XML 47 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

REGULATORY MATTERS | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2025
Regulated Operations [Abstract] |
REGULATORY MATTERS | REGULATORY MATTERS The disclosures in this note apply to FirstEnergy, with the disclosures under “State Regulation”, “New Jersey”, “FERC Regulatory Matters”, “FERC Audit”, “Transmission ROE Methodology”, “Transmission Rate Incentives”, “Transmission Planning Supplemental Projects”, and “Local Transmission Planning Complaint” also applicable to JCP&L. STATE REGULATION Each of the Electric Companies’ 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 and TrAIL in Virginia, ATSI in Ohio, the Transmission Companies in Pennsylvania, PE and MP in West Virginia, and PE in Maryland are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC, PUCO, PPUC, WVPSC, and MDPSC, 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. MARYLAND PE operates under MDPSC-approved distribution base rates that were effective as of October 19, 2023, and that were subsequently modified by an MDPSC order dated January 3, 2024, which became effective as of March 1, 2024. 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, following passage of the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, required annual incremental energy efficiency targets of 2% per year from 2022 through 2024, 2.25% per year in 2025 and 2026, and 2.5% per year in 2027 and thereafter. On August 1, 2023, PE filed its proposed plan for the 2024-2026 cycle as required by the MDPSC. Additionally, at the direction of the MDPSC, PE together with other Maryland utilities were required to address GHG reductions in addition to energy efficiency. In compliance with the MDPSC directive, PE submitted three scenarios with projected costs over a three-year cycle of $311 million, $354 million, and $510 million, respectively. On December 29, 2023, the MDPSC issued an order approving the $311 million scenario for most programs, with some modifications. On August 15, 2024, PE filed a revised plan for the remainder of the 2024-2026 cycle to comply with refined GHG reduction targets with a total budget of $314 million, which the MDPSC approved on December 27, 2024. PE recovers EmPOWER Maryland program costs with carrying costs on unamortized balances through an annually reconciled surcharge, with certain costs subject to recovery over a five-year amortization period. Lost distribution revenue attributable to energy efficiency or demand reduction is recovered only through base rates. Consistent with an MDPSC order dated December 29, 2022, phasing out the unamortized balances of EmPOWER investments, PE is required to expense 67% of its EmPOWER Maryland program costs in 2025, and 100% in 2026 and beyond. All previously unamortized costs for prior cycles are to be collected by the end of 2030, consistent with the 2024-2026 order issued on December 29, 2023. New legislation which took effect on July 1, 2024 is expected to reduce the carrying costs on the EmPOWER unamortized balances for PE by a total of $25 to $30 million over the period of 2024-2030. On July 31, 2024, the MDPSC issued an order implementing revised EmPOWER surcharge rates for PE in accordance with the new law, denying PE’s request for a hearing that sought to challenge certain portions of the law. On August 30, 2024, PE filed a petition seeking judicial review of its challenge to the law in the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland. On August 6, 2025, the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland issued an order granting PE’s petition, finding that the legislature may not change terms to apply retroactively to monies already expended. MDPSC and the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel have each appealed the decision. NEW JERSEY JCP&L operates under NJBPU approved rates that took effect as of February 15, 2024, and became effective for customers as of June 1, 2024. 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. The settlement of the distribution rate case in 2020, provided among other things, that JCP&L would be subject to a management audit, which began in May 2021. On April 12, 2023, the NJBPU accepted the final management audit report for filing purposes and ordered that interested stakeholders file comments on the report by May 22, 2023, which deadline was extended until July 31, 2023. JCP&L and one other party filed comments on July 31, 2023. On July 16, 2025, the NJBPU issued its final order, directing 100 of the 105 recommendations be implemented, including certain modifications. JCP&L filed its implementation plan on September 22, 2025, and began quarterly progress reporting in October 2025. On September 17, 2021, in connection with Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development, LLC, a transmission company jointly owned by Shell New Energies US and EDF Renewables North America, JCP&L submitted a proposal to the NJBPU and PJM to build transmission infrastructure connecting offshore wind-generated electricity to the New Jersey power grid. On October 26, 2022, the JCP&L proposal was accepted, in part, in an order issued by NJBPU. The proposal, as accepted, included approximately $723 million in investments for JCP&L to both build new and upgrade existing transmission infrastructure. JCP&L’s proposal projects an investment ROE of 10.2% and includes the option for JCP&L to acquire up to a 20% equity stake in Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development, LLC. The resulting rates associated with the project are expected to be shared among the ratepayers of all New Jersey electric utilities. On April 17, 2023, JCP&L applied for the FERC “abandonment” transmission rates incentive, which would provide for recovery of 100% of the cancelled prudent project costs that are incurred after the incentive is approved, and 50% of the costs incurred prior to that date, in the event that some or all of the project is cancelled for reasons beyond JCP&L’s control. On August 21, 2023, FERC approved JCP&L’s application, effective August 22, 2023. On October 31, 2023, offshore wind developer, Orsted, announced plans to cease development of two offshore wind projects in New Jersey—Ocean Wind 1 and 2—having a combined planned capacity of 2,248 MWs. On January 30, 2025, and February 25, 2025, Shell New Energies and EDF Renewables North America respectively announced that each was exiting its Atlantic Shores partnership to construct wind energy off the shore of New Jersey. On June 4, 2025, Atlantic Shores filed a petition with the NJBPU, requesting consent to terminate its 1.5 GW offshore wind project. These cancellations are not expected to directly affect JCP&L’s awarded projects, and JCP&L remains under an obligation to begin construction in 2025 based on current NJBPU direction. On May 23, 2025, JCP&L filed with the NJBPU a motion seeking declaratory guidance in view of recent offshore wind developments, including a shift in federal energy policy toward more traditional energy resources. JCP&L requested that the NJBPU provide guidance either affirming the current project schedule or, alternatively, authorizing JCP&L to modify the schedule. On June 9, 2025, responses to JCP&L’s motion were filed with the NJBPU, including a cross-motion by the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel to reopen the offshore wind transmission proceeding, which JCP&L opposed. JCP&L advised that it intended to comply with its contractual obligations to construct the transmission project, and that its motion was limited to seeking guidance on the construction milestones. While the motion and cross-motion are pending decision, JCP&L will continue to construct the project per the milestones that are described in JCP&L’s contract with PJM. On July 28, 2025, the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel asked the NJBPU to take judicial notice of a recent NYPSC order terminating its offshore wind transmission infrastructure process in the interest of protecting ratepayers. On August 13, 2025, the NJBPU issued an order requesting that JCP&L delay expenditures of certain of the transmission investment planned by JCP&L for a 2.5-year period, and directing that JCP&L work with NJBPU staff and PJM to ensure alignment as to the work that is to be continued on the original timeline and the work that is to be delayed consistent with the order. Consistent with the commitments made in its proposal to the NJBPU, JCP&L formally submitted in November 2023 the first part of its application to the DOE to finance a substantial portion of the project using low-interest rate loans available under the DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program of the IRA. JCP&L submitted the second part of its two-part application on March 13, 2024, which was approved on May 17, 2024. The DOE Loan Program Office initiated a due diligence review of the application shortly thereafter. On January 16, 2025, the DOE announced a conditional commitment to JCP&L for a loan guarantee of up to approximately $716 million for the project. On August 20, 2025, the DOE terminated its conditional commitment to JCP&L due to the DOE’s determination that a condition precedent could not be satisfied. On November 9, 2023, JCP&L filed a petition for approval of its EnergizeNJ with the NJBPU that would, among other things, support grid modernization, system resiliency and substation modernization in technologies designed to provide enhanced customer benefits. JCP&L proposes EnergizeNJ will be implemented over a five-year budget period with estimated costs of approximately $935 million over the deployment period, of which, $906 million is capital investments and $29 million is operating and maintenance expenses. Under the proposal, the capital costs of EnergizeNJ would be recovered through JCP&L’s base rates via annual and semi-annual base rate adjustment filings. The 2023 base rate case stipulation that was filed on February 2, 2024, necessitated amendments to the EnergizeNJ program. On February 14, 2024, the NJBPU approved the stipulated settlement between JCP&L and various parties, resolving JCP&L’s request for a distribution base rate increase. On February 27, 2024, as part of the stipulated settlement, JCP&L amended its pending EnergizeNJ petition following receipt of NJBPU approval of the base rate case settlement, to remove the high-priority circuits that are to be addressed in the first phase of its reliability improvement plan and to include the second phase of its reliability improvement plan that is expected to further address certain high-priority circuits that require additional upgrades. On April 10, 2025, JCP&L, joined by various parties, filed a stipulated settlement with the NJBPU resolving JCP&L’s amended EnergizeNJ petition, which the NJBPU approved on April 23, 2025. The settlement provides for total program costs of $339 million, including capital investments in JCP&L’s electric distribution system of approximately $203 million, $132 million of matching capital investment and approximately $4 million of O&M expense. Pursuant to the settlement, the program began on July 1, 2025, and will continue through December 31, 2028. JCP&L has agreed to file a base rate case no later than January 1, 2030. In February 2025, the NJBPU certified the results of its annual basic generation service auctions through which New Jersey’s four EDCs – including JCP&L – satisfy their generation supply requirements for BGS customers for the period beginning June 1, 2025 through May 31, 2026. The certified results resulted in significant rate increases for New Jersey EDC customers and, by order dated April 23, 2025, the NJBPU directed the four EDCs to submit proposals to mitigate the impact of the rate increases that affected residential customers beginning June 1, 2025. On May 7, 2025, JCP&L filed a petition in response to the April 2025 order, modeling four potential mitigation scenarios. On June 18, 2025, the NJBPU approved a stipulation that included JCP&L, NJBPU Staff and New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, pursuant to which, among other things, JCP&L agreed to apply a temporary rate credit of $30.00 to each residential electric customer’s monthly bill in July and August 2025 that would be deferred in a regulatory asset and recovered with a charge of $10 applied to each residential bill from September 2025 through February 2026 to recover the amounts deferred, without carry charges, subject to a final reconciliation. As of September 30, 2025, JCP&L's regulatory asset associated with this temporary rate credit was approximately $50 million. On August 13, 2025, the NJBPU issued an Order to Show Cause reviewing JCP&L’s 2024 Annual System Performance Report, which includes information regarding JCP&L’s systems level of electric service reliability performance during the prior calendar year. Failure to attain NJBPU’s minimum reliability levels may subject JCP&L to a penalty. The NJBPU order alleges JCP&L has failed to achieve minimum reliability levels for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024, and directed JCP&L to file an answer demonstrating why the NJBPU should not impose certain penalties upon JCP&L for such failure, which JCP&L filed on October 10, 2025. OHIO The Ohio Companies operate under PUCO-approved base distribution rates that became effective in 2009. The Ohio Companies operated under ESP IV through May 31, 2024, which provided for the supply of power to non-shopping customers at a market-based price set through an auction process. From June 1, 2024, until January 31, 2025, the Ohio Companies operated under ESP V, as modified by the PUCO, and as further described below. On December 18, 2024, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ notice to withdraw ESP V and approved the Ohio Companies’ proposal for returning to ESP IV, with modifications. ESP IV, as modified, continues the DCR rider, which supports continued investment related to the distribution system for the benefit of customers, with an annual revenue cap of $390 million. In addition, ESP IV, as modified, includes: (1) continuation of a base distribution rate freeze until ESP VI becomes effective or the Ohio Companies’ obtain the PUCO’s staff agreement; (2) a goal across FirstEnergy to reduce CO 2 emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045; and (3) contributions, totaling $6.39 million per year to: (a) fund energy conservation, economic development and job retention programs in the Ohio Companies’ service territories; and (b) establish fuel-funds in each of the Ohio Companies’ service territories to assist low-income customers. On April 5, 2023, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO for approval of ESP V, for an eight-year term beginning June 1, 2024, and continuing through May 31, 2032. On May 15, 2024, the PUCO issued an order approving ESP V with modifications, which became effective June 1, 2024, and would have continued through May 31, 2029. ESP V, as modified by the PUCO, provided for, among other things, the continuation of existing riders related to purchased power, transmission and uncollectibles, the continuation of the DCR rider with proposed annual revenue cap increases until new base rates are established, the continuation of the AMI rider, and the addition of new riders for recovery of storm and vegetation management expenses. Many of the terms and conditions were to be reconsidered in the base rate case. The ESP V order additionally directed the Ohio Companies to file another base distribution rate case not later than May 31, 2028, and contribute $32.5 million during the term of ESP V to fund low-income customer bill assistance programs and bill assistance for income-eligible senior citizens, and to develop an electric vehicle education program to assist customers in transitioning to electric vehicles which was recognized in the second quarter of 2024 within “Other operating expenses” at the Regulated Distribution segment and on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Statements of Income. Due to the risks and uncertainty resulting from the Ohio Companies’ application for rehearing being denied by operation of law, on October 29, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed a notice of their intent to withdraw ESP V and proposed the terms under which they would resume operating under ESP IV. On December 18, 2024, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ notice of withdrawal. Also on December 18, 2024, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ proposal for returning to ESP IV, with modifications. Consistent with ESP IV, the PUCO authorized the Ohio Companies’ reinstatement of the DCR rider, with an annual revenue cap of $390 million, and denied the Ohio Companies’ request to continue ESP IV’s DCR rider revenue cap increases of $15 million per year. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that storm costs deferred under ESP V since June 1, 2024, remain on the Ohio Companies’ books and subject to review in a future case. The PUCO also denied the Ohio Companies’ request to lift the base rate freeze in ESP IV, permitting the Ohio Companies’ pending base rate case to continue, but prohibiting new rates from going into effect until either the effective date of ESP VI, or the staff agrees that the freeze be lifted and new rates be implemented. On January 22, 2025, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ revised ESP IV tariffs, effective February 1, 2025, at which time the Ohio Companies resumed operating under ESP IV. On April 7, 2025, certain intervenors filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging the Ohio Companies’ return to ESP IV. On May 22, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court granted the Ohio Companies motion to intervene in the appeal. On July 7, 2025, OCC and NOAC filed their Appellants’ brief. Appellees, including the PUCO and the Ohio Companies, filed their briefs on August 26, 2025, to which OCC and NOAC replied on September 15, 2025. On January 31, 2025, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO for ESP VI, for a term beginning on the date new base distribution rates from the pending base rate case go into effect, in an effort to align with the ongoing base distribution rate case, and continuing through May 31, 2028. ESP VI proposes to continue providing power to non-shopping customers at market-based prices set through an auction process, and proposes to continue riders supporting investment in the Ohio Companies’ distribution system, including Rider DCR with annual reliability performance-based revenue cap increases of $37 million to $43 million, and an AMI rider for recovery of approved grid modernization investments. ESP VI additionally proposes riders to support continued maintenance of the distribution system, including recovery of vegetation management and storm restoration operations and maintenance expenses. In addition, ESP VI proposes energy efficiency programs for low-income customers, and includes a commitment to spend $6.5 million annually over the ESP VI term, without recovery from customers, on initiatives to assist low-income customers, as well as education and incentives to help ensure customers have good experiences with electric vehicles. The PUCO held a technical conference on March 12, 2025. On March 14, 2025, as directed by the PUCO in its December 18, 2024, order approving the Ohio Companies’ revised ESP IV tariffs, the Ohio Companies filed with the PUCO a request to commence their statutorily required quadrennial review of ESP IV and establish a proposed schedule. On July 10, 2025, the Ohio Companies withdrew the request for the PUCO to establish a procedural schedule following the May 15, 2025 signing by the Ohio Governor of HB 15 ending the statutory mandate to conduct the quadrennial review, effective August 14, 2025. The OCC filed its response to the Ohio Companies of notice of withdrawal on July 25, 2025, to which the Ohio Companies replied on August 1, 2025. The matter remains pending before the PUCO. On May 31, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed their application for an increase in base distribution rates based on a 2024 calendar year test period. The Ohio Companies requested a net increase in base distribution revenues of approximately $94 million, with a return on equity of 10.8% and capital structures of 44% debt and 56% equity for CEI, 46% debt and 54% equity for OE, and 45% debt and 55% equity for TE, which reflects a roll-in of current riders such as DCR and AMI. Key components of the base rate case filing include a proposal to change pension and OPEB recovery to the delayed recognition method and to implement a mechanism to establish a regulatory asset (or liability) to recover (or refund) net differences between the amount of pension and OPEB expense requested in the proceeding and the actual amount each year using this method. Additionally, the Ohio Companies request recovery of certain incurred costs, including the impact of major storms, a program to convert streetlights to LEDs, and others. On June 14, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed supporting testimony. On July 31, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed an update that adjusted the net increase in base distribution revenues to approximately $190 million and incorporated matters in the rate case as directed by the PUCO’s ESP V order. On January 27, 2025, the Ohio Companies filed a notice in the base rate case notifying parties that they will update their application for an increase in base distribution rates to reflect the withdrawal of ESP V and the reversion to ESP IV. The PUCO staff hired a third-party to assist in the review of the Ohio Companies' base rate case filing, and on February 21, 2025, PUCO staff and the third-party auditor each filed their reports. The auditor’s report recommended adjustments which would result in a net increase of the Ohio Companies’ base distribution revenues of approximately $8 million, with a return on equity of 9.63% and capital structures of 48.8% debt and 51.2% equity for each of the Ohio Companies. The PUCO staff’s report takes limited positions on the auditor’s finding and recommendations and makes additional findings. On March 24, 2025, the Ohio Companies, OCC, and other parties filed objections to the PUCO’s staff report and the auditor’s report. In addition, the Ohio Companies filed certain pieces of supplemental testimony and intervenors filed direct testimony. The Ohio Companies and various parties are engaged in settlement discussions with respect to the pending base rate case. Evidentiary hearings were held between May 5, 2025, and May 29, 2025. Initial and reply briefs were filed on June 20, 2025 and July 7, 2025, respectively. On July 21, 2025, the Ohio Companies filed a motion to strike, to which the PUCO staff and other intervenors responded on August 5, 2025. The Ohio Companies filed their reply on August 12, 2025. An order is anticipated in November 2025. On May 16, 2022, May 15, 2023, and May 15, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed their SEET applications for determination of the existence of significantly excessive earnings under ESP IV for calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively. On May 15, 2025, the Ohio Companies filed their SEET application for determination of the existence of significantly excessive earnings under ESPs IV and V for calendar year 2024. Each application demonstrated that each of the individual Ohio Companies did not have significantly excessive earnings. These matters remain pending before the PUCO. 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. 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 customers through the DMR were only used for the purposes established in ESP IV. On June 2, 2021, the PUCO selected an auditor, and the auditor filed the final audit report on January 14, 2022, which made certain findings and recommendations. The report found that spending of DMR revenues was not required to be tracked, and that DMR revenues, like all rider revenues, are placed into the regulated money pool as a matter of routine, where the funds lose their identity. Therefore, the report could not suggest that DMR funds were used definitively for direct or indirect support for grid modernization. The report also concluded that there was no documented evidence that ties revenues from the DMR to lobbying for the passage of HB 6, but also could not rule out with certainty uses of DMR funds to support the passage of HB 6. The report further recommended that the regulated companies' money pool be audited more frequently and the Ohio Companies adopt formal dividend policies. Final comments and responses were filed by parties during the second quarter of 2022. The proceeding was stayed in its entirety, including discovery and motions, continuously at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio beginning in August 2022 and was lifted on February 26, 2024. On February 26, 2024, the Attorney Examiner consolidated this proceeding with the expanded DCR rider audit proceeding described below and on November 22, 2024, the administrative law judge ordered that the bifurcated portion of the corporate separation audit, discussed further below, be consolidated with the already-consolidated DMR audit and expanded DCR rider audit proceeding. Evidentiary hearings were held between June 10, 2025, and June 27, 2025. Initial and reply briefs were filed by the parties on July 21, 2025, and August 4, 2025, respectively. 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, and directed 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 customers. The Ohio Companies initially filed a response stating 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 customers, but on August 6, 2021, filed a supplemental response explaining that, in light of the facts set forth in the DPA and the findings of the DCR rider audit report further discussed below, political or charitable spending in support of HB 6, or the subsequent referendum effort, affected pole attachment rates paid by approximately $15,000. On October 26, 2021, the OCC filed a motion requesting the PUCO to order an independent external audit to investigate FE’s political and charitable spending related to HB 6, and to appoint an independent review panel to retain and oversee the auditor. In November and December 2021, parties filed comments and reply comments regarding the Ohio Companies’ original and supplemental responses to the PUCO’s September 15, 2020, show cause directive. On May 4, 2022, the PUCO selected a third-party auditor to determine whether the show cause demonstration submitted by the Ohio Companies is sufficient to ensure that the cost of any political or charitable spending in support of HB 6 or the subsequent referendum effort was not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by ratepayers. The proceeding was stayed in its entirety, including discovery and motions, continuously at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio beginning in August 2022 and the stay was lifted on February 26, 2024. On September 30, 2024, the third-party auditor’s report was filed. The audit examined 53 payments totaling approximately $75 million made in support of the passage of HB 6 and subsequent referendum efforts, and concluded that less than $5 million was allocated to the Ohio Companies. The audit report affirmed the Ohio Companies’ conclusion in its August 6, 2021 filing that a rate impact of less than $15,000 was charged to the Ohio Companies’ pole attachment customers associated with political and charitable spending in support of HB 6. On October 22, 2024, parties filed comments on the audit report, and on November 5, 2024, parties filed reply comments. The parties' comments remain pending with the PUCO. The administrative law judge set a procedural schedule on September 5, 2025. Evidentiary hearings are scheduled to begin on February 24, 2026. In connection with an ongoing 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. The final audit report was filed on September 13, 2021. The audit report makes no findings of major non-compliance with Ohio corporate separation requirements, minor non-compliance with eight requirements, and findings of compliance with 23 requirements. Parties filed comments and reply comments on the audit report. The proceeding was stayed in its entirety, including discovery and motions, continuously at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio beginning in August 2022 and the stay was lifted on February 26, 2024. On September 10, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed testimony describing their compliance with Ohio corporate separation laws and the implementation of the recommendations made in the audit reports. On September 20, 2024, intervenors filed testimony recommending fines for alleged violations of the Ohio corporate separation requirements. Evidentiary hearings were held on October 9 and 10, 2024; the scope of the hearings excluded allegations involving activities related to the passage of HB 6 and the former PUCO chairman, which were later addressed in hearings held between June 10, 2025, and June 27, 2025, as further described below. Initial and reply briefs have been filed by the Ohio Companies, PUCO staff and the intervening parties. To the extent the PUCO ultimately accepts the intervenors’ recommendations and issues a fine to the Ohio Companies, such amount is not expected to be material. On September 3, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed an application to amend their corporate separation plan to incorporate certain recommendations from prior audit reports, which include, but are not limited to, improving controls for non-regulated competitive employees’ physical space and access to data, updating and implementing a process to annually review the cost allocation manual, developing state specific codes of conduct practices, and implementing additional training related to the cost allocation manual and the state codes of conduct. On October 23, 2024, the administrative law judge issued an entry suspending automatic approval of the amended corporate separation plan and establishing a procedural schedule. In connection with an ongoing annual audit of the Ohio Companies’ DCR rider for 2020, and as a result of disclosures in FirstEnergy’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 (filed on February 18, 2021), the PUCO expanded the scope of the audit on March 10, 2021, to include a review of certain transactions that were either improperly classified, misallocated, or lacked supporting documentation, and to determine whether funds collected from customers were used to pay the vendors, and if so, whether or not the funds associated with those payments should be returned to customers through the DCR rider or through an alternative proceeding. On August 3, 2021, the auditor filed its final report on this phase of the audit, and the parties submitted comments and reply comments on this audit report in October 2021. Additionally, on September 29, 2021, the PUCO expanded the scope of the audit in this proceeding to determine if the costs of the naming rights for FirstEnergy Stadium have been recovered from the Ohio Companies’ customers. On November 19, 2021, the auditor filed its final report, in which the auditor concluded that the FirstEnergy Stadium naming rights expenses were not recovered from Ohio customers. On December 15, 2021, the PUCO further expanded the scope of the audit to include an investigation into an apparent nondisclosure of a side agreement in the Ohio Companies’ ESP IV settlement proceedings, but stayed its expansion of the audit until otherwise ordered by the PUCO. The proceeding was stayed in its entirety, including discovery and motions, continuously at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio beginning in August 2022 and the stay was lifted on February 26, 2024. On February 26, 2024, the Attorney Examiner consolidated this proceeding with the Rider DMR audit proceeding described above, and further lifted the stay of the portion of the investigation relating to an apparent nondisclosure of a side agreement. On November 22, 2024, the administrative law judge ordered that the bifurcated portion of the corporate separation audit be consolidated with the already-consolidated DMR audit and the expanded DCR rider audit proceeding. Evidentiary hearings were held between June 10, 2025, and June 27, 2025. Initial and reply briefs were filed by the parties on July 21, 2025, and August 4, 2025, respectively. In the fourth quarter of 2020, motions were filed with the PUCO requesting that the PUCO amend the Ohio Companies’ riders for collecting the OVEC-related charges required by HB 6 to provide for refunds in the event such provisions of HB 6 are repealed. Neither the Ohio Companies nor FE benefit from the OVEC-related charges the Ohio Companies collect. Instead, the Ohio Companies were further required by HB 6 to remit all the OVEC-related charges they collect to non-FE Ohio electric distribution utilities until August 14, 2025, at which time HB 15 became effective and the Ohio Companies stopped collecting OVEC-related charges. The Ohio Companies contested the motions, which are pending before the PUCO. See Note 10, “Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies” of the Combined Notes to Financial Statements of the Registrants below for additional details on the government investigations and ongoing litigation surrounding the investigation of HB 6. PENNSYLVANIA FE PA has five rate districts in Pennsylvania – four that correspond to the territories previously serviced by ME, PN, Penn, and WP and one rate district that corresponds to WP’s service provided to The Pennsylvania State University. The rate districts created by the PA Consolidation will not reach full rate unity until the earlier of 2033 or the conclusion of three base rate cases filed after January 1, 2025. FE PA operates under rates approved by the PPUC, effective as of January 1, 2025. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Act 129 of 2008 and PPUC orders, the Pennsylvania Companies implemented energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs with demand reduction targets, relative to 2007-2008 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 fourth phase of FE PA’s energy efficiency and peak demand reduction program, which runs for the five-year period beginning June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2026, was approved by the PPUC on June 18, 2020, providing cost recovery of approximately $390 million to be recovered through Energy Efficiency and Conservation Phase IV Riders for each FE PA rate district. Pennsylvania EDCs are permitted to seek PPUC approval of an LTIIP for accelerated infrastructure improvements and costs related to highway relocation projects, after which a DSIC may be approved to recover LTIIP costs. On July 22, 2024, FE PA filed its application with the PPUC seeking approval for the 2025-2029 phase of its LTIIP program, which is expected to result in approximately $1.6 billion in investments, with approximately $1.4 billion of such investments going in service during the five-year period. The PPUC approved FE PA’s application on December 19, 2024, and implementation began in January 2025. WEST VIRGINIA MP and PE provide electric service to all customers through traditional cost-based, regulated utility ratemaking and operate under WVPSC-approved rates that became effective March 27, 2024. 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 typically updated annually and MP and PE filed their ENEC filing on August 29, 2025, for rates effective January 1, 2026. On April 21, 2022, the WVPSC issued an order approving, effective May 1, 2022, a tariff to offer solar power on a voluntary basis to West Virginia customers and requiring MP and PE to subscribe at least 85% of the planned 50 MWs of solar generation before seeking approval for surcharge cost recovery. MP and PE must seek separate approval from the WVPSC to recover any solar generation costs in excess of the approved solar power tariff. On April 24, 2023, MP and PE sought approval for surcharge cost recovery from the WVPSC for three of the five solar sites, representing 30 MWs of generation. On August 23, 2023, the WVPSC approved the customer surcharge and granted approval to construct three of the five solar sites. The surcharge went into effect January 1, 2024. Two of the five solar generation sites went into service in 2024, with the third in April 2025. On December 4, 2024, MP and PE submitted for approval a settlement agreement to increase its solar surcharge rate. The WVPSC approved the settlement without modification on December 27, 2024, and new rates went into effect on January 1, 2025. On August 29, 2025, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC their annual ENEC case requesting an increase in ENEC rates by approximately $14 million, proposed to be effective January 1, 2026, which represents a 0.8% increase of total revenues. The proposed increase is driven primarily by an under-recovery balance as of June 30, 2025, and higher costs for fuel and reagents. The WVPSC scheduled a hearing for December 15, 2025. An order from the WVPSC is expected by the end of first quarter 2026. On August 29, 2025, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC their biennial review of their vegetation management program and surcharge. MP and PE have proposed an approximate $3.2 million decrease in the surcharge rates due to an over-recovery balance as of June 30, 2025, and higher costs for fuel and reagents. The WVPSC scheduled a hearing for December 15, 2025. An order from the WVPSC is expected by the end of first quarter 2026. On October 1, 2025, MP and PE filed their integrated resource plan with the WVPSC. To ensure that MP and PE can meet their PJM adequacy requirements, the plan proposes, among other things, near-term market capacity purchases, and the addition of 70 MWs of solar generation by 2028 and 1,200 MWs of natural gas combined cycle generation by 2031, which are expected to require a capital investment that is currently estimated to total approximately $2.5 billion. A procedural order is expected from the WVPSC by the end of 2025, and MP and PE expect to seek approval to build or acquire a natural gas combined cycle plant from the WVPSC in the first quarter of 2026. FERC REGULATORY MATTERS Under the Federal Power Act, FERC regulates rates for interstate wholesale sales and transmission of electric power, regulatory accounting and reporting under the Uniform System of Accounts, and other matters, including construction and operation of hydroelectric projects. With respect to their wholesale services and rates, the Electric Companies, AE Supply and the Transmission Companies are subject to regulation by FERC. FERC regulations require JCP&L, MP, PE and the Transmission Companies to provide open access transmission service at FERC-approved rates, terms and conditions. Transmission facilities of JCP&L, MP, PE 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 Electric Companies and AE Supply each have the necessary authorization from FERC to sell their wholesale power, if any, in interstate commerce at market-based rates, although in the case of the Electric Companies 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 Electric Companies, AE Supply, and the Transmission Companies. NERC is the Electric Reliability Organization 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. FERC Audit FERC’s Division of Audits and Accounting initiated a nonpublic audit of FESC in February 2019. Among other matters, the audit is evaluating FirstEnergy’s compliance with certain accounting and reporting requirements under various FERC regulations. On February 4, 2022, FERC filed the final audit report for the period of January 1, 2015, through September 30, 2021, which included several findings and recommendations that FirstEnergy has accepted. The audit report included a finding and related recommendation on FirstEnergy’s methodology for allocation of certain corporate support costs to regulatory capital accounts under certain FERC regulations and reporting. Effective in the first quarter of 2022 and in response to the finding, FirstEnergy implemented a new methodology for the allocation of these corporate support costs to regulatory capital accounts for its regulated distribution and transmission companies on a prospective basis. With the assistance of an independent outside firm, FirstEnergy completed an analysis during the third quarter of 2022 of these costs and how it impacted certain FERC-jurisdictional wholesale transmission customer rates for the audit period of 2015 through 2021. As a result of this analysis, FirstEnergy reclassified certain transmission capital assets to operating expenses for the audit period. FirstEnergy fully recovered approximately $105 million ($13 million at JCP&L) of these costs reclassified to operating expenses in its transmission formula rate revenue requirements as of December 31, 2024. Furthermore, the Ohio Companies are in the process of addressing the outcomes of the FERC Audit with the PUCO, which includes seeking continued rate base treatment of approximately $97 million of certain corporate support costs allocated to distribution capital assets as of September 30, 2025. On December 8, 2023, FERC audit staff issued a letter advising that two unresolved audit matters, primarily related to FirstEnergy’s plan to recover the reclassified operating expenses in formula transmission rates, were being referred to other offices within FERC for further review. On July 5, 2024, and September 26, 2024, the FERC Office of Enforcement issued additional data requests related to the 2022 reclassification of operating expenses, to which FirstEnergy replied. On September 10, 2024, and January 13, 2025, the FERC Office of Enforcement issued further data requests related to the classification and recovery of a since terminated fuel consulting contract, to which FirstEnergy responded. If the FERC Office of Energy Market Regulation and the FERC Office of Enforcement were to successfully challenge the recovery of the 2022 reclassified operating expenses and formula transmission rates it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy financial conditions, result of operations, and cash flows. Transmission ROE Incentive On February 24, 2022, the OCC filed a complaint with FERC against ATSI, AEP’s Ohio affiliate and American Electric Power Service Corporation, and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. asserting that FERC should reduce the ROE utilized in the utilities’ transmission formula rates by eliminating the 50 basis point adder associated with RTO membership, effective February 24, 2022. The OCC contends that this result is required because Ohio law mandates that transmission owning utilities join an RTO and that the 50 basis point adder is applicable only where RTO membership is voluntary. On December 15, 2022, FERC denied the complaint as to ATSI and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., but granted it as to AEP’s Ohio affiliate. AEP’s Ohio affiliate and OCC appealed FERC’s orders to the Sixth Circuit. On January 17, 2025, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the 50 basis point adder is available only where RTO membership is voluntary, that Ohio law requires Ohio’s transmission utilities to be members of an RTO, and that it was unlawful for FERC to excise the adder from AEP’s Ohio affiliate rates, but not from the Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and ATSI rates. During 2024, as a result of the ruling, ATSI recognized a $46 million pre-tax charge, with interest, of which $42 million is reported in “Transmission Revenues” and $4 million is reported in “Miscellaneous income, net” on the FirstEnergy Consolidated Statements of Income at the Stand-Alone Transmission segment, to reflect the expected refund owed to transmission customers back to February 24, 2022. On March 3, 2025, FirstEnergy filed for rehearing en banc, and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and AEP’s Ohio affiliate also filed for rehearing, which was denied by the Sixth Circuit on March 26, 2025. On April 16, 2025, the Sixth Circuit agreed to hold the case pending further appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S. On June 20, 2025 and June 24, 2025, ATSI and AEP’s Ohio affiliate, respectively, applied for the Supreme Court of the U.S. to review the Sixth Circuit’s decision. The parties submitted their briefings and the case is pending before the Supreme Court of the U.S. Transmission ROE Methodology A proposed rulemaking proceeding concerning transmission rate incentives provisions of Section 219 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act was initiated in March of 2020 and remains pending before FERC. Among other things, the rulemaking explored whether utilities should collect an “RTO membership” ROE incentive adder for more than three years. FirstEnergy is a member of PJM, and its transmission subsidiaries could be affected by the proposed rulemaking. FirstEnergy participated in comments on the supplemental rulemaking that were submitted by a group of PJM transmission owners and by various industry trade groups. If there were to be any changes to FirstEnergy's transmission incentive ROE, such changes will be applied on a prospective basis; provided however, due to the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in the Transmission ROE Incentive matter described above, ATSI is collecting the ROE incentive adder subject to refund. Transmission Planning Supplemental Projects On September 27, 2023, the OCC filed a complaint against ATSI, PJM and other transmission utilities in Ohio alleging that the PJM Tariff and operating agreement are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory because they include no provisions to ensure PJM’s review and approval for the planning, need, prudence and cost-effectiveness of the PJM Tariff Attachment M-3 “Supplemental Projects.” Supplemental Projects are projects that are planned and constructed to address local needs on the transmission system. The OCC demands that FERC: (i) require PJM to review supplemental projects for need, prudence and cost-effectiveness; (ii) appoint an independent transmission monitor to assist PJM in such review; and (iii) require that Supplemental Projects go into rate base only through a “stated rate” procedure whereby prior FERC approval would be needed for projects with costs that exceed an established threshold. Subsequently, intervenors expanded the scope of this proceeding to all of the transmission utilities in PJM, including JCP&L. ATSI and the other transmission utilities in Ohio and PJM filed comments. Local Transmission Planning Complaint On December 19, 2024, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, a group representing large industrial customers, and state consumer advocates filed a complaint at FERC that asserts that transmission owners are overbuilding “local transmission facilities” with corresponding unjustified increases in transmission rates. The complaint demands that FERC: (i) prohibit transmission owners from planning “local transmission facilities” that are rated at 100kV or higher; (ii) appoint “independent transmission monitors” to conduct such planning; and (iii) condition construction of local transmission facilities on the facility having been planned by the “independent transmission monitor.” FirstEnergy is participating in this matter through a consortium of PJM transmission owners and through certain trade groups, including EEI. FirstEnergy, together with the PJM transmission owners, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 20, 2025, which is pending before FERC. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome or estimate the impact that this complaint may have on its Transmission Companies, however, whether this lawsuit moves forward could have a material impact on FirstEnergy and its transmission capital investment strategy. Ghiorzi v. PJM In December 2023, PJM assigned certain baseline RTEP projects to NextEra Energy Transmission, which subsequently informed PJM that it would not construct the projects. On April 3, 2025, following the reassignment by PJM of certain baseline RTEP projects in Maryland and Virginia to PE, two individuals filed a complaint at FERC challenging this outcome. The complainants assert that PJM erred in reassigning the work to PE because such reassignment projects: (i) did not reflect the cost estimates or cost caps included in NextEra Energy Transmission’s bid; and (ii) would be constructed with different routing than as originally proposed. FERC set May 7, 2025, as the deadline for intervention and comment. PE intervened, filing a motion to dismiss and answer on May 7, 2025. FirstEnergy and PE are unable to predict the outcome or estimate the impact that this complaint may have. Valley Link Formula Transmission Rate Valley Link is a joint venture between FET, AEP and Dominion, and was formed to submit applications to construct transmission solutions to identified transmission reliability issues. In 2024, Valley Link submitted a portfolio of transmission solutions to the reliability issues that were the subject of the PJM 2024 RTEP Window 1 planning process. On February 26, 2025, PJM selected approximately $3 billion of the transmission solutions proposed by Valley Link for construction through PJM’s “baseline” RTEP process. On March 13, 2025, the Valley Link joint venture filed an application for forward-looking formula transmission rates to provide for cost recovery for the portfolio of selected projects. Among other things, the transmission rate application provides for a capital structure of 40% debt and 60% equity, and a base ROE of 10.9% with associated templates and protocols, as well as transmission rate incentives, including the abandonment rate incentive, the CWIP rate incentive, the RTO participation adder incentive, the hypothetical capital structure incentive, and the precommercial regulatory asset incentive. On April 4, 2025, certain parties filed protests of certain elements of the proposed formula rate and requested transmission incentives, to which Valley Link responded on April 21, 2025. On April 8, 2025, PJM also sought to intervene in the matter. On May 14, 2025, FERC issued an initial order that, among other things, accepted the requested abandonment rate incentive, CWIP rate incentive, RTO participation adder incentive, and precommercial regulatory asset rate incentive, and allowed the formula rate to go into effect on May 14, 2025, as requested, subject to refund, pending further settlement and hearing proceedings. An initial settlement conference was held on June 26, 2025, and a procedural schedule for the initial phase of the settlement process was agreed upon. The capital structure incentive and the other open rate design matters are being addressed in confidential settlement negotiations. Abandonment Transmission Rate Incentive On February 26, 2025, PJM completed its 2024 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan Open Window 1 process and, among other actions, designated each of ATSI and PE to construct certain transmission projects. On July 11, 2025, ATSI and PE filed a joint application for the abandonment incentive with FERC, which, was approved on September 9, 2025. Effective September 10, 2025, ATSI and PE each became eligible to recover 50% of the project costs incurred prior to September 10, 2025, and 100% of the project costs incurred thereafter for any projects subsequently cancelled for reasons beyond the control of utility management.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for public utilities. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 980 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/980/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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