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, ATSI in Ohio, and the Transmission Companies in Pennsylvania are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC, PUCO and PPUC, respectively. 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.

Company

Rates Effective

Allowed Debt/Equity

Allowed ROE

CEI

May 2009

51% / 49%

10.5%

ME(1)

January 2017

48.8% / 51.2%

Settled(2)

February 2015

54% / 46%

Settled(2)

JCP&L(3)

January 2017

55% / 45%

9.6%

January 2009

51% / 49%

10.5%

PE (West Virginia)

February 2015

54% / 46%

Settled(2)

PE (Maryland)

March 2019

47% / 53%

9.65%

PN(1)

January 2017

47.4% / 52.6%

Settled(2)

Penn(1)

January 2017

49.9% / 50.1%

Settled(2)

January 2009

51% / 49%

10.5%

WP(1)

January 2017

49.7% / 50.3%

Settled(2)

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 through an annually reconciled surcharge, with most 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 September 1, 2020, PE filed its proposed plan for the 2021-2023 EmPOWER Maryland program cycle. The new plan largely continues PE’s existing programs and is estimated to cost approximately $148 million over the three-year period. The MDPSC approved the plan on December 18, 2020.

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. On September 22, 2020, PE filed its depreciation study reflecting a depreciation expense of $36.2 million, which represented a slight increase, and as a result, is seeking difference in depreciation be deferred for future recovery in PE’s next base rate case. The MDPSC has set the matter for hearing and delegated it to a public utility law judge. On November 6, 2020, an order was issued scheduling evidentiary hearings in April 2021. On January 29, 2021, the Maryland Office of People's Counsel filed testimony recommending a reduction in depreciation expense of $10.8 million, and the staff of the MDPSC filed testimony recommending a reduction of $9.6 million. PE's rebuttal testimony is due on March 2, 2021.

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 pandemic. 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 pandemic, including incremental uncollectible expense, incurred from the date of the Governor’s order (or earlier if the utility could show that the expenses related to suspension of service terminations). On July 8, 2020, the MDPSC issued a notice opening a public conference to collect information from utilities and other stakeholders about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the utilities and their customers. The MDPSC subsequently issued orders allowing Maryland electric and gas utilities to resume residential service terminations for non-payment on November 15, 2020, subject to various restrictions, and clarifying that utilities could resume charging late fees on October 1, 2020.

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. Oral Argument is scheduled for March 10, 2021. 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. As further discussed below, JCP&L will recover the IIP capital investments, which totaled $97 million, as part of its distribution base rate case.

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. The NJBPU issued orders suspending JCP&L’s proposed rates until November 19, 2020. JCP&L filed updates to the requested distribution base rate in both June and July 2020, resulting in JCP&L seeking a total annual distribution base rate increase of approximately $185 million. On October 16, 2020, the parties submitted a stipulation of settlement to the administrative law judge, providing for, among other things, a $94 million annual base distribution revenues increase for JCP&L based on an ROE of 9.6%, which will become effective for customers on November 1, 2021. Until the rates become effective, and starting on January 1, 2021, JCP&L is permitted to amortize an existing regulatory liability totaling approximately $86 million to offset the base rate increase that otherwise would have occurred in this period. The parties also agreed that the actual net gain from the sale of JCP&L’s interest in the Yards Creek pumped-storage hydro generation facility in New Jersey (210 MWs), as further discussed below, shall be applied to reduce JCP&L’s existing regulatory asset for previously deferred storm costs. Lastly, the parties agreed that $95.1 million of Reliability Plus capital investment for projects through December 31, 2020 is included in rate base effective December 31, 2020, with a final prudence review of only those capital investment projects from July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 to occur in January 2021. On October 22, 2020, the administrative law judge entered an initial decision adopting the settlement. On October 28, 2020, the NJBPU approved the settlement and directed an upcoming management audit for JCP&L. On January 4, 2021, JCP&L submitted its review of storm costs as required under the stipulation of settlement. On January 15, 2021, JCP&L filed a written report for its Reliability Plus projects placed in service from July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, also as required under the stipulation of settlement.

On April 6, 2020, JCP&L signed an asset purchase agreement with Yards Creek Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of LS Power to sell its 50% interest in the Yards Creek pumped-storage hydro generation facility. Subject to terms and conditions of the agreement, the base purchase price is $155 million. On July 31, 2020, FERC approved the transfer of JCP&L’s interest in the hydroelectric operating license. On October 8, 2020, FERC issued an order authorizing the transfer of JCP&L’s ownership interest in the

hydroelectric facilities. On October 28, 2020, the NJBPU approved the sale of Yards Creek. Completion of the transaction is subject to several closing conditions; there can be no assurance that all closing conditions will be satisfied or that the transaction will be consummated. JCP&L currently anticipates closing of the transaction to occur during the first quarter of 2021. Assets held for sale on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with the transaction consist of property, plant and equipment of $45 million, which is included in the regulated distribution segment.

On August 27, 2020, JCP&L filed an AMI Program with the NJBPU, which proposes the deployment of approximately 1.2 million advanced meters over a three-year period beginning on January 1, 2023, at a total cost of approximately $418 million, including the pre-deployment phase. The 3-year deployment is part of the 20-year AMI Program that is expected to cost a total of approximately $732 million and proposes a cost recovery mechanism through a separate AMI tariff rider. On January 13, 2021, a procedural schedule was established, which includes evidentiary hearings the week of May 24, 2021.

On June 10, 2020, the NJBPU issued an order establishing a framework for the filing of utility-run energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs in accordance with the New Jersey Clean Energy Act. Under the established framework, JCP&L will recover its program investments over a ten year amortization period and its operations and maintenance expenses on an annual basis, be eligible to receive lost revenues on energy savings that resulted from its programs and be eligible for incentives or subject to penalties based on its annual program performance, beginning in the fifth year of its program offerings. On September 25, 2020, JCP&L filed its energy efficiency and peak demand reduction program. JCP&L’s program consists of 11 energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs and subprograms to be run from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. The program also seeks approval of cost recovery totaling approximately $230 million as well as lost revenues associated with the energy savings resulting from the programs. While a procedural order has been established in this matter, on January 20, 2021, JCP&L filed a letter requesting a suspension of the procedural schedule to allow for settlement discussions. The Clean Energy Act contemplates a final order from the NJBPU by May 2, 2021.

On July 2, 2020, the NJBPU issued an order allowing New Jersey utilities to track and create a regulatory asset for future recovery of all prudently incurred incremental costs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic beginning March 9, 2020 through September 30, 2021, or until the Governor issues an order stating that the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer in effect. New Jersey utilities can request recovery of such regulatory asset in a stand-alone COVID-19 regulatory asset filing or future base rate case. On August 21, 2020, the Governor of New Jersey issued a press release announcing that the New Jersey utilities agreed to extend their voluntary moratorium preventing shutoffs to both residential and commercial customers during the COVID-19 pandemic until October 15, 2020. On October 15, 2020, the Governor issued an Executive Order prohibiting utilities from terminating service to any residential gas, electric, public and private water customer, through March 15, 2021, requiring the reconnection of certain customers, and disallowing the charging of late payment charges or reconnection fees during the public health emergency. On October 28, 2020, the NJBPU issued an order expanding the scope of the proceeding to examine all pandemic issues, including recovery of the COVID-19 regulatory assets, by way of a generic proceeding. On November 30, 2020, JCP&L submitted comments.

The Ohio Companies operate under base distribution rates approved by the PUCO effective in 2009. The Ohio Companies’ residential and commercial base distribution revenues were decoupled, through a mechanism that took effect on February 1, 2020 and under which the Ohio Companies billed customers until February 9, 2021, 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 the DCR rider, 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 revenue associated with energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs, which is discussed further below; (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 the 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 the DMR is lawful, and remanded the matter to the PUCO with instructions to remove the DMR from ESP IV. The PUCO entered an order directing the Ohio Companies to cease further collection through the DMR, credit back to customers a refund of the DMR funds collected since July

2, 2019 and remove the DMR from ESP IV. On July 15, 2019, OCC filed a Notice of Appeal with the SCOH, challenging the PUCO’s exclusion of the DMR revenues from the determination of the existence of significantly excessive earnings under ESP IV for calendar year 2017 for OE and claiming a $42 million refund is due to OE customers. On December 1, 2020, the SCOH reversed the PUCO’s exclusion of the DMR revenues from the determination of the existence of significantly excessive earnings under ESP IV for OE for calendar year 2017, and remanded the case to the PUCO with instructions to conduct new proceedings which includes the DMR revenues in the analysis, determines the threshold against which the earned return is measured, and makes other necessary determinations. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings but has not deemed a liability probable as of December 31, 2020.

On July 23, 2019, Ohio enacted HB 6, which established support for nuclear energy supply in Ohio. In addition to the provisions supporting nuclear energy, HB 6 included provisions 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 a wind-down of statutorily required energy efficiency programs to commence on September 30, 2020, that the programs terminate on December 31, 2020, with the Ohio Companies' existing portfolio plans 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. Legislation has been introduced in the first quarter of 2021 to, among other things, repeal parts of HB 6, the legislation that established support for nuclear energy supply in Ohio, provided for a decoupling mechanism for Ohio electric utilities, and provided for the ending of current energy efficiency program mandates. As further discussed below, in connection with a partial settlement with the OAG and other parties, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO on February 1, 2021, to set the respective decoupling riders (Rider CSR) to zero. While the partial settlement with the OAG focused specifically on decoupling, the Ohio Companies will of their own accord not seek to recover lost distribution revenue from residential and commercial customers. FirstEnergy is committed to pursuing an open dialogue with stakeholders in an appropriate manner with respect to the numerous regulatory proceedings currently underway as further discussed herein. As a result of the partial settlement, and the decision to not seek lost distribution revenue, FirstEnergy recognized a $108 million pre-tax charge ($84 million after-tax) in the fourth quarter of 2020, and $77 million (pre-tax) of which is associated with forgoing collection of lost distribution revenue. FirstEnergy does not believe a refund for previously collected amounts under decoupling, which was approximately $18 million, is probable. Furthermore, as FirstEnergy would not have financially benefited from the Clean Air Fund included in HB 6, which is the mechanism to provide support to nuclear energy in Ohio, there is no expected additional impact to FirstEnergy due to any repeal of that provision of HB 6.

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.

In March 2020, the PUCO issued entries directing utilities to review their service disconnection and restoration policies and suspend, for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, otherwise applicable requirements that may impose a service continuity hardship or service restoration hardship on customers. The Ohio Companies are utilizing their existing approved cost recovery mechanisms where applicable to address the financial impacts of these directives. On July 31, 2020, the Ohio Companies filed with the PUCO their transition plan and requests for waivers to allow for the safe resumption of normal business operations, including service disconnections for non-payment. On September 23, 2020, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ transition plan, including approval of the resumption of service disconnections for non-payment, which the Ohio Companies began on October 5, 2020.

On July 29, 2020, the PUCO consolidated the Ohio Companies’ Applications for determination of the existence of significantly excessive earnings, or SEET, under ESP IV for calendar years 2018 and 2019, which had been previously filed on July 15, 2019, and May 15, 2020, respectively, and set a procedural schedule with evidentiary hearings scheduled for October 29, 2020. The calculations included in the Ohio Companies’ SEET filings for calendar years 2018 and 2019 demonstrate that the Ohio Companies did not have significantly excessive earnings, however, FirstEnergy and the Ohio Companies are unable to predict the PUCO’s ultimate determination of the applications. On August 3, 2020, the OCC filed an interlocutory appeal asking the PUCO to stay the SEET proceeding until the SCOH determines whether DMR should be excluded from the SEET, as further discussed above. Furthermore, on January 21, 2021, Senate Bill 10 was introduced, which would repeal legislation passed in 2019 that permitted the Ohio Companies to file their SEET results on a consolidated basis instead of on an individual company basis. On September 4, 2020, the PUCO opened its quadrennial review of ESP IV, consolidated it with the Ohio Companies’ 2018 and 2019 SEET Applications, and set a procedural schedule for the consolidated matters. On October 29, 2020, the PUCO issued an entry extending the deadline for the Ohio Companies to file quadrennial review of ESP IV testimony to March 1, 2021, with the evidentiary hearings to commence no sooner than May 3, 2021. On January 12, 2021, the PUCO consolidated these

On September 8, 2020, the OCC filed motions in the Ohio Companies’ corporate separation audit and DMR audit dockets, requesting the PUCO to open an investigation and management audit, hire an independent auditor, and require FirstEnergy to show it did not improperly use money collected from consumers or violate any utility regulatory laws, rules or orders in its activities regarding HB 6. The Ohio Companies’ filed a response in opposition to the OCC’s motions on September 23, 2020. On December 30, 2020, in response to the OCC's motion, the PUCO reopened the DMR audit docket, and directed PUCO staff to solicit a third-party auditor and conduct a full review of the DMR to ensure funds collected from ratepayers through the DMR were only used for the purposes established in ESP IV. Deadlines relating to the selection of the auditor and the issuance of the final audit report have not yet been set.

On September 15, 2020, the PUCO opened a new proceeding to review the political and charitable spending by the Ohio Companies in support of HB 6 and the subsequent referendum effort, directing the Ohio Companies to show cause, demonstrating that the costs of any political or charitable spending in support of HB 6, or the subsequent referendum effort, were not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by ratepayers. The Ohio Companies filed a response on September 30, 2020, stating that any political and charitable spending in support of HB 6 or the subsequent referendum were not included in rates or charges paid for by its customers. Several parties requested that the PUCO broaden the scope of the review of political and charitable spending.

In connection with an on-going audit of the Ohio Companies’ policies and procedures relating to the code of conduct rules between affiliates, on November 4, 2020, the PUCO initiated an additional corporate separation audit as a result of the FirstEnergy leadership transition announcement made on October 29, 2020, as further discussed below. The additional audit is to ensure compliance by the Ohio Companies and their affiliates with corporate separation laws and the Ohio Companies’ corporate separation plan. The additional audit is for the period from November 2016 through October 2020, with a final audit report to be filed in June 2021. On January 27, 2021, the PUCO selected an auditor.

On November 24, 2020, the Environmental Law and Policy Center filed motions to vacate the PUCO’s orders in proceedings related to the Ohio Companies’ settlement that provides for the implementation of the first phase of grid modernization plans and for all tax savings associated with the Tax Act to flow back to customers, the Ohio Companies’ energy efficiency portfolio plans for the period from 2013 through 2016, and the Ohio Companies’ application for a two-year extension of the DMR, on the grounds that the former Chairman of the PUCO should have recused himself in these matters. On December 30, 2020, the PUCO denied the motions, and reinstated the requirement under ESP IV that the Ohio Companies file a base distribution rate case by May 31, 2024, the end of ESP IV, which the Ohio Companies had indicated they would not oppose.

On December 7, 2020, the Citizens’ Utility Board of Ohio filed a complaint with the PUCO against the Ohio Companies. The complaint alleges that the Ohio Companies’ new charges resulting from HB 6, and any increased rates resulting from proceedings over which the former PUCO Chairman presided, are unjust and unreasonable, and that the Ohio Companies violated Ohio corporate separation laws by failing to operate separately from unregulated affiliates. The complaint requests, among other things, that any rates authorized by HB 6 or authorized by the PUCO in a proceeding over which the former Chairman presided be made refundable; that the Ohio Companies be required to file a new distribution rate case at the earliest possible date; and that the Ohio Companies’ corporate separation plans be modified to introduce institutional controls. The Ohio Companies are contesting the complaint.

On December 9, 2020, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group filed an appeal to the SCOH challenging the PUCO’s generic order directing the form of rider all Ohio electric distribution utilities must charge to recover the costs of the HB 6 Clean Air Fund. The appeal contends that the PUCO erred in adopting the rate design for the riders, in establishing the riders during ongoing proceedings and investigations related to HB 6, and in not requiring electric distribution utilities to include refund language in the rider tariffs. On December 30, 2020, the PUCO vacated its generic order establishing the Clean Air Fund riders, as required by a preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio. On January 11, 2021, the SCOH granted a joint application of the Ohio Manufacturers' Association Energy Group and the PUCO and dismissed the appeal.

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 June 18, 2020, the PPUC entered a Final Implementation Order for a Phase IV EE&C Plan, operating from June 2021 through May 2026. The Final Implementation Order set demand reduction targets, relative to 2007 to 2008 peak demands, at 2.9% MW for ME, 3.3% MW for PN, 2.0% MW for Penn, and 2.5% MW for WP; and energy consumption reduction targets, as a percentage of the Pennsylvania Companies’ historic 2009 to 2010 reference load at 3.1% MWH for ME, 3.0% MWH for PN, 2.7% MWH for Penn, and 2.4% MWH for WP. The Pennsylvania Companies’ Phase IV plans were filed November 30, 2020. A settlement has been reached in this matter, and a joint petition seeking approval of that settlement by the parties was filed on February 16, 2021. A PPUC decision on the settlement is expected in March 2021.

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. Briefs and Reply Briefs of the parties were filed, and oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on October 21, 2020. An adverse ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not expected to result in a material impact to FirstEnergy.

The PPUC issued an order on March 13, 2020, forbidding utilities from terminating service for non-payment for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 13, 2020, the PPUC issued a Secretarial letter directing utilities to track all prudently incurred incremental costs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, and to create a regulatory asset for future recovery of incremental uncollectibles incurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and termination moratorium. On October 13, 2020, the PPUC entered an order lifting the service termination moratorium effective November 9, 2020, subject to certain additional notification, payment procedures and exceptions, and permits the Pennsylvania Companies to create a regulatory asset for all incremental expenses associated with their compliance with the order.

On March 13, 2020, the WVPSC urged all utilities to suspend utility service terminations except where necessary as a matter of safety or where requested by the customer. On May 15, 2020, the WVPSC issued an order to authorize MP and PE to record a deferral of additional, extraordinary costs directly related to complying with the various COVID-19 government shut-down orders and operational precautions, including impacts on uncollectible expense and cash flow related to temporary discontinuance of service terminations for non-payment and any credits to minimum demand charges associated with business customers adversely impacted by shut-downs or temporary closures related to the pandemic. MP and PE resumed disconnection activity for commercial and industrial customers on September 15, 2020, and for residential customers on November 4, 2020.

On December 30, 2020, MP and PE filed an integrated resource plan with the WVPSC. The plan projects a small capacity deficit but an energy surplus in MP’s and PE’s supply resources when compared with current WV load demand and projects the capacity deficit growing over the next 15 years. The plan does not recommend additional supply-side resources with a possible exception for small utility-scale solar resources and recommends that the capacity deficit be met through the PJM capacity market. MP currently expects to seek approval in 2021 to construct solar generation sources of up to 50 MWs.

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.

Company

Rates Effective

Capital Structure

Allowed ROE

ATSI

January 1, 2015

Actual (13-month average)

10.38%

JCP&L

January 2020(1)

Actual (13-month average)(1)

10.80%(1)

March 21, 2018(2)(4)

Settled(2)(3)

March 21, 2018(2)(4)

Settled(2)(3)

March 21, 2018(2)(4)

Settled(2)(3)

MAIT

July 1, 2017

Lower of Actual (13-month average) or 60%

10.3%

TrAIL

July 1, 2008

Actual (year-end)

12.7% (TrAIL the Line & Black Oak SVC)
11.7% (All other projects)

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 in the case of the Utilities major wholesale purchases remain subject to review and 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 May 1, 2020, ATSI filed amendments to its formula rate to recover regulatory assets for certain costs that ATSI incurred as a result of its 2011 move from MISO to PJM, certain costs allocated to ATSI by FERC for transmission projects that were constructed by other MISO transmission owners, certain income tax-related adjustments, including, but not limited to impacts from the Tax Act discussed further below, and certain costs for transmission-related vegetation management programs. The amount on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Balance Sheet for these regulatory assets was approximately $79 million and $73 million, as of December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. Per prior FERC orders, ATSI included a “cost-benefit study” to support recovery of ATSI’s costs to move to PJM, and the MISO transmission project costs that were allocated to ATSI. Certain intervenors filed protests of the formula rate amendments on May 29, 2020, and ATSI filed a reply on June 15, 2020. On June 30, 2020, FERC issued an initial order accepting the tariff amendments subject to refund, suspending the effective date for five months to be effective December 1, 2020, and setting the matter for hearing and settlement proceedings. ATSI is engaged in settlement negotiations with the other parties to the formula rate amendments proceeding.

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. Per FERC directives, ATSI submitted its compliance filing on May 1, 2020. MAIT submitted its compliance filing on June 1, 2020. Certain intervenors filed protests of the compliance filings, to which ATSI and MAIT responded. On October 28, 2020, FERC staff requested additional information about ATSI’s proposed rate base adjustment mechanism, and ATSI submitted the requested information on November 25, 2020. On May 15, 2020, TrAIL submitted its compliance filing and on June 1, 2020, PATH submitted its required compliance filing. These compliance filings each remain pending before FERC. MP, WP and PE (as holders of a “stated” transmission rate) are addressing these requirements in the transmission formula rates amendments that were filed on October 29, 2020. JCP&L is addressing these requirements as part of its pending transmission formula 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 May 21, 2020, FERC issued Opinion No. 569-A that changed FERC’s ROE methodology. Under this methodology FERC established an ROE that is based on three financial models – discounted cash flow, capital-asset pricing, and risk premium – to calculate a composite zone of reasonableness. FERC noted that utilities could, in utility-specific proceedings, ask to have the expected earnings methodology included in calculating the utility’s authorized ROE. FERC also noted that, going forward, it will divide that zone into three equal parts, to be used for high risk, normal risk, and low risk utilities. A given utility will be assigned to one of these three parts of the zone of reasonableness, and its ROE will be set at the median or midpoint of the other utilities that are in the applicable third of the zone. FirstEnergy filed a request for rehearing, which FERC denied on July 22, 2020. On November 19, 2020, FERC issued Opinion No. 569-B, which affirmed the Opinion No. 569-A rulings. FirstEnergy initiated, but subsequently withdrew, appeals of these orders. Appeals of Opinion Nos. 569, 569-A and 569-B are pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any changes to FERC’s transmission rate ROE and incentive policies would be applied on a prospective basis.