $2 million. The Regulated Distribution Segment has posted collateral of $3 million. These credit-risk-related contingent features, or the margining provisions within bilateral agreements, stipulate that if the subsidiary were to be downgraded or lose its investment grade credit rating (based on its senior unsecured debt rating), it would be required to provide additional collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price movements, higher amounts for margining, which is the ability to secure additional collateral when needed, could be required. The following table discloses the potential additional credit rating contingent contractual collateral obligations as of September 30, 2017.
Potential Collateral Obligations |  | FES |  | AE Supply |  | Regulated |  | FE Corp |  | Total
|  |  | (In millions)
Contractual Obligations for Additional Collateral |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
At Current Credit Rating |  | $ | 6 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 8 |
Upon Further Downgrade |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 42 |  |  | — |  |  | 42 |
Surety Bonds (Collateralized Amount)(1) |  | 48 |  |  | 24 |  |  | 105 |  |  | 185 |  |  | 362 |
Total Exposure from Contractual Obligations |  | $ | 54 |  |  | $ | 26 |  |  | $ | 147 |  |  | $ | 185 |  |  | $ | 412 |
(1) Surety Bonds are not tied to a credit rating. Surety Bonds' impact assumes maximum contractual obligations (typical obligations require 30 days to cure). FE provides credit support for $169 million of FG surety bonds for the benefit of the PA DEP with respect to LBR. Excluded from the preceding table are the potential collateral obligations due to affiliate transactions between the Regulated Distribution segment and CES segment. As of September 30, 2017, FES has $2 million of collateral posted with its affiliates. OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES FE is a guarantor under a syndicated senior secured term loan facility due March 3, 2020, under which Global Holding borrowed $300 million. In addition to FE, Signal Peak, Global Rail, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Coal Sales Group, LLC, each being a direct or indirect subsidiary of Global Holding, continue to provide their joint and several guaranties of the obligations of Global Holding under the facility. In connection with the facility, 69.99% of Global Holding's direct and indirect membership interests in Signal Peak, Global Rail and their affiliates along with FEV's and WMB Marketing Ventures, LLC's respective 33-1/3% membership interests in Global Holding, are pledged to the lenders under the current facility as collateral. 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 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 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, generating more electricity from lower or non-emitting plants 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for 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 EPA’s regulatory approach under CSAPR, but questioning whether EPA required upwind states to reduce emissions by more than their contribution to air pollution in downwind states. 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, EPA’s reconsideration of the CSAPR update rule and how EPA and the states ultimately implement CSAPR, the future cost of compliance may be material and changes to FirstEnergy's and FES' 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 the EPA will designate those counties that fail to attain the new 2015 ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2017. The EPA missed the October 1, 2017 deadline and has not yet promulgated the attainment designations. States will then 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 and FES’ 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 seeks a short-term NOx emission rate limit of 0.125 lb/mmBTU over an averaging period of no more than 24 hours. On September 27, 2016, the EPA extended the time frame for acting on the State Delaware's CAA Section 126 petition by six months to April 7, 2017 but has not taken any further action. 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, Mansfield Unit 1 and Pleasants Units 1 and 2, significantly contribute to Maryland's inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition seeks NOx emission rate limits for the 36 EGUs by May 1, 2017. On January 3, 2017, the EPA extended the time frame for acting on the CAA Section 126 petition by six months to July 15, 2017 but has not taken any further action. On September 27, 2017 and October 4, 2017, the State of Maryland and various environmental organizations filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking an order that EPA either approve or deny the CAA Section 126 petition of November 16, 2016. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the loss or range of loss. MATS imposed emission limits for mercury, PM, and HCl for all existing and new fossil fuel fired electric generating units effective in April 2015 with averaging of emissions from multiple units located at a single plant. The majority of FirstEnergy's MATS compliance program and related costs have been completed. On August 3, 2015, FG, a wholly owned subsidiary of FES, submitted to the AAA office in New York, N.Y., a demand for arbitration and statement of claim against BNSF and CSX seeking a declaration that MATS constituted a force majeure event that excuses FG’s performance under its coal transportation contract with these parties. Specifically, the dispute arose from a contract for the transportation by BNSF and CSX of a minimum of 3.5 million tons of coal annually through 2025 to certain coal-fired power plants owned by FG that are located in Ohio. As a result of and in compliance with MATS, all plants covered by this contract were deactivated by April 16, 2015. Separately, on August 4, 2015, BNSF and CSX submitted to the AAA office in Washington, D.C., a demand for arbitration and statement of claim against FG alleging that FG breached the contract and that FG’s declaration of a force majeure under the contract is not valid and seeking damages under the contract through 2025. On May 31, 2016, the parties agreed to a stipulation that if FG’s force majeure defense is determined to be wholly or partially invalid, liquidated damages are the sole remedy available to BNSF and CSX. The arbitration panel consolidated the claims and held a hearing in November and December 2016. On April 12, 2017, the arbitration panel ruled on liability in favor of BNSF and CSX. In the liability award, the panel found, among other things, that FG’s demand for declaratory judgment that force majeure excused FG’s performance was denied, that FG breached and repudiated the coal transportation contract and that the panel retains jurisdiction of claims for liquidated damages for the years 2015-2025. On May 1, 2017, FE and FG and CSX and BNSF entered into a definitive settlement agreement, which resolved all claims related to this consolidated proceeding on the terms and conditions set forth below. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, FG will pay CSX and BNSF an aggregate amount equal to $109 million which is 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 provides 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. Further, FE and FG, and CSX and BNSF, agreed to release, waive and discharge each other from any further obligations under the claims covered by the settlement agreement upon payment in full of the settlement amount. Until such time, CSX and BNSF will retain the claims covered by the settlement agreement and in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding with respect to FG, to the extent the remaining settlement payments are not paid in full by FG or FE, CSX and BNSF shall be entitled to seek damages for such claims in an amount to be determined by the arbitration panel or otherwise agreed by the parties. On December 22, 2016, FG, a wholly owned subsidiary of FES, received a demand for arbitration and statement of claim from BNSF and NS, which are the counterparties to the coal transportation contract covering the delivery of 2.5 million tons annually through 2025, for FG’s coal-fired Bay Shore Units 2-4, deactivated on September 1, 2012, as a result of the EPA’s MATS and for FG’s W.H. Sammis generating station. The demand for arbitration was submitted to the AAA office in Washington, D.C. against FG alleging, among other things, that FG breached the agreement in 2015 and 2016 and repudiated the agreement for 2017-2025. The counterparties are seeking, among other things, damages, including lost profits through 2025, and a declaratory judgment that FG's claim of force majeure is invalid. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for June 2018. The parties have exchanged settlement proposals to resolve all claims related to this proceeding and all remaining claims. FirstEnergy and FES recorded a pre-tax charge of $55 million in the first quarter of 2017 based on an estimated settlement. If the dispute with BNSF and NS is not settled, the amount of damages owed to BNSF and NS could be materially higher and may cause FES to seek protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws. Absent a settlement, FG intends to vigorously assert its position in this arbitration proceeding, and if it were ultimately determined that the force majeure provisions or other defenses do not excuse the delivery shortfalls, the results of operations and financial condition of both FirstEnergy and FES could be materially adversely impacted. 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. AE Supply filed an answer denying any liability related to the termination. On May 1, 2017, the complaint was amended to add FE, FES and FG, although not parties to the underlying contract, as defendants and to seek additional damages based on new claims of fraud, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and alter ego. On June 27, 2017, after oral argument, defendants' preliminary objections to the amended complaint were denied. FE, FES, FG and AE Supply believe the merits of this case are distinguishable from the rail arbitration proceedings above based on the contract terms and other elements of the case. There were approximately 5.5 million tons remaining under the contract for delivery. This matter is in the discovery phase of litigation and no trial date has been established. FE, FES, FG and AE Supply dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously defend the merits of the lawsuit. At this time, FE, FES, FG and AE Supply cannot estimate the loss or range of loss regarding the ongoing litigation with respect to this agreement. Damages, if any, are yet to be determined, but an adverse outcome could be material. In September 2007, AE received an NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the coal-fired Hatfield's Ferry and Armstrong plants in Pennsylvania and the coal-fired Fort Martin and Willow Island plants in West Virginia. The EPA's NOV alleges equipment replacements during maintenance outages triggered the pre-construction permitting requirements under the NSR and PSD programs. On June 29, 2012, January 31, 2013, March 27, 2013 and October 18, 2016, EPA issued CAA section 114 requests for the Harrison coal-fired plant seeking information and documentation relevant to its operation and maintenance, including capital projects undertaken since 2007. On December 12, 2014, EPA issued a CAA section 114 request for the Fort Martin coal-fired plant seeking information and documentation relevant to its operation and maintenance, including capital projects undertaken since 2009. FirstEnergy intends to comply with the CAA but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the loss or range of loss. 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. On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that CO 2 or other GHG emissions alone cannot trigger permitting requirements under the CAA, but that air emission sources that need PSD permits due to other regulated air pollutants can be required by the EPA to install GHG control technologies. The EPA released its final CPP regulations in August 2015 (which have been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court), to reduce CO 2 emissions from existing fossil fuel fired electric generating units that would require each state to develop SIPs by September 6, 2016, to meet the EPA’s state specific CO 2 emission rate goals. The EPA’s CPP allows states to request a two-year extension to finalize SIPs by September 6, 2018. If states fail to develop SIPs, the EPA also proposed a federal implementation plan that can be implemented by the EPA that included model emissions trading rules which states can also adopt in their SIPs. The EPA also finalized separate regulations imposing CO 2 emission limits for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel fired electric generating units. Numerous states and private parties filed appeals and motions to stay the CPP with the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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. 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 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. The CO 2 emissions per KWH of electricity generated by FirstEnergy is lower than many of its regional competitors due to its diversified generation sources, which include low or non-CO 2 emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators. Clean Water Act Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal CWA and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy's plants. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy's operations. 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. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness, including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore plant's cooling water intake channel to divert fish away from the plant's cooling water intake system. Depending on the results of such studies and any final action taken by the states based on those studies, 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. The final rule also allows plants to commit to more stringent effluent limits for wet scrubber systems based on evaporative technology and in return have until the end of 2023 to meet the more stringent limits. On April 13, 2017, the EPA granted a Petition for Reconsideration and administratively stayed (effective upon publication in the Federal Register) all deadlines in the effluent limits rule pending a new rulemaking. Also, on September 18, 2017, the EPA postponed 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 and FES' 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. Additional technology may be needed to meet certain other limits in the Fort Martin NPDES permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome of 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 coal combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste disposal requirements pending the EPA's evaluation of the need for future regulation. In April 2015, the EPA finalized regulations for the disposal of CCRs (non-hazardous), establishing national standards regarding 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. Based on an assessment of the finalized regulations, the future cost of compliance and expected timing of spend had no significant impact on FirstEnergy's or FES' existing AROs associated with CCRs. Although not currently expected, any changes in timing and closure plan requirements in the future, including changes resulting from the strategic review at CES, could materially and adversely impact FirstEnergy's and FES' AROs. 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, W. Va. and the remainder recycled into drywall by National Gypsum. These beneficial reuse options should 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. On September 14, 2017, 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, which is subject to a thirty-day comment period with final approval expected in November 2017. 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 September 30, 2017 based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, FE's and its subsidiaries' proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $131 million have been accrued through September 30, 2017. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $84 million for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC. FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the loss or range of losses cannot be determined or reasonably estimated at this time. OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Nuclear Plant Matters Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities. As of September 30, 2017, FirstEnergy had approximately $2.6 billion (FES $1.8 billion) invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of its nuclear generating facilities. The values of FirstEnergy's NDTs also fluctuate based on market conditions. If the value of the trusts decline by a material amount, FirstEnergy's obligation to fund the trusts may increase. Disruptions in the capital markets and their effects on particular businesses and the economy could also affect the values of the NDTs. As part of routine inspections of the concrete shield building at Davis-Besse in 2013, FENOC identified changes to the subsurface laminar cracking condition originally discovered in 2011. These inspections revealed that the cracking condition had propagated a small amount in select areas. FENOC's analysis confirms that the building continues to maintain its structural integrity, and its ability to safely perform all of its functions. In a May 28, 2015, Inspection Report regarding the apparent cause evaluation on crack propagation, the NRC issued a non-cited violation for FENOC’s failure to request and obtain a license amendment for its method of evaluating the significance of the shield building cracking. The NRC also concluded that the shield building remained capable of performing its design safety functions despite the identified laminar cracking and that this issue was of very low safety significance. FENOC plans to submit a license amendment application to the NRC related to the laminar cracking in the Shield Building. On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued orders requiring safety enhancements at U.S. reactors based on recommendations from the lessons learned Task Force review of the accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. These orders require additional mitigation strategies for beyond-design-basis external events, and enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels in spent fuel pools. The NRC also requested that licensees including FENOC: re-analyze earthquake and flooding risks using the latest information available; conduct earthquake and flooding hazard walkdowns at their nuclear plants; assess the ability of current communications systems and equipment to perform under a prolonged loss of onsite and offsite electrical power; and assess plant staffing levels needed to fill emergency positions. Although a majority of the necessary modifications and evaluations at FirstEnergy’s nuclear facilities have been completed, some still remain subject to regulatory review or approval. FES provides a parental support agreement to NG of up to $400 million. The NRC typically relies on such parental support agreements to provide additional assurance that U.S. merchant nuclear plants, including NG's nuclear units, have the necessary financial resources to maintain safe operations, particularly in the event of extraordinary circumstances. So long as FES remains in the unregulated companies’ money pool, the $500 million secured line of credit with FE discussed in Note 1, "Organization and Basis of Presentation - Going Concern at FES" above provides FES the needed liquidity in order for FES to satisfy its nuclear support obligations to NG. Other Legal Matters There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy's normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The loss or range of loss in these matters is not expected to be material to FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described under Note 10, "Regulatory Matters" of the Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. In cases where FirstEnergy determines that it is not probable, but reasonably possible that it has a material obligation, it discloses such obligations and the possible loss or range of loss if such estimate can be made. If it were ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject to liability based on any of the matters referenced above, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration