Form 10-Q
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D. C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010
OR
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
|
|
|
|
|
Commission |
|
Registrant; State of Incorporation; |
|
I.R.S. Employer |
File Number |
|
Address; and Telephone Number |
|
Identification No. |
|
|
|
|
|
333-21011
|
|
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
|
|
34-1843785 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
000-53742
|
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
|
|
31-1560186 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-2578
|
|
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
(An Ohio Corporation)
|
|
34-0437786 |
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-2323
|
|
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
|
|
34-0150020 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3583
|
|
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
|
|
34-4375005 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3141
|
|
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
|
|
21-0485010 |
|
|
(A New Jersey Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-446
|
|
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
|
|
23-0870160 |
|
|
(A Pennsylvania Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3522
|
|
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
25-0718085 |
|
|
(A Pennsylvania Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
|
|
|
Yes þ No o
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power
& Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and
Pennsylvania Electric Company |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
|
|
|
Yes þ No o
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
Yes o No o
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company, The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo
Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company,
Metropolitan Edison Company, and Pennsylvania Electric
Company |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a
non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated
filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
|
|
Large Accelerated Filer þ
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
Accelerated Filer o
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
Non-accelerated Filer (Do not check
if a smaller reporting company)
þ
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, The
Toledo Edison Company, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company,
Metropolitan Edison Company and
Pennsylvania Electric Company |
|
|
|
Smaller Reporting Company o
|
|
N/A |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Act).
|
|
|
Yes o No þ
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power &
Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and
Pennsylvania Electric Company |
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common stock, as of
the latest practicable date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUTSTANDING |
|
CLASS |
|
AS OF JULY 31, 2010 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp., $10 par value |
|
|
304,835,407 |
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., no par value |
|
|
7 |
|
Ohio Edison Company, no par value |
|
|
60 |
|
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, no par value |
|
|
67,930,743 |
|
The Toledo Edison Company, $5 par value |
|
|
29,402,054 |
|
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, $10 par value |
|
|
13,628,447 |
|
Metropolitan Edison Company, no par value |
|
|
859,500 |
|
Pennsylvania Electric Company, $20 par value |
|
|
4,427,577 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. is the sole holder of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company, The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light
Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company common stock.
This combined Form 10-Q is separately filed by FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company.
Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by such registrant on
its own behalf. No registrant makes any representation as to information relating to any other
registrant, except that information relating to any of the FirstEnergy subsidiary registrants is
also attributed to FirstEnergy Corp.
FirstEnergy Web Site
Each of the registrants Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current
Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the SEC pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are also made available free of
charge on or through FirstEnergys internet web site at www.firstenergycorp.com.
These reports are posted on the web site as soon as reasonably practicable after they are
electronically filed with the SEC. Additionally, the registrants routinely post important
information on the web site and recognize the web site is a channel of distribution to reach public
investors and as a means of disclosing material non-public information for complying with
disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD. Information contained on FirstEnergys web site
shall not be deemed incorporated into, or to be part of, this report.
OMISSION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The
Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and
Pennsylvania Electric Company meet the conditions set forth in General Instruction H(1)(a) and (b)
of Form 10-Q and are therefore filing this Form 10-Q with the reduced disclosure format specified
in General Instruction H(2) to Form 10-Q.
Forward-Looking Statements: This Form 10-Q includes forward-looking statements based on information
currently available to management. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties.
These statements include declarations regarding managements intents, beliefs and current
expectations. These statements typically contain, but are not limited to, the terms anticipate,
potential, expect, believe, estimate and similar words. Forward-looking statements involve
estimates, assumptions, known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause
actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results,
performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
Actual results may differ materially due to:
|
|
|
The speed and nature of increased competition in the electric utility industry and
legislative and regulatory changes affecting how generation rates will be determined
following the expiration of existing rate plans in Pennsylvania. |
|
|
|
|
The impact of the regulatory process on the pending matters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey. |
|
|
|
|
Business and regulatory impacts from ATSIs realignment into PJM. |
|
|
|
|
Economic or weather conditions affecting future sales and margins. |
|
|
|
|
Changes in markets for energy services. |
|
|
|
|
Changing energy and commodity market prices and availability. |
|
|
|
|
Replacement power costs being higher than anticipated or inadequately hedged. |
|
|
|
|
The continued ability of FirstEnergys regulated utilities to recover regulatory assets
or increased costs. |
|
|
|
|
Operation and maintenance costs being higher than anticipated. |
|
|
|
|
Other legislative and regulatory changes, and revised environmental requirements,
including possible GHG emission regulations. |
|
|
|
|
The potential impacts of the proposed rules promulgated by EPA on July 6, 2010, in
response to the U.S. Court of Appeals July 11, 2008 decision requiring revisions to the
CAIR rules. |
|
|
|
|
The uncertainty of the timing and amounts of the capital expenditures needed to, among
other things, implement the Air Quality Compliance Plan (including that such amounts could
be higher than anticipated or that certain generating units may need to be shut down) or
levels of emission reductions related to the Consent Decree resolving the NSR litigation or
other potential similar regulatory initiatives or actions. |
|
|
|
|
Adverse regulatory or legal decisions and outcomes (including, but not limited to, the
revocation of necessary licenses or operating permits and oversight) by the NRC. |
|
|
|
|
Ultimate resolution of Met-Eds and Penelecs TSC filings with the PPUC. |
|
|
|
|
The continuing availability of generating units and their ability to operate at or near
full capacity. |
|
|
|
|
The ability to comply with applicable state and federal reliability standards and energy
efficiency mandates. |
|
|
|
|
The ability to accomplish or realize anticipated benefits from strategic goals
(including employee workforce initiatives). |
|
|
|
|
The ability to improve electric commodity margins and to experience growth in the
distribution business. |
|
|
|
|
The changing market conditions that could affect the value of assets held in the
registrants nuclear decommissioning trusts, pension trusts and other trust funds, and
cause FirstEnergy to make additional contributions sooner, or in amounts that are larger
than currently anticipated. |
|
|
|
|
The ability to access the public securities and other capital and credit markets in
accordance with FirstEnergys financing plan and the cost of such capital. |
|
|
|
|
Changes in general economic conditions affecting the registrants. |
|
|
|
|
The state of the capital and credit markets affecting the registrants. |
|
|
|
|
Interest rates and any actions taken by credit rating agencies that could negatively
affect the registrants access to financing or their costs and increase requirements to
post additional collateral to support outstanding commodity positions, LOCs and other
financial guarantees. |
|
|
|
|
The state of the national and regional economies and associated impacts on the
registrants major industrial and commercial customers. |
|
|
|
|
Issues concerning the soundness of financial institutions and counterparties with which
the registrants do business. |
|
|
|
|
The expected timing and likelihood of completion of the proposed merger with Allegheny
Energy, Inc., including the timing, receipt and terms and conditions of any required
governmental and regulatory approvals of the proposed merger that could reduce anticipated
benefits or cause the parties to abandon the merger, the diversion of managements time and
attention from FirstEnergys ongoing business during this time period, the ability to
maintain relationships with customers, employees or suppliers as well as the ability to
successfully integrate the businesses and realize cost savings and any other synergies and
the risk that the credit ratings of the combined company or its subsidiaries may be
different from what the companies expect. |
|
|
|
|
The risks and other factors discussed from time to time in the registrants SEC filings,
and other similar factors. |
The foregoing review of factors should not be construed as exhaustive. New factors emerge from time
to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all such factors, nor assess the impact
of any such factor on the registrants business or the extent to which any factor, or combination
of factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking
statements. A security rating is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities that may be
subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating organization. Each rating
should be evaluated independently of any other rating. The registrants expressly disclaim any
current intention to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managements Narrative Analysis of Results of Operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this report to identify FirstEnergy Corp. and
its current and former subsidiaries:
|
|
|
ATSI
|
|
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, owns and operates transmission facilities |
CEI
|
|
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
FENOC
|
|
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, operates nuclear generating facilities |
FES
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., provides energy-related products and services |
FESC
|
|
FirstEnergy Service Company, provides legal, financial and other corporate support services |
FEV
|
|
FirstEnergy Ventures Corp., invests in certain unregulated enterprises and business ventures |
FGCO
|
|
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., owns and operates non-nuclear generating facilities |
FirstEnergy
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., a public utility holding company |
GPU
|
|
GPU, Inc., former parent of JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec, which merged with FirstEnergy on
November 7, 2001 |
JCP&L
|
|
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, a New Jersey electric utility operating subsidiary |
Met-Ed
|
|
Metropolitan Edison Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary |
NGC
|
|
FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., owns nuclear generating facilities |
OE
|
|
Ohio Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
Ohio Companies
|
|
CEI, OE and TE |
Penelec
|
|
Pennsylvania Electric Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary |
Penn
|
|
Pennsylvania Power Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary of OE |
Pennsylvania Companies
|
|
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn |
PNBV
|
|
PNBV Capital Trust, a special purpose entity created by OE in 1996 |
Shippingport
|
|
Shippingport Capital Trust, a special purpose entity created by CEI and TE in 1997 |
Signal Peak
|
|
A joint venture between FirstEnergy Ventures Corp. and Boich Companies, that owns mining and
coal transportation operations near Roundup, Montana |
TE
|
|
The Toledo Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
Utilities
|
|
OE, CEI, TE, Penn, JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec |
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used to identify frequently used terms in this report:
|
|
|
AEP
|
|
American Electric Power Company, Inc. |
ALJ
|
|
Administrative Law Judge |
AOCL
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss |
AQC
|
|
Air Quality Control |
ARO
|
|
Asset Retirement Obligation |
BGS
CAA
|
|
Basic Generation Service
Clean Air Act |
CAIR
|
|
Clean Air Interstate Rule |
CAMR
|
|
Clean Air Mercury Rule |
CBP
|
|
Competitive Bid Process |
CO2
|
|
Carbon Dioxide |
CTC
|
|
Competitive Transition Charge |
DOE
|
|
United States Department of Energy |
DOJ
|
|
United States Department of Justice |
DPA
|
|
Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel (New Jersey) |
EDCP
|
|
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan |
EE&C
|
|
Energy Efficiency and Conservation |
EMAAC
|
|
Eastern Mid-Atlantic Area Council |
EMP
|
|
Energy Master Plan |
EPA
|
|
United States Environmental Protection Agency |
EPRI
|
|
Electric Power Research Institute |
iii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Contd.
|
|
|
ESP
|
|
Electric Security Plan |
FASB
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board |
FERC
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FMB
|
|
First Mortgage Bond |
FPA
|
|
Federal Power Act |
FRR
|
|
Fixed Resource Requirement |
GAAP
|
|
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States |
GHG
|
|
Greenhouse Gases |
IRS
|
|
Internal Revenue Service |
JOA
|
|
Joint Operating Agreement |
kV
|
|
Kilovolt |
KWH
|
|
Kilowatt-hours |
LED
|
|
Light-Emitting Diode |
LOC
|
|
Letter of Credit |
MAAC
|
|
Mid-Atlantic Area Council |
MACT
|
|
Maximum Achievable Control Technology |
MDPSC
|
|
Maryland Public Service Commission |
MISO
|
|
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. |
Moodys
|
|
Moodys Investors Service, Inc. |
MRO
|
|
Market Rate Offer |
MW
|
|
Megawatts |
MWH
|
|
Megawatt-hours |
NAAQS
|
|
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
NERC
|
|
North American Electric Reliability Corporation |
NJBPU
|
|
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities |
NNSR
|
|
Non-Attainment New Source Review |
NOAC
|
|
Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition |
NOPEC
|
|
Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council |
NOV
|
|
Notice of Violation |
NOX
|
|
Nitrogen Oxide |
NRC
|
|
Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
NSR
|
|
New Source Review |
NUG
|
|
Non-Utility Generation |
NUGC
|
|
Non-Utility Generation Charge |
OCI
|
|
Other Comprehensive Income |
OPEB
|
|
Other Post-Employment Benefits |
OVEC
|
|
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation |
PCRB
|
|
Pollution Control Revenue Bond |
PJM
|
|
PJM Interconnection L. L. C. |
POLR
|
|
Provider of Last Resort; an electric utilitys obligation to provide generation service to customers
whose alternative supplier fails to deliver service |
PPUC
|
|
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission |
PSCWV
|
|
Public Service Commission of West Virginia |
PSA
|
|
Power Supply Agreement |
PSD
|
|
Prevention of Significant Deterioration |
PPUC
|
|
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission |
PUCO
|
|
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio |
RCP
|
|
Rate Certainty Plan |
RECs
|
|
Renewable Energy Credits |
RFP
|
|
Request for Proposal |
RPM
|
|
Reliability Pricing Model |
RTEP
|
|
Regional Transmission Expansion Plan |
RTC
|
|
Regulatory Transition Charge |
RTO
|
|
Regional Transmission Organization |
S&P
|
|
Standard & Poors Ratings Service |
SB221
|
|
Amended Substitute Senate Bill 221 |
SBC
|
|
Societal Benefits Charge |
iv
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Contd.
|
|
|
SEC
|
|
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |
SIP
|
|
State Implementation Plan(s) Under the Clean Air Act |
SNCR
|
|
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction |
SO2
|
|
Sulfur Dioxide |
TBC
|
|
Transition Bond Charge |
TMI-2
|
|
Three Mile Island Unit 2 |
TSC
|
|
Transmission Service Charge |
VIE
|
|
Variable Interest Entity |
VSCC
|
|
Virginia State Corporation Commission |
VIE
|
|
Variable Interest Entity |
v
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) |
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric utilities |
|
$ |
2,373 |
|
|
$ |
2,791 |
|
|
$ |
4,916 |
|
|
$ |
5,811 |
|
Unregulated businesses |
|
|
755 |
|
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
1,511 |
|
|
|
794 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues* |
|
|
3,128 |
|
|
|
3,271 |
|
|
|
6,427 |
|
|
|
6,605 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
|
|
588 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,052 |
|
|
|
1,024 |
|
|
|
2,290 |
|
|
|
2,167 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
673 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
1,374 |
|
|
|
1,439 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
383 |
|
|
|
362 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
642 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(136 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
2,602 |
|
|
|
2,469 |
|
|
|
5,485 |
|
|
|
5,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
526 |
|
|
|
802 |
|
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
1,148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
|
(206 |
) |
|
|
(420 |
) |
|
|
(400 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(292 |
) |
|
|
(323 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
390 |
|
|
|
656 |
|
|
|
650 |
|
|
|
825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncontrolling interest loss |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
$ |
533 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.36 |
|
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF BASIC SHARES OUTSTANDING |
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.36 |
|
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF DILUTED SHARES OUTSTANDING |
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes excise tax collections of $99 million and $95 million in the three months ended June 30,
2010 and 2009, respectively, and $208 million and $204 million in the six months ended June 30,
2010 and 2009, respectively. |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
1
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
256 |
|
|
$ |
408 |
|
|
$ |
405 |
|
|
$ |
523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
469 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
504 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
529 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
574 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
227 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
302 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
710 |
|
|
|
441 |
|
|
|
855 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
$ |
285 |
|
|
$ |
716 |
|
|
$ |
456 |
|
|
$ |
865 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
2
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
281 |
|
|
$ |
874 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
(less allowances of $33 million in 2010 and 2009) |
|
|
1,409 |
|
|
|
1,244 |
|
Other (less allowances of $7 million in 2010 and 2009) |
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
675 |
|
|
|
647 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
397 |
|
|
|
248 |
|
Other |
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,114 |
|
|
|
3,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
28,274 |
|
|
|
27,826 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
11,724 |
|
|
|
11,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,550 |
|
|
|
16,429 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
2,735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,550 |
|
|
|
19,164 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
1,880 |
|
|
|
1,859 |
|
Investments in lease obligation bonds |
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
543 |
|
Other |
|
|
589 |
|
|
|
621 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,955 |
|
|
|
3,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
5,575 |
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
2,313 |
|
|
|
2,356 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
Other |
|
|
825 |
|
|
|
666 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,847 |
|
|
|
8,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
34,466 |
|
|
$ |
34,304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,571 |
|
|
$ |
1,834 |
|
Short-term borrowings |
|
|
1,463 |
|
|
|
1,181 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
848 |
|
|
|
829 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
314 |
|
Other |
|
|
907 |
|
|
|
1,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,045 |
|
|
|
5,288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.10 par value, authorized 375,000,000 shares-
304,835,407 shares outstanding |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
5,440 |
|
|
|
5,448 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(1,379 |
) |
|
|
(1,415 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
4,747 |
|
|
|
4,495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
8,839 |
|
|
|
8,559 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
8,819 |
|
|
|
8,557 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
11,861 |
|
|
|
11,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,680 |
|
|
|
20,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
2,710 |
|
|
|
2,468 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
1,531 |
|
|
|
1,534 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
1,372 |
|
|
|
1,425 |
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
976 |
|
|
|
993 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
691 |
|
|
|
643 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,222 |
|
|
|
1,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,741 |
|
|
|
8,551 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
34,466 |
|
|
$ |
34,304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
3
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
405 |
|
|
$ |
523 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
383 |
|
|
|
362 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
642 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(136 |
) |
Nuclear fuel and lease amortization |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
Deferred purchased power and other costs |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(135 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
Investment impairment |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(93 |
) |
Interest rate swap transactions |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity derivative transactions, net |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
18 |
|
Cash collateral received (paid), net |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
48 |
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
Materials and supplies |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(81 |
) |
|
|
(179 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
Other |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
858 |
|
|
|
1,102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,679 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(407 |
) |
|
|
(881 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(335 |
) |
|
|
(335 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(484 |
) |
|
|
426 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(997 |
) |
|
|
(1,143 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
1,915 |
|
|
|
1,001 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(1,934 |
) |
|
|
(1,041 |
) |
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(105 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Cash investments |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
Other |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(967 |
) |
|
|
(1,173 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(593 |
) |
|
|
355 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
874 |
|
|
|
545 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
281 |
|
|
$ |
900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an
integral part of these financial
statements.
4
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales to affiliates |
|
$ |
538,545 |
|
|
$ |
839,751 |
|
|
$ |
1,145,847 |
|
|
$ |
1,732,441 |
|
Electric sales to non-affiliates |
|
|
728,803 |
|
|
|
205,379 |
|
|
|
1,397,488 |
|
|
|
485,125 |
|
Other |
|
|
47,326 |
|
|
|
296,022 |
|
|
|
159,432 |
|
|
|
349,692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
1,314,674 |
|
|
|
1,341,152 |
|
|
|
2,702,767 |
|
|
|
2,567,258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
342,411 |
|
|
|
270,309 |
|
|
|
670,632 |
|
|
|
576,467 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
68,898 |
|
|
|
51,249 |
|
|
|
129,851 |
|
|
|
114,456 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
298,820 |
|
|
|
185,613 |
|
|
|
749,035 |
|
|
|
345,955 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
303,895 |
|
|
|
278,264 |
|
|
|
608,406 |
|
|
|
585,620 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
63,319 |
|
|
|
65,548 |
|
|
|
126,237 |
|
|
|
126,921 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
22,272 |
|
|
|
21,285 |
|
|
|
49,018 |
|
|
|
44,661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,099,615 |
|
|
|
872,268 |
|
|
|
2,333,179 |
|
|
|
1,794,080 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
215,059 |
|
|
|
468,884 |
|
|
|
369,588 |
|
|
|
773,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income (loss) |
|
|
13,366 |
|
|
|
5,643 |
|
|
|
14,083 |
|
|
|
(23,231 |
) |
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
4,393 |
|
|
|
7,622 |
|
|
|
5,703 |
|
|
|
10,133 |
|
Interest expense to affiliates |
|
|
(2,560 |
) |
|
|
(3,315 |
) |
|
|
(4,865 |
) |
|
|
(6,294 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(51,372 |
) |
|
|
(26,271 |
) |
|
|
(101,016 |
) |
|
|
(48,798 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
23,905 |
|
|
|
14,028 |
|
|
|
43,595 |
|
|
|
24,106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(12,268 |
) |
|
|
(2,293 |
) |
|
|
(42,500 |
) |
|
|
(44,084 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
202,791 |
|
|
|
466,591 |
|
|
|
327,088 |
|
|
|
729,094 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
68,866 |
|
|
|
169,189 |
|
|
|
113,237 |
|
|
|
261,011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
133,925 |
|
|
|
297,402 |
|
|
|
213,851 |
|
|
|
468,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
885 |
|
|
|
72,121 |
|
|
|
(8,949 |
) |
|
|
74,689 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
3,017 |
|
|
|
15,041 |
|
|
|
4,291 |
|
|
|
26,057 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
6,060 |
|
|
|
39,504 |
|
|
|
11,088 |
|
|
|
38,027 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
9,962 |
|
|
|
126,666 |
|
|
|
6,430 |
|
|
|
138,773 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
3,544 |
|
|
|
50,625 |
|
|
|
2,204 |
|
|
|
55,334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
6,418 |
|
|
|
76,041 |
|
|
|
4,226 |
|
|
|
83,439 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
140,343 |
|
|
$ |
373,443 |
|
|
$ |
218,077 |
|
|
$ |
551,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
5
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $14,523,000 and $12,041,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
315,178 |
|
|
|
195,107 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
354,127 |
|
|
|
318,561 |
|
Other (less accumulated provisions of $6,702,000 for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
36,392 |
|
|
|
51,872 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
173,931 |
|
|
|
805,103 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
578,521 |
|
|
|
539,541 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
172,514 |
|
|
|
107,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,630,674 |
|
|
|
2,017,978 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
10,500,405 |
|
|
|
10,357,632 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
4,695,180 |
|
|
|
4,531,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,805,225 |
|
|
|
5,826,474 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
2,622,865 |
|
|
|
2,423,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,428,090 |
|
|
|
8,249,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
1,107,594 |
|
|
|
1,088,641 |
|
Other |
|
|
7,965 |
|
|
|
22,466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,115,559 |
|
|
|
1,111,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income tax benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
86,626 |
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
118,219 |
|
|
|
16,566 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
50,125 |
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Unamortized sales and leaseback costs |
|
|
77,646 |
|
|
|
72,553 |
|
Other |
|
|
128,315 |
|
|
|
121,665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
398,553 |
|
|
|
371,783 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
11,572,876 |
|
|
$ |
11,750,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,381,783 |
|
|
$ |
1,550,927 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
85,128 |
|
|
|
9,237 |
|
Other |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
412,507 |
|
|
|
466,078 |
|
Other |
|
|
236,720 |
|
|
|
245,363 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
109,082 |
|
|
|
83,158 |
|
Other |
|
|
369,086 |
|
|
|
359,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,694,306 |
|
|
|
2,813,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 750 shares,
7 shares outstanding |
|
|
1,467,158 |
|
|
|
1,468,423 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(98,775 |
) |
|
|
(103,001 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
2,363,000 |
|
|
|
2,149,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,731,383 |
|
|
|
3,514,571 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
2,585,918 |
|
|
|
2,711,652 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,317,301 |
|
|
|
6,226,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
976,012 |
|
|
|
992,869 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
56,310 |
|
|
|
58,396 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
863,409 |
|
|
|
921,448 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
223,853 |
|
|
|
204,035 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
50,125 |
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
239,447 |
|
|
|
262,200 |
|
Other |
|
|
152,113 |
|
|
|
221,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,561,269 |
|
|
|
2,710,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
11,572,876 |
|
|
$ |
11,750,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
6
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
213,851 |
|
|
$ |
468,083 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
126,237 |
|
|
|
126,921 |
|
Nuclear fuel and lease amortization |
|
|
78,324 |
|
|
|
53,265 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(59,254 |
) |
|
|
(55,493 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
113,978 |
|
|
|
63,309 |
|
Investment impairment |
|
|
19,093 |
|
|
|
36,154 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
7,132 |
|
|
|
(10,594 |
) |
Commodity derivative transactions, net |
|
|
(29,308 |
) |
|
|
17,688 |
|
Gain on asset sales |
|
|
(1,021 |
) |
|
|
(9,635 |
) |
Cash collateral, net |
|
|
(38,211 |
) |
|
|
40,471 |
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(192,792 |
) |
|
|
179,373 |
|
Materials and supplies |
|
|
(28,470 |
) |
|
|
16,609 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
24,518 |
|
|
|
7,555 |
|
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(31,610 |
) |
|
|
(102,907 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(8,462 |
) |
|
|
(14,333 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(457 |
) |
|
|
1,871 |
|
Other |
|
|
24,907 |
|
|
|
(6,121 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
218,455 |
|
|
|
812,216 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
681,675 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
75,891 |
|
|
|
145,009 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(295,037 |
) |
|
|
(622,853 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(686 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(219,832 |
) |
|
|
203,831 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(566,187 |
) |
|
|
(634,967 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
115,657 |
|
|
|
15,771 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
956,813 |
|
|
|
537,078 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(978,785 |
) |
|
|
(550,730 |
) |
Loans from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
631,172 |
|
|
|
(241,170 |
) |
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(104,795 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Leasehold improvement payments to associated companies |
|
|
(51,204 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(1,295 |
) |
|
|
(22,034 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
1,376 |
|
|
|
(896,052 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
119,995 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
120,034 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
7
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
415,437 |
|
|
$ |
647,224 |
|
|
$ |
895,362 |
|
|
$ |
1,367,235 |
|
Excise and gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
23,949 |
|
|
|
24,948 |
|
|
|
52,424 |
|
|
|
53,928 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
439,386 |
|
|
|
672,172 |
|
|
|
947,786 |
|
|
|
1,421,163 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
114,414 |
|
|
|
314,870 |
|
|
|
250,271 |
|
|
|
647,206 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
98,462 |
|
|
|
98,330 |
|
|
|
210,513 |
|
|
|
236,143 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
88,275 |
|
|
|
111,938 |
|
|
|
177,130 |
|
|
|
269,768 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
22,014 |
|
|
|
21,996 |
|
|
|
43,894 |
|
|
|
43,509 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
9,424 |
|
|
|
22,295 |
|
|
|
38,769 |
|
|
|
42,506 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
43,362 |
|
|
|
43,903 |
|
|
|
90,854 |
|
|
|
93,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
375,951 |
|
|
|
613,332 |
|
|
|
811,431 |
|
|
|
1,332,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
63,435 |
|
|
|
58,840 |
|
|
|
136,355 |
|
|
|
89,008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
6,309 |
|
|
|
10,149 |
|
|
|
11,553 |
|
|
|
19,511 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,295 |
|
|
|
2,681 |
|
|
|
1,003 |
|
|
|
1,871 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(22,155 |
) |
|
|
(21,469 |
) |
|
|
(44,465 |
) |
|
|
(44,756 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
503 |
|
|
|
499 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(14,256 |
) |
|
|
(8,360 |
) |
|
|
(31,406 |
) |
|
|
(22,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
49,179 |
|
|
|
50,480 |
|
|
|
104,949 |
|
|
|
66,133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
11,856 |
|
|
|
16,852 |
|
|
|
31,465 |
|
|
|
20,857 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
37,323 |
|
|
|
33,628 |
|
|
|
73,484 |
|
|
|
45,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncontrolling interest income |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
37,193 |
|
|
$ |
33,485 |
|
|
$ |
73,222 |
|
|
$ |
44,987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
37,323 |
|
|
$ |
33,628 |
|
|
$ |
73,484 |
|
|
$ |
45,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
89,864 |
|
|
|
4,337 |
|
|
|
95,602 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
811 |
|
|
|
(1,981 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
842 |
|
|
|
90,592 |
|
|
|
5,148 |
|
|
|
93,621 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprehensive income |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
37,310 |
|
|
|
667 |
|
|
|
37,839 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
868 |
|
|
|
53,282 |
|
|
|
4,481 |
|
|
|
55,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
38,191 |
|
|
|
86,910 |
|
|
|
77,965 |
|
|
|
101,058 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
38,061 |
|
|
$ |
86,767 |
|
|
$ |
77,703 |
|
|
$ |
100,769 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
8
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
51,679 |
|
|
$ |
324,175 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $4,685,000 and $5,119,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
202,983 |
|
|
|
209,384 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
68,005 |
|
|
|
98,874 |
|
Other (less accumulated provisions of $6,000 and $18,000, respectively,
for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
13,065 |
|
|
|
14,155 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
106,232 |
|
|
|
118,651 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
14,748 |
|
|
|
15,964 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
456,712 |
|
|
|
781,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
3,086,689 |
|
|
|
3,036,467 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,189,802 |
|
|
|
1,165,394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,896,887 |
|
|
|
1,871,073 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
36,866 |
|
|
|
31,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,933,753 |
|
|
|
1,902,244 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lease obligation bonds |
|
|
204,812 |
|
|
|
216,600 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
126,405 |
|
|
|
120,812 |
|
Other |
|
|
96,633 |
|
|
|
96,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427,850 |
|
|
|
434,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
422,559 |
|
|
|
465,331 |
|
Pension assets |
|
|
36,199 |
|
|
|
19,881 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
67,037 |
|
|
|
67,037 |
|
Unamortized sales and leaseback costs |
|
|
32,626 |
|
|
|
35,127 |
|
Other |
|
|
17,765 |
|
|
|
39,881 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
576,186 |
|
|
|
627,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,394,501 |
|
|
$ |
3,744,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
7,975 |
|
|
$ |
2,723 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
92,863 |
|
Other |
|
|
653 |
|
|
|
807 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
54,891 |
|
|
|
102,763 |
|
Other |
|
|
31,087 |
|
|
|
40,423 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
55,976 |
|
|
|
81,868 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
25,639 |
|
|
|
25,749 |
|
Other |
|
|
79,382 |
|
|
|
81,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
255,603 |
|
|
|
428,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 175,000,000 shares -
60 shares outstanding |
|
|
949,822 |
|
|
|
1,154,797 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(159,096 |
) |
|
|
(163,577 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
58,112 |
|
|
|
29,890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
848,838 |
|
|
|
1,021,110 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
6,100 |
|
|
|
6,442 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
854,938 |
|
|
|
1,027,552 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,152,303 |
|
|
|
1,160,208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,007,241 |
|
|
|
2,187,760 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
678,669 |
|
|
|
660,114 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
10,882 |
|
|
|
11,406 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
171,056 |
|
|
|
174,925 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
81,941 |
|
|
|
85,926 |
|
Other |
|
|
189,109 |
|
|
|
196,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,131,657 |
|
|
|
1,128,597 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,394,501 |
|
|
$ |
3,744,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
9
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
73,484 |
|
|
$ |
45,276 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
43,894 |
|
|
|
43,509 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
38,769 |
|
|
|
42,506 |
|
Purchased power cost recovery reconciliation |
|
|
(1,514 |
) |
|
|
11,068 |
|
Amortization of lease costs |
|
|
(4,619 |
) |
|
|
(4,540 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
4,964 |
|
|
|
(11,252 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(16,154 |
) |
|
|
(4,593 |
) |
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
(2,309 |
) |
|
|
18,350 |
|
Electric service prepayment programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,603 |
) |
Cash collateral from suppliers |
|
|
1,215 |
|
|
|
6,380 |
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
49,250 |
|
|
|
(16,509 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
5,072 |
|
|
|
(6,290 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(57,208 |
) |
|
|
(4,820 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(25,685 |
) |
|
|
(19,523 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
36 |
|
Other |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
10,086 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
109,045 |
|
|
|
105,081 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,617 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(2,957 |
) |
|
|
(100,984 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(93,017 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(250,000 |
) |
|
|
(125,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(881 |
) |
|
|
(1,627 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(346,855 |
) |
|
|
(12,994 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(71,698 |
) |
|
|
(69,512 |
) |
Lease improvement payments from associated companies |
|
|
18,375 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
59,804 |
|
|
|
24,941 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(64,063 |
) |
|
|
(30,877 |
) |
Loan repayments from associated companies, net |
|
|
12,420 |
|
|
|
51,803 |
|
Cash investments |
|
|
11,774 |
|
|
|
7,929 |
|
Other |
|
|
(1,298 |
) |
|
|
1,098 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(34,686 |
) |
|
|
(14,618 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(272,496 |
) |
|
|
77,469 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
324,175 |
|
|
|
146,343 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
51,679 |
|
|
$ |
223,812 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
10
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
280,180 |
|
|
$ |
458,287 |
|
|
$ |
592,677 |
|
|
$ |
889,692 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
15,495 |
|
|
|
16,799 |
|
|
|
33,068 |
|
|
|
35,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
295,675 |
|
|
|
475,086 |
|
|
|
625,745 |
|
|
|
924,811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
83,532 |
|
|
|
243,499 |
|
|
|
178,497 |
|
|
|
482,371 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
48,541 |
|
|
|
49,414 |
|
|
|
100,367 |
|
|
|
121,160 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
28,937 |
|
|
|
39,177 |
|
|
|
60,172 |
|
|
|
104,007 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
18,336 |
|
|
|
17,852 |
|
|
|
36,447 |
|
|
|
36,132 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
30,807 |
|
|
|
29,580 |
|
|
|
75,946 |
|
|
|
286,317 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39,771 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134,587 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
28,840 |
|
|
|
36,856 |
|
|
|
67,329 |
|
|
|
74,997 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
238,993 |
|
|
|
376,607 |
|
|
|
518,758 |
|
|
|
970,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
56,682 |
|
|
|
98,479 |
|
|
|
106,987 |
|
|
|
(45,586 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
6,605 |
|
|
|
7,614 |
|
|
|
14,152 |
|
|
|
16,034 |
|
Miscellaneous expense |
|
|
675 |
|
|
|
798 |
|
|
|
1,257 |
|
|
|
2,792 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(33,262 |
) |
|
|
(32,757 |
) |
|
|
(66,883 |
) |
|
|
(66,079 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(25,975 |
) |
|
|
(24,294 |
) |
|
|
(51,441 |
) |
|
|
(47,135 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
30,707 |
|
|
|
74,185 |
|
|
|
55,546 |
|
|
|
(92,721 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAX EXPENSE (BENEFIT) |
|
|
8,785 |
|
|
|
26,461 |
|
|
|
19,628 |
|
|
|
(35,045 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
21,922 |
|
|
|
47,724 |
|
|
|
35,918 |
|
|
|
(57,676 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncontrolling interest income |
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
785 |
|
|
|
877 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
21,556 |
|
|
$ |
47,305 |
|
|
$ |
35,133 |
|
|
$ |
(58,553 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) |
|
$ |
21,922 |
|
|
$ |
47,724 |
|
|
$ |
35,918 |
|
|
$ |
(57,676 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
3,228 |
|
|
|
43,903 |
|
|
|
(19,357 |
) |
|
|
47,870 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other
comprehensive income |
|
|
976 |
|
|
|
17,936 |
|
|
|
(7,301 |
) |
|
|
19,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
2,252 |
|
|
|
25,967 |
|
|
|
(12,056 |
) |
|
|
28,564 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
24,174 |
|
|
|
73,691 |
|
|
|
23,862 |
|
|
|
(29,112 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
785 |
|
|
|
877 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
23,808 |
|
|
$ |
73,272 |
|
|
$ |
23,077 |
|
|
$ |
(29,989 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
11
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
245 |
|
|
$ |
86,230 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $4,809,000 and $5,239,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
198,970 |
|
|
|
209,335 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
73,008 |
|
|
|
98,954 |
|
Other |
|
|
10,377 |
|
|
|
11,661 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
24,480 |
|
|
|
26,802 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
4,390 |
|
|
|
9,973 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
311,470 |
|
|
|
442,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,350,804 |
|
|
|
2,310,074 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
911,368 |
|
|
|
888,169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,439,436 |
|
|
|
1,421,905 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
30,665 |
|
|
|
36,907 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,470,101 |
|
|
|
1,458,812 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lessor notes |
|
|
340,033 |
|
|
|
388,641 |
|
Other |
|
|
10,108 |
|
|
|
10,220 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350,141 |
|
|
|
398,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,688,521 |
|
|
|
1,688,521 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
468,119 |
|
|
|
545,505 |
|
Pension assets (Note 5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,380 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
77,319 |
|
|
|
77,319 |
|
Other |
|
|
12,912 |
|
|
|
12,777 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,246,872 |
|
|
|
2,337,502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,378,584 |
|
|
$ |
4,638,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
$ |
117 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
224,031 |
|
|
|
339,728 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
35,605 |
|
|
|
68,634 |
|
Other |
|
|
15,707 |
|
|
|
17,166 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
77,051 |
|
|
|
90,511 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
18,557 |
|
|
|
18,466 |
|
Other |
|
|
49,897 |
|
|
|
45,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
420,985 |
|
|
|
580,062 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 105,000,000 shares,
67,930,743 shares outstanding |
|
|
884,878 |
|
|
|
884,897 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(150,214 |
) |
|
|
(138,158 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
532,380 |
|
|
|
597,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
1,267,044 |
|
|
|
1,343,987 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
18,017 |
|
|
|
20,592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
1,285,061 |
|
|
|
1,364,579 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,852,488 |
|
|
|
1,872,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,137,549 |
|
|
|
3,237,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
632,696 |
|
|
|
644,745 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
11,415 |
|
|
|
11,836 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
81,872 |
|
|
|
69,733 |
|
Other |
|
|
94,067 |
|
|
|
94,425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
820,050 |
|
|
|
820,739 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,378,584 |
|
|
$ |
4,638,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
12
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
35,918 |
|
|
$ |
(57,676 |
) |
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
36,447 |
|
|
|
36,132 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
75,946 |
|
|
|
286,317 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134,587 |
) |
Purchased power cost recovery reconciliation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,072 |
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
(18,083 |
) |
|
|
(58,506 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
5,421 |
|
|
|
2,092 |
|
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
(444 |
) |
|
|
12,057 |
|
Electric service prepayment programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,510 |
) |
Cash collateral from suppliers |
|
|
685 |
|
|
|
5,365 |
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
51,757 |
|
|
|
(84,469 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
5,392 |
|
|
|
(1,145 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(34,488 |
) |
|
|
18,991 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(11,317 |
) |
|
|
(29,434 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
232 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,932 |
|
|
|
3,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities |
|
|
149,257 |
|
|
|
(2,804 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,423 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
(368 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(136,013 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
|
|
(25,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(3,367 |
) |
|
|
(3,019 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(239,434 |
) |
|
|
19,036 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(44,373 |
) |
|
|
(46,434 |
) |
Loan repayments from (loans to) associated companies, net |
|
|
2,322 |
|
|
|
(5,449 |
) |
Redemptions of lessor notes |
|
|
48,608 |
|
|
|
37,070 |
|
Other |
|
|
(2,365 |
) |
|
|
(1,415 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
4,192 |
|
|
|
(16,228 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(85,985 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
86,230 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
245 |
|
|
$ |
230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
13
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
114,691 |
|
|
$ |
219,911 |
|
|
$ |
240,122 |
|
|
$ |
456,996 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
6,059 |
|
|
|
6,297 |
|
|
|
13,100 |
|
|
|
14,026 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
120,750 |
|
|
|
226,208 |
|
|
|
253,222 |
|
|
|
471,022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
38,654 |
|
|
|
130,564 |
|
|
|
85,654 |
|
|
|
255,888 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
23,675 |
|
|
|
18,244 |
|
|
|
49,784 |
|
|
|
58,781 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
25,499 |
|
|
|
35,480 |
|
|
|
51,044 |
|
|
|
80,484 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
8,013 |
|
|
|
7,717 |
|
|
|
15,963 |
|
|
|
15,289 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(1,800 |
) |
|
|
11,771 |
|
|
|
(10,299 |
) |
|
|
21,668 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
12,282 |
|
|
|
12,349 |
|
|
|
25,743 |
|
|
|
26,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
106,323 |
|
|
|
216,125 |
|
|
|
217,889 |
|
|
|
458,709 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
14,427 |
|
|
|
10,083 |
|
|
|
35,333 |
|
|
|
12,313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
5,057 |
|
|
|
7,529 |
|
|
|
8,857 |
|
|
|
13,013 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense) |
|
|
(945 |
) |
|
|
1,375 |
|
|
|
(2,351 |
) |
|
|
35 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(10,455 |
) |
|
|
(9,262 |
) |
|
|
(20,942 |
) |
|
|
(14,795 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(6,263 |
) |
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
|
(14,278 |
) |
|
|
(1,655 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
8,164 |
|
|
|
9,775 |
|
|
|
21,055 |
|
|
|
10,658 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
948 |
|
|
|
3,370 |
|
|
|
6,330 |
|
|
|
3,261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
7,216 |
|
|
|
6,405 |
|
|
|
14,725 |
|
|
|
7,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncontrolling interest income |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
7,214 |
|
|
$ |
6,404 |
|
|
$ |
14,720 |
|
|
$ |
7,394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
7,216 |
|
|
$ |
6,405 |
|
|
$ |
14,725 |
|
|
$ |
7,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
714 |
|
|
|
19,016 |
|
|
|
1,010 |
|
|
|
19,149 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
(330 |
) |
|
|
(2,739 |
) |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
(3,548 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
16,277 |
|
|
|
1,049 |
|
|
|
15,601 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
7,224 |
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
7,205 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
9,053 |
|
|
|
814 |
|
|
|
8,396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
7,535 |
|
|
|
15,458 |
|
|
|
15,539 |
|
|
|
15,793 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
7,533 |
|
|
$ |
15,457 |
|
|
$ |
15,534 |
|
|
$ |
15,790 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
14
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
77,843 |
|
|
$ |
436,712 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
52,068 |
|
|
|
90,191 |
|
Other (less accumulated provisions of $298,000 and $208,000, respectively,
for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
18,866 |
|
|
|
20,180 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
95,919 |
|
|
|
85,101 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
3,503 |
|
|
|
7,111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
248,327 |
|
|
|
639,370 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
932,788 |
|
|
|
912,930 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
437,327 |
|
|
|
427,376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
495,461 |
|
|
|
485,554 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
7,906 |
|
|
|
9,069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
503,367 |
|
|
|
494,623 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lessor notes |
|
|
103,872 |
|
|
|
124,357 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
75,540 |
|
|
|
73,935 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,539 |
|
|
|
1,580 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
180,951 |
|
|
|
199,872 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
500,576 |
|
|
|
500,576 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
81,799 |
|
|
|
69,557 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
23,658 |
|
|
|
23,658 |
|
Other |
|
|
38,655 |
|
|
|
55,622 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
644,688 |
|
|
|
649,413 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,577,333 |
|
|
$ |
1,983,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
216 |
|
|
$ |
222 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
16,535 |
|
|
|
78,341 |
|
Other |
|
|
6,972 |
|
|
|
8,312 |
|
Notes payable to associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
225,975 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
20,069 |
|
|
|
25,734 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
36,900 |
|
|
|
36,900 |
|
Other |
|
|
22,244 |
|
|
|
29,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102,936 |
|
|
|
404,757 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $5 par value, authorized 60,000,000 shares,
29,402,054 shares outstanding |
|
|
147,010 |
|
|
|
147,010 |
|
Other paid-in-capital |
|
|
178,136 |
|
|
|
178,181 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(48,989 |
) |
|
|
(49,803 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
99,210 |
|
|
|
214,490 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
375,367 |
|
|
|
489,878 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
2,590 |
|
|
|
2,696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
377,957 |
|
|
|
492,574 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
600,463 |
|
|
|
600,443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
978,420 |
|
|
|
1,093,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
112,670 |
|
|
|
80,508 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
6,148 |
|
|
|
6,367 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
67,507 |
|
|
|
65,988 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
27,819 |
|
|
|
32,290 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
217,750 |
|
|
|
236,200 |
|
Other |
|
|
64,083 |
|
|
|
64,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
495,977 |
|
|
|
485,504 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,577,333 |
|
|
$ |
1,983,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
15
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
14,725 |
|
|
$ |
7,397 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
15,963 |
|
|
|
15,289 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(10,299 |
) |
|
|
21,668 |
|
Purchased power cost recovery reconciliation |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
(4,197 |
) |
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(42,264 |
) |
|
|
(40,697 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
16,503 |
|
|
|
(1,206 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
2,600 |
|
|
|
711 |
|
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
(632 |
) |
|
|
4,450 |
|
Electric service prepayment programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,458 |
) |
Cash collateral from suppliers |
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
2,755 |
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
52,754 |
|
|
|
1,075 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
3,608 |
|
|
|
(220 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(61,195 |
) |
|
|
5,533 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(4,007 |
) |
|
|
(2,936 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,983 |
|
Other |
|
|
(9,020 |
) |
|
|
1,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities |
|
|
(20,861 |
) |
|
|
13,935 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
297,422 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,938 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(111 |
) |
|
|
(236 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(225,975 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(130,000 |
) |
|
|
(25,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
(247 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(356,198 |
) |
|
|
331,877 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(20,237 |
) |
|
|
(21,661 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments from associated companies |
|
|
32,829 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
(10,818 |
) |
|
|
(19,819 |
) |
Redemptions of lessor notes |
|
|
20,485 |
|
|
|
18,330 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
106,814 |
|
|
|
77,323 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(107,978 |
) |
|
|
(78,700 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(2,905 |
) |
|
|
(1,845 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
18,190 |
|
|
|
(26,372 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(358,869 |
) |
|
|
319,440 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
436,712 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
77,843 |
|
|
$ |
319,454 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
16
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
709,606 |
|
|
$ |
697,061 |
|
|
$ |
1,400,998 |
|
|
$ |
1,457,981 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
11,012 |
|
|
|
11,031 |
|
|
|
23,364 |
|
|
|
23,762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
720,618 |
|
|
|
708,092 |
|
|
|
1,424,362 |
|
|
|
1,481,743 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power |
|
|
410,470 |
|
|
|
423,950 |
|
|
|
824,486 |
|
|
|
905,191 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
75,177 |
|
|
|
70,876 |
|
|
|
170,837 |
|
|
|
156,746 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
27,093 |
|
|
|
25,301 |
|
|
|
55,064 |
|
|
|
50,404 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
81,326 |
|
|
|
80,018 |
|
|
|
150,774 |
|
|
|
166,849 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
14,902 |
|
|
|
12,587 |
|
|
|
31,338 |
|
|
|
30,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
608,968 |
|
|
|
612,732 |
|
|
|
1,232,499 |
|
|
|
1,309,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
111,650 |
|
|
|
95,360 |
|
|
|
191,863 |
|
|
|
172,470 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,649 |
|
|
|
2,007 |
|
|
|
3,482 |
|
|
|
2,812 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(30,041 |
) |
|
|
(29,671 |
) |
|
|
(59,464 |
) |
|
|
(57,539 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(28,236 |
) |
|
|
(27,446 |
) |
|
|
(55,693 |
) |
|
|
(54,447 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
83,414 |
|
|
|
67,914 |
|
|
|
136,170 |
|
|
|
118,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
33,521 |
|
|
|
29,848 |
|
|
|
57,051 |
|
|
|
52,399 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
49,893 |
|
|
|
38,066 |
|
|
|
79,119 |
|
|
|
65,624 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
4,135 |
|
|
|
20,918 |
|
|
|
20,063 |
|
|
|
25,039 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
4,204 |
|
|
|
20,987 |
|
|
|
20,201 |
|
|
|
25,177 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,441 |
|
|
|
11,059 |
|
|
|
7,999 |
|
|
|
12,489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
2,763 |
|
|
|
9,928 |
|
|
|
12,202 |
|
|
|
12,688 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
52,656 |
|
|
$ |
47,994 |
|
|
$ |
91,321 |
|
|
$ |
78,312 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
17
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $3,362,000 and $3,506,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
345,136 |
|
|
|
300,991 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
11,778 |
|
|
|
12,884 |
|
Other |
|
|
25,626 |
|
|
|
21,877 |
|
Notes receivable associated companies |
|
|
17,883 |
|
|
|
102,932 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
146,898 |
|
|
|
34,930 |
|
Other |
|
|
11,357 |
|
|
|
12,945 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
558,777 |
|
|
|
486,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
4,524,706 |
|
|
|
4,463,490 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,651,304 |
|
|
|
1,617,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,873,402 |
|
|
|
2,845,851 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
55,825 |
|
|
|
54,251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,929,227 |
|
|
|
2,900,102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
166,148 |
|
|
|
166,768 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal trust |
|
|
204,088 |
|
|
|
199,677 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,209 |
|
|
|
2,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
372,445 |
|
|
|
368,594 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,810,936 |
|
|
|
1,810,936 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
800,898 |
|
|
|
888,143 |
|
Other |
|
|
29,849 |
|
|
|
27,096 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,641,683 |
|
|
|
2,726,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,502,132 |
|
|
$ |
6,481,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
31,508 |
|
|
$ |
30,639 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
57,850 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
15,158 |
|
|
|
26,882 |
|
Other |
|
|
202,049 |
|
|
|
168,093 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
1,786 |
|
|
|
12,594 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
18,189 |
|
|
|
18,256 |
|
Other |
|
|
82,524 |
|
|
|
111,156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
409,064 |
|
|
|
367,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $10 par value, authorized 16,000,000 shares,
13,628,447 shares outstanding |
|
|
136,284 |
|
|
|
136,284 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
2,507,003 |
|
|
|
2,507,049 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(230,810 |
) |
|
|
(243,012 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
189,194 |
|
|
|
200,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
2,601,671 |
|
|
|
2,600,396 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,787,235 |
|
|
|
1,801,589 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,388,906 |
|
|
|
4,401,985 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
705,219 |
|
|
|
687,545 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal costs |
|
|
196,623 |
|
|
|
196,511 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
132,565 |
|
|
|
150,603 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
104,878 |
|
|
|
101,568 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
378,448 |
|
|
|
399,105 |
|
Other |
|
|
186,429 |
|
|
|
176,520 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,704,162 |
|
|
|
1,711,852 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,502,132 |
|
|
$ |
6,481,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
18
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
79,119 |
|
|
$ |
65,624 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
55,064 |
|
|
|
50,404 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
150,774 |
|
|
|
166,849 |
|
Deferred purchased power and other costs |
|
|
(67,664 |
) |
|
|
(50,542 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
(1,425 |
) |
|
|
3,440 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
2,608 |
|
|
|
(2,883 |
) |
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(23,400 |
) |
|
|
(209 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(46,788 |
) |
|
|
41,228 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(112,155 |
) |
|
|
(145,740 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
11,924 |
|
|
|
(19,321 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
10,368 |
|
|
|
(14,007 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
|
9,373 |
|
Tax collections payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,714 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(6,192 |
) |
|
|
4,555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
52,166 |
|
|
|
99,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
299,619 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
57,850 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(150,000 |
) |
Long-term debt |
|
|
(13,830 |
) |
|
|
(13,093 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56,267 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(90,000 |
) |
|
|
(88,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,260 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(45,980 |
) |
|
|
(10,001 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(80,727 |
) |
|
|
(78,401 |
) |
Loan repayments from (loans to) associated companies, net |
|
|
85,049 |
|
|
|
(1,341 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
281,242 |
|
|
|
244,880 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(289,454 |
) |
|
|
(252,856 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(2,224 |
) |
|
|
(1,266 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(6,114 |
) |
|
|
(88,984 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
$ |
138 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
19
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
422,030 |
|
|
$ |
360,022 |
|
|
$ |
873,590 |
|
|
$ |
769,708 |
|
Gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
20,629 |
|
|
|
17,586 |
|
|
|
42,196 |
|
|
|
37,569 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
442,659 |
|
|
|
377,608 |
|
|
|
915,786 |
|
|
|
807,277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
149,000 |
|
|
|
78,652 |
|
|
|
310,080 |
|
|
|
178,729 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
85,276 |
|
|
|
123,299 |
|
|
|
177,204 |
|
|
|
247,210 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
90,151 |
|
|
|
51,309 |
|
|
|
192,134 |
|
|
|
157,666 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
13,440 |
|
|
|
12,919 |
|
|
|
26,198 |
|
|
|
25,058 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
48,589 |
|
|
|
61,548 |
|
|
|
97,389 |
|
|
|
89,139 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
19,894 |
|
|
|
22,034 |
|
|
|
41,634 |
|
|
|
43,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
406,350 |
|
|
|
349,761 |
|
|
|
844,639 |
|
|
|
741,771 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
36,309 |
|
|
|
27,847 |
|
|
|
71,147 |
|
|
|
65,506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
|
|
880 |
|
|
|
2,769 |
|
|
|
2,097 |
|
|
|
5,955 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,381 |
|
|
|
1,058 |
|
|
|
3,554 |
|
|
|
1,914 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(13,002 |
) |
|
|
(14,763 |
) |
|
|
(26,775 |
) |
|
|
(28,122 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(10,582 |
) |
|
|
(10,874 |
) |
|
|
(20,839 |
) |
|
|
(20,176 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
25,727 |
|
|
|
16,973 |
|
|
|
50,308 |
|
|
|
45,330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
8,618 |
|
|
|
6,968 |
|
|
|
20,884 |
|
|
|
18,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
17,109 |
|
|
|
10,005 |
|
|
|
29,424 |
|
|
|
26,627 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
2,162 |
|
|
|
27,369 |
|
|
|
11,871 |
|
|
|
31,922 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
2,246 |
|
|
|
27,453 |
|
|
|
12,039 |
|
|
|
32,090 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
724 |
|
|
|
13,592 |
|
|
|
4,901 |
|
|
|
15,385 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
1,522 |
|
|
|
13,861 |
|
|
|
7,138 |
|
|
|
16,705 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
18,631 |
|
|
$ |
23,866 |
|
|
$ |
36,562 |
|
|
$ |
43,332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
20
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $3,877,000 and $4,044,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
188,771 |
|
|
|
171,052 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
45,551 |
|
|
|
29,413 |
|
Other |
|
|
13,221 |
|
|
|
11,650 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
11,207 |
|
|
|
97,150 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
46,475 |
|
|
|
15,229 |
|
Other |
|
|
649 |
|
|
|
1,459 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
306,000 |
|
|
|
326,073 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,196,713 |
|
|
|
2,162,815 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
830,042 |
|
|
|
810,746 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,366,671 |
|
|
|
1,352,069 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
30,214 |
|
|
|
14,901 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,396,885 |
|
|
|
1,366,970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
263,752 |
|
|
|
266,479 |
|
Other |
|
|
881 |
|
|
|
890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
264,633 |
|
|
|
267,369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
416,499 |
|
|
|
416,499 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
385,392 |
|
|
|
356,754 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
120,436 |
|
|
|
176,111 |
|
Other |
|
|
42,546 |
|
|
|
36,544 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
964,873 |
|
|
|
985,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,932,391 |
|
|
$ |
2,946,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
28,500 |
|
|
$ |
128,500 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
17,898 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
51,308 |
|
|
|
40,521 |
|
Other |
|
|
30,997 |
|
|
|
41,050 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
20,689 |
|
|
|
11,170 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
16,085 |
|
|
|
17,362 |
|
Other |
|
|
28,588 |
|
|
|
24,520 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194,065 |
|
|
|
263,123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 900,000 shares,
859,500 shares outstanding |
|
|
1,197,014 |
|
|
|
1,197,070 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(136,413 |
) |
|
|
(143,551 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
33,824 |
|
|
|
4,399 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
1,094,425 |
|
|
|
1,057,918 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
713,920 |
|
|
|
713,873 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,808,345 |
|
|
|
1,771,791 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
454,777 |
|
|
|
453,462 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
7,090 |
|
|
|
7,313 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal costs |
|
|
44,416 |
|
|
|
44,391 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
29,194 |
|
|
|
33,605 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
186,373 |
|
|
|
180,297 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
158,987 |
|
|
|
143,135 |
|
Other |
|
|
49,144 |
|
|
|
49,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
929,981 |
|
|
|
911,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,932,391 |
|
|
$ |
2,946,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
21
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
29,424 |
|
|
$ |
26,627 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
26,198 |
|
|
|
25,058 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
97,389 |
|
|
|
89,139 |
|
Deferral of regulatory assets |
|
|
(38,358 |
) |
|
|
(47,592 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
(12,079 |
) |
|
|
30,135 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(1,573 |
) |
|
|
3,250 |
|
Cash collateral received (paid), net |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
(6,800 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(29,439 |
) |
|
|
346 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(30,436 |
) |
|
|
(39,068 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
733 |
|
|
|
(18,624 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
9,519 |
|
|
|
(1,754 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(1,277 |
) |
|
|
10,230 |
|
Other |
|
|
6,743 |
|
|
|
7,870 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
56,894 |
|
|
|
78,817 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
300,000 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
17,898 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,003 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,267 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(82,102 |
) |
|
|
282,730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(54,405 |
) |
|
|
(48,464 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
376,610 |
|
|
|
63,086 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(381,219 |
) |
|
|
(67,668 |
) |
Loans from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
85,943 |
|
|
|
(306,448 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(1,715 |
) |
|
|
(2,072 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
25,214 |
|
|
|
(361,566 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
22
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
350,335 |
|
|
$ |
316,881 |
|
|
$ |
736,271 |
|
|
$ |
688,174 |
|
Gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
16,162 |
|
|
|
14,804 |
|
|
|
33,686 |
|
|
|
32,096 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
366,497 |
|
|
|
331,685 |
|
|
|
769,957 |
|
|
|
720,270 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
152,945 |
|
|
|
72,166 |
|
|
|
321,345 |
|
|
|
168,247 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
86,829 |
|
|
|
125,317 |
|
|
|
178,252 |
|
|
|
252,483 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
67,070 |
|
|
|
46,301 |
|
|
|
139,464 |
|
|
|
123,590 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
16,605 |
|
|
|
15,581 |
|
|
|
31,287 |
|
|
|
30,036 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(10,522 |
) |
|
|
18,113 |
|
|
|
(20,488 |
) |
|
|
26,889 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
18,647 |
|
|
|
18,251 |
|
|
|
35,181 |
|
|
|
38,844 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
331,574 |
|
|
|
295,729 |
|
|
|
685,041 |
|
|
|
640,089 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
34,923 |
|
|
|
35,956 |
|
|
|
84,916 |
|
|
|
80,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,310 |
|
|
|
911 |
|
|
|
2,923 |
|
|
|
1,709 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(17,630 |
) |
|
|
(11,843 |
) |
|
|
(34,920 |
) |
|
|
(25,076 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(16,137 |
) |
|
|
(10,903 |
) |
|
|
(31,674 |
) |
|
|
(23,316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
18,786 |
|
|
|
25,053 |
|
|
|
53,242 |
|
|
|
56,865 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
5,812 |
|
|
|
10,232 |
|
|
|
22,969 |
|
|
|
23,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
12,974 |
|
|
|
14,821 |
|
|
|
30,273 |
|
|
|
33,511 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
1,830 |
|
|
|
29,400 |
|
|
|
10,377 |
|
|
|
32,355 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,846 |
|
|
|
29,422 |
|
|
|
10,409 |
|
|
|
32,371 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
483 |
|
|
|
15,100 |
|
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
16,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
1,363 |
|
|
|
14,322 |
|
|
|
6,642 |
|
|
|
16,216 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
14,337 |
|
|
$ |
29,143 |
|
|
$ |
36,915 |
|
|
$ |
49,727 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
23
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $3,428,000 and $3,483,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
137,450 |
|
|
|
139,302 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
88,612 |
|
|
|
77,338 |
|
Other |
|
|
10,934 |
|
|
|
18,320 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
14,092 |
|
|
|
14,589 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
56,450 |
|
|
|
18,946 |
|
Other |
|
|
758 |
|
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308,306 |
|
|
|
269,909 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,481,942 |
|
|
|
2,431,737 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
918,963 |
|
|
|
901,990 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,562,979 |
|
|
|
1,529,747 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
22,319 |
|
|
|
24,205 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,585,298 |
|
|
|
1,553,952 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
140,611 |
|
|
|
142,603 |
|
Non-utility generation trusts |
|
|
96,988 |
|
|
|
120,070 |
|
Other |
|
|
283 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237,882 |
|
|
|
262,962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
768,628 |
|
|
|
768,628 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
138,557 |
|
|
|
9,045 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
6,031 |
|
|
|
15,362 |
|
Other |
|
|
20,245 |
|
|
|
19,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
933,461 |
|
|
|
812,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,064,947 |
|
|
$ |
2,899,001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
69,310 |
|
|
$ |
69,310 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
66,786 |
|
|
|
41,473 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
48,876 |
|
|
|
39,884 |
|
Other |
|
|
28,460 |
|
|
|
41,990 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
5,071 |
|
|
|
6,409 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
17,625 |
|
|
|
17,598 |
|
Other |
|
|
24,696 |
|
|
|
22,741 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
260,824 |
|
|
|
239,405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $20 par value, authorized 5,400,000 shares,
4,427,577 shares outstanding |
|
|
88,552 |
|
|
|
88,552 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
913,460 |
|
|
|
913,437 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(155,462 |
) |
|
|
(162,104 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
121,774 |
|
|
|
91,501 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
968,324 |
|
|
|
931,386 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,072,199 |
|
|
|
1,072,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,040,523 |
|
|
|
2,003,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
296,829 |
|
|
|
242,040 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
167,288 |
|
|
|
174,306 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
94,933 |
|
|
|
91,841 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
153,603 |
|
|
|
100,849 |
|
Other |
|
|
50,947 |
|
|
|
46,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
763,600 |
|
|
|
656,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,064,947 |
|
|
$ |
2,899,001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
24
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
30,273 |
|
|
$ |
33,511 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
31,287 |
|
|
|
30,036 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(20,488 |
) |
|
|
26,889 |
|
Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets |
|
|
(38,955 |
) |
|
|
(46,349 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
42,943 |
|
|
|
24,700 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
4,216 |
|
|
|
490 |
|
Cash collateral |
|
|
(3,613 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
3,266 |
|
|
|
42,494 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(36,864 |
) |
|
|
(35,750 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(4,603 |
) |
|
|
(10,108 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(1,339 |
) |
|
|
(7,629 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
(1,669 |
) |
Other |
|
|
9,559 |
|
|
|
2,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
15,710 |
|
|
|
58,919 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
25,313 |
|
|
|
146,654 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from financing activities |
|
|
25,318 |
|
|
|
11,654 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(58,293 |
) |
|
|
(59,606 |
) |
Loans from associated companies, net |
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
133,934 |
|
|
|
53,504 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(113,067 |
) |
|
|
(60,378 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(4,104 |
) |
|
|
(4,168 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(41,032 |
) |
|
|
(70,585 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
25
COMBINED NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
1. ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
FirstEnergy is a diversified energy company that holds, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its principal subsidiaries: OE, CEI, TE, Penn (a wholly owned
subsidiary of OE), ATSI, JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, FENOC, FES and its subsidiaries FGCO and NGC, and
FESC.
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries follow GAAP and comply with the regulations, orders, policies and
practices prescribed by the SEC, the FERC and, as applicable, the PUCO, the PPUC and the NJBPU. The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make periodic
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and
expenses and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results could differ from
these estimates. The reported results of operations are not indicative of results of operations for
any future period. In preparing the financial statements, FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have
evaluated events and transactions for potential recognition or disclosure through the date the
financial statements were issued.
These statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes included in
the combined Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 for FirstEnergy, FES
and the Utilities, as applicable. The consolidated unaudited financial statements of FirstEnergy,
FES and each of the Utilities reflect all normal recurring adjustments that, in the opinion of
management, are necessary to fairly present results of operations for the interim periods. Certain
prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Unless
otherwise indicated, defined terms used herein have the meanings set forth in the accompanying
Glossary of Terms.
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries consolidate all majority-owned subsidiaries over which they
exercise control and, when applicable, entities for which they have a controlling financial
interest. Intercompany transactions and balances are eliminated in consolidation. FirstEnergy
consolidates a VIE when it is determined that it is the primary beneficiary (see Note 6).
Investments in affiliates over which FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have the ability to exercise
significant influence, but are not the primary beneficiary and do not exercise control, follow the
equity method of accounting. Under the equity method, the interest in the entity is reported as an
investment in the Consolidated Balance Sheets and the percentage share of the entitys earnings is
reported in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
2. EARNINGS PER SHARE
Basic earnings per share of common stock is computed using the weighted average of actual common
shares outstanding during the respective period as the denominator. The denominator for diluted
earnings per share of common stock reflects the weighted average of common shares outstanding plus
the potential additional common shares that could result if dilutive securities and other
agreements to issue common stock were exercised. The following table reconciles basic and diluted
earnings per share of common stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Six Months |
|
Reconciliation of Basic and Diluted Earnings per Share |
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
of Common Stock |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
$ |
533 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of basic shares outstanding |
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
Assumed exercise of dilutive stock options and awards |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of diluted shares outstanding |
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share of common stock |
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.36 |
|
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share of common stock |
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.36 |
|
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
3. FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
(A) LONG-TERM DEBT AND OTHER LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS
All borrowings with initial maturities of less than one year are defined as short-term financial
instruments under GAAP and are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at cost, which
approximates their fair market value, in the caption short-term borrowings. The following table
provides the approximate fair value and related carrying amounts of long-term debt and other
long-term obligations as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
13,346 |
|
|
$ |
14,992 |
|
|
$ |
13,753 |
|
|
$ |
14,502 |
|
FES |
|
|
3,932 |
|
|
|
4,386 |
|
|
|
4,224 |
|
|
|
4,306 |
|
OE |
|
|
1,166 |
|
|
|
1,378 |
|
|
|
1,169 |
|
|
|
1,299 |
|
CEI |
|
|
1,853 |
|
|
|
2,110 |
|
|
|
1,873 |
|
|
|
2,032 |
|
TE |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
682 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
638 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
1,826 |
|
|
|
2,013 |
|
|
|
1,840 |
|
|
|
1,950 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
742 |
|
|
|
840 |
|
|
|
842 |
|
|
|
909 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
1,144 |
|
|
|
1,233 |
|
|
|
1,144 |
|
|
|
1,177 |
|
The fair values of long-term debt and other long-term obligations reflect the present value of the
cash outflows relating to those securities based on the current call price, the yield to maturity
or the yield to call, as deemed appropriate at the end of each respective period. The yields
assumed were based on securities with similar characteristics offered by corporations with credit
ratings similar to those of FES and the Utilities.
(B) INVESTMENTS
All temporary cash investments purchased with an initial maturity of three months or less are
reported as cash equivalents on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at cost, which approximates their
fair market value. Investments other than cash and cash equivalents include held-to-maturity
securities, available-for-sale securities, and notes receivable.
Available-For-Sale Securities
The following table summarizes the amortized cost basis, unrealized gains and losses and fair
values of investments held in nuclear decommissioning trusts, nuclear fuel disposal trusts and NUG
trusts as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010(1) |
|
|
December 31, 2009(2) |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
1,404 |
|
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,444 |
|
|
$ |
1,727 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,749 |
|
FES |
|
|
702 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
1,043 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,046 |
|
OE |
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
TE |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
278 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
280 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
250 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
274 |
|
|
$ |
252 |
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
295 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes cash balances: FirstEnergy $463 million; FES $388 million; OE $6
million; TE $61 million; JCP&L $3 million; Met-Ed $(2) million and Penelec -
$7 million. |
|
(2) |
|
Excludes cash balances: FirstEnergy $137 million; FES $43 million; OE -
$66 million; TE $2 million; JCP&L $3 million and Penelec $23 million. |
27
Proceeds from the sale of investments in available-for-sale securities, realized gains and losses
on those sales, and interest and dividend income for the six-month
period ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2010 |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sales |
|
$ |
1,916 |
|
|
$ |
957 |
|
|
$ |
60 |
|
|
$ |
107 |
|
|
$ |
281 |
|
|
$ |
377 |
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
Realized gains |
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Realized losses |
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Interest and dividend income |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2009 |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sales
|
|
$ |
1,001 |
|
|
$ |
537 |
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
77 |
|
|
$ |
245 |
|
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
Realized gains
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Realized losses
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Interest and dividend
income
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Held-To-Maturity Securities
The following table provides the amortized cost basis, unrealized gains and losses, and approximate
fair values of investments in held-to-maturity securities as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009
(excluding emission allowances, employee benefits, cost method investments and equity method
investments of $251 million and $264 million, respectively, that are not required to be disclosed):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Debt Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
487 |
|
|
$ |
93 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
580 |
|
|
$ |
544 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
616 |
|
OE |
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
|
CEI |
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
389 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
432 |
|
Notes Receivable
The following table provides the approximate fair value and related carrying amounts of notes
receivable as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Notes Receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
FES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
TE |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
The fair value of notes receivable represents the present value of the cash inflows based on the
yield to maturity. The yields assumed were based on financial instruments with similar
characteristics and terms.
(C) RECURRING FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Fair value is the price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (exit
price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly
transaction between willing market participants on the measurement date. A fair value hierarchy has
been established that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the
highest priority to unadjusted quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or
liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). The three levels of
the fair value hierarchy are as follows:
Level 1 Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of
the reporting date. Active markets are those where transactions for the asset or liability occur in
sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. FirstEnergys
Level 1 assets and liabilities primarily consist of exchange-traded derivatives and equity
securities listed on active exchanges that are held in various trusts.
Level 2 Pricing inputs are either directly or indirectly observable in the market as of the
reporting date, other than quoted prices in active markets included in Level 1. FirstEnergys Level
2 assets and liabilities consist primarily of investments in debt securities held in various trusts
and commodity forwards. Additionally, Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued
using models or other valuation methodologies based on assumptions that are observable in the
marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument and can be derived from observable data or
are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace. These
models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted
forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual
prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. Instruments in
this category include non-exchange-traded derivatives such as forwards and certain interest rate
swaps.
28
Level 3 Pricing inputs include inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources.
These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in managements best
estimate of fair value. FirstEnergy develops its view of the future market price of key commodities
through a combination of market observation and assessment (generally for the short term) and
fundamental modeling (generally for the long term). Key fundamental electricity model inputs are
generally directly observable in the market or derived from publicly available historic and
forecast data. Some key inputs reflect forecasts published by industry leading consultants who
generally employ similar fundamental modeling approaches. Fundamental model inputs and results, as
well as the selection of consultants, reflect the consensus of appropriate FirstEnergy management.
Level 3 instruments include those that may be more structured or otherwise tailored to customers
needs. FirstEnergys Level 3 instruments consist exclusively of NUG contracts.
FirstEnergy utilizes market data and assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the
asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the
valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated, or generally
unobservable. FirstEnergy primarily applies the market approach for recurring fair value
measurements using the best information available. Accordingly, FirstEnergy maximizes the use of
observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs.
The following tables set forth financial assets and financial liabilities that are accounted for at
fair value by level within the fair value hierarchy as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009.
Assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is
significant to the fair value measurement. FirstEnergys assessment of the significance of a
particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the fair valuation
of assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recurring Fair Value Measures as of June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities consumer products |
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
Equity securities technology |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Equity securities utilities & energy |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Equity securities financial |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Equity securities other |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets(1) |
|
$ |
275 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives commodity contracts |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
538 |
|
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
92 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
225 |
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Other |
|
|
458 |
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total nuclear decommissioning trust investments |
|
$ |
1,612 |
|
|
$ |
1,108 |
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
$ |
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rabbi Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities financial |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total rabbi trust investments |
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Fuel Disposal Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total nuclear fuel disposal trust investments |
|
$ |
204 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
204 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total NUG trust investments |
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts |
|
$ |
111 |
|
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Interest rate contracts |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives contracts |
|
$ |
173 |
|
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets(1) |
|
$ |
2,099 |
|
|
$ |
1,210 |
|
|
$ |
127 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
294 |
|
|
$ |
142 |
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts |
|
$ |
273 |
|
|
$ |
273 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
273 |
|
|
$ |
273 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives NUG contracts(2) |
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives NUG contracts(2) |
|
$ |
691 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
378 |
|
|
$ |
159 |
|
|
$ |
154 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes $(7) million of receivables, payables and accrued income. |
|
(2) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact
earnings. |
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recurring Fair Value Measures as of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities consumer products |
|
$ |
130 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
Equity securities technology |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Equity securities utilities & energy |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
Equity securities financial |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Equity securities other |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets(1) |
|
$ |
294 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives commodity contracts |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
558 |
|
|
$ |
306 |
|
|
$ |
118 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
484 |
|
|
|
443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Other |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total nuclear decommissioning trust investments |
|
$ |
1,544 |
|
|
$ |
1,072 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
80 |
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rabbi Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities financial |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total rabbi trust investments |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Fuel Disposal Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total nuclear fuel disposal trust investments |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
Other |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total NUG trust investments |
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Commodity Contracts |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets(1) |
|
$ |
1,909 |
|
|
$ |
1,087 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
285 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives commodity contracts |
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives NUG contracts(2) |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives NUG contracts(2) |
|
$ |
643 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
399 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes $21 million of receivables, payables and accrued income.
|
|
(2) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact
earnings. |
The determination of the above fair value measures takes into consideration various factors. These
factors include nonperformance risk, including counterparty credit risk and the impact of credit
enhancements (such as cash deposits, LOCs and priority interests). The impact of nonperformance
risk was immaterial in the fair value measurements.
32
The following tables set forth a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts
classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010
and 2009 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
Balance as of January 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
(444 |
) |
|
$ |
(391 |
) |
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
(86 |
) |
Settlements(1) |
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
Unrealized losses(1) |
|
|
(259 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of June 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
(557 |
) |
|
$ |
(371 |
) |
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
(148 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of April 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
(590 |
) |
|
$ |
(394 |
) |
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(166 |
) |
Settlements(1) |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Unrealized losses(1) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of June 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
(557 |
) |
|
$ |
(371 |
) |
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
(148 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
Balance as of January 1, 2009 |
|
$ |
(332 |
) |
|
$ |
(518 |
) |
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
Settlements(1) |
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
Unrealized losses(1) |
|
|
(383 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(170 |
) |
|
|
(176 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of June 30, 2009 |
|
$ |
(536 |
) |
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of April 1, 2009 |
|
$ |
(476 |
) |
|
$ |
(518 |
) |
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
(34 |
) |
Settlements(1) |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
Unrealized gains (losses)(1) |
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of June 30, 2009 |
|
$ |
(536 |
) |
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting
and do not impact earnings. |
4. DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS
FirstEnergy is exposed to financial risks resulting from fluctuating interest rates and commodity
prices, including prices for electricity, natural gas, coal and energy transmission. To manage the
volatility relating to these exposures, FirstEnergy uses a variety of derivative instruments,
including forward contracts, options, futures contracts and swaps. The derivatives are used for
risk management purposes. In addition to derivatives, FirstEnergy also enters into master netting
agreements with certain third parties. FirstEnergys Risk Policy Committee, comprised of members of
senior management, provides general management oversight for risk management activities throughout
FirstEnergy. The Committee is responsible for promoting the effective design and implementation of
sound risk management programs and oversees compliance with corporate risk management policies and
established risk management practices.
FirstEnergy accounts for derivative instruments on its Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value
unless they meet the normal purchases and normal sales criteria. Derivatives that meet those
criteria are accounted for at cost under the accrual method of accounting. The changes in the fair
value of derivative instruments that do not meet the normal purchases and normal sales criteria are
included in purchased power, other expense, unrealized gain (loss) on derivative hedges in other
comprehensive income (loss), or as part of the value of the hedged item. Based on derivative
contracts held as of June 30, 2010, an adverse 10% change in commodity prices would decrease net
income by approximately $9 million ($6 million net of tax) during the next twelve months. A
hypothetical 10% increase in the interest rates associated with variable-rate debt would decrease
net income by less than $1 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010.
Cash Flow Hedges
FirstEnergy has used forward starting swap agreements to hedge a portion of the consolidated
interest rate risk associated with anticipated issuances of fixed-rate, long-term debt securities
of its subsidiaries. These derivatives were treated as cash flow hedges, protecting against the
risk of changes in future interest payments resulting from changes in benchmark U.S. Treasury rates
between the date of hedge inception and the date of the debt issuance. As of June 30, 2010, no
forward starting swap agreements were outstanding.
Total unamortized losses included in AOCL associated with prior interest rate cash flow hedges
totaled $109 million ($71 million net of tax) as of June 30, 2010. Based on current estimates,
approximately $11 million will be amortized to interest expense during the next twelve months. The
table below provides the activity of AOCL related to interest rate cash flow hedges as of June 30,
2010 and 2009.
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Effective Portion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain Recognized in AOCL |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Reclassification from AOCL into Interest Expense |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
Fair Value Hedges
FirstEnergy uses fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements to hedge a portion of the
consolidated interest rate risk associated with the debt portfolio of its subsidiaries. These
derivatives are treated as fair value hedges of fixed-rate, long-term debt issues, protecting
against the risk of changes in the fair value of fixed-rate debt instruments due to lower interest
rates. In May of 2010, FirstEnergy terminated fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements with
a notional value of $3.15 billion, which resulted in cash proceeds of $43.1 million. These proceeds
will generally be amortized to earnings over the life of the underlying debt.
Effective June 1, 2010, FirstEnergy executed multiple fixed-for-floating interest rate swap
agreements with a combined notional value of $3.2 billion, which essentially replaced the swap
agreements terminated in May of 2010. As of June 30, 2010, the debt underlying the $3.2 billion
outstanding notional amount of interest rate swaps had a weighted average fixed interest rate of
6%, which the swaps have converted to a current weighted average variable rate of 4%.
On July 16, 2010, FirstEnergy terminated these fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements
with a notional value of $3.2 billion, which resulted in cash proceeds of $83.6 million. These
proceeds will be amortized to earnings over the life of the underlying debt. While
FirstEnergy currently does not have any interest rate swaps outstanding, costs associated with
entering into future swap transactions may be increased as a result of the recent passage of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires increased regulation of
swaps, swap dealers and major swap participants.
The following tables summarize the fair value of interest rate swaps in FirstEnergys Consolidated
Balance Sheets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Assets |
|
|
Derivative Liabilities |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Fair Value Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity Derivatives
FirstEnergy uses both physically and financially settled derivatives to manage its exposure to
volatility in commodity prices. Commodity derivatives are used for risk management purposes to
hedge exposures when it makes economic sense to do so, including circumstances where the hedging
relationship does not qualify for hedge accounting.
34
The following tables summarize the fair value of commodity derivatives in FirstEnergys
Consolidated Balance Sheets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Assets |
|
|
Derivative Liabilities |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Cash Flow Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity Forwards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity Forwards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
NonCurrent Assets |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
NonCurrent Liabilities |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Natural Gas Futures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Futures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
NonCurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NonCurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
NonCurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NonCurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
109 |
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Assets |
|
|
Derivative Liabilities |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Economic Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Purchase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Purchase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract Asset |
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
Contract Liability |
|
$ |
691 |
|
|
$ |
643 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
NonCurrent Assets |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
NonCurrent Liabilities |
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
846 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Commodity Derivatives |
|
$ |
245 |
|
|
$ |
233 |
|
|
Total Commodity Derivatives |
|
$ |
969 |
|
|
$ |
876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity forwards are used to balance expected sales with expected generation and purchased
power. Natural gas futures are entered into based on expected consumption of natural gas, primarily
used in FirstEnergys peaking units. Heating oil futures are entered into based on expected
consumption of oil and the financial risk in FirstEnergys coal transportation contracts.
Derivative instruments are not used in quantities greater than forecasted needs. The following
table summarizes the volume of FirstEnergys outstanding derivative transactions as of June 30,
2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases |
|
|
Sales |
|
|
Net |
|
|
Units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity Forwards |
|
|
21,596 |
|
|
|
(19,965 |
) |
|
|
1,631 |
|
|
MWH |
Heating Oil Futures |
|
|
2,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,100 |
|
|
Gallons |
Natural Gas Futures |
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
|
(1,000 |
) |
|
|
250 |
|
|
mmBtu |
35
The effect of derivative instruments on the consolidated statements of income and comprehensive
income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, for instruments designated in
cash flow hedging relationships and not in hedging relationships, respectively, are summarized in
the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
Electricity |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Heating Oil |
|
|
|
|
Derivatives in Cash Flow Hedging Relationships |
|
Forwards |
|
|
Futures |
|
|
Futures |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
Electricity |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Heating Oil |
|
|
|
|
Derivatives in Cash Flow Hedging Relationships |
|
Forwards |
|
|
Futures |
|
|
Futures |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The ineffective portion was immaterial. |
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
NUG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in Hedging Relationships |
|
Contracts |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(31 |
) |
|
$ |
(31 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(68 |
) |
|
$ |
(31 |
) |
|
$ |
(99 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Expense (1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(156 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(154 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Expense (1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(96 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(96 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
NUG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in Hedging Relationships |
|
Contracts |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(17 |
) |
|
$ |
(17 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(259 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(259 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(259 |
) |
|
$ |
(17 |
) |
|
$ |
(276 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(56 |
) |
|
$ |
(56 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(137 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(146 |
) |
|
$ |
(47 |
) |
|
$ |
(193 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Expense (1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(383 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(383 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(383 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(381 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Expense (1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(179 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(169 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(179 |
) |
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
(170 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The realized gain (loss) is reclassified upon termination of the derivative
instrument. |
|
(2) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are deferred for future recovery from
(or refund to) customers. |
Total unamortized losses included in AOCL associated with commodity derivatives were $11 million
($7 million net of tax) as of June 30, 2010, as compared to $15 million ($9 million net of tax) as
of December 31, 2009. The net of tax change resulted from a net $10 million increase related to
current hedging activity and a $12 million decrease due to net hedge
losses reclassified to earnings during the first six months of 2010. Based on current estimates,
approximately $10 million (net of tax) of the net deferred losses on derivative instruments in AOCL
as of June 30, 2010 are expected to be reclassified to earnings during the next twelve months as
hedged transactions occur. The fair value of these derivative instruments fluctuate from period to
period based on various market factors.
37
Many of FirstEnergys commodity derivatives contain credit risk features. As of June 30, 2010,
FirstEnergy posted $194 million of collateral related to net liability positions and held no
counterparties funds related to asset positions. The collateral FirstEnergy has posted relates to
both derivative and non-derivative contracts. FirstEnergys largest derivative counterparties fully
collateralize all derivative transactions. Certain commodity derivative contracts include credit
risk-related contingent features that would require FirstEnergy to post additional collateral if
the credit rating for its debt were to fall below investment grade. The aggregate fair value of
derivative instruments with credit risk-related contingent features that are in a liability
position on June 30, 2010 was $177 million, for which $194 million in collateral has been posted.
If FirstEnergys credit rating were to fall below investment grade, it would be required to post
$37 million of additional collateral related to commodity derivatives.
5. PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
FirstEnergy provides noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover
substantially all of its employees and non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees.
The plans provide defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels.
FirstEnergys net pension and OPEB expense for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 was
$21 million and $38 million, respectively. FirstEnergys net pension and OPEB expense for the six
months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 was $45 million and $80 million, respectively. The components
of FirstEnergys net pension and other postretirement benefit costs (including amounts capitalized)
for the three and six months ended June, 2010 and 2009, consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
Pension Benefits |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(90 |
) |
|
|
(81 |
) |
|
|
(181 |
) |
|
|
(162 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic cost |
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
Other Postretirement Benefits |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
(79 |
) |
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic cost |
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
|
$ |
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
Pension and other postretirement benefit obligations are allocated to FirstEnergys subsidiaries
employing the plan participants. The net periodic pension costs and net periodic other
postretirement benefit costs (including amounts capitalized) recognized by FirstEnergys
subsidiaries for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
Pension Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
FES |
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
OE |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
CEI |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
TE |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
Other Postretirement Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
FES |
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
OE |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
CEI |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
TE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Penelec |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
|
$ |
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES
On January 1, 2010, FirstEnergy adopted the amendments to the consolidation topic addressing VIEs.
This standard requires that FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries perform a qualitative analysis to
determine whether a variable interest gives FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries a controlling financial
interest in a VIE. This analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a VIE as the enterprise that
has both the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the entitys
economic performance and the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be
significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be
significant to the VIE. This standard also requires an ongoing reassessment of the primary
beneficiary of a VIE and eliminates the quantitative approach previously required for determining
whether an entity is the primary beneficiary. There was no impact to FirstEnergy or its
subsidiaries as a result of the adoption of this standard.
FirstEnergys consolidated financial statements include the accounts of entities in which it has a
controlling financial interest. FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries reflect the portion of VIEs not
owned by them in the caption noncontrolling interest within the consolidated financial statements.
The change in noncontrolling interest within the consolidated balance sheets is the result of net
losses of the noncontrolling interests ($15 million) and distributions to owners ($4 million) for
the six months ended June 30, 2010.
FirstEnergy consolidates certain VIEs in which it has financial control through disproportionate
economics in its equity and debt investments in the entities. These VIEs include: FEVs joint
venture in the Signal Peak mining and coal transportation operations; the PNBV and Shippingport
bond trusts that were created to refinance debt originally issued in connection with sale and
leaseback transactions; and wholly owned limited liability companies of JCP&L created to sell
transition bonds to securitize the recovery of JCP&Ls bondable stranded costs associated with the
previously divested Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, of which $326 million was outstanding
as of June 30, 2010.
39
In order to evaluate contracts under the consolidation guidance, FirstEnergy aggregated contracts
into two categories based on similar risk characteristics and significance as follows:
Power Purchase Agreements
FirstEnergy evaluated its power purchase agreements and determined that certain NUG entities may be
VIEs to the extent they own a plant that sells substantially all of its output to the Utilities and
the contract price for power is correlated with the plants variable costs of production.
FirstEnergy, through its subsidiaries JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec, maintains 21 long-term power
purchase agreements with NUG entities. The agreements were entered into pursuant to the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. FirstEnergy was not involved in the creation of, and has
no equity or debt invested in, these entities.
FirstEnergy has determined that for all but two of these entities, neither JCP&L, nor Met-Ed nor
Penelec have variable interests in the entities or the entities are governmental or not-for-profit
organizations not within the scope of consolidation consideration for VIEs. JCP&L may hold variable
interests in the remaining two entities, which sell their output at variable prices that correlate
to some extent with the operating costs of the plants. However, FirstEnergy applied the scope
exception that exempts enterprises unable to obtain the necessary information to evaluate entities.
Since JCP&L has no equity or debt interests in the NUG entities, its maximum exposure to loss
relates primarily to the above-market costs it incurs for power. FirstEnergy expects any
above-market costs it incurs to be recovered from customers. Purchased power costs related to the
two contracts that may contain a variable interest were $53 million and $48 million for the three
months ended June 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively and $117 million and $115 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Loss Contingencies
FirstEnergy has variable interests in certain sale-leaseback transactions. FirstEnergy concluded
that it is not the primary beneficiary of these interests as it does not have control over the
significant activities affecting the economics of the arrangement.
FES and the Ohio Companies are exposed to losses under their applicable sale-leaseback agreements
upon the occurrence of certain contingent events that each company considers unlikely to occur. The
maximum exposure under these provisions represents the net amount of casualty value payments due
upon the occurrence of specified casualty events that render the applicable plant worthless. Net
discounted lease payments would not be payable if the casualty loss payments were made. The
following table discloses each companys net exposure to loss based upon the casualty value
provisions mentioned above:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
|
|
Discounted Lease |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
Exposure |
|
|
Payments, net(1) |
|
|
Exposure |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
1,352 |
|
|
$ |
1,165 |
|
|
$ |
187 |
|
OE |
|
|
693 |
|
|
|
499 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
CEI(2) |
|
|
662 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
592 |
|
TE(2) |
|
|
662 |
|
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The net present value of FirstEnergys consolidated sale
and leaseback operating lease commitments is $1.6 billion. |
|
(2) |
|
CEI and TE are jointly and severally liable for the maximum
loss amounts under certain sale-leaseback agreements. |
7. INCOME TAXES
FirstEnergy accounts for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in its financial statements.
Accounting guidance prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for financial
statement recognition and measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken on a companys
tax return. After reaching a settlement at appeals related primarily to the capitalization of
certain costs for the tax years 2005-2008, as well as reaching a settlement on an unrelated state
tax matter in the second quarter of 2010, FirstEnergy recognized approximately $70 million of net
tax benefits, including $13 million that favorably affected FirstEnergys effective tax rate for
the second quarter of 2010. The remaining portion of the tax benefit recognized in the first six
months of 2010 increased FirstEnergys accumulated deferred income taxes for the settled temporary
tax item. Upon completion of the federal tax examination for the 2007
tax year in the first quarter of 2009, FirstEnergy recognized $13 million in tax benefits, which
favorably affected FirstEnergys effective tax rate. There were no material changes to
FirstEnergys unrecognized tax benefits in the second quarter of 2009.
As of June 30, 2010, it is reasonably possible that approximately $11 million of the unrecognized
benefits may be resolved within the next twelve months, of which approximately $11 million, if
recognized, would affect FirstEnergys effective tax rate. The potential decrease in the amount of
unrecognized tax benefits is primarily associated with issues related to gains and losses
recognized on the disposition of assets and various other tax items.
FirstEnergy recognizes interest expense or income related to uncertain tax positions. That amount
is computed by applying the applicable statutory interest rate to the difference between the tax
position recognized and the amount previously taken or expected to be taken on the tax return.
FirstEnergy includes net interest and penalties in the provision for income taxes. The reversal of
accrued interest associated with the recognized tax benefits noted above favorably affected
FirstEnergys effective tax rate by $11 million in the first six months of 2010. During the first
six months of 2009, there were no material changes to the amount of interest accrued. The net
amount of accumulated interest accrued as of June 30, 2010 was $6 million, as compared to
$21 million as of December 31, 2009.
40
As a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education
Affordability Reconciliation Act signed into law on March 23, 2010 and March 30, 2010,
respectively, beginning in 2013 the tax deduction available to FirstEnergy will be reduced to the
extent that drug costs are reimbursed under the Medicare Part D retiree subsidy program. As retiree
healthcare liabilities and related tax impacts are already reflected in FirstEnergys consolidated
financial statements, the change resulted in a charge to FirstEnergys earnings in the first
quarter of 2010 of approximately $13 million and a reduction in accumulated deferred tax assets
associated with these subsidies. This change reflects the anticipated increase in income taxes
that will occur as a result of the change in tax law.
FirstEnergy has tax returns that are under review at the audit or appeals level by the IRS and
state tax authorities. All state jurisdictions are open from 2001-2008. The IRS began reviewing
returns for the years 2001-2003 in July 2004 and several items were under appeal. In the fourth
quarter of 2009, these items were settled at appeals and sent to Joint Committee on Taxation for
final review. The federal audits for years 2004-2006 were completed in the third quarter of 2008
and several items are under appeal. The IRS began auditing the year 2007 in February 2007 under its
Compliance Assurance Process program and was completed in the first quarter of 2009 with two items
under appeal. In the second quarter of 2010, the items under appeal for tax years 2006 and 2007
were settled and sent to Joint Committee on Taxation for final review. The IRS began auditing the
year 2008 in February 2008 and the audit was completed in July 2010 with one item under appeal. The
2009 tax year audit began in February 2009 and the 2010 tax year began in February 2010. Neither
audit is expected to close before December 2010. Management believes that adequate reserves have
been recognized and final settlement of these audits is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on FirstEnergys financial condition or results of operations.
8. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES
(A) GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES
As part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy enters into various agreements on behalf of its
subsidiaries to provide financial or performance assurances to third parties. These agreements
include contract guarantees, surety bonds and LOCs. As of June 30, 2010, outstanding guarantees and
other assurances aggregated approximately $3.9 billion, consisting primarily of parental guarantees
($0.9 billion), subsidiaries guarantees ($2.5 billion), surety bonds and LOCs ($0.5 billion).
FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy
commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions involving
electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides guarantees to various
providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to
the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements legally obligate FirstEnergy to
fulfill the obligations of those subsidiaries directly involved in energy and energy-related
transactions or financing where the law might otherwise limit the counterparties claims. If
demands of a counterparty were to exceed the ability of a subsidiary to satisfy existing
obligations, FirstEnergys guarantee enables the counterpartys legal claim to be satisfied by
other FirstEnergy assets. The likelihood is remote that such parental guarantees of $0.3 billion
(included in the $0.9 billion discussed above) as of June 30, 2010 would increase amounts otherwise
payable by FirstEnergy to meet its obligations incurred in connection with financings and ongoing
energy and energy-related activities.
While these types of guarantees are normally parental commitments for the future payment of
subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a credit rating downgrade or material
adverse event, the immediate posting of cash collateral, provision of a LOC or accelerated
payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergys maximum exposure
under these collateral provisions was $451 million, consisting of $37 million due to material
adverse event contractual clauses, $83 million due to an acceleration of payment or funding
obligation, and $331 million due to a below investment grade credit rating. Additionally, stress
case conditions of a credit rating
downgrade or material adverse event and hypothetical adverse price movements in the underlying
commodity markets would increase this amount to $609 million, consisting of $56 million due to
material adverse event contractual clauses, $83 million related to an acceleration of payment or
funding obligation, and $470 million due to a below investment grade credit rating.
Most of FirstEnergys surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance
industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $90 million provide additional assurance to
outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas
including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.
41
In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, FES contracts, including power contracts with
affiliates awarded through competitive bidding processes, typically contain margining provisions
which require the posting of cash or LOCs in amounts determined by future power price movements.
Based on FES power portfolio as of June 30, 2010, and forward prices as of that date, FES has
posted collateral of $245 million. Under a hypothetical adverse change in forward prices (95%
confidence level change in forward prices over a one year time horizon), FES would be required to
post an additional $107 million. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price
movements, FES could be required to post higher amounts for margining.
In connection with FES obligations to post and maintain collateral under the two-year PSA entered
into by FES and the Ohio Companies following the CBP auction on May 13-14, 2009, NGC entered into a
Surplus Margin Guaranty in an amount up to $500 million. The Surplus Margin Guaranty is secured by
an NGC FMB issued in favor of the Ohio Companies.
FES debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, and FES
guarantees the debt obligations of each of FGCO and NGC. Accordingly, present and future holders of
indebtedness of FES, FGCO and NGC will have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC regardless of
whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.
(B) ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water
quality and other environmental matters. Compliance with environmental regulations could have a
material adverse effect on FirstEnergys earnings and competitive position to the extent that
FirstEnergy competes with companies that are not subject to such regulations and, therefore, do not
bear the risk of costs associated with compliance, or failure to comply, with such regulations.
CAA Compliance
FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO2 and NOX emissions regulations under the CAA.
FirstEnergy complies with SO2 and NOx reduction requirements under the CAA and State
Implementation Plan(s) under the CAA (SIPs) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion controls and
post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower-emitting plants, and/or using
emission allowances. Violations can result in the shutdown of the generating unit involved and/or
civil or criminal penalties.
The Sammis, Burger, Eastlake and Mansfield coal-fired plants are operated under a consent decree
with the EPA and DOJ that requires reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions
through the installation of pollution control devices or repowering. OE and Penn are subject to
stipulated penalties for failure to install and operate such pollution controls or complete
repowering in accordance with that agreement. Capital expenditures necessary to complete
requirements of the consent decree, including repowering Burger Units 4 and 5 for biomass fuel
combustion, are currently estimated to be approximately $399 million for 2010-2012.
In 2007, PennFuture filed a citizen suit under the CAA, alleging violations of air pollution laws
at the Bruce Mansfield Plant, including opacity limitations, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. In July 2008, three additional complaints were filed against FGCO
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania also seeking damages based on
Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce
Mansfield Plant from operating except in a safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner one being
a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other being a class action complaint
seeking certification as a class action with the eight named plaintiffs as the class
representatives. A settlement was reached with PennFuture. FGCO believes the claims of the
remaining plaintiffs are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in
those three complaints.
The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at
the Portland Generation Station against Reliant (the current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the
purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in 1999), GPU and Met-Ed. Specifically, these suits
allege that modifications at Portland Units 1 and 2 occurred between 1980 and 2005 without
preconstruction NSR or permitting under the CAAs PSD program, and seek
injunctive relief, penalties, attorney fees and mitigation of the harm caused by excess emissions.
In September 2009, the Court granted Met-Eds motion to dismiss New Jerseys and Connecticuts
claims for injunctive relief against Met-Ed, but denied Met-Eds motion to dismiss the claims for
civil penalties. The parties dispute the scope of Met-Eds indemnity obligation to and from Sithe
Energy.
In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to Reliant alleging NSR violations at the Portland Generation
Station based on modifications dating back to 1986 and also alleged NSR violations at the
Keystone and Shawville Stations based on modifications dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L as the
former owner of 16.67% of the Keystone Station, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of the
Shawville Station, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
42
In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc.
alleging that modifications at the Homer City Power Station occurred since 1988 to the present
without preconstruction NSR permitting under the CAAs PSD program. In May 2010, the EPA issued a
second NOV to Mission Energy Westside, Inc., Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership
interest in the Homer City Power Station containing in all material respects identical allegations
as the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission
Energy Westside, Inc., Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer
City Power Station a notification required 60 days prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA.
Mission Energy is seeking indemnification from Penelec, the co-owner and operator of the Homer City
Power Station prior to its sale in 1999. The scope of Penelecs indemnity obligation to and from
Mission Energy is under dispute and Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In August 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and
Ohio regulations, including the PSD, NNSR, and Title V regulations at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay
Shore, and Ashtabula generating plants. The EPAs NOV alleges equipment replacements occurring
during maintenance outages dating back to 1990 triggered the pre-construction permitting
requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs. FGCO received a request for certain operating and
maintenance information and planning information for these same generating plants and notification
that the EPA is evaluating whether certain scheduled maintenance at the Eastlake generating plant
may constitute a major modification under the NSR provision of the CAA. Later in 2009, FGCO
received another information request regarding emission projections for the Eastlake generating
plant. FGCO intends to comply with the CAA, including the EPAs information requests, but, at this
time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The
EPAs CAIR requires reductions of
NOX and SO2 emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and
2015), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.5 million tons annually
and NOX emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia vacated CAIR in its entirety and directed the EPA to redo its analysis from the
ground up. In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and allowed CAIR to remain
in effect to temporarily preserve its environmental values until the EPA replaces CAIR with a new
rule consistent with the Courts opinion. The Court ruled in a different case that a cap-and-trade
program similar to CAIR, called the NOX SIP Call, cannot be used to satisfy certain CAA
requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for areas in non-attainment under
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In July 2010, the EPA proposed the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) to
replace CAIR, which remains in effect until the EPA finalizes CATR. CATR requires reductions of NOX
and SO2 emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO2
emissions in affected states to 2.6 million tons annually and NOX emissions to 1.3 million tons
annually. The EPA proposed a preferred regulatory approach that allows trading of NOX and
SO2 emission allowances between power plants located in the same state with severe
limits on interstate trading and two alternative approachesthe first eliminates interstate
trading of NOX and SO2 emission allowances and the second eliminates trading of NOX and
SO2 emission allowances in its entirety. Depending on the actions taken by the EPA with
respect to CATR, the proposed MACT regulations discussed below, and any future regulations that are ultimately implemented, FGCOs future cost of
compliance may be substantial. Management is currently assessing the impact
of these environmental proposals and other factors on FGCOs facilities, particularly on the operation of its smaller, non-supercritical units. For example, management may
decide to idle certain of these units or operate them on a seasonal basis until developments clarify.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
The EPAs CAMR provides for a cap-and-trade program to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants in two phases; initially, capping nationwide emissions of mercury at 38 tons by 2010
(as a co-benefit from implementation of SO2 and NOX emission caps under the
EPAs CAIR program) and 15 tons per year by 2018. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, at the urging of several states and environmental groups vacated the CAMR, ruling that
the EPA failed to take the necessary steps to de-list coal-fired power plants from its hazardous
air pollutant program and, therefore, could not promulgate a cap-and-trade program. The EPA entered
into a consent decree requiring it to propose maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
regulations for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants by March 16, 2011, and to finalize the
regulations by November 16, 2011. On April 29, 2010, the EPA issued proposed MACT regulations
requiring emissions reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from non-electric
generating unit boilers, including boilers which do not use fossil fuels such as the proposed
Burger biomass repowering project. If finalized, the non-electric generating unit MACT regulations
could also provide precedent for MACT standards applicable to electric generating units. Depending
on the action taken by the EPA and on how any future regulations are ultimately
implemented, FGCOs future cost of compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes
to FGCOs operations may result.
Pennsylvania has submitted a new mercury rule for EPA approval that does not provide a
cap-and-trade approach as in the CAMR, but rather follows a command-and-control approach imposing
emission limits on individual sources. On December 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
affirmed the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruling that Pennsylvanias mercury rule is
unlawful, invalid and unenforceable and enjoined the Commonwealth from continued implementation
or enforcement of that rule.
43
Climate Change
There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state
and international level. At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills
seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States, and the House of Representatives passed
one such bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, on June 26, 2009. The Senate
continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. President Obama has
announced his Administrations New Energy for America Plan that includes, among other provisions,
ensuring that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012,
increasing to 25% by 2025, and implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG
emissions by 80% by 2050. State activities, primarily the northeastern states participating in the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts
to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs.
The EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate air pollutants from electric generating plants
and other facilities. In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and
reporting rule that will require FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and submit
reports commencing in 2011. In December 2009, the EPA released its final Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPAs finding concludes that
concentrations of several key GHG increase the threat of climate change. In April 2010, the EPA
finalized new GHG standards for model years 2012 to 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks and
medium-duty passenger vehicles and clarified that GHG regulation under the CAA will not be
triggered for electric generating plants and other stationary sources until January 2, 2011, at the
earliest. In May 2010, the EPA finalized new thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits
under the CAA program would be required. The EPA established an emissions applicability threshold
of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) effective January 2, 2011 for
existing facilities under the CAAs Prevention of Significant Determination (PSD) program, but
until July 1, 2011 that emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is triggered by
non-carbon dioxide pollutants.
At the international level, the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the U.S. in 1998 but never submitted for
ratification by the U.S. Senate, was intended to address global warming by reducing the amount of
man-made GHG, including CO2, emitted by developed countries by 2012.
A December 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen did not reach a consensus on
a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, but did take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding
political agreement which recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature
should be below two degrees Celsius, included a commitment by developed countries to provide funds,
approaching $30 billion over the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by
2020, and established the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, and
other climate-related activities in developing countries. Once they have become a party to the
Copenhagen Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia, and the United
States, would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing
countries, including Brazil, China, and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to
their domestic measurement, reporting, and verification.
On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on October 16, 2009,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that
had dismissed complaints alleging damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds; however, a
subsequent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court
dismissal of a complaint alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort
claims, including public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global
warming and result in property damages. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, should
the court of appeals decision be affirmed or not subjected to further review, FirstEnergy and/or
one or more of its subsidiaries could be named in actions making similar allegations.
FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although
potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2 emissions, or
litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other
expenditures or result in changes to its operations. The CO2 emissions per KWH
of electricity generated by FirstEnergy is lower than many regional competitors due to its
diversified generation sources, which include low or non-CO2 emitting
gas-fired and nuclear generators.
Clean Water Act
Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water
Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergys plants. In addition, Ohio, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergys operations.
The EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for
reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing
electric generating plants. The regulations call for reductions in impingement mortality (when
aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system) and
entrainment (which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facilitys cooling water system). The
EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should
continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment to minimize impacts on
fish and shellfish from
44
cooling
water intake structures. On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second
Circuits opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to
compare costs with benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact at cooling water intake structures. The EPA is developing a new regulation
under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeals which have created significant uncertainty about the specific nature, scope
and timing of the final performance standard. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and
their costs and effectiveness, including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay
Shore power plants water intake channel to divert fish away from the plants water intake system.
On March 15, 2010, the EPA issued a draft permit for the Bay Shore power plant requiring
installation of reverse louvers in its entire water intake channel by December 31, 2014. Depending
on the results of such studies and the EPAs further rulemaking and any final action taken by the
states exercising best professional judgment, the future costs of compliance with these standards
may require material capital expenditures.
In June 2008, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is considering
prosecution under the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills
at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26,
2007 and February 27, 2007. FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Regulation of Waste Disposal
Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Certain fossil-fuel combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste
disposal requirements pending the EPAs evaluation of the need for future regulation. In February
2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on options for regulating coal combustion
residuals, including whether they should be regulated as hazardous or non-hazardous waste.
On December 30, 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA said that the large
volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk
to the industry. On May 4, 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal
combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPAs
hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management,
beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FGCOs future cost of compliance with any
coal combustion residuals regulations which may be promulgated could be substantial and would
depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the
states.
The Utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may
require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability
involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all
potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis.
Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the consolidated
balance sheet as of June 30, 2010, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Utilities
proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated
entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $105 million (JCP&L $76 million, TE -
$1 million, CEI $1 million, FGCO $1 million and FirstEnergy $26 million) have been accrued
through June 30, 2010. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $67 million
for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder facilities in New
Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC.
(C) OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Power Outages and Related Litigation
In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power
outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&Ls territory.
Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New
Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory
and punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the
Plaintiffs claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict
product liability, and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of
contract causes of actions. Early in 2010, the Appellate Division heard oral argument on
plaintiffs appeal of the trial courts decision decertifying the class, and on July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial courts decision.
Litigation Relating to the Proposed Allegheny Energy Merger
In connection with the proposed merger (Note 15), purported shareholders of Allegheny Energy have
filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland
state courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
against Allegheny Energy and its directors and certain officers, referred to as the Allegheny
Energy defendants, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub. In summary, the lawsuits allege, among other things,
that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger
45
agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, jury trials, money damages and injunctive
relief. Additional details about the actions are provided below. While FirstEnergy believes the
lawsuits are without merit and has defended vigorously against the claims, in order to avoid the
costs associated with the litigation, the defendants have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based
settlement of the lawsuits. The defendants reached an agreement with counsel for all of the
plaintiffs concerning fee applications, but a formal stipulation of settlement has not yet been
filed with any court. If the parties are unable to obtain final approval of the settlement, then
litigation will proceed, and the outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain. If a
dismissal is not granted or a settlement is not reached, these lawsuits could prevent or delay the
completion of the merger and result in substantial costs to FirstEnergy. The defense or settlement
of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the merger closes may adversely affect
FirstEnergys business, financial condition or results of operations.
Four putative class action and derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland. One was withdrawn. The court consolidated the three cases under the caption Oakmont
Capital Management, LLC v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 24-C-10-1301, and appointed Lewis M. Lynn as
Lead Plaintiff. Plaintiff Lynn filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 12, 2010. On
April 21, 2010, defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure
to state a claim. The court has stayed all discovery pending resolution of those motions. The court
also has entered a stipulated order certifying a class with no opt-out rights. On May 27, 2010, the
parties reported to the court that they have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement
and requested that the court cancel the oral argument on the motions to dismiss that had been
scheduled for June 3, 2010. On May 28, 2010, the court removed the hearing from its calendar.
Three shareholder lawsuits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, raising putative class action and derivative claims against the Allegheny Energy
directors and officers, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy. The court has consolidated these actions
under the caption, In re Allegheny Energy, Inc. Shareholder Class and Derivative, Litigation, Lead
Case No. 1101 of 2010, and appointed lead counsel. On April 5, 2010, the Allegheny Energy
defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Proceedings. Shortly thereafter, FirstEnergy similarly filed
a Motion to Stay. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery. The court scheduled a hearing
on the motions for May 27, 2010. On May 21, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated
Shareholder Derivative and Class Complaint. On May 26, 2010, the parties filed a Motion for a
Continuance of the May 27 hearing, which the court granted. On June 1, 2010, the parties reported
to the court that they have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement.
A putative shareholder lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 10-319 NBF. On June 1, 2010, the parties reported to
the court that they have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement.
Nuclear Plant Matters
During a planned refueling outage that began on February 28, 2010, FENOC conducted a non
destructive examination and testing of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) Nozzles of the
Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head. FENOC identified flaws in CRDM nozzles that required
modification. The NRC was notified of these findings, along with federal, state and local
officials. On March 17, 2010, the NRC sent a special inspection team to Davis-Besse to assess the
adequacy of FENOCs identification, analyses and resolution of the CRDM nozzle flaws and to ensure
acceptable modifications were made prior to placing the RPV head back in service. After
successfully completing the modifications, FENOC committed to take a number of corrective actions
including strengthening leakage monitoring procedures and shutting Davis-Besse down no later than
October 1, 2011, to replace the reactor pressure vessel head with nozzles made of material less
susceptible to primary water stress corrosion cracking further enhancing the safe and reliable
operations of the plant. On June 29, 2010, FENOC returned Davis-Besse to service.
On April 5, 2010, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) requested that the NRC issue a Show Cause
Order, or otherwise delay the restart of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station until the NRC
determines that adequate protection standards have been met and reasonable assurance exists that
these standards will continue to be met after the plants operation is resumed. By a letter dated
July 13, 2010, the NRC denied UCSs request for immediate action because the NRC has conducted
rigorous and independent assessments of returning the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head to service
and its continued operation, and determined that it was safe for the plant to restart. The UCS
petition was referred to a petition manager for further review. What additional actions, if any
that the NRC takes in response to the UCS request, have not been determined.
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to
decommission its nuclear facilities. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and
adjusts the amount of obligations. As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergy had approximately $1.9 billion
invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of
Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. As part of the application to the NRC to transfer the
ownership of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley and Perry to NGC in 2005, FirstEnergy provided an
additional $80 million parental guarantee associated with the funding of decommissioning costs for
these units and indicated that it
planned to contribute an additional $80 million to these trusts by 2010. By a letter dated March 8,
2010, primarily as a result of the Beaver Valley Power Station operating license renewal, FENOC
requested that the NRC reduce FirstEnergys parental guarantee to $15 million and notified the
staff that it no longer planned to make the additional contributions into the trusts. By a letter
dated July 14, 2010, the NRC stated that it had no objection to the reduction in the parental
guarantee.
46
Other Legal Matters
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related
to FirstEnergys normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The
other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.
On April 14, 2010, JCP&L reached an agreement on a settlement package with its bargaining unit
employees regarding a grievance challenging JCP&Ls 2002 call-out procedure that required
bargaining unit employees to respond to emergency power outages. The agreement included an
agreed-upon settlement amount and extension of the collective bargaining agreement. On July 22,
2010, the court signed an order approving and implementing the parties agreement. As of June 30,
2010, JCP&L reduced its reserve to $9 million for the settlement which will be paid to the
employees over the next thirty days beginning on July 25, 2010. The collective bargaining agreement
extension is also effective as of July 25, 2010.
On February 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas
against FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to
the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with
electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount
was approved by the PUCO. On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to
dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court has not
yet ruled on that motion to dismiss. The named-defendant companies will continue to defend these
claims including challenging any class certification.
FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an
obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. If it were
ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise
made subject to liability based on the above matters, it could have a material adverse effect on
FirstEnergys or its subsidiaries financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
9. REGULATORY MATTERS
(A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVES
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk power system and impose
certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities and ATSI. The NERC
has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight
regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergys facilities are
located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and
ReliabilityFirst 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 the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.
FirstEnergy believes that it is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable
reliability standards. Nevertheless, FirstEnergy also believes that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst and
the FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new
reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with new or amended standards cannot be
determined at this time; however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs
incurred to comply with the new reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future
inability on FirstEnergys part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system
could result in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&Ls Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage
on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic
substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC
initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&Ls contribution to the
electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated
with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and
another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what
actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter.
47
(B) OHIO
The Ohio Companies operate under an Amended ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, and provides for
generation supplied through a CBP. The Amended ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a
delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the
period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation
at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the
Ohio Companies through the CBP. The PUCO approved a $136.6 million distribution rate increase for
the Ohio Companies in January 2009, which went into effect on January 23, 2009 for OE
($68.9 million) and TE ($38.5 million) and on May 1, 2009 for CEI ($29.2 million). As one element
of the Amended ESP, the Ohio Companies agreed not to seek an additional base distribution rate
increase, subject to certain exceptions, that would be effective before January 1, 2012.
Applications for rehearing of the PUCO order in the distribution case were filed by the Ohio
Companies and one other party. The Ohio Companies raised numerous issues in their application for
rehearing related to rate recovery of certain expenses, recovery of line extension costs, the level
of rate of return and the amount of general plant balances. The PUCO has not yet issued a
substantive Entry on Rehearing.
On October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure, through a CBP, generation supply
for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier for the period beginning June 1, 2011.
The CBP would be similar, in all material respects, to the CBP conducted in May 2009 in that it
would procure energy, capacity and certain transmission services on a slice of system basis.
However, unlike the May 2009 CBP, the MRO would include multiple bidding sessions and multiple
products with different delivery periods for generation supply designed to reduce potential
volatility and supplier risk and encourage bidder participation. A technical conference and
hearings were held in 2009 and the matter has been fully briefed. Pursuant to SB221, the PUCO has
90 days from the date of the application to determine whether the MRO meets certain statutory
requirements. Although the Ohio Companies requested a PUCO determination by January 18, 2010, on
February 3, 2010, the PUCO announced that its determination would be delayed. Under a determination
that such statutory requirements are met, and to the extent the ESP described below has not been
implemented, the Ohio Companies would expect to implement the MRO.
On March 23, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP, which if approved by the
PUCO, would go into effect on June 1, 2011 and conclude on May 31, 2014. Attached to the
application was a Stipulation and Recommendation signed by the Ohio Companies, the Staff of the
PUCO, and an additional fourteen parties signing as Signatory Parties, with two additional parties
agreeing not to oppose the adoption of the Stipulation. The material terms of the Stipulation
include a CBP similar to the one used in May 2009 and the one proposed in the October 2009 MRO
filing; a 6% generation discount to certain low-income customers provided by the Ohio Companies
through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES; no increase in base distribution rates through
May 31, 2014; and a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR), to recover
a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery system. This Rider substitutes for Rider
DSI which terminates by its own terms. The Ohio Companies also agree not to collect certain amounts
associated with RTEP and administrative costs associated with the move to PJM. Many of the existing
riders approved in the previous ESP remain in effect, some with modifications. The new ESP also
requests the resolution of current proceedings pending at the PUCO regarding corporate separation,
elements of the smart grid proceeding and the move to PJM. The evidentiary hearing began on
April 20, 2010, at the PUCO. The Stipulation requested a decision by the PUCO by May 5, 2010. On
April 28, 2010, the PUCO Chairman issued a statement that the PUCO would not issue a decision on
May 5, 2010, and would take additional time to review the case record. FirstEnergy recorded
approximately $39.5 million of regulatory asset impairments and expenses related to the ESP. On May
12, 2010 a supplemental stipulation was filed that added two additional parties to the Stipulation,
namely the City of Akron, Ohio and Council for Smaller Enterprises, to provide additional energy
efficiency benefits. Pursuant to a PUCO Entry, a hearing was held on June 21, 2010 to consider the
estimated bill impacts arising from the proposed ESP, and testimony was provided in support of the
supplemental stipulation. On July 22, 2010, a second supplemental stipulation was filed that,
among other provisions and if approved, would provide a commitment that retail customers of the
Ohio Companies will not pay certain costs related to the companies integration into PJM, a
regional transmission organization, for the longer of the five year period from June 1, 2011
through May 31, 2016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products
totals $360 million, and establishes a $12 million fund to assist low income customers over the
term of the ESP. Additional parties signing or not opposing the second supplemental stipulation
include Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC), Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition (NOAC),
Environmental Law and Policy Center and a number of low income community agencies. A hearing was
held on the second supplemental stipulation on July 29, 2010. The matter is awaiting decision from
the PUCO.
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency
programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of approximately 166,000 MWH in
2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with
additional savings required through 2025. Utilities are also required to reduce peak demand in 2009
by 1%, with an additional 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The PUCO may amend
these benchmarks in certain, limited circumstances, and the Ohio Companies filed an application
with the PUCO seeking such amendments. On January 7, 2010, the PUCO amended the Ohio Companies
2009 energy efficiency benchmarks to zero, contingent upon the Ohio Companies meeting the revised
benchmarks in a period of not more than three years. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that the
Ohio Companies peak demand reduction programs complied with PUCO rules.
48
On December 15, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking
approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand
reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. On March 8, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed their
2009 Status Update Report with the PUCO in which they indicated compliance with the 2009 statutory
energy efficiency and peak demand benchmarks as those benchmarks were amended as described
above. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable
from customers. The Ohio Companies three year portfolio plan is still awaiting decision from the
PUCO. The plan has yet to be approved by the PUCO, which is delaying the launch of the programs
described in the plan. Without such approval, the Ohio Companies compliance with 2010 benchmarks
is jeopardized and if not approved soon may require the Ohio Companies to seek an amendment to
their annual benchmark requirements for 2010. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain
such an amendment may subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a forfeiture.
Additionally under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve
part of their load from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25% of the KWH they serve in
2009. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RFPs sought
RECs, including solar RECs and RECs generated in Ohio in order to meet the Ohio Companies
alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The RECs acquired
through these two RFPs will be used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established
under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that there was an
insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. The PUCO
reduced the Ohio Companies aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies
acquired through their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Companies 2010 alternative energy
requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. On April 15,
2010, the Ohio Companies and FES (due to its status as an electric service company in Ohio) filed
compliance reports with the PUCO setting forth how they individually satisfied the alternative
energy requirements in SB221 for 2009. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the
PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark, which
application is still pending. On July 1, 2010, the Ohio Companies announced their intent to conduct
an RFP in 2010 to secure RECs and solar RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies alternative energy
requirements as set forth in SB221. RFP bids are due August 3, 2010 and contracts are expected to
be signed the week of August 9, 2010.
On February 12, 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for
all-electric customers. On March 3, 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers
be set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31,
2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between
what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with
the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect on March 17, 2010.
On April 15, 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers
to which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the associated additional amounts.
The PUCO also stated that the new credit would remain in place through at least the 2011 winter
season, and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the issue.
Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect on May 21, 2010. The Ohio
Companies also filed on May 14, 2010 an application for rehearing of the Second Entry on Rehearing,
which was granted for purposes of further consideration on June 9, 2010. No hearing has been
scheduled in this matter.
As noted above in Note 8, FirstEnergy, CEI and OE filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
related to the PUCO approved reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for
residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems.
The court has not yet ruled on that motion to dismiss.
(C) PENNSYLVANIA
Met-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their POLR and default service requirements from FES
through a fixed-price partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement. The agreement allows
Met-Ed and Penelec to sell the output of NUG energy to the market and requires FES to provide
energy at fixed prices to replace any NUG energy sold to the extent needed for Met-Ed and Penelec
to satisfy their POLR and default service obligations.
Met-Ed and Penelec filed with the PPUC a generation procurement plan covering the period January 1,
2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service via a
prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply, as required by Act 129,
with a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class, through the use of a
descending clock auction. On August 12, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a settlement agreement with
the PPUC for the generation procurement plan, reflecting the settlement on all but two reserved
issues. On November 6, 2009, the PPUC entered an Order approving the settlement and finding in
favor of Met-Ed and Penelec on the two reserved issues. Generation procurement began in January
2010.
On February 8, 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period
June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The parties to the proceeding have reached a settlement on all
issues and filed a joint petition to approve the settlement agreement in July 2010. The PPUC is
required to issue an order on the plan no later than November 8, 2010. If approved, procurement
under the plan is expected to begin January 2011.
49
The PPUC adopted a Motion on January 28, 2010 and subsequently entered an Order on March 3, 2010
which denies the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of
June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and directs Met-Ed and Penelec to submit a new tariff or
tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and
instructs Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation
to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all marginal transmission losses
collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases
beginning January 1, 2011. On March 18, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC
requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff
supplements to end collection of marginal transmission loss costs. By Order entered March 25, 2010,
the PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUCs order, Met-Ed
and Penelec filed the plan to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues
and related interest and carrying charges and the plan for the use of these funds to mitigate
future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011. The PPUC approved this plan June 7,
2010. On April 1, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court
of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUCs March 3, 2010 Order. Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter cannot be determined at this time, it is the belief of Met-Ed and Penelec that they should
prevail in the appeal and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $199.7 million
($158.5 million for Met-Ed and $41.2 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the
period prior to January 1, 2011. On April 2, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Response to the
PPUCs March 3, 2010 Order requesting approval of procedures to establish separate accounts to
track all marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and the use of those funds to
mitigate future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011, and the PPUC entered an Order
on June 7, 2010, granting Met-Eds and Penelecs request. On July 9 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed
their briefs with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Office of Small Business Advocate
filed its brief on July 9, 2010. The PPUCs brief is due to be filed in August 2010.
On May 20, 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Eds and Penelecs annual updates to their TSC rider for the
period June 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 including marginal transmission losses as approved by
the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding
related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The TSC for Met-Eds customers increased to be
fully recovered by December 31, 2010.
Act 129 was enacted in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction;
generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other things
Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load reduction plan,
or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities plans to reduce energy consumption by a
minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce peak demand by a
minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. The PPUC entered an Order on February 26, 2010 approving the
Pennsylvania Companies EE&C Plans and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010.
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan
with the PPUC. This plan proposes a 24-month assessment period in which the Pennsylvania Companies
will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install
and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which
currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate
assessment period costs at approximately $29.5 million, which the Pennsylvania Companies, in their
plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJs Initial Decision
approved the Smart Meter Plan as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to
be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUCs Implementation Order; eliminating the
provision of interest in the 1307(e) reconciliation; providing for the recovery of reasonable and
prudent costs minus resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and reflecting
that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development
in the assessment period be capitalized. On April 15, 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman
Cawley that modified the ALJs initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the Smart
Meter Implementation Plan for the Pennsylvania Companies. The PPUC entered its Order on June 9,
2010, consistent with the Chairmans Motion. On June 24, 2010, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a
Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUCs Order regarding the future ability
to roll smart meter costs into base rates.
Legislation addressing rate mitigation and the expiration of rate caps was introduced in the
legislative session that ended in 2008; several bills addressing these issues were introduced in
the 2009 legislative session. The final form and impact of such legislation is uncertain.
By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment
period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply
over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a
cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the Tentative Order, various parties
filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and
Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.
50
(D) NEW JERSEY
JCP&L is permitted to defer for future collection from customers the amounts by which its costs of
supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other
stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUGC rates and market sales of NUG energy
and capacity. As of June 30, 2010, the accumulated deferred cost balance totaled approximately
$81 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, on July 26, 2010, JCP&L filed a
request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by $180
million annually. If approved as filed, the change would not go into effect until January 1, 2011.
In accordance with an April 28, 2004 NJBPU order, JCP&L filed testimony on June 7, 2004, supporting
continuation of the current level and duration of the funding of TMI-2 decommissioning costs by New
Jersey customers without a reduction, termination or capping of the funding. On September 30, 2004,
JCP&L filed an updated TMI-2 decommissioning study. This study resulted in an updated total
decommissioning cost estimate of $729 million (in 2003 dollars) compared to the estimated
$528 million (in 2003 dollars) from the prior 1995 decommissioning study. The DPA filed comments on
February 28, 2005 requesting that decommissioning funding be suspended. On March 18, 2005, JCP&L
filed a response to those comments. JCP&L responded to additional NJBPU staff discovery requests in
May and November 2007 and also submitted comments in the proceeding in November 2007. A schedule
for further NJBPU proceedings has not yet been set. On March 13, 2009, JCP&L filed its annual SBC
Petition with the NJBPU that includes a request for a reduction in the level of recovery of TMI-2
decommissioning costs based on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009
estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). This matter is currently pending before the NJBPU.
New Jersey statutes require that the state periodically undertake a planning process, known as the
EMP, to address energy related issues including energy security, economic growth, and environmental
impact. The NJBPU adopted an order establishing the general process and contents of specific EMP
plans that must be filed by New Jersey electric and gas utilities in order to achieve the goals of
the EMP. On April 16, 2010, the NJBPU issued an order indefinitely suspending the requirement of
New Jersey utilities to submit Utility Master Plans until such time as the status of the EMP has
been made clear. At this time, FirstEnergy and JCP&L cannot determine the impact, if any, the EMP
may have on their operations.
In support of former New Jersey Governor Corzines Economic Assistance and Recovery Plan, JCP&L
announced a proposal to spend approximately $98 million on infrastructure and energy efficiency
projects in 2009. Under the proposal, an estimated $40 million would be spent on infrastructure
projects, including substation upgrades, new transformers, distribution line re-closers and
automated breaker operations. In addition, approximately $34 million would be spent implementing
new demand response programs as well as expanding on existing programs. Another $11 million would
be spent on energy efficiency, specifically replacing transformers and capacitor control systems
and installing new LED street lights. The remaining $13 million would be spent on energy efficiency
programs that would complement those currently being offered. The project relating to expansion of
the existing demand response programs was approved by the NJBPU on August 19, 2009, and
implementation began in 2009. Approval for the project related to energy efficiency programs
intended to complement those currently being offered was denied by the NJBPU on December 1, 2009.
On July 6, 2010, the January 30, 2009 petition directed to infrastructure investment which had been
pending before the NJBPU was withdrawn by JCP&L. Implementation of the remaining projects is
dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the
proposal.
(E) FERC MATTERS
PJM Transmission Rate
On April 19, 2007, the FERC issued an order (Opinion 494) finding that the PJM transmission owners
existing license plate or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current
license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new
transmission facilities, the FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are
rated at 500 kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM
footprint by means of a postage-stamp rate based on the amount of load served in a transmission
zone. Costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be
allocated on a load flow methodology, referred to as DFAX, generally referred to as a
beneficiary pays approach to allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities. The
FERC found that PJMs current beneficiary-pays cost allocation methodology was not sufficiently
detailed and, in a related order that also was issued on April 19, 2007, directed that hearings be
held for the purpose of establishing a just and reasonable cost allocation methodology for
inclusion in PJMs tariff. FERC ultimately issued an order approving use of the beneficiary pays
method of cost allocation for transmission facilities included in the PJM regional plan that
operate below 500 kV.
The FERCs April 19, 2007 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
which issued a decision on August 6, 2009. The court affirmed FERCs ratemaking treatment for
existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate
costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded
the rate design issue back to FERC.
51
In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for paper hearings meaning that FERC
called for parties to submit comments or written testimony pursuant to the schedule described in
the order. FERC identified nine separate issues for comments, and directed PJM to file the first
round of comments on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments within 45
days, and reply comments 30 days later. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in
response to the FERC order. PJMs filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage
transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM
bearing the majority of their costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May
28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities,
industrial customers and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for
cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state
commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. FERC is
not expected to act before the fourth quarter of 2010.
RTO Consolidation
FERC issued an order approving, subject to certain future compliance filings, ATSIs move to PJM.
This allows FirstEnergy to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently,
FirstEnergys transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The
consolidation will make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the
Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. Most of FirstEnergys transmission assets in Pennsylvania and
all of the transmission assets in New Jersey already operate as a part of PJM. FERC approved
FirstEnergys proposal to use a Fixed Resource Requirement Plan (FRR Plan) to obtain capacity to
satisfy the PJM capacity requirements for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years.
In December 2009, ATSI executed the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement and the Ohio
Companies and Penn executed the PJM Operating Agreement and the PJM Reliability Assurance
Agreement. Execution of these agreements committed ATSI and the Ohio Companies and Penns load to
moving into PJM on the schedule described in the application and approved in the FERC Order.
FirstEnergy successfully conducted the FRR auctions on March 19, and participated in the PJM base
residual auction for the 2013 delivery year, thereby obtaining the capacity necessary for its ATSI
footprint to meet PJMs capacity requirements. FirstEnergy expects to integrate into PJM effective
June 1, 2011.
On September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohios stakeholders regarding
the RTO consolidation. Several parties have intervened in the regulatory dockets at the FERC and at
the PUCO. Certain interveners have commented and protested particular elements of the proposed RTO
consolidation, including an exit fee to MISO, integration costs to PJM, and cost-allocations of
future transmission upgrades in PJM and MISO.
MISO Complaints Versus PJM
On March 9, 2010, MISO filed two
complaints against PJM with FERC under Sections 206, 306 and 309 of the
FPA alleging violations of the MISO/PJM Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). In
Docket EL 10-46-000, the complaint alleges that PJM erroneously calculated
charges to MISO for market-to-market settlements made from 2005 to 2009
pursuant to the congestion management provisions of the JOA. The MISO seeks
approximately $130 million plus interest to correct for resultant net
underpayments from PJM to MISO. In Docket No.EL10-45-000, MISO alleges that by
failing to account for the market flows from 34 PJM generators over the period
from 2007-2009, PJM underpaid MISO by a total of roughly $75 million including
interest. For the period from 2005-2007, MISO claimed an underpayment by PJM of
at least $12 million plus interest. MISO also claimed that PJM failed to
maintain required records necessary to calculate underbilling for the 2005-2007
billing.
In the second complaint, MISO alleged that PJM has refused to comply with provisions of the JOA
requiring market-to-market dispatch since 2009, and is improperly demanding repayment of redispatch
payments previously made to MISO. PJM filed its answers to the complaints on April 12, 2010,
opposing the relief sought by MISO.
In addition, on April 12, 2010, PJM filed a complaint with FERC pursuant to Section 206, 306, and
309 alleging that MISO is violating the JOA with PJM by initiating market-to-market coordination
and financial settlements for substitute (proxy) reciprocal coordinated flowgates between MISO and
PJM. PJM claims that the JOA does not permit MISO to initiate market-to-market settlements using
proxy flowgates in lieu of designated reciprocal coordinated flowgates. This complaint addresses
substantially the same issues as the second MISO complaint, in which MISO argues that the use of
proxy flowgates is permitted by agreement of the RTOs and operating practice. Each party filed a
complaint in order to ensure their right to claim refunds, if any, if successful in their arguments
at FERC.
On June 29, 2010, FERC issued an order consolidating the cases and establishing settlement judge
procedures. If the settlement process is unsuccessful, the cases will proceed to evidentiary
hearings. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
52
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
On July 15, 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with the FERC their
proposed cost allocation methodology for new transmission projects. If approved, so-called Multi
Value Projects (MVPs) transmission projects that have a regional impact and are part of a
regional plan will have a 100% regional allocation of costs under the proposed methodology. If
approved by FERC, MISOs proposal is expected to permit the allocation of the costs of large
transmission projects designed to integrate wind from the upper Midwest across the entire MISO.
MISO has requested a FERC response to the filing by the FERCs December open meeting, but an
effective date for its proposal of July 16, 2011. Under MISOs proposal, the costs of MVP projects
approved by MISOs Board prior to the June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergys integration into
PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy.
10. NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
In 2010, the FASB amended the Derivatives and Hedging Topic of the FASB Accounting Standards
Codification to clarify the scope exception for embedded credit derivative features related to the
transfer of credit risk in the form of subordination of one financial instrument to another. The
amendment addresses how to determine which embedded credit derivative features, including those in
collateralized debt obligations and synthetic collateralized debt obligations, are considered to be
embedded derivatives that should not be analyzed under the Derivatives and Hedging Topic for
potential bifurcation and separate accounting. The amendment is effective for the first fiscal
quarter beginning after June 15, 2010. FirstEnergy does not expect this standard to have a material
effect on its financial statements.
11. SEGMENT INFORMATION
Financial information for each of FirstEnergys reportable segments is presented in the following
table. FES and the Utilities do not have separate reportable operating segments. With the
completion of transition to a fully competitive generation market in Ohio in the fourth quarter of
2009, the former Ohio Transitional Generation Services segment was combined with the Energy
Delivery Services segment, consistent with how management views the business. Disclosures for
FirstEnergys operating segments for 2009 have been reclassified to conform to the current
presentation.
The Energy Delivery Services segment transmits and distributes electricity through FirstEnergys
eight utility operating companies, serving 4.5 million customers within 36,100 square miles of
Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and purchases power for its POLR and default service requirements
in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Its revenues are primarily derived from the delivery of
electricity within FirstEnergys service areas, cost recovery of regulatory assets and the sale of
electric generation service to retail customers who have not selected an alternative supplier
(default service) in its Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey franchise areas. Its results reflect the
commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and from non-affiliated power suppliers,
the net PJM and MISO transmission expenses related to the delivery of the respective generation
loads, and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
The Competitive Energy Services segment supplies electric power to end-use customers through retail
and wholesale arrangements, including associated company power sales to meet all or a portion of
the POLR and default service requirements of FirstEnergys Ohio and Pennsylvania utility
subsidiaries and competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland
and Michigan. This business segment owns or leases and operates 19 generating facilities with a net
demonstrated capacity of 13,710 MWs and also purchases electricity to meet sales obligations. The
segments net income is primarily derived from affiliated and non-affiliated electric generation
sales revenues less the related costs of electricity generation, including purchased power and net
transmission (including congestion) and ancillary costs charged by PJM and MISO to deliver energy
to the segments customers.
The other segment contains corporate items and other businesses that are below the quantifiable
threshold for separate disclosure as a reportable segment.
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
|
|
Segment Financial Information |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
2,373 |
|
|
$ |
778 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
$ |
3,128 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
539 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(558 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,392 |
|
|
|
1,317 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(587 |
) |
|
|
3,128 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
351 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
31 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
167 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
134 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
256 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
22,450 |
|
|
|
11,100 |
|
|
|
591 |
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
34,466 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
282 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
2,792 |
|
|
$ |
504 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
3,271 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
839 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(839 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,792 |
|
|
|
1,343 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(869 |
) |
|
|
3,271 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
373 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
27 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
248 |
|
Net income |
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
408 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
23,215 |
|
|
|
10,144 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
34,306 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
4,916 |
|
|
$ |
1,494 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(60 |
) |
|
$ |
6,360 |
|
Internal revenues* |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
1,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,165 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
4,935 |
|
|
|
2,707 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(1,225 |
) |
|
|
6,427 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
601 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
756 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
47 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
339 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
245 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
405 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
22,450 |
|
|
|
11,100 |
|
|
|
591 |
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
34,466 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
605 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
997 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
5,813 |
|
|
$ |
839 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
(59 |
) |
|
$ |
6,605 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,732 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,732 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
5,813 |
|
|
|
2,571 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
(1,791 |
) |
|
|
6,605 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
725 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
868 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
339 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
302 |
|
Net income |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
431 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
523 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
23,215 |
|
|
|
10,144 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
34,306 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
669 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
1,143 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Under the accounting standard for the effects of certain types of regulation, internal
revenues are not fully offset for sales of RECs by FES to the Ohio Companies that are retained in
inventory. |
Reconciling adjustments to segment operating results from internal management reporting to
consolidated external financial reporting primarily consist of interest expense related to holding
company debt, corporate support services revenues and expenses and elimination of intersegment
transactions.
54
12. SUPPLEMENTAL GUARANTOR INFORMATION
On July 13, 2007, FGCO completed a sale and leaseback transaction for its 93.825% undivided
interest in Bruce Mansfield Unit 1. FES has fully, unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed all
of FGCOs obligations under each of the leases. The related lessor notes and pass through
certificates are not guaranteed by FES or FGCO, but the notes are secured by, among other things,
each lessor trusts undivided interest in Unit 1, rights and interests under the applicable lease
and rights and interests under other related agreements, including FES lease guaranty. This
transaction is classified as an operating lease under GAAP for FES and FirstEnergy and as a
financing for FGCO.
The condensed consolidating statements of income for the three month and six month periods ended
June 30, 2010 and 2009, consolidating balance sheets as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 and
consolidating statements of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 for FES
(parent and guarantor), FGCO and NGC (non-guarantor) are presented below. Investments in wholly
owned subsidiaries are accounted for by FES using the equity method. Results of operations for FGCO
and NGC are, therefore, reflected in FES investment accounts and earnings as if operating lease
treatment was achieved. The principal elimination entries eliminate investments in subsidiaries and
intercompany balances and transactions and the entries required to reflect operating lease
treatment associated with the 2007 Bruce Mansfield Unit 1 sale and leaseback transaction.
55
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
1,295,700 |
|
|
$ |
580,621 |
|
|
$ |
338,933 |
|
|
$ |
(900,580 |
) |
|
$ |
1,314,674 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
7,268 |
|
|
|
300,867 |
|
|
|
34,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
342,411 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
912,858 |
|
|
|
7,163 |
|
|
|
49,457 |
|
|
|
(900,580 |
) |
|
|
68,898 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
298,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
298,820 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
80,983 |
|
|
|
94,373 |
|
|
|
116,350 |
|
|
|
12,189 |
|
|
|
303,895 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
711 |
|
|
|
27,466 |
|
|
|
36,449 |
|
|
|
(1,307 |
) |
|
|
63,319 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
5,718 |
|
|
|
9,227 |
|
|
|
7,327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,272 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,306,358 |
|
|
|
439,096 |
|
|
|
243,859 |
|
|
|
(889,698 |
) |
|
|
1,099,615 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(10,658 |
) |
|
|
141,525 |
|
|
|
95,074 |
|
|
|
(10,882 |
) |
|
|
215,059 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
1,811 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
11,474 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,366 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
151,291 |
|
|
|
709 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
(147,709 |
) |
|
|
4,393 |
|
Interest expense to affiliates |
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
(2,084 |
) |
|
|
(415 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,560 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(24,262 |
) |
|
|
(27,799 |
) |
|
|
(15,361 |
) |
|
|
16,050 |
|
|
|
(51,372 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
19,573 |
|
|
|
4,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
128,877 |
|
|
|
(9,520 |
) |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
(131,659 |
) |
|
|
(12,268 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
118,219 |
|
|
|
132,005 |
|
|
|
95,108 |
|
|
|
(142,541 |
) |
|
|
202,791 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(15,706 |
) |
|
|
48,465 |
|
|
|
33,550 |
|
|
|
2,557 |
|
|
|
68,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
133,925 |
|
|
$ |
83,540 |
|
|
$ |
61,558 |
|
|
$ |
(145,098 |
) |
|
$ |
133,925 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
2,662,725 |
|
|
$ |
1,148,985 |
|
|
$ |
765,253 |
|
|
$ |
(1,874,196 |
) |
|
$ |
2,702,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
12,365 |
|
|
|
581,730 |
|
|
|
76,537 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
670,632 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
1,881,395 |
|
|
|
12,242 |
|
|
|
110,410 |
|
|
|
(1,874,196 |
) |
|
|
129,851 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
749,035 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
749,035 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
134,109 |
|
|
|
194,149 |
|
|
|
255,770 |
|
|
|
24,378 |
|
|
|
608,406 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,501 |
|
|
|
53,993 |
|
|
|
73,359 |
|
|
|
(2,616 |
) |
|
|
126,237 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
11,216 |
|
|
|
23,827 |
|
|
|
13,975 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
2,789,621 |
|
|
|
865,941 |
|
|
|
530,051 |
|
|
|
(1,852,434 |
) |
|
|
2,333,179 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(126,896 |
) |
|
|
283,044 |
|
|
|
235,202 |
|
|
|
(21,762 |
) |
|
|
369,588 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
3,708 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
10,240 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,083 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
317,664 |
|
|
|
(924 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(311,038 |
) |
|
|
5,703 |
|
Interest expense to affiliates |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
(3,896 |
) |
|
|
(850 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,865 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(47,635 |
) |
|
|
(54,305 |
) |
|
|
(31,124 |
) |
|
|
32,048 |
|
|
|
(101,016 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
198 |
|
|
|
35,906 |
|
|
|
7,491 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,595 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
273,816 |
|
|
|
(23,084 |
) |
|
|
(14,242 |
) |
|
|
(278,990 |
) |
|
|
(42,500 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
146,920 |
|
|
|
259,960 |
|
|
|
220,960 |
|
|
|
(300,752 |
) |
|
|
327,088 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(66,931 |
) |
|
|
96,508 |
|
|
|
78,563 |
|
|
|
5,097 |
|
|
|
113,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
213,851 |
|
|
$ |
163,452 |
|
|
$ |
142,397 |
|
|
$ |
(305,849 |
) |
|
$ |
213,851 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2009 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
1,067,987 |
|
|
$ |
703,110 |
|
|
$ |
389,695 |
|
|
$ |
(819,640 |
) |
|
$ |
1,341,152 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
5,027 |
|
|
|
238,832 |
|
|
|
26,450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
270,309 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
814,622 |
|
|
|
5,018 |
|
|
|
51,249 |
|
|
|
(819,640 |
) |
|
|
51,249 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
185,613 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
185,613 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
35,771 |
|
|
|
99,145 |
|
|
|
131,159 |
|
|
|
12,189 |
|
|
|
278,264 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,017 |
|
|
|
30,191 |
|
|
|
35,654 |
|
|
|
(1,314 |
) |
|
|
65,548 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
3,769 |
|
|
|
11,332 |
|
|
|
6,184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,285 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,045,819 |
|
|
|
384,518 |
|
|
|
250,696 |
|
|
|
(808,765 |
) |
|
|
872,268 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
22,168 |
|
|
|
318,592 |
|
|
|
138,999 |
|
|
|
(10,875 |
) |
|
|
468,884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
(518 |
) |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
6,030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,643 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
289,312 |
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(282,510 |
) |
|
|
7,622 |
|
Interest expense to affiliates |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(1,623 |
) |
|
|
(1,658 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,315 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(2,900 |
) |
|
|
(24,967 |
) |
|
|
(14,677 |
) |
|
|
16,273 |
|
|
|
(26,271 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
11,126 |
|
|
|
2,856 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,028 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
285,906 |
|
|
|
(14,513 |
) |
|
|
(7,449 |
) |
|
|
(266,237 |
) |
|
|
(2,293 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
308,074 |
|
|
|
304,079 |
|
|
|
131,550 |
|
|
|
(277,112 |
) |
|
|
466,591 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
10,672 |
|
|
|
108,114 |
|
|
|
48,163 |
|
|
|
2,240 |
|
|
|
169,189 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
297,402 |
|
|
$ |
195,965 |
|
|
$ |
83,387 |
|
|
$ |
(279,352 |
) |
|
$ |
297,402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2009 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
2,269,882 |
|
|
$ |
1,249,036 |
|
|
$ |
785,323 |
|
|
$ |
(1,736,983 |
) |
|
$ |
2,567,258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
7,122 |
|
|
|
513,679 |
|
|
|
55,666 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
576,467 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
1,729,883 |
|
|
|
7,100 |
|
|
|
114,456 |
|
|
|
(1,736,983 |
) |
|
|
114,456 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
345,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
345,955 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
74,038 |
|
|
|
203,588 |
|
|
|
283,615 |
|
|
|
24,379 |
|
|
|
585,620 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
2,036 |
|
|
|
60,211 |
|
|
|
67,303 |
|
|
|
(2,629 |
) |
|
|
126,921 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
8,475 |
|
|
|
23,958 |
|
|
|
12,228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
2,167,509 |
|
|
|
808,536 |
|
|
|
533,268 |
|
|
|
(1,715,233 |
) |
|
|
1,794,080 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
102,373 |
|
|
|
440,500 |
|
|
|
252,055 |
|
|
|
(21,750 |
) |
|
|
773,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
(23,607 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,231 |
) |
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
409,093 |
|
|
|
742 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(399,702 |
) |
|
|
10,133 |
|
Interest expense to affiliates |
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
(3,381 |
) |
|
|
(2,845 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,294 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(5,420 |
) |
|
|
(46,025 |
) |
|
|
(29,845 |
) |
|
|
32,492 |
|
|
|
(48,798 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
18,876 |
|
|
|
5,133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
403,916 |
|
|
|
(29,626 |
) |
|
|
(51,164 |
) |
|
|
(367,210 |
) |
|
|
(44,084 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
506,289 |
|
|
|
410,874 |
|
|
|
200,891 |
|
|
|
(388,960 |
) |
|
|
729,094 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
38,206 |
|
|
|
147,256 |
|
|
|
71,092 |
|
|
|
4,457 |
|
|
|
261,011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
468,083 |
|
|
$ |
263,618 |
|
|
$ |
129,799 |
|
|
$ |
(393,417 |
) |
|
$ |
468,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of June 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
Receivables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
315,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
315,178 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
327,070 |
|
|
|
257,268 |
|
|
|
89,725 |
|
|
|
(319,936 |
) |
|
|
354,127 |
|
Other |
|
|
24,815 |
|
|
|
6,946 |
|
|
|
4,631 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,392 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
84,337 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89,594 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
173,931 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
23,804 |
|
|
|
333,709 |
|
|
|
221,008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
578,521 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
162,845 |
|
|
|
5,600 |
|
|
|
4,069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
938,049 |
|
|
|
603,525 |
|
|
|
409,036 |
|
|
|
(319,936 |
) |
|
|
1,630,674 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
93,403 |
|
|
|
5,588,112 |
|
|
|
5,203,976 |
|
|
|
(385,086 |
) |
|
|
10,500,405 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
15,742 |
|
|
|
2,824,150 |
|
|
|
2,028,479 |
|
|
|
(173,191 |
) |
|
|
4,695,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77,661 |
|
|
|
2,763,962 |
|
|
|
3,175,497 |
|
|
|
(211,895 |
) |
|
|
5,805,225 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
7,412 |
|
|
|
2,149,132 |
|
|
|
466,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,622,865 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,073 |
|
|
|
4,913,094 |
|
|
|
3,641,818 |
|
|
|
(211,895 |
) |
|
|
8,428,090 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,107,594 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,107,594 |
|
Investment in associated companies |
|
|
4,790,066 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,790,066 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
759 |
|
|
|
7,003 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,965 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,790,825 |
|
|
|
7,003 |
|
|
|
1,107,797 |
|
|
|
(4,790,066 |
) |
|
|
1,115,559 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
78,986 |
|
|
|
340,072 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(419,058 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
118,219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
118,219 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,811 |
|
|
|
22,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,478 |
|
|
|
77,646 |
|
Other |
|
|
102,829 |
|
|
|
76,609 |
|
|
|
9,655 |
|
|
|
(60,778 |
) |
|
|
128,315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
324,282 |
|
|
|
458,660 |
|
|
|
31,969 |
|
|
|
(416,358 |
) |
|
|
398,553 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,138,229 |
|
|
$ |
5,982,282 |
|
|
$ |
5,190,620 |
|
|
$ |
(5,738,255 |
) |
|
$ |
11,572,876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
755 |
|
|
$ |
472,357 |
|
|
$ |
927,772 |
|
|
$ |
(19,101 |
) |
|
$ |
1,381,783 |
|
Short-term borrowings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,128 |
|
Other |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
311,959 |
|
|
|
257,889 |
|
|
|
154,508 |
|
|
|
(311,849 |
) |
|
|
412,507 |
|
Other |
|
|
101,776 |
|
|
|
134,944 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236,720 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
1,717 |
|
|
|
74,125 |
|
|
|
54,576 |
|
|
|
(21,336 |
) |
|
|
109,082 |
|
Other |
|
|
216,207 |
|
|
|
102,780 |
|
|
|
15,377 |
|
|
|
34,722 |
|
|
|
369,086 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
732,414 |
|
|
|
1,127,223 |
|
|
|
1,152,233 |
|
|
|
(317,564 |
) |
|
|
2,694,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,731,382 |
|
|
|
2,504,419 |
|
|
|
2,268,860 |
|
|
|
(4,773,279 |
) |
|
|
3,731,382 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,518,968 |
|
|
|
1,820,112 |
|
|
|
506,533 |
|
|
|
(1,259,694 |
) |
|
|
2,585,919 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,250,350 |
|
|
|
4,324,531 |
|
|
|
2,775,393 |
|
|
|
(6,032,973 |
) |
|
|
6,317,301 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
976,012 |
|
|
|
976,012 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
373,725 |
|
|
|
(363,730 |
) |
|
|
9,995 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,820 |
|
|
|
21,490 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,310 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,196 |
|
|
|
837,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
863,409 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
35,830 |
|
|
|
188,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
223,853 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,811 |
|
|
|
22,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
239,447 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
239,447 |
|
Other |
|
|
119,635 |
|
|
|
14,231 |
|
|
|
8,252 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142,118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155,465 |
|
|
|
530,528 |
|
|
|
1,262,994 |
|
|
|
612,282 |
|
|
|
2,561,269 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,138,229 |
|
|
$ |
5,982,282 |
|
|
$ |
5,190,620 |
|
|
$ |
(5,738,255 |
) |
|
$ |
11,572,876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
195,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195,107 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
305,298 |
|
|
|
175,730 |
|
|
|
134,841 |
|
|
|
(297,308 |
) |
|
|
318,561 |
|
Other |
|
|
28,394 |
|
|
|
10,960 |
|
|
|
12,518 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,872 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
416,404 |
|
|
|
240,836 |
|
|
|
147,863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
805,103 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
17,265 |
|
|
|
307,079 |
|
|
|
215,197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
539,541 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
80,025 |
|
|
|
18,356 |
|
|
|
9,401 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,042,493 |
|
|
|
752,964 |
|
|
|
519,829 |
|
|
|
(297,308 |
) |
|
|
2,017,978 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
90,474 |
|
|
|
5,478,346 |
|
|
|
5,174,835 |
|
|
|
(386,023 |
) |
|
|
10,357,632 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
13,649 |
|
|
|
2,778,320 |
|
|
|
1,910,701 |
|
|
|
(171,512 |
) |
|
|
4,531,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76,825 |
|
|
|
2,700,026 |
|
|
|
3,264,134 |
|
|
|
(214,511 |
) |
|
|
5,826,474 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
6,032 |
|
|
|
2,049,078 |
|
|
|
368,336 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,423,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,857 |
|
|
|
4,749,104 |
|
|
|
3,632,470 |
|
|
|
(214,511 |
) |
|
|
8,249,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,088,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,088,641 |
|
Investment in associated companies |
|
|
4,477,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,477,602 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
1,137 |
|
|
|
21,127 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,478,739 |
|
|
|
21,127 |
|
|
|
1,088,843 |
|
|
|
(4,477,602 |
) |
|
|
1,111,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
93,379 |
|
|
|
381,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(388,602 |
) |
|
|
86,626 |
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
16,566 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,566 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,811 |
|
|
|
22,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,454 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,099 |
|
|
|
72,553 |
|
Other |
|
|
82,845 |
|
|
|
71,179 |
|
|
|
18,755 |
|
|
|
(51,114 |
) |
|
|
121,665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
217,038 |
|
|
|
497,293 |
|
|
|
41,069 |
|
|
|
(383,617 |
) |
|
|
371,783 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,821,127 |
|
|
$ |
6,020,488 |
|
|
$ |
5,282,211 |
|
|
$ |
(5,373,038 |
) |
|
$ |
11,750,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
736 |
|
|
$ |
646,402 |
|
|
$ |
922,429 |
|
|
$ |
(18,640 |
) |
|
$ |
1,550,927 |
|
Short-term borrowings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,237 |
|
Other |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
261,788 |
|
|
|
170,446 |
|
|
|
295,045 |
|
|
|
(261,201 |
) |
|
|
466,078 |
|
Other |
|
|
51,722 |
|
|
|
193,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
245,363 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
44,213 |
|
|
|
61,055 |
|
|
|
22,777 |
|
|
|
(44,887 |
) |
|
|
83,158 |
|
Other |
|
|
173,015 |
|
|
|
132,314 |
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
36,994 |
|
|
|
359,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
631,474 |
|
|
|
1,213,095 |
|
|
|
1,256,985 |
|
|
|
(287,734 |
) |
|
|
2,813,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,514,571 |
|
|
|
2,346,515 |
|
|
|
2,119,488 |
|
|
|
(4,466,003 |
) |
|
|
3,514,571 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,519,339 |
|
|
|
1,906,818 |
|
|
|
554,825 |
|
|
|
(1,269,330 |
) |
|
|
2,711,652 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,033,910 |
|
|
|
4,253,333 |
|
|
|
2,674,313 |
|
|
|
(5,735,333 |
) |
|
|
6,226,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
992,869 |
|
|
|
992,869 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
342,840 |
|
|
|
(342,840 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,359 |
|
|
|
22,037 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,396 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,714 |
|
|
|
895,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
921,448 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
33,144 |
|
|
|
170,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204,035 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,811 |
|
|
|
22,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
262,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
262,200 |
|
Other |
|
|
122,599 |
|
|
|
31,085 |
|
|
|
67,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
221,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155,743 |
|
|
|
554,060 |
|
|
|
1,350,913 |
|
|
|
650,029 |
|
|
|
2,710,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,821,127 |
|
|
$ |
6,020,488 |
|
|
$ |
5,282,211 |
|
|
$ |
(5,373,038 |
) |
|
$ |
11,750,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
$ |
(223,072 |
) |
|
$ |
163,325 |
|
|
$ |
287,376 |
|
|
$ |
(9,174 |
) |
|
$ |
218,455 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,891 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(397 |
) |
|
|
(260,865 |
) |
|
|
(42,949 |
) |
|
|
9,174 |
|
|
|
(295,037 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(457 |
) |
|
|
(128 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(686 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(854 |
) |
|
|
(185,102 |
) |
|
|
(43,050 |
) |
|
|
9,174 |
|
|
|
(219,832 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(3,716 |
) |
|
|
(333,063 |
) |
|
|
(229,408 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(566,187 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
115,657 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115,657 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
956,813 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
956,813 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(978,785 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(978,785 |
) |
Loans from associated companies, net |
|
|
332,067 |
|
|
|
240,836 |
|
|
|
58,270 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
631,173 |
|
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(104,795 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(104,795 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments to associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51,204 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51,204 |
) |
Other |
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
(1,654 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,296 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
223,926 |
|
|
|
21,776 |
|
|
|
(244,326 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2009 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
$ |
285,284 |
|
|
$ |
314,041 |
|
|
$ |
221,625 |
|
|
$ |
(8,734 |
) |
|
$ |
812,216 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
347,710 |
|
|
|
333,965 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
681,675 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
98,880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,716 |
|
|
|
(82,587 |
) |
|
|
145,009 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(1,696 |
) |
|
|
(260,372 |
) |
|
|
(369,519 |
) |
|
|
8,734 |
|
|
|
(622,853 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(82,587 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from financing activities |
|
|
97,184 |
|
|
|
4,751 |
|
|
|
93,162 |
|
|
|
8,734 |
|
|
|
203,831 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(694 |
) |
|
|
(332,789 |
) |
|
|
(301,484 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(634,967 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,771 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,771 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
537,078 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
537,078 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(550,730 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(550,730 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
(261,839 |
) |
|
|
20,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(241,170 |
) |
Other |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(22,448 |
) |
|
|
349 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,034 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(262,468 |
) |
|
|
(318,797 |
) |
|
|
(314,787 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(896,052 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
120,000 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119,995 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
120,000 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
120,034 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. INTANGIBLE ASSETS
FES has acquired certain customer contract rights, which were capitalized as intangible assets.
These rights allow FES to supply electric generation needs to customers and the recorded value is
being amortized ratably over the term of the related contracts. Net intangible assets of
$118 million are included in other assets on FirstEnergys Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June
30, 2010.
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, amortization expense was approximately $3 million
and $5 million, respectively.
14. ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
FirstEnergy has recognized applicable legal obligations for AROs and their associated cost for
nuclear power plant decommissioning, reclamation of a sludge disposal pond and closure of two coal
ash disposal sites. In addition, FirstEnergy has recognized conditional asset retirement
obligations (primarily for asbestos remediation).
The ARO liabilities for FES, OE and TE primarily relate to the decommissioning of the Beaver
Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear generating facilities (OE for their leasehold interest in
Beaver Valley Unit 2 and Perry and TE for its leasehold interest in Beaver Valley Unit 2). The ARO
liabilities for JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec primarily relate to the decommissioning of the TMI-2
nuclear generating facility. FES and the Utilities use an expected cash flow approach to measure
the fair value of their nuclear decommissioning AROs.
During the second quarter of 2010, studies were completed to reassess the estimated cost of
decommissioning the Beaver Valley nuclear generating facility. The cost studies resulted in a
revision to the estimated cash flows associated with the ARO liabilities of FES, OE and TE and
reduced the liability for each subsidiary in the amounts of $88 million, $7 million, and $5
million, respectively, as of June 30, 2010.
The revision to the estimated cash flows had no significant impact on accretion expense during the
second quarter of 2010 when compared to the second quarter of 2009.
63
15. PROPOSED MERGER WITH ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC.
As previously disclosed, on February 10, 2010, FirstEnergy entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, subsequently amended on June 4, 2010 (Merger Agreement) with Element Merger Sub, Inc., a
Maryland corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Allegheny Energy, Inc., a
Maryland corporation (Allegheny Energy). Upon the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and
into Allegheny Energy with Allegheny Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the
merger, each issued and outstanding share of Allegheny Energy common stock, including grants of
restricted common stock, will automatically be converted into the right to receive 0.667 of a share
of common stock of FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy stockholders will own approximately 27% of the
combined company. Based on the closing stock prices for both companies on February 10,
2010, Allegheny Energy shareholders would receive a value of $27.65 per share. On July 15, 2010 the
most recent practicable date prior to the effectiveness of the Form S-4 registration statement, the
exchange ratio represented approximately $25.06 in value for each share of Allegheny Energy common
stock. FirstEnergy will also assume all outstanding Allegheny Energy debt.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, completion of the merger is conditioned upon, among other things,
shareholder approval of both companies, the SECs clearance of a registration statement registering
the FirstEnergy common stock to be issued in connection with the merger, as well as expiration or
termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act
of 1976 and approval by the FERC, the MDPSC, the PPUC, the VSCC and the PSCWV. The Merger Agreement
also contains certain termination rights for both FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy, and further
provides for the payment of fees and expenses upon termination under specified circumstances.
FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy currently anticipate completing the merger in the first half of
2011. Although FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy believe that they will receive the required
authorizations, approvals and consents to complete the merger, there can be no assurance as to the
timing of these authorizations, approvals and consents or as to FirstEnergys and Allegheny
Energys ultimate ability to obtain such authorizations, consents or approvals (or any additional
authorizations, approvals or consents which may otherwise become necessary) or that such
authorizations, approvals or consents will be obtained on terms and subject to conditions
satisfactory to Allegheny Energy and FirstEnergy. Further information concerning the proposed
merger is included in the Registration Statement filed by FirstEnergy with the SEC in connection
with the merger.
In connection with the proposed merger, FirstEnergy recorded approximately $7 million ($5 million
after tax) of merger transaction costs in the second quarter and approximately $21 million ($15
million after tax) of merger transaction costs in the first six months of 2010. These costs are
expensed as incurred.
64
|
|
|
Item 2. |
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Registrant and Subsidiaries |
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Earnings available to FirstEnergy in the second quarter of 2010 were $265 million, or basic and
diluted earnings of $0.87 per share of common stock, compared with $414 million, or basic and
diluted earnings of $1.36 per share of common stock in the second quarter of 2009. Results in the
second quarter of 2010 were adversely affected by the absence of a 2009 gain from the sale of a 9%
participation interest in OVEC. Earnings available to FirstEnergy in the first six months of 2010
were $420 million or basic earnings of $1.38 ($1.37 diluted) per share of common stock, compared
with $533 million, or basic and diluted earnings of $1.75 per share of common stock in the first
six months of 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Six Months |
|
Change in Basic Earnings Per Share From Prior Year |
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share 2009 |
|
$ |
1.36 |
|
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
Non-core asset sales/impairments |
|
|
(0.52 |
) |
|
|
(0.54 |
) |
Trust securities impairments |
|
|
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
0.04 |
|
Regulatory charges 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.55 |
|
Regulatory charges 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.08 |
) |
Derivative mark-to-market adjustment 2010 |
|
|
0.07 |
|
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
Organizational restructuring 2009 |
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
Merger transaction costs 2010 |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
(0.05 |
) |
Litigation settlements |
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
Debt call premium 2009 |
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
Income tax resolution 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
Income tax charge from healthcare legislation 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
Revenues |
|
|
0.23 |
|
|
|
0.16 |
|
Fuel and purchased power |
|
|
(0.28 |
) |
|
|
(0.41 |
) |
Transmission expense |
|
|
(0.08 |
) |
|
|
0.02 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
0.06 |
|
|
|
(0.11 |
) |
Investment income |
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.03 |
|
Other expenses |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share 2010 |
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pending Merger
As previously disclosed, on February 10, 2010, FirstEnergy entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, subsequently amended on June 4, 2010, (Merger Agreement) with Element Merger Sub. Inc.,
a Maryland corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Allegheny Energy, Inc., a
Maryland corporation (Allegheny Energy). Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Allegheny Energy with Allegheny Energy
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of
Allegheny Energy common stock, including grants of restricted common stock, will automatically be
converted into the right to receive 0.667 of a share of common stock of FirstEnergy and Allegheny
Energy stockholders will own approximately 27% of the combined company. Based on the closing stock
prices for both companies on February 10, 2010, Allegheny Energy shareholders would receive a value
of $27.65 per share. On July 15, 2010, the most recent practicable date prior to the effectiveness
of the Form S-4 registration statement, the exchange ratio represented approximately $25.06 in
value for each share of Allegheny Energy common stock. FirstEnergy will also assume all outstanding
Allegheny Energy debt.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, completion of the merger is conditioned upon, among other things,
shareholder approval of both companies, the SECs clearance of a registration statement registering
the FirstEnergy common stock to be issued in connection with the merger, as well as expiration or
termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act
of 1976 and approval by the FERC, the MDPSC, the PPUC, the VSCC and the PSCWV. The Merger
Agreement also contains certain termination rights for both FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy, and
further provides for the payment of fees and expenses upon termination under specified
circumstances.
65
FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy currently anticipate completing the merger in the first half of
2011. Although FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy believe that they will receive the required
authorizations, approvals and consents to complete the merger, there can be no assurance as to the
timing of these authorizations, approvals and consents or as
to FirstEnergys and Allegheny Energys ultimate ability to obtain such authorizations, consents or
approvals (or any additional authorizations, approvals or consents which may otherwise become
necessary) or that such authorizations, approvals or consents will be obtained on terms and subject
to conditions satisfactory to Allegheny Energy and FirstEnergy. Further information concerning the
proposed merger is included in the Registration Statement filed by FirstEnergy with the SEC in
connection with the merger.
In connection with the proposed merger, FirstEnergy recorded approximately $7 million ($5 million
after tax) of merger transaction costs in the second quarter and approximately $21 million ($15
million after tax) of merger transaction costs in the first six months of 2010. These costs are
expensed as incurred.
FERC
On May 11, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy filed an application with the FERC for approval
of their proposed merger. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has 180 days to rule on the merger
application. FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy submitted additional information regarding the merger
application on June 21, 2010 in response to a request by FERC. Interventions and protests were
filed with the FERC on July 12, 2010.
State Regulatory Merger Filings
On May 14 and May 18, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy filed applications with the PPUC and
the PSCWV, respectively, for approval of their proposed merger. Pennsylvania and West Virginia laws
impose no statutory timeframe for their commissions consideration of a merger application, but
procedural schedules have been established, and final decisions are anticipated early in 2011. On
May 27, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy filed an application for approval of the proposed
merger with the MDPSC. The MDPSC is required to issue an order no later than 180 days after an
application is filed, but under good cause MDPSC may give itself a 45-day extension, which it did
when it issued its initial order in the matter. An order from the MDPSC is therefore expected by
January 7, 2011. On June 14, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy completed their application
with the VSCC. The VSCC is required to rule on the merger application in 60 days, subject to up to
a 120-day extension. In its order issued June 25, 2010, the VSCC extended the period for its review
by 30 days; therefore the companies expect a decision by September 13, 2010.
Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act Filings
On May 25, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy made HSR filings with the DOJ and Federal Trade
Commission. On June 24, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy each received a request for
additional information from the DOJ, which extends the HSR Act waiting period for an additional 30
days from the date that the requested information is supplied to the DOJ.
Form S-4 Registration Statement
On July 16, 2010, FirstEnergys registration statement on Form S-4 containing a joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the proposed merger (Registration Statement) was declared
effective by the SEC. The joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in the Registration Statement
was first mailed to FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy shareholders on or about July 23, 2010.
FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy will each hold a special meeting of shareholders on September 14,
2010 in connection with the proposed merger.
Financial Matters
Financing Activities
On June 1, 2010, FGCO purchased $15 million fixed rate of PCRBs originally issued on its behalf.
Subject to market conditions, FGCO plans to remarket the $15 million of PCRBs, as well as $235
million of PCRBs purchased in April, in the near future.
Penn redeemed $1 million of PCRBs due October 1, 2013 on June 1, 2010 and $6.5 million of 7.65%
FMBs due in 2023 on July 30, 2010.
During the second quarter of 2010, FirstEnergy executed 13 interest rate swap contracts totaling
$3.2 billion.
These contacts were subsequently terminated to take advantage of favorable market conditions, and
resulted in cash proceeds of $126.7 million. These proceeds will generally be amortized to
earnings over the life of the underlying debt.
66
Operational Matters
Davis-Besse Refueling
On June 3, 2010, modifications of 24 of the 69 control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles on the
reactor head were completed at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. These nozzles were identified
during Davis-Besses refueling outage and reactor head inspection that began February 28, 2010.
The extended outage at Davis-Besse resulted in a $5 million impact on O&M this quarter, while
approximately $40 million of the costs related to the modifications to the CRDM were capitalized.
The plant was originally scheduled to have a new reactor head installed in 2014. This timeline was
voluntarily accelerated, and FirstEnergy announced that a new reactor head will be installed in the
fall of 2011. The new head was manufactured in France and is expected to arrive at the plant in
the fall of 2010 to undergo a series of pre-service inspections. Davis-Besse returned to service on
June 29, 2010.
Legacy Power Contracts
In July 2010, FES entered into financial transactions that offset the mark-to-market impact of
legacy purchased power contracts totaling 500 MW entered into in 2008 for delivery in 2010 and 2011
and which were marked to market beginning in December 2009. These financial transactions eliminate
the volatility associated with marking these contracts to market through the end of 2011.
Regulatory Matters General
DOE Smart Grid Grants
On June 3, 2010, FirstEnergy and the DOE signed grants totaling $57.4 million that were awarded as
part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to introduce smart grid technologies in targeted
areas in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey. The DOE grants represent 50% of the funding for the
$114.9 million FirstEnergy investment in smart grid technologies; the PPUC and the NJBPU have
already approved recovery for the remaining portion of smart grid costs. The PUCO issued an order
on June 30, 2010, approving FirstEnergys smart grid program, but FirstEnergy has delayed
implementation of the Ohio portion of the program until there is more certainty regarding cost
recovery for the portion of the costs not covered by the grant.
Regulatory Matters Ohio
Electric Security Plan Filing
The Ohio Companies filed a second Supplemental Stipulation with the PUCO on July 22, 2010, to
supplement the ESP Stipulation filed on March 23, 2010, and the Supplemental Stipulation filed on
May 13, 2010. An additional four signatories were included in the Supplemental Stipulations,
joining the Ohio Companies and 17 original signatory parties that support the ESP. A final PUCO
order is pending.
Regulatory Matters Pennsylvania
Met-Ed and Penelec TSC
On May 20, 2010, the PPUC approved the revised TSC for Met-Ed and Penelec. The revised TSC rates
were slightly increased for Met-Ed and slightly decreased for Penelec, and are effective for the
period of June 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. The PPUCs Order of March 3, 2010, which denies the
recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC for the period of June 1, 2007 through
March 31, 2008, remains subject to an appeal that is currently pending in the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania.
Met-Ed and Penelec Default Service Plan
On May 27, 2010, the third of four auctions held to procure the default service requirements for
Met-Ed and Penelec customers who choose not to shop with an alternative supplier. For the
five-month period of January 1, 2011 to May 31, 2011, the tranche-weighted average prices ($/MWh)
for Met-Eds residential and commercial classes were $72.81 and $72.29, respectively; Penelecs
tranche-weighted average prices were $62.04 and $63.35 for its residential and commercial classes,
respectively. There will be another auction in October 2010 to procure the remaining supply for
this period. The May 2010 auction was also the first of four auctions to procure commercial default
service requirements for the 12-month period of June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012 and residential
requirements for the 24-month period of June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2013. For Met-Ed and Penelec
commercial customers the tranche-weighted average price ($/MWh) was $66.32 and $57.60,
respectively. The remaining three auctions for these products will be conducted in October 2010,
January 2011 and March 2011.
67
RPM Base Residual Auction
On May 14, 2010, PJM released the results of the 2013/2014 RPM Base Residual Auction. The
auction cleared 152,743 MW of unforced capacity in the RTO Zone, which includes the ATSI zone, at
the Resource Clearing Price of $27.73/MW-day. The Clearing Price in MAAC, which includes Met-Ed
and Penelec zones and EMAAC which includes the Jersey Central zone, were $226.15/MW-day and
$245.00/MW-day, respectively.
FIRSTENERGYS BUSINESS
FirstEnergy is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio, that operates primarily
through two core business segments (see Results of Operations).
|
|
|
Energy Delivery Services transmits and distributes electricity through our eight utility
operating companies, serving 4.5 million customers within 36,100 square miles of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and purchases power for its POLR and default service
requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Its revenues are primarily derived from
the delivery of electricity within our service areas, cost recovery of regulatory assets
and the sale of electric generation service to retail customers who have not selected an
alternative supplier (default service) in its Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey franchise
areas. Its results reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and
from non-affiliated power suppliers, the net PJM and MISO transmission expenses related to
the delivery of the respective generation loads, and the deferral and amortization of
certain fuel costs. |
|
|
|
Competitive Energy Services supplies electric power to end-use customers through retail
and wholesale arrangements, including associated company power sales to meet all or a
portion of the POLR and default service requirements of our Ohio and Pennsylvania utility
subsidiaries and competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Michigan. This business segment controls approximately 14,000 MW of capacity
and also purchases electricity to meet sales obligations. The segments net income is
primarily derived from affiliated and non-affiliated electric generation sales revenues
less the related costs of electricity generation, including purchased power and net
transmission (including congestion) and ancillary costs charged by PJM and MISO to deliver
energy to the segments customers. |
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The financial results discussed below include revenues and expenses from transactions among
FirstEnergys business segments. A reconciliation of segment financial results is provided in
Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements. Earnings available to FirstEnergy by major
business segment were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share data) |
|
Earnings By Business Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy delivery services |
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
154 |
|
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
$ |
257 |
|
|
$ |
136 |
|
|
$ |
121 |
|
Competitive energy services |
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
431 |
|
|
|
(230 |
) |
Other and reconciling adjustments* |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
$ |
(149 |
) |
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
$ |
533 |
|
|
$ |
(113 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.36 |
|
|
$ |
(0.49 |
) |
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
|
$ |
(0.37 |
) |
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.36 |
|
|
$ |
(0.49 |
) |
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
|
|
* |
|
Consists primarily of interest expense related to holding company debt,
corporate support services revenues and expenses, noncontrolling interests and
the elimination of intersegment transactions. |
68
Summary of Results of Operations Second Quarter 2010 Compared with Second Quarter 2009
Financial results for FirstEnergys major business segments in the second quarter of 2010 and 2009
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Second Quarter 2010 Financial Results |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
2,243 |
|
|
$ |
728 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,971 |
|
Other |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
157 |
|
Internal |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
539 |
|
|
|
(558 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
2,392 |
|
|
|
1,317 |
|
|
|
(581 |
) |
|
|
3,128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
351 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
350 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,291 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
(558 |
) |
|
|
1,052 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
352 |
|
|
|
337 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
673 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General taxes |
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
2,064 |
|
|
|
1,098 |
|
|
|
(560 |
) |
|
|
2,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
328 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
31 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(207 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
232 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
390 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
256 |
|
Noncontrolling interest loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Second Quarter 2009 Financial Results |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
2,657 |
|
|
$ |
205 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,862 |
|
Other |
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
409 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
839 |
|
|
|
(839 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
2,792 |
|
|
|
1,343 |
|
|
|
(864 |
) |
|
|
3,271 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
276 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,677 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
(839 |
) |
|
|
1,024 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
328 |
|
|
|
315 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
612 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
233 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
2,457 |
|
|
|
870 |
|
|
|
(858 |
) |
|
|
2,469 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
473 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
27 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(60 |
) |
|
|
(206 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
656 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
408 |
|
Noncontrolling interest loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
154 |
|
|
$ |
276 |
|
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes Between Second Quarter 2010 and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second Quarter 2009 Financial Results |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
(414 |
) |
|
$ |
523 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
109 |
|
Other |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(249 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
Internal |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(300 |
) |
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
(400 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
283 |
|
|
|
(143 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
74 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
(386 |
) |
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
(393 |
) |
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(254 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(276 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(260 |
) |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(266 |
) |
Income taxes |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(152 |
) |
Noncontrolling interest loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
$ |
(151 |
) |
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
(149 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70
Energy Delivery Services Second Quarter 2010 Compared with Second Quarter 2009
Net income decreased by $11 million in the second quarter of 2010, compared to the second quarter
of 2009, primarily due to lower generation-related revenues and the absence of deferrals of new
regulatory assets, partially offset by lower amortization of regulatory assets and purchased power
costs.
Revenues
The decrease in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution services |
|
$ |
851 |
|
|
$ |
813 |
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail |
|
|
1,097 |
|
|
|
1,514 |
|
|
|
(417 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generation sales |
|
|
1,277 |
|
|
|
1,676 |
|
|
|
(399 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
Other |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
2,392 |
|
|
$ |
2,792 |
|
|
$ |
(400 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in distribution deliveries by customer class is summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
Electric Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
7 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
5 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
13 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Total Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
|
8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Higher deliveries to residential and commercial customers reflected increased weather-related
usage in the second quarter of 2010, as cooling degree days increased by 94% from the same period
in 2009. The increase in distribution deliveries to industrial customers was primarily due to
recovering economic conditions in FirstEnergys service territory compared to the second quarter of
2009. In the industrial sector, KWH deliveries increased to major automotive customers (39%) and
steel customers (60%). Distribution service revenues increased primarily due to the recovery of the
PA Energy Efficiency and Conservation charges as approved by the PPUC in March 2010 and the
accelerated recovery of deferred distribution costs in Ohio, partially offset by a reduction in the
transition rate for CEI effective June 1, 2009.
The following table summarizes the price and volume factors contributing to the $399 million
decrease in generation revenues in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the second quarter of
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 29.4% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(444 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(417 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 10.1% decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(16 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(399 |
) |
|
|
|
|
The decrease in retail generation sales volumes was primarily due to an increase in customer
shopping in the Ohio Companies service territories in the second quarter of 2010, which is
expected to continue to impact retail generation sales, partially offset by higher generation
revenues related to the recovery of transmission costs now provided for in the generation rate
established under the CBP. Total generation KWH provided by alternative suppliers as a percentage
of total KWH deliveries for the Ohio Companies increased to 61% in the second quarter of 2010, as
there was no shopping in the second quarter 2009.
71
The increase in wholesale generation revenues reflected higher prices for Met-Eds and Penelecs
sales of NUG power to the PJM market.
Transmission revenues decreased $59 million primarily due to the termination of the Ohio Companies
transmission tariff effective June 1, 2009; recovery of transmission costs is now through the
generation rate established under the CBP.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $393 million due to the following:
|
|
|
Purchased power costs were $386 million lower in the second
quarter of 2010 due to lower volume requirements, partially offset
by an increase in unit costs from non-affiliates. The decrease in
purchased power volumes from non-affiliates resulted principally
from the termination of a third-party supply contract for Met-Ed
and Penelec in January 2010 and from the above described increase
in customer shopping in the Ohio Companies service territories.
The decrease in volumes from FES principally resulted from the
increase in customer shopping in the Ohio Companies service
territories, as described above. |
|
|
|
|
The increase in unit costs from non-affiliates in the second
quarter of 2010 resulted from higher capacity prices in the PJM
market for Met-Ed and Penelec compared to the second quarter of
2009. The decrease in unit costs from FES was principally due to
the lower weighted average unit price per KWH for the Ohio
Companies established under the CBP auction effective June 1,
2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases from non-affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
$ |
156 |
|
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(280 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases from FES: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
|
(67 |
) |
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(191 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(258 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in NUG costs deferred |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(386 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrative and general costs, including labor and employee benefit
expenses, increased $9 million primarily due to a higher level of incentive
compensation earned this year, partially offset by lower payroll expenses due to
staffing reductions implemented in 2009. |
|
|
|
|
Energy Efficiency program costs increased $14 million in the second quarter of
2010 compared to the second quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
|
Forestry contractor costs decreased by $3 million in the second quarter of 2010
compared to the second quarter of 2009, as more resources were dedicated to capital
projects in 2010. |
|
|
|
|
A favorable JCP&L labor settlement reduced expenses by $7 million in the second quarter of 2010. |
|
|
|
|
Transmission costs, net of regulatory asset amortization expense, decreased by $61
million primarily due to the transfer of transmission cost responsibility to
generation providers under the CBP. |
|
|
|
|
The deferral of new regulatory assets decreased $45 million in the second quarter
of 2010 principally due to reduced CEI purchased power cost deferrals in the second
quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense increased $5 million due to property additions since the
second quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
|
General taxes decreased $9 million primarily due to a favorable Ohio property tax
settlement in 2010. |
72
Other Expense
Other expense increased $18 million in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the second quarter of
2009 primarily due to higher interest expense associated with debt issuances by the Utilities since
the second quarter of 2009.
Competitive Energy Services Second Quarter 2010 Compared with Second Quarter 2009
Net income decreased by $151 million in the second quarter of 2010, compared to the second quarter
of 2009, primarily due to the absence of a $252 million gain ($158 million after tax) in 2009 from
the sale of a 9% participation interest in OVEC.
Revenues
Total revenues, excluding the OVEC sale, increased $226 million in the second quarter of
2010 primarily due to an increase in direct and government aggregation sales volumes, partially
offset by decreases in POLR sales to the Ohio Companies and wholesale sales.
The decrease in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
586 |
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
503 |
|
POLR |
|
|
586 |
|
|
|
839 |
|
|
|
(253 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
Transmission |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Sale of OVEC participation interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
Other |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
1,317 |
|
|
$ |
1,343 |
|
|
$ |
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and government aggregation revenues of $503 million resulted from
increased revenue in both the MISO and PJM markets. The increase in revenue primarily resulted from
the acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers as well as new government aggregation
contracts with communities in Ohio that provide generation to 1.1 million residential and small
commercial customers at the end of June 2010 compared to 21,000 at the end of June 2009.
The decrease in POLR revenues of $253 million was due to lower sales volumes to the Ohio Companies
and lower unit prices, partially offset by increased sales volumes and higher unit prices to the
Pennsylvania Companies. The lower sales volumes and unit prices to the Ohio Companies in the second
quarter 2010 reflected the results of the May 2009 power procurement process. The increased
revenues to the Pennsylvania Companies resulted from FES supplying Met-Ed and Penelec with volumes
previously supplied through a third-party contract and at prices that were slightly higher than in
the second quarter of 2009.
Wholesale revenues decreased $27 million due to reduced volumes, reflecting increased retail sales
in Ohio and lower prices.
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
345 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
174 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Govt Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
503 |
|
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 20.4% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(171 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(253 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 21.9% decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(15 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Wholesale Revenues |
|
$ |
(280 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased $3 million due primarily to higher MISO congestion revenue.
Expenses
Total expenses increased $228 million in the second quarter of 2010 due to the following:
|
|
|
Fuel costs increased $75 million due to increased generation volumes primarily at
the fossil units ($73 million) and higher unit prices ($2 million). The increase in
unit prices was due primarily to higher nuclear fuel unit prices following the
refueling outages that occurred in 2009. |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs increased $133 million due primarily to higher volumes
purchased ($162 million) and higher unit costs ($6 million), partially offset by power
contract mark-to-market adjustments ($35 million). In July 2010, FES entered into
financial transactions that offset the mark-to-market impact of legacy purchased power
contracts totaling 500 MW entered into in 2008 for delivery in 2010 and 2011 and which
were marked-to-market beginning in December 2009. These financial transactions
eliminate the volatility associated with marking these contracts to market through the
end of 2011. |
|
|
|
|
Fossil operating costs decreased $3 million due primarily to lower professional and
contractor costs, partially offset by reduced gains on the sale of emission allowances. |
|
|
|
|
Nuclear operating costs decreased $17 million due primarily to lower labor and
professional and contractor costs due to one less refueling outage in 2010 as compared
to the same period of 2009. |
|
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased $26 million due primarily to increases in MISO of
$63 million from higher network and ancillary costs, partially offset by lower PJM
transmission expenses of $37 million due to lower congestion and loss costs. |
|
|
|
|
Other expenses increased $14 million primarily due to increases in uncollectible
customer accounts and agent fees associated with the growth in direct and government
aggregation sales. |
Other Expense
Total other expense in the second quarter of 2010 was $6 million higher than the second quarter of
2009, primarily due to a $13 million increase in interest expense from new long-term debt issued
combined with the restructuring of existing long-term debt, partially offset by a $7 million
increase in investment income resulting from more favorable performance of the nuclear
decommissioning trust investments ($6 million).
Other Second Quarter of 2010 Compared with Second Quarter of 2009
Financial results from other operating segments and reconciling items, including interest
expense on holding company debt and corporate support services revenues and expenses, resulted in a
$13 million increase in earnings available to FirstEnergy in the first quarter of 2010 compared to
the same period in 2009. The increase resulted primarily from reduced interest expense on holding
company debt resulting from the September 2009 tender offer ($20M), partially offset by increased
operating expenses.
74
Summary of Results of Operations First Six Months of 2010 Compared with the First Six Months
of 2009
Financial results for FirstEnergys major business segments in the first six months of 2010 and
2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
First Six Months 2010 Financial Results |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
4,641 |
|
|
$ |
1,397 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,038 |
|
Other |
|
|
275 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
322 |
|
Internal* |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
1,213 |
|
|
|
(1,165 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
4,935 |
|
|
|
2,707 |
|
|
|
(1,215 |
) |
|
|
6,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
688 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
684 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
2,686 |
|
|
|
769 |
|
|
|
(1,165 |
) |
|
|
2,290 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
732 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
1,374 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
383 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
373 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General taxes |
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
4,326 |
|
|
|
2,333 |
|
|
|
(1,174 |
) |
|
|
5,485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
609 |
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
47 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(248 |
) |
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
(420 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(292 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
324 |
|
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
650 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
405 |
|
Noncontrolling interest loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
257 |
|
|
$ |
201 |
|
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
First Six Months 2009 Financial Results |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
5,518 |
|
|
$ |
485 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,003 |
|
Other |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
602 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,732 |
|
|
|
(1,732 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
5,813 |
|
|
|
2,571 |
|
|
|
(1,779 |
) |
|
|
6,605 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
588 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
588 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
3,553 |
|
|
|
346 |
|
|
|
(1,732 |
) |
|
|
2,167 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
827 |
|
|
|
670 |
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
1,439 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
362 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
642 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(136 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
324 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
5,429 |
|
|
|
1,793 |
|
|
|
(1,765 |
) |
|
|
5,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
778 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
1,148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(224 |
) |
|
|
(60 |
) |
|
|
(116 |
) |
|
|
(400 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(157 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
|
(323 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
227 |
|
|
|
719 |
|
|
|
(121 |
) |
|
|
825 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
(77 |
) |
|
|
302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
431 |
|
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
523 |
|
Noncontrolling interest loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
136 |
|
|
$ |
431 |
|
|
$ |
(34 |
) |
|
$ |
533 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes Between First Six Months 2010 and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Six Months 2009 Financial Results |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
(877 |
) |
|
$ |
912 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
Other |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(257 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(280 |
) |
Internal* |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(519 |
) |
|
|
567 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
(878 |
) |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
564 |
|
|
|
(178 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
96 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
(867 |
) |
|
|
423 |
|
|
|
567 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
(95 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(65 |
) |
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
(269 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(269 |
) |
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
(1,103 |
) |
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
591 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
225 |
|
|
|
(404 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(206 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
(395 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(175 |
) |
Income taxes |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(165 |
) |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
(230 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(118 |
) |
Noncontrolling interest loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
(230 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
(113 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Under the accounting standard for the effects of certain types of regulation, internal
revenues are not fully offset for sale of RECs by FES to the Ohio Companies that are retained
in inventory. |
Energy Delivery Services First Six Months of 2010 Compared to First Six Months of 2009
Net income increased by $121 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the first six
months of 2009, primarily due to the absence of CEIs $216 million regulatory asset impairment in
2009, lower purchased power costs and lower other operating expenses, partially offset by lower
generation related revenues and decreased deferrals of new regulatory assets.
Revenues
The decrease in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Distribution services |
|
$ |
1,733 |
|
|
$ |
1,662 |
|
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail |
|
|
2,274 |
|
|
|
3,128 |
|
|
|
(854 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
397 |
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generation sales |
|
|
2,671 |
|
|
|
3,477 |
|
|
|
(806 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
577 |
|
|
|
(162 |
) |
Other |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
4,935 |
|
|
$ |
5,813 |
|
|
$ |
(878 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77
The increase in distribution deliveries by customer class is summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
Electric Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
1 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
2 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
10 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Total Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Higher deliveries to residential and commercial customers reflected increased weather-related usage
in the first six months of 2010. Cooling degree days increased by 94%, partially offset by a 10%
decrease in heating degree days from the same period in 2009. The increase in distribution
deliveries to industrial customers was primarily due to recovering economic conditions in
FirstEnergys service territory compared to the first six months of 2009. In the industrial sector,
KWH deliveries increased to major automotive customers (26%) and steel customers (44%).
Distribution service revenues increased primarily due to the recovery of the PA Energy Efficiency
and Conservation charges as approved by the PPUC in March 2010 and the accelerated recovery of
deferred distribution costs in Ohio, partially offset by a reduction in the transition rate for CEI
effective June 1, 2009.
The following table summarizes the price and volume factors contributing to the $806 million
decrease in generation revenues in the first six months of 2010 compared to the same period of
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 30% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(939 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(854 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 12.2% decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(42 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(806 |
) |
|
|
|
|
The decrease in retail generation sales volumes was primarily due to an increase in customer
shopping in the Ohio Companies service territories in the first six months of 2010, which is
expected to continue to impact retail generation sales, partially offset by higher generation
revenues related to the recovery of transmission costs now provided for in the generation rate
established under the CBP. Total generation KWH provided by alternative suppliers as a percentage
of total KWH deliveries for the Ohio Companies increased to 57% in the first six months of 2010, as
there was no shopping in the same period of 2009.
The increase in wholesale generation revenues reflected higher prices for Met-Eds and Penelecs
NUG sales to the PJM market.
Transmission revenues decreased $162 million primarily due to the termination of the Ohio
Companies transmission tariff effective June 1, 2009; recovery of transmission costs is now
through the generation rate established under the CBP.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $1,103 million due to the following:
|
|
|
Purchased power costs were $867 million lower in the first six months of 2010 due
to lower volume requirements, partially offset by an increase in unit costs for
purchased power from non-affiliates. The decrease in volumes from non-affiliates
resulted principally from the termination of a third-party supply contract for Met-Ed
and Penelec in January 2010 and from the above described increase in customer
shopping in the Ohio Companies service territories. The decrease in volumes from
FES principally resulted from the increase in customer shopping in the Ohio
Companies service territories, as described above. |
|
|
|
The increase in unit costs from non-affiliates in the first six months of 2010
resulted from higher capacity prices in the PJM market for Met-Ed and Penelec
compared to the first six months of 2009. The decrease in unit costs from FES was
principally due to the lower weighted average unit price per KWH for the Ohio
Companies established under the CBP auction effective June 1, 2009. |
78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchases from non-affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
$ |
346 |
|
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(703 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(357 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases from FES: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
|
(160 |
) |
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(343 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(503 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in NUG costs deferred |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(867 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MISO/PJM transmission expenses decreased $43 million primarily due to the recovery
of transmission costs now provided for in the generation rate established under the
CBP, partially offset by higher PJM congestion charges. |
|
|
|
Administrative and general costs, including labor and employee benefits expenses,
decreased by $22 million in the first six month of 2010 compared to 2009 due to lower
payroll expenses resulting from staffing reductions implemented in 2009. |
|
|
|
Other operating expenses decreased $28 million due to higher economic development
commitments recognized in the first quarter of 2009 relating to the amended ESP and a
favorable labor settlement of $7 million for JCP&L recognized in the second quarter
of 2010. |
|
|
|
Amortization of regulatory assets decreased $269 million due primarily to the
absence of the $216 million impairment of CEIs regulatory assets in the second
quarter of 2009, reduced transmission cost amortization and reduced CTC amortization
for Met-Ed and Penelec, partially offset by a $35 million regulatory asset impairment
associated with the filing of the Ohio Companies ESP on March 23, 2010. |
|
|
|
The deferral of new regulatory assets decreased $136 million in the first six
months of 2010 principally due to reduced CEI purchased power cost deferrals in the
second quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
Depreciation expense increased $9 million due to property additions since the
second quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
General taxes decreased $17 million due to favorable Ohio and Pennsylvania tax
settlements in 2010. |
Other Expense
Other expense increased $37 million in the first six months of 2010 compared to the first six
months of 2009 primarily due to higher interest expense associated with debt issuances by the
Utilities since the second quarter of 2009.
Competitive Energy Services First Six Months of 2010 Compared to First Six Months of 2009
Net income decreased by $230 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the first six
months of 2009, primarily due to the absence of a $252 million ($158 million after tax) gain in
2009 from the sale of a 9% participation in OVEC and a decrease in sales margins.
Revenues
Total revenues, excluding the OVEC sale, increased $388 million in the first six months of 2010
compared to the same period in 2009 primarily due to an increase in direct and government
aggregation sales volumes and sales of RECs, partially offset by decreases in POLR sales to the
Ohio Companies and wholesale sales.
79
The increase in reported segment revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
1,097 |
|
|
$ |
174 |
|
|
$ |
923 |
|
POLR |
|
|
1,260 |
|
|
|
1,732 |
|
|
|
(472 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
311 |
|
|
|
(125 |
) |
Transmission |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
RECs |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
Sale of OVEC participation interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
Other |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
2,707 |
|
|
$ |
2,571 |
|
|
$ |
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and government aggregation revenues of $923 million resulted from increased
revenue in both the MISO and PJM markets. The increase in revenue primarily resulted from the
acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers, as well as new government aggregation
contracts with communities in Ohio that provide generation to 1.1 million residential and small
commercial customers at the end of June 2010 compared to 21,000 at the end of June 2009, partially
offset by lower unit prices. During January 2010, FES began supplying power to approximately
425,000 NOPEC customers.
The decrease in POLR revenues of $472 million was due to lower sales volumes to the Ohio Companies
and lower unit prices, partially offset by increased sales volumes and higher unit prices to the
Pennsylvania Companies. The lower sales volumes and unit prices to the Ohio Companies in 2010
reflected the results of the May 2009 power procurement process. The increased revenues to the
Pennsylvania Companies resulted from FES supplying Met-Ed and Penelec with volumes previously
supplied through a third-party contract and at prices that were slightly higher than in 2009.
Wholesale revenues decreased $125 million due to reduced volumes reflecting market declines and
lower prices.
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues
from generation sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
633 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
337 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
337 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Govt Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 15.1% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(262 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(472 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 56.7% decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(123 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Wholesale Revenues |
|
$ |
(597 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues decreased $5 million due primarily to lower PJM congestion revenue.
80
Expenses
Total expenses increased $540 million in the first six months of 2010 due to the following factors:
|
|
|
Fuel costs increased $100 million due to increased generation volumes ($44 million)
and higher unit prices ($56 million). The increase in unit prices was due primarily to
higher nuclear fuel unit prices following the refueling outages that occurred in 2009
and increased coal transportation costs. |
|
|
|
Purchased power costs increased $423 million due primarily to higher volumes
purchased ($484 million), and power contract mark-to-market adjustments ($17 million),
partially offset by lower unit costs ($78 million). In July 2010, FES entered into
financial transactions that offset the mark-to-market impact of legacy purchased power
contracts totaling 500 MW entered into in 2008 for delivery in 2010 and 2011 and which
were marked-to-market beginning in December 2009. These financial transactions
eliminate the volatility associated with marking these contracts to market through the
end of 2011. |
|
|
|
Fossil operating costs decreased $2 million due primarily to lower labor costs which
were partially offset by higher professional and contractor costs and reduced gains on
the sale of emission allowances. |
|
|
|
Nuclear operating costs decreased $37 million due primarily to lower labor and
professional and contractor costs. The six months ended June 2010 had one less
refueling outage and fewer extended outages than the same period of 2009. |
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased $33 million due primarily to increased costs in MISO
of $106 million from higher network and ancillary costs, partially offset by lower PJM
transmission expenses of $73 million due to lower congestion and loss costs. |
|
|
|
Other expenses increased $20 million primarily due to increases in uncollectible
customer accounts and agent fees associated with the growth in direct and government
aggregation sales. |
|
|
|
|
General taxes increased $3 million due to sales taxes on higher revenues. |
Other Expense
Total other expense in the six months ending June 2010 was $9 million lower than the same period in
2009, primarily due to a $37 million increase in investment income resulting from more favorable
performance of the nuclear decommissioning trust investments, partially offset by a $28 million
increase in interest expense. Interest expense increased because of new issuances of long-term debt
combined with the restructuring of existing long-term debt.
Other First Six Months of 2010 Compared to First Six Months of 2009
Financial results from other operating segments and reconciling items, including interest expense
on holding company debt and corporate support services revenues and expenses, resulted in a
$4 million decrease in earnings available to FirstEnergy in the first six months of 2010 compared
to the same period in 2009. The decrease resulted primarily from increased other operating expenses
and depreciation ($28 million) and increased income tax expense ($41 million), partially offset by
reduced interest expense on holding company debt ($52 million) which was primarily the result of a
September 2009 tender offer.
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
FirstEnergy expects its existing sources of liquidity to remain sufficient to meet its anticipated
obligations and those of its subsidiaries. FirstEnergys business is capital intensive, requiring
significant resources to fund operating expenses, construction expenditures, scheduled debt
maturities and interest and dividend payments. During 2010 and in subsequent years, FirstEnergy
expects to satisfy these requirements with a combination of cash from operations and funds from the
capital markets as market conditions warrant. FirstEnergy also expects that borrowing capacity
under credit facilities will continue to be available to manage working capital requirements during
those periods.
81
As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergys net deficit in working capital (current assets less current
liabilities) was principally due to short-term borrowings ($1.5 billion) and the classification of
certain variable interest rate PCRBs as currently payable long-term debt. Currently payable
long-term debt as of June 30, 2010, included the following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Payable Long-term Debt |
|
|
|
|
PCRBs supported by bank LOCs (1) |
|
$ |
1,318 |
|
FGCO and NGC unsecured PCRBs (1) |
|
|
75 |
|
Penelec FMBs (2) |
|
|
24 |
|
NGC collateralized lease obligation bonds |
|
|
50 |
|
Sinking fund requirements |
|
|
41 |
|
Other notes (2) |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,571 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Interest rate mode permits individual debt holders to put the respective debt back
to the issuer prior to maturity. |
|
(2) |
|
Mature in November 2010. |
Short-Term Borrowings
FirstEnergy had approximately $1.5 billion of short-term borrowings as of June 30, 2010 and
$1.2 billion as of December 31, 2009. FirstEnergys available liquidity as of July 31, 2010, is
summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available |
|
Company |
|
Type |
|
Maturity |
|
|
Commitment |
|
|
Liquidity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy(1) |
|
Revolving |
|
Aug. 2012 |
|
|
$ |
2,750 |
|
|
$ |
1,407 |
|
FirstEnergy Solutions |
|
Bank line |
|
Mar. 2011 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio and Pennsylvania Companies |
|
Receivables financing |
|
Various |
(2) |
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
267 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
|
$ |
3,245 |
|
|
$ |
1,674 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
3,245 |
|
|
$ |
1,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. and subsidiary borrowers. |
|
(2) |
|
Ohio $250 million matures March 30, 2011; Pennsylvania $145 million matures
December 17, 2010 |
Revolving Credit Facility
FirstEnergy has the capability to request an increase in the total commitments available under the
$2.75 billion revolving credit facility (included in the borrowing capability table above) up to a
maximum of $3.25 billion, subject to the discretion of each lender to provide additional
commitments. A total of 25 banks participate in the facility, with no one bank having more than
7.3% of the total commitment. Commitments under the facility are available until August 24, 2012,
unless the lenders agree, at the request of the borrowers, to an unlimited number of additional
one-year extensions. Generally, borrowings under the facility must be repaid within 364 days.
Available amounts for each borrower are subject to a specified sub-limit, as well as applicable
regulatory and other limitations.
82
The following table summarizes the borrowing sub-limits for each borrower under the facility, as
well as the limitations on short-term indebtedness applicable to each borrower under current
regulatory approvals and applicable statutory and/or charter limitations as of June 30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving |
|
|
Regulatory and |
|
|
|
Credit Facility |
|
|
Other Short-Term |
|
Borrower |
|
Sub-Limit |
|
|
Debt Limitations |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
2,750 |
|
|
$ |
|
(1) |
FES |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
OE |
|
|
500 |
|
|
|
500 |
|
Penn |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
34 |
(2) |
CEI |
|
|
250 |
(3) |
|
|
500 |
|
TE |
|
|
250 |
(3) |
|
|
500 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
405 |
(2) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
300 |
(2) |
Penelec |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
300 |
(2) |
ATSI |
|
|
50 |
(4) |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
No regulatory approvals, statutory or charter limitations applicable. |
|
(2) |
|
Excluding amounts that may be borrowed under the regulated companies money pool. |
|
(3) |
|
Borrowing sub-limits for CEI and TE may be increased to up to $500 million by
delivering notice to the administrative agent that such borrower has senior unsecured debt
ratings of at least BBB by S&P and Baa2 by Moodys. |
|
(4) |
|
The borrowing sub-limit for ATSI may be increased up to $100 million by delivering
notice to the administrative agent that ATSI has received regulatory approval to have
short-term borrowings up to the same amount. |
Under the revolving credit facility, borrowers may request the issuance of LOCs expiring up to one
year from the date of issuance. The stated amount of outstanding LOCs will count against total
commitments available under the facility and against the applicable borrowers borrowing
sub-limit.
The revolving credit facility contains financial covenants requiring each borrower to maintain a
consolidated debt to total capitalization ratio of no more than 65%, measured at the end of each
fiscal quarter. As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergys and its subsidiaries debt to total
capitalization ratios (as defined under the revolving credit facility) were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Borrower |
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy(1) |
|
|
61.1 |
% |
FES |
|
|
52.1 |
% |
OE |
|
|
53.4 |
% |
Penn |
|
|
31.3 |
% |
CEI |
|
|
59.3 |
% |
TE |
|
|
59.1 |
% |
JCP&L |
|
|
36.5 |
% |
Met-Ed |
|
|
38.2 |
% |
Penelec |
|
|
53.4 |
% |
ATSI |
|
|
50.3 |
% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergy could issue additional debt of approximately
$2.9 billion, or recognize a reduction in equity of approximately $1.6 billion, and remain
within the limitations of the financial covenants required by its revolving credit facility. |
The revolving credit facility does not contain provisions that either restrict the ability to
borrow or accelerate repayment of outstanding advances as a result of any change in credit ratings.
Pricing is defined in pricing grids, whereby the cost of funds borrowed under the facility is
related to the credit ratings of the company borrowing the funds.
FirstEnergy Money Pools
FirstEnergys regulated companies also have the ability to borrow from each other and the holding
company to meet their short-term working capital requirements. A similar but separate arrangement
exists among FirstEnergys unregulated companies. FESC administers these two money pools and tracks
surplus funds of FirstEnergy and the respective regulated and unregulated subsidiaries, as well as
proceeds available from bank borrowings. Companies receiving a loan under the money pool agreements
must repay the principal amount of the loan, together with accrued interest, within 364 days of
borrowing the funds. The rate of interest is the same for each company receiving a loan from their
respective pool and is based on the average cost of funds available through the pool. The average
interest rate for borrowings in the first six months of 2010 was 0.51% per annum for the regulated
companies money pool and 0.59% per annum for the unregulated companies money pool.
83
Pollution Control Revenue Bonds
As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergys currently payable long-term debt included approximately
$1.3 billion (FES $1.2 billion, Met-Ed $29 million and Penelec $45 million) of variable
interest rate PCRBs, the bondholders of which are entitled to the benefit of irrevocable direct pay
bank LOCs. The interest rates on the PCRBs are reset daily or weekly. Bondholders can tender their
PCRBs for mandatory purchase prior to maturity with the purchase price payable from remarketing
proceeds or, if the PCRBs are not successfully remarketed, by drawings on the irrevocable direct
pay LOCs. The subsidiary obligor is required to reimburse the applicable LOC bank for any such
drawings or, if the LOC bank fails to honor its LOC for any reason, must itself pay the purchase
price.
The LOCs for FirstEnergy variable interest rate PCRBs were issued by the following banks as of June
30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate LOC |
|
|
|
|
Reimbursements of |
LOC Bank |
|
Amount(2) |
|
|
LOC Termination Date |
|
LOC Draws Due |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
CitiBank N.A. |
|
$ |
166 |
|
|
June 2014 |
|
June 2014 |
The Bank of Nova Scotia |
|
|
284 |
|
|
Beginning April 2011 |
|
Multiple dates(3) |
The Royal Bank of Scotland |
|
|
131 |
|
|
June 2012 |
|
6 months |
Wachovia Bank |
|
|
153 |
|
|
March 2014 |
|
March 2014 |
Barclays Bank(1) |
|
|
528 |
|
|
Beginning December 2010 |
|
30 days |
PNC Bank |
|
|
70 |
|
|
Beginning November 2010 |
|
180 days |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Supported by 18 participating banks, with no one bank having more than 14% of the
total commitment. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes approximately $14 million of applicable interest coverage. |
|
(3) |
|
Shorter of 6 months or LOC termination date ($155 million) and shorter of one year
or LOC termination date ($129 million). |
In June 2010, FGCO purchased $15 million fixed rate PCRBs originally issued on its behalf. In April
2010, FGCO purchased approximately $235 million variable rate PCRBs and cancelled $237 million LOC
held with KeyBank. Subject to market conditions, FGCO plans to remarket the $15 million PCRBs, as
well as the $235 million PCRBs purchased in April, in the near future as market conditions permit.
Long-Term Debt Capacity
As of June 30, 2010, the Ohio Companies and Penn had the aggregate capability to issue
approximately $2.3 billion of additional FMBs on the basis of property additions and retired bonds
under the terms of their respective mortgage indentures. The issuance of FMBs by the Ohio Companies
is also subject to provisions of their senior note indentures generally limiting the incurrence of
additional secured debt, subject to certain exceptions that would permit, among other things, the
issuance of secured debt (including FMBs) supporting pollution control notes or similar
obligations, or as an extension, renewal or replacement of previously outstanding secured debt. In
addition, these provisions would permit OE and CEI to incur additional secured debt not otherwise
permitted by a specified exception of up to $107 million and $21 million, respectively, as of June
30, 2010. As a result of the indenture provisions, TE cannot incur any additional secured debt.
Met-Ed and Penelec had the capability to issue secured debt of approximately $377 million and
$343 million, respectively, under provisions of their senior note indentures as of June 30, 2010.
Based upon FGCOs FMB indenture, net earnings and available bondable property additions as of June
30, 2010, FGCO had the capability to issue $2.9 billion of additional FMBs under the terms of that
indenture. In June 2009, a new FMB indenture became effective for NGC. Based upon NGCs FMB
indenture, net earnings and available bondable property additions, NGC had the capability to issue
$294 million of additional FMBs as of June 30, 2010.
FirstEnergys access to capital markets and costs of financing are influenced by the ratings of its
securities. On February 11, 2010, S&P issued a report lowering FirstEnergys and its subsidiaries
credit ratings by one notch, while maintaining its stable outlook. Moodys and Fitch affirmed the
ratings and stable outlook of FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries on February 11, 2010. The following
table displays FirstEnergys, FES and the Utilities securities ratings as of June 30, 2010.
84
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Secured |
|
Senior Unsecured |
Issuer |
|
S&P |
|
Moodys |
|
Fitch |
|
S&P |
|
Moodys |
|
Fitch |
FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BB+ |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio Edison |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania Power |
|
BBB+ |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Electric Illuminating |
|
BBB |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toledo Edison |
|
BBB |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey Central Power & Light |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metropolitan Edison |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania Electric |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATSI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa1 |
|
|
Changes in Cash Position
As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergy had $281 million in cash and cash equivalents compared to
$874 million as of December 31, 2009. As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, FirstEnergy had
approximately $10 million and $12 million, respectively, of restricted cash included in other
current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
During the first six months of 2010, FirstEnergy received $655 million of cash dividends from its
subsidiaries and paid $335 million in cash dividends to common shareholders.
Cash Flows From Operating Activities
FirstEnergys consolidated net cash from operating activities is provided primarily by its
competitive energy services and energy delivery services businesses (see Results of Operations
above). Net cash provided from operating activities decreased by $244 million during the first six
months of 2010 compared to the comparable period in 2009, as summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Operating Cash Flows |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Net income |
|
$ |
405 |
|
|
$ |
523 |
|
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
Non-cash charges and other adjustments |
|
|
789 |
|
|
|
719 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
Working Capital and other |
|
|
(336 |
) |
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
(196 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
858 |
|
|
$ |
1,102 |
|
|
$ |
(244 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in non-cash charges and other adjustments is primarily due to higher deferred income
taxes and investment tax credits ($90 million) and higher non-cash retirement benefit expenses ($66
million) recognized in the first six months of 2010, partially offset by lower net amortization of
regulatory assets ($133 million), including CEIs $216 million regulatory asset impairment recorded
during the first quarter of 2009. The change in working capital and other charges primarily
resulted from a $111 million decrease in cash collateral received, a $98 million decrease in
prepayments and other current assets, and a $43 million increase in accrued taxes, partially offset
by a $188 million increase in receivables and a $23 million increase in materials and supplies. The
change in prepayments and accrued taxes primarily relates to the timing of income tax payments.
85
Cash Flows From Financing Activities
In the first six months of 2010, cash used for financing activities was $484 million compared to
cash provided from financing activities of $426 million in the first six months of 2009. The
decrease was primarily due to new debt issuances in 2009 and the repayment of short-term borrowings
in 2010, partially offset by decreased long-term debt redemptions in 2010. The following table
summarizes security issuances (net of any discounts) and redemptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
Securities Issued or Redeemed |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First mortgage bonds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
Pollution control notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
682 |
|
Senior secured notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
297 |
|
Unsecured Notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,679 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pollution control notes |
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
682 |
|
Senior secured notes |
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
Unsecured notes |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
$ |
881 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
$ |
281 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows From Investing Activities
Net cash flows used in investing activities resulted primarily from property additions. Additions
for the energy delivery services segment primarily represent expenditures related to transmission
and distribution facilities. Capital spending by the competitive energy services segment is
principally generation-related. The following table summarizes investing activities for the first
six months of 2010 and 2009 by business segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary of Cash Flows |
|
Property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided from (Used for) Investing Activities |
|
Additions |
|
|
Investments |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Sources (Uses) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy delivery services |
|
$ |
(338 |
) |
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
$ |
(20 |
) |
|
$ |
(271 |
) |
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(605 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(617 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
Inter-Segment reconciling items |
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(997 |
) |
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
(21 |
) |
|
$ |
(967 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy delivery services |
|
$ |
(343 |
) |
|
$ |
48 |
|
|
$ |
(23 |
) |
|
$ |
(318 |
) |
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(669 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(689 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(129 |
) |
Inter-Segment reconciling items |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(1,143 |
) |
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
(48 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,173 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities in the first six months of 2010 decreased by $206 million
compared to the first six months of 2009. The decrease was principally due to a $146 million
decrease in property additions, which reflects lower AQC system expenditures, and cash proceeds of
approximately $116 million from the sale of assets, partially offset by $105 million relating to
the acquisition of customer intangible assets.
During the remaining two quarters of 2010, capital requirements for property additions and capital
leases are expected to be approximately $918 million, including approximately $155 million for
nuclear fuel. These cash requirements are expected to be satisfied from a combination of internal
cash and short-term credit arrangements.
GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES
As part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy enters into various agreements on behalf of its
subsidiaries to provide financial or performance assurances to third parties. These agreements
include contract guarantees, surety bonds and LOCs. Some of the guaranteed contracts contain
collateral provisions that are contingent upon either FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries credit
ratings.
86
As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergys maximum exposure to potential future payments under outstanding
guarantees and other assurances approximated $3.9 billion, as summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
|
Guarantees and Other Assurances |
|
Exposure |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy Guarantees on Behalf of its Subsidiaries |
|
|
|
|
Energy and Energy-Related Contracts(1) |
|
$ |
300 |
|
LOC (long-term debt) Interest coverage(2) |
|
|
6 |
|
FirstEnergy guarantee of OVEC obligations |
|
|
300 |
|
Other(3) |
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries Guarantees |
|
|
|
|
Energy and Energy-Related Contracts |
|
|
54 |
|
LOC (long-term debt) Interest coverage(2) |
|
|
4 |
|
FES guarantee of NGCs nuclear property insurance |
|
|
70 |
|
FES guarantee of FGCOs sale and leaseback obligations |
|
|
2,413 |
|
Other |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surety Bonds |
|
|
90 |
|
LOC (long-term debt) Interest coverage(2) |
|
|
3 |
|
LOC (non-debt)(4)(5) |
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
465 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Guarantees and Other Assurances |
|
$ |
3,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Issued for open-ended terms, with a 10-day termination right by FirstEnergy. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects the interest coverage portion of LOCs issued in support of floating rate
PCRBs with various maturities. The principal amount of floating-rate PCRBs of $1.3 billion is
reflected in currently payable long-term debt on FirstEnergys consolidated balance sheets. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes guarantees of $80 million for nuclear decommissioning funding assurances,
which has been reduced to $15 million in July 2010, and $161 million supporting OEs sale and
leaseback arrangement. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes $193 million issued for various terms pursuant to LOC capacity available
under FirstEnergys revolving credit facility. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes approximately $135 million pledged in connection with the sale and
leaseback of Beaver Valley Unit 2 by OE and $44 million pledged in connection with the sale
and leaseback of Perry by OE. |
FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy
commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions involving
electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides guarantees to various
providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by its subsidiaries of costs related
to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements legally obligate FirstEnergy
to fulfill the obligations of those subsidiaries directly involved in energy and energy-related
transactions or financings where the law might otherwise limit the counterparties claims. If
demands of a counterparty were to exceed the ability of a subsidiary to satisfy existing
obligations, FirstEnergys guarantee enables the counterpartys legal claim to be satisfied by
FirstEnergys assets. FirstEnergy believes the likelihood is remote that such parental guarantees
will increase amounts otherwise paid by FirstEnergy to meet its obligations incurred in connection
with ongoing energy and energy-related activities.
87
While these types of guarantees are normally parental commitments for the future payment of
subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a credit rating downgrade to below
investment grade, an acceleration or funding obligation, or a material adverse event, the
immediate posting of cash collateral, provision of a LOC or accelerated payments may be required of
the subsidiary. As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergys maximum exposure under these collateral
provisions was $451 million, as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral Provisions |
|
FES |
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade |
|
$ |
314 |
|
|
$ |
17 |
|
|
$ |
331 |
|
Acceleration of payment or funding obligation |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
Material adverse event |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
366 |
|
|
$ |
85 |
|
|
$ |
451 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stress case conditions of a credit rating downgrade or material adverse event and hypothetical
adverse price movements in the underlying commodity markets would increase the total potential
amount to $609 million, consisting of $56 million due to material adverse event contractual
clauses, $83 million due to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation, and $470 million due
to a below investment grade credit rating.
Most of FirstEnergys surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance
industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $90 million provide additional assurance to
outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas
including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.
In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, FES contracts, including power contracts with
affiliates awarded through competitive bidding processes, typically contain margining provisions
which require the posting of cash or LOCs in amounts determined by future power price movements.
Based on FES power portfolio as of June 30, 2010, and forward prices as of that date, FES has
posted collateral of $245 million. Under a hypothetical adverse change in forward prices (95%
confidence level change in forward prices over a one year time horizon), FES would be required to
post an additional $107 million. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price
movements, FES could be required to post higher amounts for margining.
In connection with FES obligations to post and maintain collateral under the two-year PSA entered
into by FES and the Ohio Companies following the CBP auction on May 13-14, 2009, NGC entered into a
Surplus Margin Guaranty in an amount up to $500 million. The Surplus Margin Guaranty is secured by
an NGC FMB issued in favor of the Ohio Companies.
FES debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, and FES
guarantees the debt obligations of each of FGCO and NGC. Accordingly, present and future holders of
indebtedness of FES, FGCO and NGC will have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC regardless of
whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
FES and the Ohio Companies have obligations that are not included on their Consolidated Balance
Sheets related to sale and leaseback arrangements involving the Bruce Mansfield Plant, Perry Unit 1
and Beaver Valley Unit 2, which are satisfied through operating lease payments. The total present
value of these sale and leaseback operating lease commitments, net of trust investments, is
$1.6 billion as of June 30, 2010.
MARKET RISK INFORMATION
FirstEnergy uses various market risk sensitive instruments, including derivative contracts,
primarily to manage the risk of price and interest rate fluctuations. FirstEnergys Risk Policy
Committee, comprised of members of senior management, provides general oversight for risk
management activities throughout the company.
Commodity Price Risk
FirstEnergy is exposed to financial and market risks resulting from the fluctuation of interest
rates and commodity prices associated with electricity, energy transmission, natural gas, coal,
nuclear fuel and emission allowances. To manage the volatility relating to these exposures,
FirstEnergy uses a variety of non-derivative and derivative instruments, including forward
contracts, options, futures contracts and swaps. The derivatives are used principally for hedging
purposes.
88
The valuation of derivative contracts is based on observable market information to the extent that
such information is available. In cases where such information is not available, FirstEnergy relies
on model-based information. The model provides estimates of future regional prices for electricity
and an estimate of related price volatility. FirstEnergy uses these results to develop estimates of
fair value for financial reporting purposes and for internal management decision making (see Note 3
to the consolidated financial statements). Sources of information for the valuation of commodity
derivative contracts as of June 30, 2010 are summarized by year in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Information- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value by Contract Year |
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2012 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
2014 |
|
|
Thereafter |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Prices actively quoted(1) |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
Other external sources(2) |
|
|
(322 |
) |
|
|
(332 |
) |
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
(848 |
) |
Prices based on models |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total(3) |
|
$ |
(327 |
) |
|
$ |
(332 |
) |
|
$ |
(147 |
) |
|
$ |
(34 |
) |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
(724 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents exchange traded NYMEX futures and options. |
|
(2) |
|
Primarily represents contracts based on broker and ICE quotes. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes $547 million in non-hedge commodity derivative contracts that are primarily
related to NUG contracts. NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not
impact earnings. |
FirstEnergy performs sensitivity analyses to estimate its exposure to the market risk of its
commodity positions. Based on derivative contracts held as of June 30, 2010, an adverse 10% change
in commodity prices would decrease net income by approximately $9 million ($6 million net of tax)
during the next 12 months.
Interest Rate Swap Agreements Fair Value Hedges
FirstEnergy uses fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements to hedge a portion of the
consolidated interest rate risk associated with the debt portfolio of its subsidiaries. These
derivatives are treated as fair value hedges of fixed-rate, long-term debt issues, protecting
against the risk of changes in the fair value of fixed-rate debt instruments due to lower interest
rates. In May of 2010, FirstEnergy terminated fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements with
a notional value of $3.15 billion, which resulted in cash proceeds of $43.1 million. These proceeds
will be amortized to earnings over the life of the underlying debt.
Effective June 1, 2010, FirstEnergy executed multiple fixed-for-floating interest rate swap
agreements with a combined notional value of $3.2 billion, which essentially replaced the swap
agreements terminated in May of 2010. As of June 30, 2010, the debt underlying the $3.2 billion
outstanding notional amount of interest rate swaps had a weighted average fixed interest rate of
6%, which the swaps have converted to a current weighted average variable rate of 4%. A
hypothetical 10% increase in the interest rates associated with variable-rate debt would decrease
net income by less than $1 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010.
On July 16, 2010, FirstEnergy terminated these fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements
with a notional value of $3.2 billion, which resulted in cash proceeds of $83.6 million. These proceeds will be amortized to earnings over the life of the underlying debt. While FirstEnergy currently does not have any interest rate swaps
outstanding, costs associated with entering into future swap transactions may be increased as a
result of the recent passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
which requires increased regulation of swaps, swap dealers and major swap participants.
Equity Price Risk
FirstEnergy provides a noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plan that covers
substantially all of its employees and non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees.
The plan provides defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels. FirstEnergy
also provides health care benefits (which include certain employee contributions, deductibles and
co-payments) upon retirement to employees hired prior to January 1, 2005, their dependents, and
under certain circumstances, their survivors. The benefit plan assets and obligations are
remeasured annually using a December 31 measurement date or as significant triggering events occur.
As of June 30, 2010, approximately 53% of the pension plan is invested in equity securities and 47%
is invested in fixed income securities and the plan is currently underfunded. A decline in the
value of FirstEnergys pension plans could result in additional funding requirements. FirstEnergy
currently estimates that additional cash contributions will be required beginning in 2012. The
overall actual investment result during 2009 was a gain of 13.6% compared to an assumed 9% positive
return.
89
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds have been established to satisfy NGCs and the Utilities
nuclear decommissioning obligations. As of June 30, 2010, approximately 15% of the funds were
invested in equity securities and 85% were invested in fixed income securities, with limitations
related to concentration and investment grade ratings. The equity securities are carried at their
market value of approximately $275 million as of June 30, 2010. A hypothetical 10% decrease in
prices quoted by stock exchanges would result in a $28 million reduction in fair value as of June
30, 2010. The decommissioning trusts of JCP&L and the Pennsylvania Companies are subject to
regulatory accounting, with unrealized gains and losses recorded as regulatory assets or
liabilities, since the difference between investments held in trust and the decommissioning
liabilities will be recovered from or refunded to customers. NGC, OE and TE recognize in earnings
the unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities held in their nuclear decommissioning trusts
as other-than-temporary impairments. A decline in the value of FirstEnergys nuclear
decommissioning trusts could result in additional funding requirements. As of June 30, 2010, $4
million was contributed to the OE and TE nuclear decommissioning trusts to comply with requirements
under certain sale-leaseback transactions in which OE and TE continue as lessees, and $3 million
was contributed to the JCP&L and Pennsylvania nuclear decommissioning trusts to comply with
regulatory requirements. FirstEnergy continues to evaluate the status of its funding obligations
for the decommissioning of these nuclear facilities and does not expect to make additional cash
contributions to the nuclear decommissioning trusts for the remainder of 2010 other than those to
the JCP&L and Pennsylvania Companies nuclear decommissioning trusts due to regulatory
requirements.
CREDIT RISK
Credit risk is the risk of an obligors failure to meet the terms of any investment contract, loan
agreement or otherwise perform as agreed. Credit risk arises from all activities in which success
depends on issuer, borrower or counterparty performance, whether reflected on or off the balance
sheet. FirstEnergy engages in transactions for the purchase and sale of commodities including gas,
electricity, coal and emission allowances. These transactions are often with major energy companies
within the industry.
FirstEnergy maintains credit policies with respect to its counterparties to manage overall credit
risk. This includes performing independent risk evaluations, actively monitoring portfolio trends
and using collateral and contract provisions to mitigate exposure. As part of its credit program,
FirstEnergy aggressively manages the quality of its portfolio of energy contracts, evidenced by a
current weighted average risk rating for energy contract counterparties of BBB (S&P). As of June
30, 2010, the largest credit concentration was with AEP, which is currently rated investment grade,
representing 7.85% of FirstEnergys total approved credit risk.
OUTLOOK
State Regulatory Matters
FirstEnergy and the utilities prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with
the authoritative guidance for accounting for certain types of regulation. Under this guidance,
regulatory assets represent incurred or accrued costs that have been deferred because of their
probable future recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent
the excess recovery of costs or accrued credits that have been deferred because it is probable such
amounts will be returned to customers through future regulated rates. The following table provides
the balance of regulatory assets by Company as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and changes
during the six months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Increase |
|
Regulatory Assets |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
OE |
|
$ |
423 |
|
|
$ |
465 |
|
|
$ |
(42 |
) |
CEI |
|
|
468 |
|
|
|
546 |
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
TE |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
801 |
|
|
|
888 |
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
385 |
|
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
Other |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,313 |
|
|
$ |
2,356 |
|
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90
The following table provides information about the composition of regulatory assets as of June 30,
2010 and December 31, 2009 and the changes during the six months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Increase |
|
Regulatory Assets by Source |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Regulatory transition costs |
|
$ |
1,153 |
|
|
$ |
1,100 |
|
|
$ |
53 |
|
Customer shopping incentives |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
(80 |
) |
Customer receivables for future income taxes |
|
|
332 |
|
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Loss on reacquired debt |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Employee postretirement benefits |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Nuclear decommissioning, decontamination
and spent fuel disposal costs |
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
(162 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
Asset removal costs |
|
|
(235 |
) |
|
|
(231 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
MISO/PJM transmission costs |
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Fuel costs |
|
|
385 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Distribution costs |
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
482 |
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
Other |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,313 |
|
|
$ |
2,356 |
|
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory assets that do not earn a current return totaled approximately $181 million as of
June 30, 2010 (JCP&L $43 million, Met-Ed $131 million, Penelec $3 million and CEI $4
million). Regulatory assets not earning a current return (primarily for certain regulatory
transition costs and employee postretirement benefits) are expected to be recovered by 2014 for
JCP&L and by 2020 for Met-Ed and Penelec.
Reliability Initiatives
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk power system and impose
certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities and ATSI. The NERC
has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight
regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergys facilities are
located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and
ReliabilityFirst 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 the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.
FirstEnergy believes that it is in compliance with all currently-effective and enforceable
reliability standards. Nevertheless, FirstEnergy also believes that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst and
the FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new
reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with new or amended standards cannot be
determined at this time; however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs
incurred to comply with the new reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future
inability on FirstEnergys part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system
could result in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&Ls Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage
on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic
substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC
initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&Ls contribution to the
electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated
with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and
another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what
actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter.
Ohio
The Ohio Companies operate under an Amended ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, and provides for
generation supplied through a CBP. The Amended ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a
delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the
period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation
at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the
Ohio Companies through the CBP. The PUCO approved a $136.6 million distribution rate increase for
the Ohio Companies in January 2009, which went into effect on January 23, 2009 for OE
($68.9 million) and TE ($38.5 million) and on May 1, 2009 for CEI ($29.2 million). As one element
of the Amended ESP, the Ohio Companies agreed not to seek an additional base distribution rate
increase, subject to certain exceptions, that would be effective before January 1, 2012.
Applications for rehearing of the PUCO order in the distribution case were filed by the Ohio
Companies and one other party. The Ohio Companies raised numerous issues in their application for
rehearing related to rate recovery of certain expenses, recovery of line extension costs, the level
of rate of return and the amount of general plant balances. The PUCO has not yet issued a
substantive Entry on Rehearing.
91
On October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure, through a CBP, generation supply
for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier for the period beginning June 1, 2011.
The CBP would be similar, in all material respects, to the CBP conducted in May 2009 in that it
would procure energy, capacity and certain transmission services on a slice of system basis.
However, unlike the May 2009 CBP, the MRO would include multiple bidding sessions and multiple
products with different delivery periods for generation supply designed to reduce potential
volatility and supplier risk and encourage bidder participation. A technical conference and
hearings were held in 2009 and the matter has been fully briefed. Pursuant to SB221, the PUCO has
90 days from the date of the application to determine whether the MRO meets certain statutory
requirements. Although the Ohio Companies requested a PUCO determination by January 18, 2010, on
February 3, 2010, the PUCO announced that its determination would be delayed. Under a determination
that such statutory requirements are met, and to the extent the ESP described below has not been
implemented, the Ohio Companies would expect to implement the MRO.
On March 23, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP, which if approved by the
PUCO, would go into effect on June 1, 2011 and conclude on May 31, 2014. Attached to the
application was a Stipulation and Recommendation signed by the Ohio Companies, the Staff of the
PUCO, and an additional fourteen parties signing as Signatory Parties, with two additional parties
agreeing not to oppose the adoption of the Stipulation. The material terms of the Stipulation
include a CBP similar to the one used in May 2009 and the one proposed in the October 2009 MRO
filing; a 6% generation discount to certain low-income customers provided by the Ohio Companies
through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES; no increase in base distribution rates through
May 31, 2014; and a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR), to recover
a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery system. This Rider substitutes for Rider
DSI which terminates by its own terms. The Ohio Companies also agree not to collect certain amounts
associated with RTEP and administrative costs associated with the move to PJM. Many of the existing
riders approved in the previous ESP remain in effect, some with modifications. The new ESP also
requests the resolution of current proceedings pending at the PUCO regarding corporate separation,
elements of the smart grid proceeding and the move to PJM. The evidentiary hearing began on
April 20, 2010, at the PUCO. The Stipulation requested a decision by the PUCO by May 5, 2010. On
April 28, 2010, the PUCO Chairman issued a statement that the PUCO would not issue a decision on
May 5, 2010, and would take additional time to review the case record. FirstEnergy recorded
approximately $39.5 million of regulatory asset impairments and expenses related to the ESP. On May
12, 2010 a supplemental stipulation was filed that added two additional parties to the Stipulation,
namely the City of Akron, Ohio and Council for Smaller Enterprises, to provide additional energy
efficiency benefits. Pursuant to a PUCO Entry, a hearing was held on June 21, 2010 to consider the
estimated bill impacts arising from the proposed ESP, and testimony was provided in support of the
supplemental stipulation. On July 22, 2010, a second supplemental stipulation was filed that,
among other provisions and if approved, would provide a commitment that retail customers of the
Ohio Companies will not pay certain costs related to the companies integration into PJM, a
regional transmission organization, for the longer of the five year period from June 1, 2011
through May 31, 2016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products
totals $360 million, and establishes a $12 million fund to assist low income customers over the
term of the ESP. Additional parties signing or not opposing the second supplemental stipulation
include Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC), Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition (NOAC),
Environmental Law and Policy Center and a number of low income community agencies. A hearing was
held on the second supplemental stipulation on July 29, 2010. The matter is awaiting decision from
the PUCO.
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency
programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of approximately 166,000 MWH in
2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with
additional savings required through 2025. Utilities are also required to reduce peak demand in 2009
by 1%, with an additional 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The PUCO may amend
these benchmarks in certain, limited circumstances, and the Ohio Companies filed an application
with the PUCO seeking such amendments. On January 7, 2010, the PUCO amended the Ohio Companies
2009 energy efficiency benchmarks to zero, contingent upon the Ohio Companies meeting the revised
benchmarks in a period of not more than three years. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that the
Ohio Companies peak demand reduction programs complied with PUCO rules.
On December 15, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking
approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand
reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. On March 8, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed their
2009 Status Update Report with the PUCO in which they indicated compliance with the 2009 statutory
energy efficiency and peak demand benchmarks as those benchmarks were amended as described
above. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable
from customers. The Ohio Companies three year portfolio plan is still awaiting decision from the
PUCO. The plan has yet to be approved by the PUCO, which is delaying the launch of the programs
described in the plan. Without such approval, the Ohio Companies compliance with 2010 benchmarks
is jeopardized and if not approved soon may require the Ohio Companies to seek an amendment to
their annual benchmark requirements for 2010. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain
such an amendment may subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a forfeiture.
92
Additionally under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve
part of their load from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25% of the KWH they serve in
2009. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RFPs sought
RECs, including solar RECs and RECs generated in Ohio in order to meet the Ohio Companies
alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The RECs acquired
through these two RFPs will be used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established
under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that there was an
insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. The PUCO
reduced the Ohio Companies aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies
acquired through their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Companies 2010 alternative energy
requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. On April 15,
2010, the Ohio Companies and FES (due to its status as an electric service company in Ohio) filed
compliance reports with the PUCO setting forth how they individually satisfied the alternative
energy requirements in SB221 for 2009. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the
PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark, which
application is still pending. On July 1, 2010, the Ohio Companies announced their intent to conduct
an RFP in 2010 to secure RECs and solar RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies alternative energy
requirements as set forth in SB221. RFP bids are due August 3, 2010 and contracts are expected to
be signed the week of August 9, 2010.
On February 12, 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for
all-electric customers. On March 3, 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers
be set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31,
2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between
what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with
the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect on March 17, 2010.
On April 15, 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers
to which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the associated additional amounts.
The PUCO also stated that the new credit would remain in place through at least the 2011 winter
season, and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the issue.
Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect on May 21, 2010. The Ohio
Companies also filed on May 14, 2010 an application for rehearing of the Second Entry on Rehearing,
which was granted for purposes of further consideration on June 9, 2010. No hearing has been
scheduled in this matter.
As noted above in Note 8, FirstEnergy, CEI and OE filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
related to the PUCO approved reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for
residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems.
The court has not yet ruled on that motion to dismiss.
Pennsylvania
Met-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their POLR and default service requirements from FES
through a fixed-price partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement. The agreement allows
Met-Ed and Penelec to sell the output of NUG energy to the market and requires FES to provide
energy at fixed prices to replace any NUG energy sold to the extent needed for Met-Ed and Penelec
to satisfy their POLR and default service obligations.
Met-Ed and Penelec filed with the PPUC a generation procurement plan covering the period January 1,
2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service via a
prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply, as required by Act 129,
with a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class, through the use of a
descending clock auction. On August 12, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a settlement agreement with
the PPUC for the generation procurement plan, reflecting the settlement on all but two reserved
issues. On November 6, 2009, the PPUC entered an Order approving the settlement and finding in
favor of Met-Ed and Penelec on the two reserved issues. Generation procurement began in January
2010.
On February 8, 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period
June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. The parties to the proceeding have reached a settlement on all
issues and filed a joint petition to approve the settlement agreement in July 2010. The PPUC is
required to issue an order on the plan no later than November 8, 2010. If approved, procurement
under the plan is expected to begin January 2011.
The PPUC adopted a Motion on January 28, 2010 and subsequently entered an Order on March 3, 2010
which denies the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of
June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and directs Met-Ed and Penelec to submit a new tariff or
tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and
instructs Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation
to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all marginal transmission losses
collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases
beginning January 1, 2011. On March 18, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC
requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff
supplements to end collection of marginal transmission loss costs. By Order entered March 25, 2010,
the PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUCs order, Met-Ed
and Penelec filed the plan to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues
and related interest and carrying charges and the plan for the use of these funds to mitigate
future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011. The PPUC approved this plan June 7,
2010.
93
On
April 1, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUCs March 3, 2010
Order. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, it is the
belief of Met-Ed and Penelec that they should prevail in the appeal and therefore expect to fully
recover the approximately $199.7 million ($158.5 million for Met-Ed and $41.2 million for Penelec)
in marginal transmission losses for the period prior to January 1, 2011. On April 2, 2010, Met-Ed
and Penelec filed a Response to the PPUCs March 3, 2010 Order requesting approval of procedures to
establish separate accounts to track all marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest
and the use of those funds to mitigate future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011,
and the PPUC entered an Order on June 7, 2010, granting Met-Eds and Penelecs request. On July 9
2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed their briefs with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Office
of Small Business Advocate filed its brief on July 9, 2010. The PPUCs brief is due to be filed in
August 2010.
On May 20, 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Eds and Penelecs annual updates to their TSC rider for the
period June 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 including marginal transmission losses as approved by
the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding
related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The TSC for Met-Eds customers increased to be
fully recovered by December 31, 2010.
Act 129 was enacted in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction;
generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other things
Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load reduction plan,
or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities plans to reduce energy consumption by a
minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce peak demand by a
minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. The PPUC entered an Order on February 26, 2010 approving the
Pennsylvania Companies EE&C Plans and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010.
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan
with the PPUC. This plan proposes a 24-month assessment period in which the Pennsylvania Companies
will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install
and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which
currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate
assessment period costs at approximately $29.5 million, which the Pennsylvania Companies, in their
plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJs Initial Decision
approved the Smart Meter Plan as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to
be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUCs Implementation Order; eliminating the
provision of interest in the 1307(e) reconciliation; providing for the recovery of reasonable and
prudent costs minus resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and reflecting
that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development
in the assessment period be capitalized. On April 15, 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman
Cawley that modified the ALJs initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the Smart
Meter Implementation Plan for the Pennsylvania Companies. The PPUC entered its Order on June 9,
2010, consistent with the Chairmans Motion. On June 24, 2010, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a
Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUCs Order regarding the future ability
to roll smart meter costs into base rates.
Legislation addressing rate mitigation and the expiration of rate caps was introduced in the
legislative session that ended in 2008; several bills addressing these issues were introduced in
the 2009 legislative session. The final form and impact of such legislation is uncertain.
By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment
period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply
over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a
cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the Tentative Order, various parties
filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and
Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.
New Jersey
JCP&L is permitted to defer for future collection from customers the amounts by which its costs of
supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other
stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUGC rates and market sales of NUG energy
and capacity. As of June 30, 2010, the accumulated deferred cost balance totaled approximately
$81 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, on July 26, 2010, JCP&L filed a
request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by $180
million annually. If approved as filed, the change would not go into effect until January 1, 2011.
94
In accordance with an April 28, 2004 NJBPU order, JCP&L filed testimony on June 7, 2004, supporting
continuation of the current level and duration of the funding of TMI-2 decommissioning costs by New
Jersey customers without a reduction, termination or capping of the funding. On September 30, 2004,
JCP&L filed an updated TMI-2 decommissioning study. This study resulted in an updated total
decommissioning cost estimate of $729 million (in 2003 dollars) compared to the estimated
$528 million (in 2003 dollars) from the prior 1995 decommissioning study. The DPA filed comments on
February 28, 2005 requesting that decommissioning funding be suspended. On March 18, 2005,
JCP&L filed a response to those comments. JCP&L responded to additional NJBPU staff discovery
requests in May and November 2007 and also submitted comments in the proceeding in November 2007. A
schedule for further NJBPU proceedings has not yet been set. On March 13, 2009, JCP&L filed its
annual SBC Petition with the NJBPU that includes a request for a reduction in the level of recovery
of TMI-2 decommissioning costs based on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated
January 2009 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). This matter is currently pending before
the NJBPU.
New Jersey statutes require that the state periodically undertake a planning process, known as the
EMP, to address energy related issues including energy security, economic growth, and environmental
impact. The NJBPU adopted an order establishing the general process and contents of specific EMP
plans that must be filed by New Jersey electric and gas utilities in order to achieve the goals of
the EMP. On April 16, 2010, the NJBPU issued an order indefinitely suspending the requirement of
New Jersey utilities to submit Utility Master Plans until such time as the status of the EMP has
been made clear. At this time, FirstEnergy and JCP&L cannot determine the impact, if any, the EMP
may have on their operations.
In support of former New Jersey Governor Corzines Economic Assistance and Recovery Plan, JCP&L
announced a proposal to spend approximately $98 million on infrastructure and energy efficiency
projects in 2009. Under the proposal, an estimated $40 million would be spent on infrastructure
projects, including substation upgrades, new transformers, distribution line re-closers and
automated breaker operations. In addition, approximately $34 million would be spent implementing
new demand response programs as well as expanding on existing programs. Another $11 million would
be spent on energy efficiency, specifically replacing transformers and capacitor control systems
and installing new LED street lights. The remaining $13 million would be spent on energy efficiency
programs that would complement those currently being offered. The project relating to expansion of
the existing demand response programs was approved by the NJBPU on August 19, 2009, and
implementation began in 2009. Approval for the project related to energy efficiency programs
intended to complement those currently being offered was denied by the NJBPU on December 1, 2009.
On July 6, 2010, the January 30, 2009 petition directed to infrastructure investment which had been
pending before the NJBPU was withdrawn by JCP&L. Implementation of the remaining projects is
dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the
proposal.
FERC Matters
PJM Transmission Rate
On April 19, 2007, the FERC issued an order (Opinion 494) finding that the PJM transmission owners
existing license plate or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current
license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new
transmission facilities, the FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are
rated at 500 kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM
footprint by means of a postage-stamp rate based on the amount of load served in a transmission
zone. Costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be
allocated on a load flow methodology, referred to as DFAX, generally referred to as a
beneficiary pays approach to allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities. The
FERC found that PJMs current beneficiary-pays cost allocation methodology was not sufficiently
detailed and, in a related order that also was issued on April 19, 2007, directed that hearings be
held for the purpose of establishing a just and reasonable cost allocation methodology for
inclusion in PJMs tariff. FERC ultimately issued an order approving use of the beneficiary pays
method of cost allocation for transmission facilities included in the PJM regional plan that
operate below 500 kV.
The FERCs April 19, 2007 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
which issued a decision on August 6, 2009. The court affirmed FERCs ratemaking treatment for
existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate
costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded
the rate design issue back to FERC.
In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for paper hearings meaning that FERC
called for parties to submit comments or written testimony pursuant to the schedule described in
the order. FERC identified nine separate issues for comments, and directed PJM to file the first
round of comments on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments within 45
days, and reply comments 30 days later. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in
response to the FERC order. PJMs filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage
transmission facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM
bearing the majority of their costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May
28, 2010 and reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities,
industrial customers and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for
cost allocation for high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state
commissions supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. FERC is
not expected to act before the fourth quarter of 2010.
95
RTO Consolidation
FERC issued an order approving, subject to certain future compliance filings, ATSIs move to PJM.
This allows FirstEnergy to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently,
FirstEnergys transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The
consolidation will make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the
Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. Most of FirstEnergys transmission assets in Pennsylvania and
all of the transmission assets in New Jersey already operate as a part of PJM. FERC approved
FirstEnergys proposal to use a Fixed Resource Requirement Plan (FRR Plan) to obtain capacity to
satisfy the PJM capacity requirements for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years.
In December 2009, ATSI executed the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement and the Ohio
Companies and Penn executed the PJM Operating Agreement and the PJM Reliability Assurance
Agreement. Execution of these agreements committed ATSI and the Ohio Companies and Penns load to
moving into PJM on the schedule described in the application and approved in the FERC Order.
FirstEnergy successfully conducted the FRR auctions on March 19, and participated in the PJM base
residual auction for the 2013 delivery year, thereby obtaining the capacity necessary for its ATSI
footprint to meet PJMs capacity requirements. FirstEnergy expects to integrate into PJM effective
June 1, 2011.
On September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohios stakeholders regarding
the RTO consolidation. Several parties have intervened in the regulatory dockets at the FERC and at
the PUCO. Certain interveners have commented and protested particular elements of the proposed RTO
consolidation, including an exit fee to MISO, integration costs to PJM, and cost-allocations of
future transmission upgrades in PJM and MISO.
MISO Complaints Versus PJM
On March 9, 2010, MISO filed two
complaints against PJM with FERC under Sections 206, 306 and 309 of the
FPA alleging violations of the MISO/PJM Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). In
Docket EL 10-46-000, the complaint alleges that PJM erroneously calculated
charges to MISO for market-to-market settlements made from 2005 to 2009
pursuant to the congestion management provisions of the JOA. The MISO seeks
approximately $130 million plus interest to correct for resultant net
underpayments from PJM to MISO. In Docket No.EL10-45-000, MISO alleges that by
failing to account for the market flows from 34 PJM generators over the period
from 2007-2009, PJM underpaid MISO by a total of roughly $75 million including
interest. For the period from 2005-2007, MISO claimed an underpayment by PJM of
at least $12 million plus interest. MISO also claimed that PJM failed to
maintain required records necessary to calculate underbilling for the 2005-2007
billing.
In the second complaint, MISO alleged that PJM has refused to comply with provisions of the JOA
requiring market-to-market dispatch since 2009, and is improperly demanding repayment of redispatch
payments previously made to MISO. PJM filed its answers to the complaints on April 12, 2010,
opposing the relief sought by MISO.
In addition, on April 12, 2010, PJM filed a complaint with FERC pursuant to Section 206, 306, and
309 alleging that MISO is violating the JOA with PJM by initiating market-to-market coordination
and financial settlements for substitute (proxy) reciprocal coordinated flowgates between MISO and
PJM. PJM claims that the JOA does not permit MISO to initiate market-to-market settlements using
proxy flowgates in lieu of designated reciprocal coordinated flowgates. This complaint addresses
substantially the same issues as the second MISO complaint, in which MISO argues that the use of
proxy flowgates is permitted by agreement of the RTOs and operating practice. Each party filed a
complaint in order to ensure their right to claim refunds, if any, if successful in their arguments
at FERC.
On June 29, 2010, FERC issued an order consolidating the cases and establishing settlement judge
procedures. If the settlement process is unsuccessful, the cases will proceed to evidentiary
hearings. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
On July 15, 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with the FERC their
proposed cost allocation methodology for new transmission projects. If approved, so-called Multi
Value Projects (MVPs) transmission projects that have a regional impact and are part of a
regional plan will have a 100% regional allocation of costs under the proposed methodology. If
approved by FERC, MISOs proposal is expected to permit the allocation of the costs of large
transmission projects designed to integrate wind from the upper Midwest across the entire MISO.
MISO has requested a FERC response to the filing by the FERCs December open meeting, but an
effective date for its proposal of July 16, 2011. Under MISOs proposal, the costs of MVP projects
approved by MISOs Board prior to the June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergys integration into
PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy.
Environmental Matters
Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water
quality and other environmental matters. Compliance with environmental regulations could have a
material adverse effect on FirstEnergys earnings and competitive position to the extent that
FirstEnergy competes with companies that are not subject to such regulations and, therefore, do not
bear the risk of costs associated with compliance, or failure to comply, with such regulations.
96
CAA Compliance
FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO2 and NOX emissions regulations under the CAA.
FirstEnergy complies with SO2 and NOx reduction requirements under the CAA and State
Implementation Plan(s) under the CAA (SIPs) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion controls and
post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower-emitting plants, and/or using
emission allowances. Violations can result in the shutdown of the generating unit involved and/or
civil or criminal penalties.
The Sammis, Burger, Eastlake and Mansfield coal-fired plants are operated under a consent decree
with the EPA and DOJ that requires reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions
through the installation of pollution control devices or repowering. OE and Penn are subject to
stipulated penalties for failure to install and operate such pollution controls or complete
repowering in accordance with that agreement. Capital expenditures necessary to complete
requirements of the consent decree, including repowering Burger Units 4 and 5 for biomass fuel
combustion, are currently estimated to be approximately $399 million for 2010-2012.
In 2007, PennFuture filed a citizen suit under the CAA, alleging violations of air pollution laws
at the Bruce Mansfield Plant, including opacity limitations, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. In July 2008, three additional complaints were filed against FGCO
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania also seeking damages based on
Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce
Mansfield Plant from operating except in a safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner one being
a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other being a class action complaint
seeking certification as a class action with the eight named plaintiffs as the class
representatives. A settlement was reached with PennFuture. FGCO believes the claims of the
remaining plaintiffs are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in
those three complaints.
The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at
the Portland Generation Station against Reliant (the current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the
purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in 1999), GPU and Met-Ed. Specifically, these suits
allege that modifications at Portland Units 1 and 2 occurred between 1980 and 2005 without
preconstruction NSR or permitting under the CAAs PSD program, and seek injunctive relief,
penalties, attorney fees and mitigation of the harm caused by excess emissions. In September 2009,
the Court granted Met-Eds motion to dismiss New Jerseys and Connecticuts claims for injunctive
relief against Met-Ed, but denied Met-Eds motion to dismiss the claims for civil penalties. The
parties dispute the scope of Met-Eds indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy.
In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to Reliant alleging NSR violations at the Portland Generation
Station based on modifications dating back to 1986 and also alleged NSR violations at the
Keystone and Shawville Stations based on modifications dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L as the
former owner of 16.67% of the Keystone Station, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of the
Shawville Station, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc.
alleging that modifications at the Homer City Power Station occurred since 1988 to the present
without preconstruction NSR permitting under the CAAs PSD program. In May 2010, the EPA issued a
second NOV to Mission Energy Westside, Inc., Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership
interest in the Homer City Power Station containing in all material respects identical allegations
as the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission
Energy Westside, Inc., Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer
City Power Station a notification required 60 days prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA.
Mission Energy is seeking indemnification from Penelec, the co-owner and operator of the Homer City
Power Station prior to its sale in 1999. The scope of Penelecs indemnity obligation to and from
Mission Energy is under dispute and Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In August 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and
Ohio regulations, including the PSD, NNSR, and Title V regulations at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay
Shore, and Ashtabula generating plants. The EPAs NOV alleges equipment replacements occurring
during maintenance outages dating back to 1990 triggered the pre-construction permitting
requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs. FGCO received a request for certain operating and
maintenance information and planning information for these same generating plants and notification
that the EPA is evaluating whether certain scheduled maintenance at the Eastlake generating plant
may constitute a major modification under the NSR provision of the CAA. Later in 2009, FGCO
received another information request regarding emission projections for the Eastlake generating
plant. FGCO intends to comply with the CAA, including the EPAs information requests, but, at this
time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
97
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The EPAs CAIR requires reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and
2015), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.5 million tons annually
and NOX emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia vacated CAIR in its entirety and directed the EPA to redo its analysis from the
ground up. In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and allowed CAIR to remain
in effect to temporarily preserve its environmental values until the EPA replaces CAIR with a new
rule consistent with the Courts opinion. The Court ruled in a different case that a cap-and-trade
program similar to CAIR, called the NOX SIP Call, cannot be used to satisfy certain CAA
requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for areas in non-attainment under
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In July 2010, the EPA proposed the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) to
replace CAIR, which remains in effect until the EPA finalizes CATR. CATR requires reductions of NOX
and SO2 emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO2
emissions in affected states to 2.6 million tons annually and NOX emissions to 1.3 million tons
annually. The EPA proposed a preferred regulatory approach that allows trading of NOX and
SO2 emission allowances between power plants located in the same state with severe
limits on interstate trading and two alternative approachesthe first eliminates interstate
trading of NOX and SO2 emission allowances and the second eliminates trading of NOX and
SO2 emission allowances in its entirety. Depending on the actions taken by the EPA with
respect to CATR, the proposed MACT regulations discussed below, and any future regulations that are ultimately implemented, FGCOs future cost of
compliance may be substantial. Management is currently assessing the impact
of these environmental proposals and other factors on FCGOs facilities, particularly on the operation of its smaller, non-supercritical units. For example, management may
decide to idle certain of these units or operate them on a seasonal basis until developments clarify.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
The EPAs CAMR provides for a cap-and-trade program to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants in two phases; initially, capping nationwide emissions of mercury at 38 tons by 2010
(as a co-benefit from implementation of SO2 and NOX emission caps under the
EPAs CAIR program) and 15 tons per year by 2018. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, at the urging of several states and environmental groups vacated the CAMR, ruling that
the EPA failed to take the necessary steps to de-list coal-fired power plants from its hazardous
air pollutant program and, therefore, could not promulgate a cap-and-trade program. The EPA entered
into a consent decree requiring it to propose maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
regulations for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants by March 16, 2011, and to finalize the
regulations by November 16, 2011. On April 29, 2010, the EPA issued proposed MACT regulations
requiring emissions reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from non-electric
generating unit boilers, including boilers which do not use fossil fuels such as the proposed
Burger biomass repowering project. If finalized, the non-electric generating unit MACT regulations
could also provide precedent for MACT standards applicable to electric generating units. Depending
on the action taken by the EPA and on how any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FGCOs
future cost of compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to FGCOs operations
may result.
Pennsylvania has submitted a new mercury rule for EPA approval that does not provide a
cap-and-trade approach as in the CAMR, but rather follows a command-and-control approach imposing
emission limits on individual sources. On December 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
affirmed the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruling that Pennsylvanias mercury rule is
unlawful, invalid and unenforceable and enjoined the Commonwealth from continued implementation
or enforcement of that rule.
Climate Change
There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state
and international level. At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills
seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States, and the House of Representatives passed
one such bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, on June 26, 2009. The Senate
continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. President Obama has
announced his Administrations New Energy for America Plan that includes, among other provisions,
ensuring that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012,
increasing to 25% by 2025, and implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG
emissions by 80% by 2050. State activities, primarily the northeastern states participating in the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts
to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs.
The EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate air pollutants from electric generating plants
and other facilities. In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and
reporting rule that will require FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and submit
reports commencing in 2011. In December 2009, the EPA released its final Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPAs finding concludes that
concentrations of several key GHG increase the threat of climate change. In April 2010, the EPA
finalized new GHG standards for model years 2012 to 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks and
medium-duty passenger vehicles and clarified that GHG regulation under the CAA will not be
triggered for electric generating plants and other stationary sources until January 2, 2011, at the
earliest. In May 2010, the EPA finalized new thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits
under the CAA program would be required. The EPA established an emissions applicability threshold
of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) effective January 2, 2011 for
existing facilities under the CAAs Prevention of Significant Determination (PSD) program, but
until July 1, 2011 that emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is triggered by
non-carbon dioxide pollutants.
98
At the international level, the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the U.S. in 1998 but never submitted for
ratification by the U.S. Senate, was intended to address global warming by reducing the amount of
man-made GHG, including CO2, emitted by developed countries by 2012. A December 2009
U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen did not reach a consensus on a successor treaty to the
Kyoto Protocol, but did take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding political agreement
which recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two
degrees Celsius, included a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30
billion over the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020, and
established the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, and other
climate-related activities in developing countries. Once they have become a party to the Copenhagen
Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia, and the United States,
would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries,
including Brazil, China, and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their
domestic measurement, reporting, and verification.
On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on October 16, 2009,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that
had dismissed complaints alleging damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds; however, a
subsequent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court
dismissal of a complaint alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort
claims, including public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global
warming and result in property damages. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, should
the court of appeals decision be affirmed or not subjected to further review, FirstEnergy and/or
one or more of its subsidiaries could be named in actions making similar allegations.
FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although
potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2 emissions, or litigation
alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or
result in changes to its operations. The CO2 emissions per KWH of electricity generated
by FirstEnergy is lower than many regional competitors due to its diversified generation sources,
which include low or non-CO2 emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.
Clean Water Act
Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water
Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergys plants. In addition, Ohio, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergys operations.
The EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for
reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing
electric generating plants. The regulations call for reductions in impingement mortality (when
aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system) and
entrainment (which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facilitys cooling water system). The
EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should
continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment to minimize impacts on
fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuits opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best
technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake
structures. The EPA is developing a new regulation under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act
consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals which have created
significant uncertainty about the specific nature, scope and timing of the final performance
standard. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness,
including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore power plants water intake
channel to divert fish away from the plants water intake system. On March 15, 2010, the EPA
issued a draft permit for the Bay Shore power plant requiring installation of reverse louvers in
its entire water intake channel by December 31, 2014. Depending on the results of such studies and
the EPAs further rulemaking and any final action taken by the states exercising best professional
judgment, the future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital
expenditures.
In June 2008, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is considering
prosecution under the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills
at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26,
2007 and February 27, 2007. FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Regulation of Waste Disposal
Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Certain fossil-fuel combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste
disposal requirements pending the EPAs evaluation of the need for future regulation. In February
2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on options for regulating coal combustion
residuals, including whether they should be regulated as hazardous or non-hazardous waste.
99
On December 30, 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA said that the large
volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk
to the industry. On May 4, 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal
combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPAs
hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management,
beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FGCOs future cost of compliance with any
coal combustion residuals regulations which may be promulgated could be substantial and would
depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the
states.
The Utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may
require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability
involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all
potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis.
Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the consolidated
balance sheet as of June 30, 2010, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Utilities
proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated
entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $105 million (JCP&L $76 million, TE
$1 million, CEI $1 million, FGCO $1 million and FirstEnergy $26 million) have been accrued
through June 30, 2010. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $67 million
for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder facilities in New
Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC.
Other Legal Proceedings
Power Outages and Related Litigation
In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power
outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&Ls territory.
Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New
Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory
and punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the
Plaintiffs claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict
product liability, and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of
contract causes of actions. Early in 2010, the Appellate Division heard oral argument on
plaintiffs appeal of the trial courts decision decertifying the class, and on July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial courts decision.
Litigation Relating to the Proposed Allegheny Energy Merger
In connection with the proposed merger (Note 15), purported shareholders of Allegheny Energy have
filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland
state courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
against Allegheny Energy and its directors and certain officers, referred to as the Allegheny
Energy defendants, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub. In summary, the lawsuits allege, among other things,
that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger
agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, jury trials, money damages and
injunctive relief. Additional details about the actions are provided below. While FirstEnergy
believes the lawsuits are without merit and has defended vigorously against the claims, in order to
avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the defendants have agreed to the terms of a
disclosure-based settlement of the lawsuits. The defendants reached an agreement with counsel for
all of the plaintiffs concerning fee applications, but a formal stipulation of settlement has not
yet been filed with any court. If the parties are unable to obtain final approval of the
settlement, then litigation will proceed, and the outcome of any such litigation is inherently
uncertain. If a dismissal is not granted or a settlement is not reached, these lawsuits could
prevent or delay the completion of the merger and result in substantial costs to FirstEnergy. The
defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the merger closes
may adversely affect FirstEnergys business, financial condition or results of operations.
Four putative class action and derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland. One was withdrawn. The court consolidated the three cases under the caption Oakmont
Capital Management, LLC v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 24-C-10-1301, and appointed Lewis M. Lynn as
Lead Plaintiff. Plaintiff Lynn filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 12, 2010. On
April 21, 2010, defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure
to state a claim. The court has stayed all discovery pending resolution of those motions. The court
also has entered a stipulated order certifying a class with no opt-out rights. On May 27, 2010, the
parties reported to the court that they have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement
and requested that the court cancel the oral argument on the motions to dismiss that had been
scheduled for June 3, 2010. On May 28, 2010, the court removed the hearing from its calendar.
100
Three shareholder lawsuits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, raising putative class action and derivative claims against the Allegheny Energy
directors and officers, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy. The court has consolidated these actions
under the caption, In re Allegheny Energy, Inc. Shareholder Class and Derivative, Litigation, Lead
Case No. 1101 of 2010, and appointed lead counsel. On April 5, 2010, the Allegheny Energy
defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Proceedings. Shortly thereafter, FirstEnergy similarly filed
a Motion to Stay. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery. The court scheduled a hearing
on the motions for May 27, 2010. On May 21, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated
Shareholder Derivative and Class Complaint. On May 26, 2010, the parties filed a Motion for a
Continuance of the May 27 hearing, which the court granted. On June 1, 2010, the parties reported
to the court that they have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement.
A putative shareholder lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 10-319 NBF. On June 1, 2010, the parties reported to
the court that they have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement.
Nuclear Plant Matters
During a planned refueling outage that began on February 28, 2010, FENOC conducted a non
destructive examination and testing of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) Nozzles of the
Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head. FENOC identified flaws in CRDM nozzles that required
modification. The NRC was notified of these findings, along with federal, state and local
officials. On March 17, 2010, the NRC sent a special inspection team to Davis-Besse to assess the
adequacy of FENOCs identification, analyses and resolution of the CRDM nozzle flaws and to ensure
acceptable modifications were made prior to placing the RPV head back in service. After
successfully completing the modifications, FENOC committed to take a number of corrective actions
including strengthening leakage monitoring procedures and shutting Davis-Besse down no later than
October 1, 2011, to replace the reactor pressure vessel head with nozzles made of material less
susceptible to primary water stress corrosion cracking further enhancing the safe and reliable
operations of the plant. On June 29, 2010, FENOC returned Davis-Besse to service.
On April 5, 2010, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) requested that the NRC issue a Show Cause
Order, or otherwise delay the restart of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station until the NRC
determines that adequate protection standards have been met and reasonable assurance exists that
these standards will continue to be met after the plants operation is resumed. By a letter dated
July 13, 2010, the NRC denied UCSs request for immediate action because the NRC has conducted
rigorous and independent assessments of returning the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head to service
and its continued operation, and determined that it was safe for the plant to restart. The UCS
petition was referred to a petition manager for further review. What additional actions, if any
that the NRC takes in response to the UCS request, have not been determined.
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to
decommission its nuclear facilities. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and
adjusts the amount of obligations. As of June 30, 2010, FirstEnergy had approximately $1.9 billion
invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of
Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. As part of the application to the NRC to transfer the
ownership of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley and Perry to NGC in 2005, FirstEnergy provided an
additional $80 million parental guarantee associated with the funding of decommissioning costs for
these units and indicated that it planned to contribute an additional $80 million to these trusts
by 2010. By a letter dated March 8, 2010, primarily as a result of the Beaver Valley Power Station
operating license renewal, FENOC requested that the NRC reduce FirstEnergys parental guarantee to
$15 million and notified the staff that it no longer planned to make the additional contributions
into the trusts. By a letter dated July 14, 2010, the NRC stated that it had no objection to the
reduction in the parental guarantee.
Other Legal Matters
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related
to FirstEnergys normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The
other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.
On April 14, 2010, JCP&L reached an agreement on a settlement package with its bargaining unit
employees regarding a grievance challenging JCP&Ls 2002 call-out procedure that required
bargaining unit employees to respond to emergency power outages. The agreement included an
agreed-upon settlement amount and extension of the collective bargaining agreement. On July 22,
2010, the court signed an order approving and implementing the parties agreement. As of June 30,
2010, JCP&L reduced its reserve to $9 million for the settlement which will be paid to the
employees over the next thirty days beginning on July 25, 2010. The collective bargaining agreement
extension is also effective as of July 25, 2010.
101
On February 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas
against FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to
the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with
electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount
was approved by the PUCO. On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to
dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court has not
yet ruled on that motion to dismiss. The named-defendant companies will continue to defend these
claims including challenging any class certification.
FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an
obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. If it were
ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise
made subject to liability based on the above matters, it could have a material adverse effect on
FirstEnergys or its subsidiaries financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
See Note 10 of the Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) for
discussion of new accounting pronouncements.
102
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
FES is a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. FES provides energy-related products and services,
and through its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, owns or leases and operates and maintains FirstEnergys
fossil and hydroelectric generation facilities, and owns FirstEnergys nuclear generation
facilities, respectively. FENOC, a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains
the nuclear generating facilities.
FES revenues are derived from sales to individual retail customers, sales to communities in the
form of government aggregation programs, the sale of electricity to Met-Ed and Penelec to meet all
of their POLR and default service requirements and its participation in affiliated and
non-affiliated POLR auctions. FES revenues also include sales to non-affiliated customers in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Illinois and Maryland.
The demand for electricity produced and sold by FES, along with the price of that electricity, is
impacted by conditions in competitive power markets, global economic activity, economic activity in
the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions and weather conditions.
For additional information with respect to FES, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
above under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein:
Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements,
Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income decreased by $254 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The decrease was primarily due to higher purchased power costs, the absence of a $252
million ($158 million after tax) gain in 2009 from the sale of a 9% participation interest in OVEC
and increased fuel and interest expense, partially offset by higher revenues and investment income.
Revenues
Total revenues, excluding the OVEC sale, increased $388 million in the first six months of 2010,
compared to the same period of 2009 primarily due to an increase in direct and government
aggregation sales volumes and sales of RECs, partially offset by decreases in POLR sales to the
Ohio Companies and wholesale sales.
The increase in revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
1,097 |
|
|
$ |
174 |
|
|
$ |
923 |
|
POLR |
|
|
1,260 |
|
|
|
1,732 |
|
|
|
(472 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
311 |
|
|
|
(125 |
) |
Transmission |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
RECs |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
Sale of OVEC participation interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
Other |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
2,703 |
|
|
$ |
2,567 |
|
|
$ |
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and government aggregation revenues of $923 million resulted from increased
revenue in both the MISO and PJM markets. The increase in revenue primarily resulted from the
acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers, as well as new government aggregation
contracts with communities in Ohio that provide generation to approximately 1.1 million residential
and small commercial customers at the end of June 2010 compared to approximately 21,000 at the end
of June 2009, partially offset by lower unit prices. During January 2010, FES began supplying power
to approximately 425,000 NOPEC customers.
103
The decrease in POLR revenues of $472 million was due to lower sales volumes to the Ohio Companies
and lower unit prices, partially offset by increased sales volumes and higher unit prices to the
Pennsylvania Companies. The lower sales volumes and unit prices to the Ohio Companies in 2010
reflected the results of the May 2009 power procurement process. The increased revenues to the
Pennsylvania Companies resulted from FES supplying Met-Ed and Penelec with volumes previously
supplied through a third-party contract at prices that were slightly higher than in 2009.
Wholesale revenues decreased $125 million due to reduced volumes reflecting market declines and
lower prices.
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues
from generation sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
633 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
586 |
|
|
|
|
|
Government Aggregation |
|
|
|
|
Effect of an increase in sales volumes |
|
|
337 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
337 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Govt Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 15.1% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(262 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(472 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 56.7% decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(123 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Wholesale Revenues |
|
$ |
(597 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues decreased $5 million due primarily to lower PJM congestion revenue.
Expenses
Total expenses increased $539 million in the first six months of 2010, compared with the same
period of 2009.
The following table summarizes the factors contributing to the changes in fuel and purchased power
costs in the first six months of 2010, from the same period last year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Fuel and Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Fossil Fuel: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
$ |
33 |
|
Change due to volume consumed |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Fuel: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
18 |
|
Change due to volume consumed |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-affiliated Purchased Power: |
|
|
|
|
Power contract mark-to-market adjustment |
|
|
17 |
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
|
(98 |
) |
Change due to volume purchased |
|
|
484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
403 |
|
|
|
|
|
Affiliated Purchased Power: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Change due to volume purchased |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Fuel and Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
512 |
|
|
|
|
|
104
Fossil fuel costs increased $73 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, as a result of higher volumes consumed combined with increased prices. Increased
volume reflects higher generation in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period last
year due to improving economic conditions. The increased costs reflect higher coal and
transportation charges in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period last year.
Nuclear fuel costs increased $21 million, primarily due to the replacement of nuclear fuel at
higher unit costs following the refueling outages that occurred in 2009.
Non-affiliated purchased power costs increased $403 million due primarily to higher volumes
purchased and a power contract mark-to-market adjustment, partially offset by lower unit costs. The
increase in volume primarily relates to the assumption of a 1,300 MW contract from Met-Ed and
Penelec. Affiliated purchased power increased primarily due to higher volumes purchased from
affiliated companies due to the Perry nuclear refueling outage in 2009.
Other operating expenses increased $23 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to increased transmission expenses ($33 million) and increased
uncollectible customer accounts and agent fees associated with the growth in direct and government
aggregation sales ($19 million), partially offset by lower nuclear operating costs ($37 million).
General taxes increased $4 million due to sales taxes associated with increased revenues.
Other Expense
Total other expense decreased $2 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to a $36 million increase in investment income resulting from more
favorable performance of nuclear decommissioning trust investments, partially offset by a $31
million increase in interest expense (net of capitalized interest). Interest expense increased
primarily due to new long-term debt issued in the second half of 2009 combined with the
restructuring of existing long-term debt.
105
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
OE is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. OE and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Penn, conduct business in portions of Ohio and Pennsylvania, providing regulated
electric distribution services. They procure generation services for those franchise customers
electing to retain OE and Penn as their power supplier.
For additional information with respect to OE, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
above under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein:
Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements,
Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent increased by $28 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009. The increase primarily resulted from lower purchased power costs and other
operating costs, partially offset by lower revenues.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $473 million, or 33.3%, in the first six months of 2010, compared with the same
period in 2009, due primarily to a decrease in generation revenues. Distribution revenues also were
lower than they were in the first half of 2009.
Retail generation revenues decreased $438 million primarily due to a decrease in KWH sales in all
customer classes, partially offset by higher average prices in the commercial and industrial
classes. Lower KWH sales were primarily the result of a 46.1% increase in customer shopping in the
first six months of 2010. Lower KWH sales to residential customers were partially offset by
increased weather-related usage in the first six months of 2010, reflecting a 62% increase in
cooling degree days in OEs service territory. Higher average prices in the commercial and
industrial classes resulted from the CBP auction for the service period beginning June 1, 2009.
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period in 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(30.3 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(60.0 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(64.3 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(48.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(143 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(167 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(128 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(438 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Distribution revenues decreased $17 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period in 2009, due to lower commercial and industrial revenues, partially offset by higher
residential revenues. Commercial and industrial revenues were primarily impacted by lower average
unit prices, resulting from lower transmission rates in 2010. Residential distribution revenues
were higher due to higher average unit prices resulting from the 2009 ESP and slightly higher KWH
deliveries resulting from the warmer conditions described above. Increased industrial deliveries
were the result of improving economic conditions, reflecting an increase in KWH deliveries to major
steel customers (36%) and automotive customers (27%).
106
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period in 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
0.2 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
0.7 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
12.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
4.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
9 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(8 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues decreased $11 million primarily due to lower unit prices, partially offset by an
increase in sales to FES from OEs leasehold interests in Perry Unit 1 and Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $521 million in the first six months of 2010, from the same period of
2009. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(422 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
(93 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(4 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(521 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009, primarily due to lower KWH purchases resulting from increased customer shopping in the first
six months of 2010 and slightly lower unit costs. The decrease in other operating costs for the
first six months of 2010, was primarily due to lower MISO transmission expenses (assumed by third
party suppliers beginning June 1, 2009) and the absence in 2010 of $18 million of costs incurred in
the first six months of 2009 associated with regulatory obligations for economic development and
energy efficiency programs under OEs 2009 ESP. Lower amortization of net regulatory assets was
primarily due to lower amortization of deferred MISO transmission costs, partially offset by the
recovery of certain regulatory assets that began in 2010. The decrease in general taxes was
primarily due to lower Ohio KWH taxes and lower property taxes.
107
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
CEI is a wholly owned, electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. CEI conducts business in
northeastern Ohio, providing regulated electric distribution services. CEI also procures generation
services for those customers electing to retain CEI as their power supplier.
For additional information with respect to CEI, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market
Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings increased by $94 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009. The increase in earnings was primarily due to the absence in 2010 of one-time regulatory
charges recognized in 2009, and decreased purchased power and other operating costs, partially
offset by decreased revenues and deferred regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $299 million, or 32%, in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, due to decreased retail generation and distribution revenues.
Retail generation revenues decreased $200 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to lower KWH sales across all customer classes, partially offset
by higher average unit prices in all customer classes. Reduced KWH sales were primarily the result
of increased customer shopping in the first six months of 2010. Lower KWH sales to residential
customers were partially offset by increased weather-related usage in the first six months of 2010,
reflecting a 113% increase in cooling degree days. Retail generation prices increased in 2010 as a
result of the CBP auction for the service period beginning June 1, 2009.
Changes in retail generation sales and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(54.3 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(68.5 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(49.2 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(55.6 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(50 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(80 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(200 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Distribution revenues decreased $91 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, due to lower average unit prices for all customer classes and decreased KWH
deliveries in the residential sector, partially offset by increased KWH deliveries in the
industrial and commercial sectors. The lower average unit prices were the result of lower
transition rates in 2010. Increased industrial deliveries were the result of improving economic
conditions, reflecting an increase in KWH deliveries to major steel customers (158%) and automotive
customers (14%).
108
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Sales |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(0.6 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
1.7 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
12.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
5.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(28 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(91 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $452 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The following table presents the change from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(325 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(44 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(210 |
) |
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
135 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(452 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first six months of 2010, primarily due to lower KWH sales
requirements as discussed above. Other operating costs decreased due to lower transmission expenses
(assumed by third party suppliers beginning June 1, 2009), labor and employee benefit expenses and
the absence in 2010 of $12 million of costs incurred in the first six months of 2009 associated
with regulatory obligations for economic development and energy efficiency programs. Decreased
amortization of regulatory assets was due primarily to the 2009 impairment of CEIs Extended RTC
regulatory asset of $216 million in accordance with the PUCO-approved ESP. A decrease in the
deferral of new regulatory assets was primarily due to CEIs contemporaneous recovery of purchased
power costs in 2010. General taxes decreased in the first six months of 2010, primarily due to a
2010 favorable tax settlement in Ohio.
Other Expense
Other expense increased $4 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009 due to lower investment income and higher interest expense associated with the August 2009
issuance of $300 million first mortgage bonds, partially offset by the November 2009 redemption of
$150 million senior secured notes.
109
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
TE is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. TE conducts business in
northwestern Ohio, providing regulated electric distribution services. TE also procures generation
services for those customers electing to retain TE as their power supplier.
For additional information with respect to TE, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market
Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent increased by $7 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009. The increase was primarily due to decreased net amortization of regulatory
assets, purchased power and other operating costs, partially offset by an increase in interest
expense and decreases in revenues and investment income.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $218 million, or 46%, in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to lower retail generation and distribution revenues, partially
offset by an increase in wholesale generation revenues.
Retail generation revenues decreased $203 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to lower KWH sales across all customer classes and lower unit
prices to industrial customers. Lower KWH sales to all customer classes were primarily the result
of a 63% increase in customer shopping in the first six months of 2010. Lower unit prices for
industrial customers are primarily due to the absence of TEs fuel cost recovery and rate
stabilization riders that were effective from January through May 2009, partially offset by
increased generation prices resulting from the CBP auction, effective June 1, 2009.
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(48.6 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(72.3 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(60.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(60.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(44 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(72 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(203 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Distribution revenues decreased $26 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to lower unit prices in all customer classes, partially offset by
increased KWH deliveries to industrial customers. Lower unit prices are primarily due to lower
transmission rates. Increased industrial deliveries were the result of improving economic
conditions, reflecting an increase in KWH deliveries to major automotive customers (36%) and steel
customers (37%).
110
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(0.4 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(1.6 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
14.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
6.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues increased $7 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to higher revenues from sales to NGC from TEs leasehold interest in
Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $241 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses Changes |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(179 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(29 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(32 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(241 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased $179 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009 due to lower volume as a result of decreased KWH sales requirements. Other operating
costs decreased $29 million primarily due to reduced transmission expense (assumed by third party
suppliers beginning June 1, 2009), lower costs associated with regulatory obligations for economic
development and energy efficiency programs and decreased labor expenses. The $32 million decrease
in net regulatory asset amortization was primarily due to PUCO-approved cost deferrals and lower
MISO transmission cost amortization, partially offset by the absence of MISO transmission and fuel
cost deferrals in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period of 2009.
Other Expense
Other expense increased $13 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009, primarily due to higher interest expense associated with the April 2009 issuance of $300
million senior secured notes and lower investment income.
111
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
JCP&L is a wholly owned, electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. JCP&L conducts business in New
Jersey, providing regulated electric transmission and distribution services. JCP&L also procures
generation services for franchise customers electing to retain JCP&L as their power supplier. JCP&L
procures electric supply to serve its BGS customers through a statewide auction process approved by
the NJBPU.
For additional information with respect to JCP&L, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk,
Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased by $13 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009. The increase was primarily due to lower purchased power costs and decreased amortization of
regulatory assets, partially offset by lower revenues and increased other operating costs.
Revenues
In the first six months of 2010, revenues decreased $57 million, or 4%, compared to the same period
of 2009. The decrease in revenues is primarily due to a decrease in retail and wholesale generation
revenues, partially offset by higher distribution and transmission revenues.
Retail generation revenues decreased $73 million due to lower retail generation KWH sales in
commercial and industrial classes, partially offset by higher KWH sales in the residential class.
Lower sales to the commercial and industrial classes were primarily due to an increase in the
number of shopping customers. Higher KWH sales to the residential class reflected increased
weather-related usage resulting from a 105% increase in cooling degree days.
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
5.1 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
(31.0 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(24.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(10.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
30 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(95 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(73 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues decreased $7 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009; less power was available for sale due to the termination of a NUG power
purchase contract in July 2009.
Distribution revenues increased $17 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, due to higher KWH deliveries in all customer classes. Increased usage from warmer
weather and improving economic conditions in JCP&Ls service territory was partially offset by a
decrease in composite unit prices in the commercial and industrial classes.
112
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2010 compared to the
same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
5.1 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
1.7 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
1.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
3.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
18 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
|
|
Industrial |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased $4 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, due to an increase in network transmission system revenues from PJM.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $77 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(81 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
14 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
5 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(16 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(77 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first six months of 2010 primarily due to the lower KWH
sales requirements and the termination of a NUG contract in July 2009. Other operating costs
increased in the first six months of 2010 primarily due to higher tree trimming costs resulting
from major storm clean up in JCP&Ls service territory, offset by a favorable labor settlement of
$7 million in the second quarter of 2010. Depreciation expense increased due to an increase in
depreciable property since the second quarter of 2009. Net regulatory asset amortization decreased
in the first six months of 2010 primarily due to deferral of the storm costs.
113
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Met-Ed is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Met-Ed conducts business in
eastern Pennsylvania, providing regulated electric transmission and distribution services. Met-Ed
also procures generation service for those customers electing to retain Met-Ed as their power
supplier. Met-Ed has a partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement with FES, to supply
nearly all of its energy requirements at fixed prices through 2010.
For additional information with respect to Met-Ed, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk,
Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased by $3 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009. The increase was primarily due to increased revenues, partially offset by increased purchased
power, other operating expenses and amortization of net regulatory assets.
Revenues
The revenue increase of $109 million, or 13%, in the first six months of 2010 compared to the same
period of 2009 reflected higher distribution, wholesale and generation revenues, partially offset
by a decrease in transmission revenues.
Distribution revenues increased $57 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to higher transmission rates, resulting from the annual update to
Met-Eds TSC rider effective June 1, 2009 and 2010, partially offset by lower CTC rates for the
residential class. Higher KWH deliveries to commercial and industrial customers were due to
improving economic conditions in Met-Eds service territory. Higher residential KWH deliveries
reflect increased weather-related usage due to a 97% increase in cooling degree days in the first
six months of 2010, partially offset by a 10% decrease in heating degree days for the same time
period.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009 are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
0.7 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
4.2 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
4.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
2.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
23 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
21 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues increased $40 million in the first six months of 2010 compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily reflecting higher PJM capacity prices.
Retail generation revenues increased $21 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, due to higher composite unit prices in the residential and commercial customer
classes and higher KWH sales to all customer classes.
114
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
0.7 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
3.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
2.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
14 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
5 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues decreased $9 million in the first six months of 2010 compared to the same
period of 2009 primarily due to decreased Financial Transmission Rights revenues. Met-Ed defers the
difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred, resulting in no material
effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total expenses increased $103 million in the first six months of 2010 compared to the same period
of 2009. The following table presents changes from the prior year by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
61 |
|
Other operating costs |
|
|
35 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
8 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Expenses |
|
$ |
103 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs increased $61 million in the first six months of 2010 due to an increase in
unit costs and increased KWH purchased to source increased generation sales requirements. Other
operating costs increased $35 million in the first six months of 2010 compared to the same period
in 2009 primarily due to higher transmission congestion expenses. The amortization of regulatory
assets increased $8 million in the first six months of 2010 primarily due to increased transmission
cost recovery. General taxes decreased $2 million mostly due to a Pennsylvania tax amnesty
settlement. Depreciation expense increased $1 million due to an increase in depreciable property
since June of 2009.
115
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Penelec is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Penelec conducts business in
northern and south central Pennsylvania, providing regulated transmission and distribution
services. Penelec also procures generation services for those customers electing to retain Penelec
as their power supplier. Penelec has a partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement with
FES, to supply nearly all of its energy requirements at fixed prices through 2010.
For additional information with respect to Penelec, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market
Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income decreased by $3 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009. The decrease was primarily due to higher purchased power and other operating costs, partially
offset by higher revenues and lower amortization (deferral) of net regulatory assets and general
taxes.
Revenues
In the first six months of 2010, revenues increased $50 million, or 6.9%, compared to the same
period of 2009. The increase in revenue was primarily due to higher retail and wholesale generation
revenues, partially offset by lower distribution and transmission revenues.
Retail generation revenues increased $39 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to higher unit prices and KWH sales in all customer classes.
Higher unit prices across all customer classes are primarily due to an increase in the generation
rate, effective January 1, 2010. Higher KWH sales to commercial and industrial customers were due
to improving economic conditions in Penelecs service territory. Higher KWH sales to residential
customers increased primarily due to weather-related usage, reflecting a 129% increase in cooling
degree days in the first six months of 2010, partially offset by a 10% decrease in heating degree
days for the same time period.
Changes in retail generation sales and revenues in the first six months of 2010 compared to the
same period of 2009 are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
1.3 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
3.9 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
5.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
3.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
8 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
17 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues increased $34 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, due primarily to higher PJM capacity prices.
Distribution revenues decreased by $11 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to a decrease in the CTC rate in all customer classes, partially
offset by an increase in the universal service and energy efficiency rates for the residential
customer class and increased KWH sales in all customer classes.
116
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
1.3 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
4.0 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
3.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
6 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(10 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues decreased by $8 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to lower Financial Transmission Rights revenue. Penelec defers the
difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred, resulting in no material
effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total expenses increased by $45 million in the first six months of 2010, as compared with the same
period of 2009. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
79 |
|
Other operating costs |
|
|
16 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(47 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Expenses |
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs increased $79 million in the first six months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to higher unit costs. Other operating costs increased $16 million in
the first six months of 2010, primarily due to increased locational marginal prices partially
offset by lower transmission expenses. The amortization (deferral) of net regulatory assets
decreased $47 million in the first six months of 2010, primarily due to increased cost deferrals
resulting from higher transmission expenses and decreased amortization of regulatory assets
resulting from lower CTC revenues. General taxes decreased $4 million primarily due to a favorable
ruling on a property tax appeal in the first quarter of 2010.
Other Expense
In the first six months of 2010, other expense increased $8 million primarily due to an increase in
interest expense on long-term debt due to the $500 million debt issuance in September 2009.
117
ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
See Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Market
Risk Information in Item 2 above.
ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
(a) EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES FIRSTENERGY
FirstEnergys management, with the participation of its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer have reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rules 13a-15(e) and
15(d)-15(e), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the
chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded that the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this
report.
(b) CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS
During the quarter ended June 30, 2010, there were no changes in FirstEnergys internal control
over financial reporting that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
ITEM 4T. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES FES, OE, CEI, TE, JCP&L, MET-ED AND PENELEC
(a) EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Each registrants management, with the participation of its chief executive officer and chief
financial officer, have reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of such registrants disclosure
controls and procedures, as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rules
13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that
evaluation, each registrants chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded
that such registrants disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the
period covered by this report.
(b) CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS
During the quarter ended June 30, 2010, there were no changes in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that has materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
118
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Information required for Part II, Item 1 is incorporated by reference to the discussions in Notes 8
and 9 of the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
FirstEnergys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, includes a detailed
discussion of its risk factors. There have been no material changes to these risk factors for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
(c) FirstEnergy
The table below includes information on a monthly basis regarding purchases made by FirstEnergy of
its common stock during the second quarter of 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
|
April |
|
|
May |
|
|
June |
|
|
Second Quarter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of Shares
Purchased(a) |
|
|
75,577 |
|
|
|
41,674 |
|
|
|
549,279 |
|
|
|
666,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Price Paid per
Share |
|
$ |
38.14 |
|
|
$ |
36.28 |
|
|
$ |
34.77 |
|
|
$ |
35.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of Shares
Purchased As Part of
Publicly Announced
Plans or Programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum Number (or
Approximate Dollar
Value) of Shares that
May Yet Be Purchased
Under the Plans or
Programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Share amounts reflect purchases on the open market to satisfy
FirstEnergys obligations to deliver common stock under its 2007
Incentive Compensation Plan, Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside
Directors, Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, Savings Plan and
Stock Investment Plan. In addition, such amounts reflect shares
tendered by employees to pay the exercise price or withholding taxes
upon exercise of stock options granted under the 2007 Incentive
Compensation Plan and the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan. |
ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION
None
119
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit Number |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
Amendment No.1 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 10, |
|
|
|
|
2010, by and among FirstEnergy Corp., Element Merger Sub, Inc. and Allegheny |
|
|
|
|
Energy, Inc. (incorporated by reference to FirstEnergys Form S-4 filed June |
|
|
|
|
4, 2010, Exhibit 2.2, File No. 333-165640) |
|
|
12 |
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
32 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant |
|
|
|
|
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
|
|
101 |
* |
The following materials from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FirstEnergy |
|
|
|
|
Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2010, formatted in XBRL (eXtensible |
|
|
|
|
Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of Income and |
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) Consolidated |
|
|
|
|
Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial statements |
|
|
|
|
tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
|
|
|
Schedules have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(2) of Regulation S-K. The |
|
|
|
|
Registrant will furnish the omitted schedules to the Securities and Exchange |
|
|
|
|
Commission upon request by the Commission. |
FES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
32 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant |
|
|
|
|
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
OE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
32 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant |
|
|
|
|
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
CEI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
32 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant |
|
|
|
|
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
TE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
32 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant |
|
|
|
|
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
JCP&L |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
32 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant |
|
|
|
|
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
Met-Ed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
32 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant |
|
|
|
|
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
Penelec |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
32 |
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant |
|
|
|
|
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
120
|
|
|
* |
|
Users of this data are advised pursuant to Rule 401 of Regulation S-T that the financial
information contained in the XBRL-Related Documents is unaudited and, as a result, investors should
not rely on the XBRL-Related Documents in making investment decisions. Furthermore, users of this
data are advised in accordance with Rule 406T of Regulation S-T promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission that this Interactive Data File is deemed not filed or part of a registration
statement or prospectus for purposes of sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, is deemed not filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and otherwise is not subject to liability under these sections. |
Pursuant to reporting requirements of respective financings, FirstEnergy, FES, OE, CEI, TE, JCP&L,
Met-Ed and Penelec are required to file fixed charge ratios as an exhibit to this Form 10-Q.
Pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K, neither FirstEnergy, FES, OE,
CEI, TE, JCP&L, Met-Ed nor Penelec have filed as an exhibit to this Form 10-Q any instrument with
respect to long-term debt if the respective total amount of securities authorized thereunder does
not exceed 10% of its respective total assets, but each hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC on
request any such documents.
121
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each Registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
August 3, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
|
|
|
Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OHIO EDISON COMPANY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
ILLUMINATING COMPANY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Harvey L. Wagner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harvey L. Wagner |
|
|
|
|
Vice President, Controller
and Chief Accounting Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Kevin R. Burgess |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin R. Burgess |
|
|
|
|
Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
|
122