Regulatory Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
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 New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Ohio by the PUCO, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC. The transmission operations of PE in Virginia are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC. In addition, under Ohio law, municipalities may regulate rates of a public utility, subject to appeal to the PUCO if not acceptable to the utility. Further, if any of the FirstEnergy affiliates were to engage in the construction of significant new transmission facilities, depending on the state, they may be required to obtain state regulatory authorization to site, construct and operate the new transmission facility. MARYLAND PE operates under MDPSC approved base rates that were effective as of March 23, 2019. PE also provides SOS pursuant to a combination of settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and regulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is competitively procured in the form of rolling contracts of varying lengths through periodic auctions that are overseen by the MDPSC and a third-party monitor. Although settlements with respect to SOS supply for PE customers have expired, service continues in the same manner until changed by order of the MDPSC. PE recovers its costs plus a return for providing SOS. The EmPOWER Maryland program requires each electric utility to file a plan to reduce electric consumption and demand 0.2% per year, up to the ultimate goal of 2% annual savings, for the duration of the 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 EmPOWER Maryland program cycles, to the extent the MDPSC determines that cost-effective programs and services are available. PE’s approved 2018-2020 EmPOWER Maryland plan continues and expands upon prior years’ programs, and adds new programs, for a projected total cost of $116 million over the three-year period. PE recovers program costs subject to a five-year amortization. Maryland law only allows for the utility to recover lost distribution revenue attributable to energy efficiency or demand reduction programs through a base rate case proceeding, and to date, such recovery has not been sought or obtained by PE. On January 19, 2018, PE filed a joint petition along with other utility companies, work group stakeholders and the MDPSC electric vehicle work group leader to implement a statewide electric vehicle portfolio in connection with a 2016 MDPSC proceeding to consider an array of issues relating to electric distribution system design, including matters relating to electric vehicles, distributed energy resources, advanced metering infrastructure, energy storage, system planning, rate design, and impacts on low-income customers. PE proposed an electric vehicle charging infrastructure program at a projected total cost of $12 million, to be recovered over a five-year amortization. On January 14, 2019, the MDPSC approved the petition subject to certain reductions in the scope of the program. The MDPSC approved PE’s compliance filing, which implements the pilot program, with minor modifications, on July 3, 2019. On August 24, 2018, PE filed a base rate case with the MDPSC, which it supplemented on October 22, 2018, to update the partially forecasted test year with a full twelve months of actual data. The rate case requested an annual increase in base distribution rates of $19.7 million, plus creation of an EDIS to fund four enhanced service reliability programs. In responding to discovery, PE revised its request for an annual increase in base rates to $17.6 million. The proposed rate increase reflected $7.3 million in annual savings for customers resulting from the recent federal tax law changes. On March 22, 2019, the MDPSC issued a final order that approved a rate increase of $6.2 million, approved three of the four EDIS programs for four years, directed PE to file a new depreciation study within 18 months, and ordered the filing of a new base rate case in four years to correspond to the ending of the approved EDIS programs. Maryland’s Governor issued an order on March 16, 2020, forbidding utilities from terminating residential service or charging late fees for non-payment for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. On April 9, 2020, the MDPSC issued an order allowing utilities to track and create a regulatory asset for future recovery of all prudently-incurred incremental costs arising from the COVID-19 emergency. NEW JERSEY JCP&L operates under NJBPU approved rates that were effective as of January 1, 2017. JCP&L provides BGS for retail customers who do not choose a third-party EGS and for customers of third-party EGSs that fail to provide the contracted service. All New Jersey EDCs participate in this competitive BGS procurement process and recover BGS costs directly from customers as a charge separate from base rates. On April 18, 2019, pursuant to the May 2018 New Jersey enacted legislation establishing a ZEC program to provide ratepayer funded subsidies of New Jersey nuclear energy supply, the NJBPU approved the implementation of a non-bypassable, irrevocable ZEC charge for all New Jersey electric utility customers, including JCP&L’s customers. Once collected from customers by JCP&L, these funds will be remitted to eligible nuclear energy generators. In December 2017, the NJBPU issued proposed rules to modify its current CTA policy in base rate cases to: (i) calculate savings using a five-year look back from the beginning of the test year; (ii) allocate savings with 75% retained by the company and 25% allocated to ratepayers; and (iii) exclude transmission assets of electric distribution companies in the savings calculation, which were published in the NJ Register in the first quarter of 2018. JCP&L filed comments supporting the proposed rulemaking. On January 17, 2019, the NJBPU approved the proposed CTA rules with no changes. On May 17, 2019, the Rate Counsel filed an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. JCP&L is contesting this appeal but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Also in December 2017, the NJBPU approved its IIP rulemaking. The IIP creates a financial incentive for utilities to accelerate the level of investment needed to promote the timely rehabilitation and replacement of certain non-revenue producing components that enhance reliability, resiliency, and/or safety. On May 8, 2019, the NJBPU approved a Stipulation of Settlement submitted by JCP&L, Rate Counsel, NJBPU Staff and New Jersey Large Energy Users Coalition to implement JCP&L’s infrastructure plan, JCP&L Reliability Plus. The plan provides that JCP&L will invest up to approximately $97 million in capital investments beginning on June 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020, to enhance the reliability and resiliency of JCP&L’s distribution system and reduce the frequency and duration of power outages. JCP&L shall seek recovery of the capital investment through an accelerated cost recovery mechanism, provided for in the rules, that includes a revenue adjustment calculation and a process for two rate adjustments. The NJBPU approved adjusted rates that took effect on March 1, 2020. On February 18, 2020, JCP&L submitted a filing with the NJBPU requesting a distribution base rate increase of $186.9 million on an annual basis, which represents an overall average increase in JCP&L rates of 7.8%. The filing seeks to recover certain costs associated with providing safe and reliable electric service to JCP&L customers, along with recovery of previously incurred storm costs. JCP&L proposed a rate effective date of March 19, 2020. On March 9, 2020, the Board issued an order suspending JCP&L’s proposed rates for four months. Based on the historical procedures of the NJBPU Board a second suspension order is expected with revised base rates becoming effective in late November 2020. On April 6, 2020, JCP&L signed an asset purchase agreement with Yard’s Creek Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of LS Power to sell its 50% interest in the Yards Creek pumped-storage hydro generation facility in NJ (210 MWs). Subject to terms and conditions of the agreement, the base purchase price is $155 million. Completion of the transaction is subject to several closing conditions, including approval by the NJBPU and FERC. There can be no assurance that all regulatory approvals will be obtained and/or all closing conditions will be satisfied or that the transaction will be consummated. JCP&L currently anticipates closing of the transaction to occur in the first half of 2021. As of March 31, 2020, Yards Creek’s net book value is approximately $44 million, which is included in the regulated distribution segment. Treatment of the gain is subject to NJBPU approval. OHIO The Ohio Companies operate under base distribution rates approved by the PUCO effective in 2009. The Ohio Companies’ residential and commercial base distribution revenues are decoupled, through a mechanism that took effect on February 1, 2020, to the base distribution revenue and lost distribution revenue associated with energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs recovered as of the twelve-month period ending on December 31, 2018. The Ohio Companies currently operate under ESP IV effective June 1, 2016, and continuing through May 31, 2024, that 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 $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. In addition, ESP IV includes: (1) continuation of a base distribution rate freeze through May 31, 2024; (2) the collection of lost distribution revenues associated with energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs; (3) a goal across FirstEnergy to reduce CO₂ emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045; and (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. ESP IV further provided for the Ohio Companies to collect through Rider DMR $132.5 million annually for three years beginning in 2017, grossed up for federal income taxes, resulting in an approved amount of approximately $168 million annually in 2018 and 2019. On appeal, the SCOH, on June 19, 2019, reversed the PUCO’s determination that Rider DMR is lawful, and remanded the matter to the PUCO with instructions to remove Rider DMR from ESP IV. On August 20, 2019, the SCOH denied the Ohio Companies’ motion for reconsideration. The PUCO entered an Order directing the Ohio Companies to cease further collection through Rider DMR, credit back to customers a refund of Rider DMR funds collected since July 2, 2019, and remove Rider DMR from ESP IV. On July 15, 2019, OCC filed a Notice of Appeal with the SCOH, challenging the PUCO’s exclusion of Rider DMR revenues from the determination of the existence of significantly excessive earnings under ESP IV for calendar year 2017 and claiming a $42 million refund is due to OE customers. The Ohio Companies are contesting this appeal but are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. The SCOH is scheduled to hear argument on this matter on May 12, 2020. On July 23, 2019, Ohio enacted legislation establishing support for nuclear energy supply in Ohio. In addition to the provisions supporting nuclear energy, the legislation included a provision implementing a decoupling mechanism for Ohio electric utilities and ending current energy efficiency program mandates on December 31, 2020, provided that statewide energy efficiency mandates are achieved as determined by the PUCO. On February 26, 2020, the PUCO ordered (i) that a wind-down of statutorily required energy efficiency programs shall commence on September 30, 2020, and the programs shall terminate on December 31, 2020, and (ii) that the Ohio Companies’ existing portfolio plans are extended through 2020 without changes. On November 21, 2019, the Ohio Companies applied to the PUCO for approval of a decoupling mechanism, which would set residential and commercial base distribution related revenues at the levels collected in 2018. As such, those base distribution revenues would no longer be based on electric consumption, which allows continued support of energy efficiency initiatives while also providing revenue certainty to the Ohio Companies. On January 15, 2020, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ decoupling application, and the decoupling mechanism took effect on February 1, 2020. On July 17, 2019, the PUCO approved, with no material modifications, a settlement agreement that provides for the implementation of the Ohio Companies’ first phase of grid modernization plans, including the investment of $516 million over three years to modernize the Ohio Companies’ electric distribution system, and for all tax savings associated with the Tax Act to flow back to customers. The settlement had broad support, including PUCO Staff, the OCC, representatives of industrial and commercial customers, a low-income advocate, environmental advocates, hospitals, competitive generation suppliers and other parties. PENNSYLVANIA The Pennsylvania Companies operate under rates approved by the PPUC, effective as of January 27, 2017. These rates were adjusted for the net impact of the Tax Act, effective March 15, 2018. The net impact of the Tax Act for the period January 1, 2018 through March 14, 2018 was separately tracked and its treatment will be addressed in a future rate proceeding. The Pennsylvania Companies operate under DSPs for the June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2023 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 2019-2023 DSPs, supply will be provided by wholesale suppliers through a mix of 3, 12 and 24-month energy contracts, as well as two RFPs for 2-year SREC contracts for ME, PN and Penn. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Act 129 of 2008 and PPUC orders, Pennsylvania EDCs implement energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. The Pennsylvania Companies’ Phase III EE&C plans for the June 2016 through May 2021 period, which were approved in March 2016, with expected costs up to $390 million, are designed to achieve the targets established in the PPUC’s Phase III Final Implementation Order with full recovery through the reconcilable EE&C riders. On March 12, 2020, the PPUC entered a Tentative Implementation Order for a Phase IV EE&C Plan, operating from June 2021 through May 2026. Pennsylvania EDCs may file with the PPUC for approval of an LTIIP for infrastructure improvements and costs related to highway relocation projects, after which a DSIC may be approved to recover LTIIP costs. On August 30, 2019, the Pennsylvania Companies filed Petitions for approval of new LTIIPs for the five-year period beginning January 1, 2020 and ending December 31, 2024 for a total capital investment of approximately $572 million for certain infrastructure improvement initiatives. On January 16, 2020, the PPUC approved the LTIIPs without modification. The Pennsylvania Companies’ approved DSIC riders for quarterly cost recovery went into effect July 1, 2016. On August 30, 2019, Penn filed a Petition seeking approval of a waiver of the statutory DSIC cap of 5% of distribution rate revenue and approval to increase the maximum allowable DSIC to 11.81% of distribution rate revenue for the five-year period of its proposed LTIIP. On March 12, 2020, an order was entered approving a settlement by all parties to that case which provides for a temporary increase in the recoverability cap from 5% to 7.5%, to expire on the earlier of the effective date of new base rates following Penn’s next base rate case or the expiration of its LTIIP II program. Following the Pennsylvania Companies’ 2016 base rate proceedings, the PPUC ruled in a separate proceeding related to the DSIC mechanisms that the Pennsylvania Companies were not required to reflect federal and state income tax deductions related to DSIC-eligible property in DSIC rates, which decision was appealed by the Pennsylvania OCA to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court reversed the PPUC’s decision and remanded the matter to require the Pennsylvania Companies to revise their tariffs and DSIC calculations to include ADIT and state income taxes. On April 7, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an Order granting Petitions for Allowance of Appeal by both the PPUC and the Pennsylvania Companies of the Commonwealth Court’s Opinion and Order. A briefing schedule is pending. An adverse ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not expected to result in a material impact to FirstEnergy. WEST VIRGINIA MP and PE provide electric service to all customers through traditional cost-based, regulated utility ratemaking and operates under rates approved by the WVPSC effective February 2015. MP and PE recover net power supply costs, including fuel costs, purchased power costs and related expenses, net of related market sales revenue through the ENEC. MP’s and PE’s ENEC rate is updated annually. On August 21, 2019, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC their annual ENEC case requesting a decrease in ENEC rates of $6.1 million beginning January 1, 2020, representing a 0.4% decrease in rates versus those in effect on August 21, 2019. On October 11, 2019, MP and PE filed a supplement requesting approval of the termination of the 50 MW PPA with Morgantown Energy Associates, a NUG entity. A settlement between MP, PE, and the majority of the intervenors fully resolving the ENEC case, which maintains 2019 ENEC rates into 2020, and supports the termination of the Morgantown Energy Associates PPA was filed with the WVPSC on October 18, 2019. An order was issued on December 20, 2019, approving the ENEC settlement and termination of the PPA with Morgantown Energy Associates. On August 21, 2019, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC for a reconciliation of their VMS and a periodic review of its vegetation management program requesting an increase in VMS rates of $7.6 million beginning January 1, 2020. The increase is due to moving from a 5-year maintenance cycle to a 4-year cycle and performing more operation and maintenance work and less capital work on the rights of way. The increase is a 0.5% increase in rates versus those in effect on August 21, 2019. All the parties reached a settlement in the case, and the WVPSC issued its order approving the settlement without change on December 20, 2019. FERC REGULATORY MATTERS Under the FPA, FERC regulates rates for interstate wholesale sales, transmission of electric power, accounting and other matters, including construction and operation of hydroelectric projects. With respect to their wholesale services and rates, the Utilities, AE Supply and the Transmission Companies are subject to regulation by FERC. FERC regulations require JCP&L, MP, PE, WP and the Transmission Companies to provide open access transmission service at FERC-approved rates, terms and conditions. Transmission facilities of JCP&L, MP, PE, WP and the Transmission Companies are subject to functional control by PJM and transmission service using their transmission facilities is provided by PJM under the PJM Tariff. FERC regulates the sale of power for resale in interstate commerce in part by granting authority to public utilities to sell wholesale power at market-based rates upon showing that the seller cannot exert market power in generation or transmission or erect barriers to entry into markets. The Utilities and AE Supply each have been authorized by FERC to sell wholesale power in interstate commerce at market-based rates and have a market-based rate tariff on file with FERC, although major wholesale purchases remain subject to regulation by the relevant state commissions. Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, AE Supply, and the Transmission Companies. NERC is the ERO designated by FERC to establish and enforce these reliability standards, although NERC has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to six regional entities, including RFC. All of the facilities that FirstEnergy operates are located within the RFC region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and RFC stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by RFC. FirstEnergy believes that it is in material compliance with all currently effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such occurrences are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the occurrence and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an occurrence to RFC. Moreover, it is clear that NERC, RFC and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. Any inability on FirstEnergy’s part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk electric system could result in the imposition of financial penalties, or obligations to upgrade or build transmission facilities, that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. 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 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 exceed the costs. In a subsequent order, FERC affirmed its prior ruling that ATSI must submit the cost/benefit analysis. ATSI is evaluating the cost/benefit approach. FERC Actions on Tax Act On March 15, 2018, FERC initiated proceedings on the question of how to address possible changes to ADIT and bonus depreciation as a result of the Tax Act. Such possible changes could impact FERC-jurisdictional rates, including transmission rates. On November 21, 2019, FERC issued a final rule (Order No. 864). Order No. 864 requires utilities with transmission formula rates to update their formula rate templates to include mechanisms to (i) deduct any excess ADIT from or add any deficient ADIT to their rate base; (ii) raise or lower their income tax allowances by any amortized excess or deficient ADIT; and (iii) incorporate a new permanent worksheet into their rates that will annually track information related to excess or deficient ADIT. Alternatively, formula rate utilities can demonstrate to FERC that their formula rate template already achieves these outcomes. Utilities with transmission stated rates are required to address these new requirements as part of their next transmission rate case. FERC also issued on November 15, 2018, a policy statement providing accounting and ratemaking guidance for treatment of ADIT for all FERC-jurisdictional public utilities. The policy statement also addresses the accounting and ratemaking treatment of ADIT following the sale or retirement of an asset after December 31, 2017. FirstEnergy’s formula rate transmission utilities will make the required filings on or before the deadlines established in FERC’s order. FirstEnergy’s stated rate transmission utilities will address the requirements as part of their next transmission rate case. JCP&L is addressing the requirements in the course of its pending transmission rate case. Transmission ROE Methodology FERC’s methodology for calculating electric transmission utility ROE has been in transition as a result of an April 14, 2017 ruling by the D.C. Circuit that vacated FERC’s then-effective methodology. On October 16, 2018, FERC issued an order in which it proposed a revised ROE methodology. FERC proposed that, for complaint proceedings alleging that an existing ROE is not just and reasonable, FERC will rely on three financial models - discounted cash flow, capital-asset pricing, and expected earnings - to establish a composite zone of reasonableness to identify a range of just and reasonable ROEs. FERC then will utilize the transmission utility’s risk relative to other utilities within that zone of reasonableness to assign the transmission utility to one of three quartiles within the zone. FERC would take no further action (i.e., dismiss the complaint) if the existing ROE falls within the identified quartile. However, if the replacement ROE falls outside the quartile, FERC would deem the existing ROE presumptively unjust and unreasonable and would determine the replacement ROE. FERC would add a fourth financial model risk premium to the analysis to calculate a ROE based on the average point of central tendency for each of the four financial models. On March 21, 2019, FERC established NOIs to collect industry and stakeholder comments on the revised ROE methodology that is described in the October 16, 2018 decision, and also whether to make changes to FERC’s existing policies and practices for awarding transmission rates incentives. On November 21, 2019, FERC announced in a complaint proceeding involving MISO utilities that FERC would rely on the discounted cash flow and capital-asset pricing models as the basis for establishing ROE. It is not clear at this time whether FERC’s November ruling will be applied more broadly. Any changes to FERC’s transmission rate ROE and incentive policies would be applied on a prospective basis. FirstEnergy currently is participating through various trade groups in the FERC dockets where the ROE methodology is being reviewed, and on December 23, 2019, JCP&L filed a request for rehearing of FERC’s November decision in the MISO utilities docket. FERC’s ROE policy may also impact PATH’s regulatory proceedings regarding recovery of investments and costs associated with a proposed transmission line from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland that PJM canceled in 2012. Specifically, on January 24, 2020, FERC issued an order in the PATH transmission abandonment rate case that noted FERC’s recent actions on transmission utility ROE methodologies and directed parties to brief the applicability of the October 2018 methodology to the PATH ROE. Initial briefs are due May 1, 2020 and reply briefs are due June 1, 2020. On March 20, 2020, FERC initiated a rulemaking proceeding on the transmission rate incentives provisions of Section 219 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Initial comments are due July 1, 2020. FirstEnergy currently is participating through EEI and other industry groups. JCP&L Transmission Formula Rate On October 30, 2019, JCP&L filed tariff amendments with FERC to convert JCP&L’s existing stated transmission rate to a forward-looking formula transmission rate. JCP&L requested that the tariff amendments become effective January 1, 2020. On December 19, 2019, FERC issued its initial order in the case, allowing JCP&L to transition to a forward-looking formula rate as of January 1, 2020 as requested, subject to refund, pending further hearing and settlement proceedings. JCP&L and the parties to the FERC proceeding are engaged in settlement negotiations.

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 New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Ohio by the PUCO, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC. The transmission operations of PE in Virginia are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC. In addition, under Ohio law, municipalities may regulate rates of a public utility, subject to appeal to the PUCO if not acceptable to the utility. Further, if any of the FirstEnergy affiliates were to engage in the construction of significant new transmission facilities, depending on the state, they may be required to obtain state regulatory authorization to site, construct and operate the new transmission facility.

PE operates under MDPSC approved base rates that were effective as of March 23, 2019. PE also provides SOS pursuant to a combination of settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and regulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is competitively procured in the form of rolling contracts of varying lengths through periodic auctions that are overseen by the MDPSC and a third-party monitor. Although settlements with respect to SOS supply for PE customers have expired, service continues in the same manner until changed by order of the MDPSC. PE recovers its costs plus a return for providing SOS.

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

On January 19, 2018, PE filed a joint petition along with other utility companies, work group stakeholders and the MDPSC electric vehicle work group leader to implement a statewide electric vehicle portfolio in connection with a 2016 MDPSC proceeding to consider an array of issues relating to electric distribution system design, including matters relating to electric vehicles, distributed energy resources, advanced metering infrastructure, energy storage, system planning, rate design, and impacts on low-income customers. PE proposed an electric vehicle charging infrastructure program at a projected total cost of $12 million, to be recovered over a five-year amortization. On January 14, 2019, the MDPSC approved the petition subject to certain reductions in the scope of the program. The MDPSC approved PE’s compliance filing, which implements the pilot program, with minor modifications, on July 3, 2019.

On August 24, 2018, PE filed a base rate case with the MDPSC, which it supplemented on October 22, 2018, to update the partially forecasted test year with a full twelve months of actual data. The rate case requested an annual increase in base distribution rates of $19.7 million, plus creation of an EDIS to fund four enhanced service reliability programs. In responding to discovery, PE revised its request for an annual increase in base rates to $17.6 million. The proposed rate increase reflected $7.3 million in annual savings for customers resulting from the recent federal tax law changes. On March 22, 2019, the MDPSC issued a final order that approved a rate increase of $6.2 million, approved three of the four EDIS programs for four years, directed PE to file a new depreciation study within 18 months, and ordered the filing of a new base rate case in four years to correspond to the ending of the approved EDIS programs.

In December 2017, the NJBPU issued proposed rules to modify its current CTA policy in base rate cases to: (i) calculate savings using a five-year look back from the beginning of the test year; (ii) allocate savings with 75% retained by the company and 25% allocated to ratepayers; and (iii) exclude transmission assets of electric distribution companies in the savings calculation, which were published in the NJ Register in the first quarter of 2018. JCP&L filed comments supporting the proposed rulemaking. On January 17, 2019, the NJBPU approved the proposed CTA rules with no changes. On May 17, 2019, the Rate Counsel filed an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. JCP&L is contesting this appeal but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Also in December 2017, the NJBPU approved its IIP rulemaking. The IIP creates a financial incentive for utilities to accelerate the level of investment needed to promote the timely rehabilitation and replacement of certain non-revenue producing components that enhance reliability, resiliency, and/or safety. On May 8, 2019, the NJBPU approved a Stipulation of Settlement submitted by JCP&L, Rate Counsel, NJBPU Staff and New Jersey Large Energy Users Coalition to implement JCP&L’s infrastructure plan, JCP&L Reliability Plus. The plan provides that JCP&L will invest up to approximately $97 million in capital investments beginning on June 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020, to enhance the reliability and resiliency of JCP&L’s distribution system and reduce the frequency and duration of power outages. JCP&L shall seek recovery of the capital investment through an accelerated cost recovery mechanism, provided for in the rules, that includes a revenue adjustment calculation and a process for two rate adjustments. The NJBPU approved adjusted rates that took effect on March 1, 2020.

On February 18, 2020, JCP&L submitted a filing with the NJBPU requesting a distribution base rate increase of $186.9 million on an annual basis, which represents an overall average increase in JCP&L rates of 7.8%. The filing seeks to recover certain costs associated with providing safe and reliable electric service to JCP&L customers, along with recovery of previously incurred storm costs. JCP&L proposed a rate effective date of March 19, 2020. On March 9, 2020, the Board issued an order suspending JCP&L’s proposed rates for four months. Based on the historical procedures of the NJBPU Board a second suspension order is expected with revised base rates becoming effective in late November 2020.

On April 6, 2020, JCP&L signed an asset purchase agreement with Yard’s Creek Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of LS Power to sell its 50% interest in the Yards Creek pumped-storage hydro generation facility in NJ (210 MWs). Subject to terms and conditions of the agreement, the base purchase price is $155 million. Completion of the transaction is subject to several closing conditions, including approval by the NJBPU and FERC. There can be no assurance that all regulatory approvals will be obtained and/or all closing conditions will be satisfied or that the transaction will be consummated. JCP&L currently anticipates closing of the transaction to occur in the first half of 2021. As of March 31, 2020, Yards Creek’s net book value is approximately $44 million, which is included in the regulated distribution segment. Treatment of the gain is subject to NJBPU approval.

The Ohio Companies operate under base distribution rates approved by the PUCO effective in 2009. The Ohio Companies’ residential and commercial base distribution revenues are decoupled, through a mechanism that took effect on February 1, 2020, to the base distribution revenue and lost distribution revenue associated with energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs recovered as of the twelve-month period ending on December 31, 2018. The Ohio Companies currently operate under ESP IV effective June

1, 2016, and continuing through May 31, 2024, that 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 $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. In addition, ESP IV includes: (1) continuation of a base distribution rate freeze through May 31, 2024; (2) the collection of lost distribution revenues associated with energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs; (3) a goal across FirstEnergy to reduce CO₂ emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045; and (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. ESP IV further provided for the Ohio Companies to collect through Rider DMR $132.5 million annually for three years beginning in 2017, grossed up for federal income taxes, resulting in an approved amount of approximately $168 million annually in 2018 and 2019. On appeal, the SCOH, on June 19, 2019, reversed the PUCO’s determination that Rider DMR is lawful, and remanded the matter to the PUCO with instructions to remove Rider DMR from ESP IV. On August 20, 2019, the SCOH denied the Ohio Companies’ motion for reconsideration. The PUCO entered an Order directing the Ohio Companies to cease further collection through Rider DMR, credit back to customers a refund of Rider DMR funds collected since July 2, 2019, and remove Rider DMR from ESP IV. On July 15, 2019, OCC filed a Notice of Appeal with the SCOH, challenging the PUCO’s exclusion of Rider DMR revenues from the determination of the existence of significantly excessive earnings under ESP IV for calendar year 2017 and claiming a $42 million refund is due to OE customers. The Ohio Companies are contesting this appeal but are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. The SCOH is scheduled to hear argument on this matter on May 12, 2020.

On July 23, 2019, Ohio enacted legislation establishing support for nuclear energy supply in Ohio. In addition to the provisions supporting nuclear energy, the legislation included a provision implementing a decoupling mechanism for Ohio electric utilities and ending current energy efficiency program mandates on December 31, 2020, provided that statewide energy efficiency mandates are achieved as determined by the PUCO. On February 26, 2020, the PUCO ordered (i) that a wind-down of statutorily required energy efficiency programs shall commence on September 30, 2020, and the programs shall terminate on December 31, 2020, and (ii) that the Ohio Companies’ existing portfolio plans are extended through 2020 without changes.

On November 21, 2019, the Ohio Companies applied to the PUCO for approval of a decoupling mechanism, which would set residential and commercial base distribution related revenues at the levels collected in 2018. As such, those base distribution revenues would no longer be based on electric consumption, which allows continued support of energy efficiency initiatives while also providing revenue certainty to the Ohio Companies. On January 15, 2020, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ decoupling application, and the decoupling mechanism took effect on February 1, 2020.

On July 17, 2019, the PUCO approved, with no material modifications, a settlement agreement that provides for the implementation of the Ohio Companies’ first phase of grid modernization plans, including the investment of $516 million over three years to modernize the Ohio Companies’ electric distribution system, and for all tax savings associated with the Tax Act to flow back to customers. The settlement had broad support, including PUCO Staff, the OCC, representatives of industrial and commercial customers, a low-income advocate, environmental advocates, hospitals, competitive generation suppliers and other parties.

The Pennsylvania Companies operate under rates approved by the PPUC, effective as of January 27, 2017. These rates were adjusted for the net impact of the Tax Act, effective March 15, 2018. The net impact of the Tax Act for the period January 1, 2018 through March 14, 2018 was separately tracked and its treatment will be addressed in a future rate proceeding. The Pennsylvania Companies operate under DSPs for the June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2023 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 2019-2023 DSPs, supply will be provided by wholesale suppliers through a mix of 3, 12 and 24-month energy contracts, as well as two RFPs for 2-year SREC contracts for ME, PN and Penn.

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Act 129 of 2008 and PPUC orders, Pennsylvania EDCs implement energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs. The Pennsylvania Companies’ Phase III EE&C plans for the June 2016 through May 2021 period, which were approved in March 2016, with expected costs up to $390 million, are designed to achieve the targets established in the PPUC’s Phase III Final Implementation Order with full recovery through the reconcilable EE&C riders. On March 12, 2020, the PPUC entered a Tentative Implementation Order for a Phase IV EE&C Plan, operating from June 2021 through May 2026.

Pennsylvania EDCs may file with the PPUC for approval of an LTIIP for infrastructure improvements and costs related to highway relocation projects, after which a DSIC may be approved to recover LTIIP costs. On August 30, 2019, the Pennsylvania Companies filed Petitions for approval of new LTIIPs for the five-year period beginning January 1, 2020 and ending December 31, 2024 for a total capital investment of approximately $572 million for certain infrastructure improvement initiatives. On January 16, 2020, the PPUC approved the LTIIPs without modification. The Pennsylvania Companies’ approved DSIC riders for quarterly cost recovery went into effect July 1, 2016. On August 30, 2019, Penn filed a Petition seeking approval of a waiver of the statutory DSIC cap of 5% of distribution rate revenue and approval to increase the maximum allowable DSIC to 11.81% of distribution rate revenue for the five-year period of its proposed LTIIP. On March 12, 2020, an order was entered approving a settlement by all parties to that case which provides for a temporary increase in the recoverability cap from 5% to 7.5%, to expire on the earlier of the effective date of new base rates following Penn’s next base rate case or the expiration of its LTIIP II program.

Following the Pennsylvania Companies’ 2016 base rate proceedings, the PPUC ruled in a separate proceeding related to the DSIC mechanisms that the Pennsylvania Companies were not required to reflect federal and state income tax deductions related to DSIC-eligible property in DSIC rates, which decision was appealed by the Pennsylvania OCA to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court reversed the PPUC’s decision and remanded the matter to require the Pennsylvania Companies to revise their tariffs and DSIC calculations to include ADIT and state income taxes. On April 7, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an Order granting Petitions for Allowance of Appeal by both the PPUC and the Pennsylvania Companies of the Commonwealth Court’s Opinion and Order. A briefing schedule is pending. An adverse ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not expected to result in a material impact to FirstEnergy.

On August 21, 2019, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC their annual ENEC case requesting a decrease in ENEC rates of $6.1 million beginning January 1, 2020, representing a 0.4% decrease in rates versus those in effect on August 21, 2019. On October 11, 2019, MP and PE filed a supplement requesting approval of the termination of the 50 MW PPA with Morgantown Energy Associates, a NUG entity. A settlement between MP, PE, and the majority of the intervenors fully resolving the ENEC case, which maintains 2019 ENEC rates into 2020, and supports the termination of the Morgantown Energy Associates PPA was filed with the WVPSC on October 18, 2019. An order was issued on December 20, 2019, approving the ENEC settlement and termination of the PPA with Morgantown Energy Associates.

On August 21, 2019, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC for a reconciliation of their VMS and a periodic review of its vegetation management program requesting an increase in VMS rates of $7.6 million beginning January 1, 2020. The increase is due to moving from a 5-year maintenance cycle to a 4-year cycle and performing more operation and maintenance work and less capital work on the rights of way. The increase is a 0.5% increase in rates versus those in effect on August 21, 2019. All the parties reached a settlement in the case, and the WVPSC issued its order approving the settlement without change on December 20, 2019.

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

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

Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, AE Supply, and the Transmission Companies. NERC is the ERO designated by FERC to establish and enforce these reliability standards, although NERC has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to six regional entities, including RFC. All of the facilities that FirstEnergy operates are located within the RFC region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and RFC stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards implemented and enforced by RFC.

FirstEnergy believes that it is in material compliance with all currently effective and enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such occurrences are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the occurrence and develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases “self-reporting” an occurrence to RFC. Moreover, it is clear that NERC, RFC and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. Any inability on FirstEnergy’s part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk electric system could result in the imposition of financial penalties, or obligations to upgrade or build transmission facilities, that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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 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 exceed the costs. In a subsequent order, FERC affirmed its prior ruling that ATSI must submit the cost/benefit analysis. ATSI is evaluating the cost/benefit approach.

On March 15, 2018, FERC initiated proceedings on the question of how to address possible changes to ADIT and bonus depreciation as a result of the Tax Act. Such possible changes could impact FERC-jurisdictional rates, including transmission rates. On November 21, 2019, FERC issued a final rule (Order No. 864). Order No. 864 requires utilities with transmission formula rates to update their formula rate templates to include mechanisms to (i) deduct any excess ADIT from or add any deficient ADIT to their rate base; (ii) raise or lower their income tax allowances by any amortized excess or deficient ADIT; and (iii) incorporate a new permanent worksheet into their rates that will annually track information related to excess or deficient ADIT. Alternatively, formula rate utilities can demonstrate to FERC that their formula rate template already achieves these outcomes. Utilities with transmission stated rates are required to address these new requirements as part of their next transmission rate case. FERC also issued on November 15, 2018, a policy statement providing accounting and ratemaking guidance for treatment of ADIT for all FERC-jurisdictional public utilities. The policy statement also addresses the accounting and ratemaking treatment of ADIT following the sale or retirement of an asset after December 31, 2017. FirstEnergy’s formula rate transmission utilities will make the required filings on or before the deadlines established in FERC’s order. FirstEnergy’s stated rate transmission utilities will address the requirements as part of their next transmission rate case. JCP&L is addressing the requirements in the course of its pending transmission rate case.

FERC’s methodology for calculating electric transmission utility ROE has been in transition as a result of an April 14, 2017 ruling by the D.C. Circuit that vacated FERC’s then-effective methodology. On October 16, 2018, FERC issued an order in which it proposed a revised ROE methodology. FERC proposed that, for complaint proceedings alleging that an existing ROE is not just and reasonable, FERC will rely on three financial models - discounted cash flow, capital-asset pricing, and expected earnings - to establish a composite zone of reasonableness to identify a range of just and reasonable ROEs. FERC then will utilize the transmission utility’s risk relative to other utilities within that zone of reasonableness to assign the transmission utility to one of three quartiles within the zone. FERC would take no further action (i.e., dismiss the complaint) if the existing ROE falls within the identified quartile. However, if the replacement ROE falls outside the quartile, FERC would deem the existing ROE presumptively unjust and unreasonable and would determine the replacement ROE. FERC would add a fourth financial model risk premium to the analysis to calculate a ROE based on the average point of central tendency for each of the four financial models. On March 21, 2019, FERC established NOIs to collect industry and stakeholder comments on the revised ROE methodology that is described in the October 16, 2018 decision, and also whether to make changes to FERC’s existing policies and practices for awarding transmission rates incentives. On November 21, 2019, FERC announced in a complaint proceeding involving MISO utilities that FERC would rely on the discounted cash flow and capital-asset pricing models as the basis for establishing ROE. It is not clear at this time whether FERC’s November ruling will be applied more broadly. Any changes to FERC’s transmission rate ROE and incentive policies would be applied on a prospective basis. FirstEnergy currently is participating through various trade groups in the FERC dockets where the ROE methodology is being reviewed, and on December 23, 2019, JCP&L filed a request for rehearing of FERC’s November decision in the MISO utilities docket.

FERC’s ROE policy may also impact PATH’s regulatory proceedings regarding recovery of investments and costs associated with a proposed transmission line from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland that PJM canceled in 2012. Specifically, on January 24, 2020, FERC issued an order in the PATH transmission abandonment rate case that noted FERC’s recent actions on transmission utility ROE methodologies and directed parties to brief the applicability of the October 2018 methodology to the PATH ROE. Initial briefs are due May 1, 2020 and reply briefs are due June 1, 2020.

On October 30, 2019, JCP&L filed tariff amendments with FERC to convert JCP&L’s existing stated transmission rate to a forward-looking formula transmission rate. JCP&L requested that the tariff amendments become effective January 1, 2020. On December 19, 2019, FERC issued its initial order in the case, allowing JCP&L to transition to a forward-looking formula rate as of January 1, 2020 as requested, subject to refund, pending further hearing and settlement proceedings. JCP&L and the parties to the FERC